I'm good at solving problems, good in a crisis, good at most creative/artistic kind of things, and I get on with most people.
I no self discipline at all, I don't work very hard (but I can get a lot done with a little effort), I'm not conventionally organised (but I'm great at improvising), and I tend to piss off people who are methodical/organised by nature.
Good at pub quizzes too Nola. Random bits of information just lodge themselves in my head and I can't get rid of them.
Join the most popular community of UK swingers now
Login
tomu
Over 90 days ago
Straight Male, 53
UK
Forum
I voted "no". I think that obviously, there are as many different kinds of sexuality as there are people. And I could probably happily sign up to a fair few of them. There would be no point having a button for every different kind - in a way that's what your profile is for. Define it yourself, in your own way. The buttons are useful in a general kind of way , as a quick filter, but if you feel you have more to say, say it; if you're happy to let people's own understandings of themselves and each other sort themselves out in the process of talking and meeting, that's also fine.
(As for me, I have very little to say about myself).
T
(As for me, I have very little to say about myself).
T
Yeah - I absolutely agree with pretty much everything everyone has said on this thread. I totally agree that we're not in possession of all the facts and therefore this is all speculative. I didn't know anything about the prosecutor in question and if he is an experienced lawyer with a strong record in this sort of case (and possession of many of the facts), then his judgement that the case is very likely to fail is obviously valid.
What probably/seems to have/could well have happened here is that she didn't mention the chats or the fantasies earlier in the case, and therefore as a result of a changing story becomes compromised as a witness. And yes, this doesn't have to be because of any prejudice on their part, just because by not mentioning something that later became part of the case she was shown to have been less than 100% honest.
This in itself is worthy of note. In this scenario she might have not mentioned that stuff originally because she was embarrassed or ashamed or thought it would put her in a bad light, or didn't want her family to know. All of which are understandable. So the point is here that if you get involved in this kind of situation you have to be prepared that if the legal profession becomes involved, from that point on you have to be totally open about everything because otherwise if/when it does come out, your credibility will immediately go to shit.
Now all of this is again entirely conjecture, and you might say irresponsible given the lack of any real knowledge of the case. But nevertheless the hypothetical situation is thought-provoking.
What probably/seems to have/could well have happened here is that she didn't mention the chats or the fantasies earlier in the case, and therefore as a result of a changing story becomes compromised as a witness. And yes, this doesn't have to be because of any prejudice on their part, just because by not mentioning something that later became part of the case she was shown to have been less than 100% honest.
This in itself is worthy of note. In this scenario she might have not mentioned that stuff originally because she was embarrassed or ashamed or thought it would put her in a bad light, or didn't want her family to know. All of which are understandable. So the point is here that if you get involved in this kind of situation you have to be prepared that if the legal profession becomes involved, from that point on you have to be totally open about everything because otherwise if/when it does come out, your credibility will immediately go to shit.
Now all of this is again entirely conjecture, and you might say irresponsible given the lack of any real knowledge of the case. But nevertheless the hypothetical situation is thought-provoking.
Quote by Max777
From reading the article, the judge did not throw the case out. The prosecution offered no evidence so the judge ordered the jury to return a not guilty verdict.
We don't know what was in those chat logs, the judge and the prosecution do so they are obviously in a much better position to judge the complainant's credibility than anyone here.
Well, that's true, but I find it hard to imagine anything she could have said in advance that would have negated her right to change her mind when she arrived. Unless it was "I'm going to pretend I don't want it, but I want you and your mates to me". Even then it's a grey area.
I suspect that this came as total news to everyone halfway through the trial, and whatever was in the chats conflicted with the story she'd been presenting her lawyer up to that point. To have been lying up to that point would damage her credibility. BUT it wouldn't necessarily change the central point about consent. They have still committed , even if she was lying about the lead-up to it. Because even if the chat said she was totally up for it, she's still allowed to change her mind, right?
Quote by BrightonGeezer
I know some people spend an absolute fortune on enemas, and the reason for that (so I'm told) is that to DIY is very dangerous. With that in mind I suspect that a great deal of caution is needed.
If you are lucky enough to win a trip to your local hospital for a colcoscopy (ie bumoscopy) the NHS sends you a DIY bum-rinsing kit, so it can't be that dangerous. The kit consists of a bag (which you fill with warm water) and a nozzle; you have to squeeze the bag to squirt the water up your doodad. You can also buy kits that have about a metre of pipe between bag and nozzle, and in these situations you hang the bag up, lie on the bathroom floor and let gravity do the work. Right next to the toilet if you have any sense.
