What a nice story, especially for this time of year. Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
roger743
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 49
Forum
it better for ya :twisted:Quote by Eagerslut9
We don't get paid overtime even though we frequently work between 10 to 15 hours a day. Working weekends and Bank Holidays is quite normal.
Christmas bonus? What's that?
Does anyone know an employer who's a bigger arsehole than that?
Mine. They ain't paying me at all. Literally! I've not been paid a penny for November yet. They've offered no explanation, and no hint at when they might actually cough up; they didn't even have the good grace to let me know I wouldn't be paid on time.
Merry Christmas Roger743.
(To be fair, on paper I'm actually very well paid and the job is very easy-going, and they did start to arrange the Christmas party months ago (though I've not heard anything about it for a while now...) Well, I guess this is why I have savings, right?)
Quote by Happy Cats
Can understand why they stopped using the Robinsons Golliwog
I guess that could be offensive
I actually had a long discussion with my grandmother when this happened. Her view was that it wasn't[ offensive because, ummm, that's exactly what black children look like. Hands up, has anyone ever seen a child that looks like the Golliwog?
I didn't think it was offensive either, FWIW, but I never thought it was particularly realistic either. Old people don't half see things differently sometimes...
I've done most of my cards and got most of the presents, but decorations - no way! I'll probably put them up the weekend but even that's a bit early for me. I can remember years when I was a boy when we used to put them up on Christmas eve...
Mind you, my "Christmas decorations" are just a cheap fibre-optic tree and maybe a bit of tinsel.
Mind you, my "Christmas decorations" are just a cheap fibre-optic tree and maybe a bit of tinsel.
Quote by Marya
I haven't got a reason for why I don't want to do it again, I just don't - and I think that's my prerogative ... but how do you do the letting-him-down-gently stuff? I do mean, literally word for word, what do you say?
Well, I know nothing, but my advice would be to tell the truth. Truth hurts, but lies hurt more. Treat it like a sticking plaster on your leg; pull it off quickly and get it over with. In my experience, letting people down gently is just prolonging the agony.
Quote by RedHot
We met a guy once who was, how shall I say it, really small in the trouser department :shock:
He must have had the smallest dick in the world and no matter how I contorted myself into position, he just couldn't get it in :!:
Why is it all my ex-lovers seem to post about our private adventures on this forum? :shock:
Quote by KitKat
That was how I read the post.
Really? I read it like this:
Quote by BiFemHantsHi again everyone
Seen this now thousands upon thousands of times and it still confuses me :shock: (ok not hard I know before you lot start).
So to my question ? :P At what point does someone, male or female become bi as opposed to curious ?:
I'm my opinion, surely, if the person has tried and liked/enjoyed the experience and wants to persue it further then they can no longer be curious can they ? So why do people insist on putting thing like " Bicurious fem , tried once wants more" if they have tried, liked and want more :? ?
I do appreciate that there are verying degree's of "Bi" especially on the male side i.e . Those who will only go as far as oral and will not and do not wish to progress to the full monty (anal) and the fems, who again don't mind if the other fem is bi but really prefer cock ( I call these takers ), so ??What is Bi and what is BiCurious
:silly: :silly: :silly: :silly: :silly:
Quote by BiFemHants
Bi-fem posited that there were "degrees" of bisexuality.
Did I ?? I dont think, my question was about the curious part of this and nothing to do with "degrees of bisexuality" Everyone knows that of course there are degrees of bisexuality but you failed to see that in the origanal post and somehow confused this with something about anal sex between males and females :? For the avoidance of doubt, my point is this: I do not agree with the existance of 'degrees' of bisexuality. I do not believe that a man who enjoys having anal sex with another man is 'more bisexual' than one who does not.
The male/female scenario was an analogy; it was intended to better expose my point of view on this matter. Clearly, it failed.
Quote by KitKat
Which was exactly what bi -fem was asking, while acknowledging that men have cocks and women dont, so a man having sex with man involves different processes from a woman having sex with a woman (strap ons and other sexual aids left in the drawer for one moment)
endless holescould be picked in what bi fem said - for example, if two members of the same sex enjoyed watching each other masturbate without ever actully touching, is that a bisexual act. - But to what end?
But why stop there? If you take the thought to its logical conclusion - and I do - then this whole discussion becomes meaningless. And I think it is. I don't see this as a case of 'picking holes'; I think this is a discussion of the point bi-fem raised and the conceptions she stated, and the factors underlying both.
Bi-fem posited that there were "degrees" of bisexuality. That means that some people are more bi than others. And men who wanted anal sex with other men were more bi than those who didn't. But the logical inference of that would be that women who wanted anal sex with men were more straight than those who didn't. And that, as we all know, is complete and utter rubbish.
When will we learn that people cannot be described by simple labels? "Straight" "Gay" "Bi" "Bi-curious" "Bi-friendly" "Conservative" "Liberal" "Socialist" "Communist". Talking about "degrees" of bisexuality just adds more labels ("Bisexual 1", "Bisexual 2", "Bisexual 3", etc...). Before long the labels become more important than the people and you start to look down on people because they're not 'proper' communists or whatever. Or maybe they're {gasp} mis-labelled? Like a box of Daz pretending to be Persil?
On the flip-side, labels are important as a short-hand way of conveying information about yourself. For example, if you walk into the Conservative Club you're not likely to encounter lots of people extolling the virtues of Ken Livingstone. Yet the labels are only rough sketches of a person - Margeret Thatcher and Ted Heath were both Conservatives, foe example. The finer you make the labels - the more "degrees" you add - the closer you can approximate the human condition, but this has a penalty in understanding. Most people simply won't understand a labelling system that has more than a half-dozen categories. Labels will be mis-applied and labels will me mis-understood. Because the only way to make a system to accurately reflect the wonderful complexity of human life would be to make a system as complex as human life, and the only way to accurately represent you as a person is to make an exact duplicate of you. Anything else is an approximation, and a very coarse one at that.
Quote by KitKat
Ice, Bi fem was quoted out of context (sorry Rog) - she was clearly talking about both sexes, and gave a suitable example for each sex. The contradiction you observed was created by Roger's (sorry Rog) post which focussed on only one example.
This is all getting way too involved...
To clarify, I was just trying to make the point that if you define rules to classify a female as homosexual or bisexual, surely the same rules would have to apply (with obvious substitutions of genitals) to classify a male as homosexual or bisexual, or indeed to classify a male or female as heterosexual? So if, for example, a woman is classified as bisexual if she gives oral sex to another woman, a man would also have to be classified as bisexual if he gave oral sex to another man? Or if not, why not?