This is not uncomfortable and it's quite effective.
As has been stated elsewhere I personally would be very sceptical about using showers or hoses or any other method wherein you cannot control the rate, temperature and volume of water going up your jacksy; it puts me in mind of the winner of the urban legend about pumping:
Well - that does kind of seem to be the line they took in this case - "think like a slut - get what you deserve".
Perhaps if she had been upfront about the whole setup from the outset her credibility might have fared better than the chat logs suddenly coming out. I'm not really sure though.
I think it's possibly wise to assume that when you venture into these kind of situations... you're pretty much on your own if it goes wrong, so be careful.
Perhaps if she had been upfront about the whole setup from the outset her credibility might have fared better than the chat logs suddenly coming out. I'm not really sure though.
I think it's possibly wise to assume that when you venture into these kind of situations... you're pretty much on your own if it goes wrong, so be careful.
... I think, seems to be the lessons learned from this court case:
Now, apologies if this has already come up on here as the article is about a week old, but I didn't find a thread about it and I was pretty disturbed when I read it, so I want to see what some other people think. I suppose I don't know the, um, ins and outs of the case, but I think it must have come down to one of three possible situations -
1 (which is I guess what the court and the journalist believed) She went there, had consensual sex with all six men, having a whale of a time, and then subsequently decided she wanted to have them all tried and convicted for , presumably because she's some kind of fruitloop.
2 she was "entertaining the prospect of group sex" with all five guys but when she got there and experienced the reality of the situation, she decided she didn't fancy it. But they did, so they all her.
3 (as she said) she had never intended to have sex with any more than one of the guys; she had fantasies about group sex but that's all they were, fantasies; she had let slip to one of the guys that she had fantasies involving group sex when she was chatting on the instant messenger; he had persuaded her to come and meet him, and he then conspired with his five mates to her.
Now, to be honest I have no way of knowing, and nor does anyone other than the seven people involved, which of these three situations pertains in this case and it would be interesting to know why the prosecutor dropped the case - maybe she hadn't admitted, or had denied, these chats, and so that's why her credibility was "shot to pieces".
But there is an undertone in here that the mere fact that she fantasised about group sex tainted her. And although there is an implication in the article that she had (in advance of the situation, over MSN) agreed to have group sex, it doesn't actually say this; her lawyer said "It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers". There's a big difference between entertaining ideas and consenting to something. I routinely entertain ideas about all manner of things I have no desire at all to actually really do.
But actually her fantasies in advance of the situation aren't really relevant. There is a profound difference between fantasy and reality. The fact of the matter is, whatever you say in advance, if you don't agree to people having sex with you at the actual time it's happening, and they do it anyway, it's . Whatever fantasies you have. It shouldn't make a difference whether or not she had had and enjoyed group sex before, or whether she had actually agreed to have sex with all the men; if when she got there she didn't want to do it, that should be the end of things.
But the law evidently doesn't see things that way. is, of course, often hard to prove, and often comes down to whether the jury believe consent was given, and if the lawyers decided the jury were going to view her negatively because of her fantasies... it would have been hard to get a conviction. So where does that leave things? I guess if you are going to meet people for whatever reason, and you've been talking about your fantasies over the internet beforehand... be very careful where you meet them? Because writing down your fantasies can be interpreted in court as written consent. Even if you're only entertaining ideas.
T
(oh also - hello! I haven't been on here for some time but this article made me want to come on the forum.)
Now, apologies if this has already come up on here as the article is about a week old, but I didn't find a thread about it and I was pretty disturbed when I read it, so I want to see what some other people think. I suppose I don't know the, um, ins and outs of the case, but I think it must have come down to one of three possible situations -
1 (which is I guess what the court and the journalist believed) She went there, had consensual sex with all six men, having a whale of a time, and then subsequently decided she wanted to have them all tried and convicted for , presumably because she's some kind of fruitloop.
2 she was "entertaining the prospect of group sex" with all five guys but when she got there and experienced the reality of the situation, she decided she didn't fancy it. But they did, so they all her.
3 (as she said) she had never intended to have sex with any more than one of the guys; she had fantasies about group sex but that's all they were, fantasies; she had let slip to one of the guys that she had fantasies involving group sex when she was chatting on the instant messenger; he had persuaded her to come and meet him, and he then conspired with his five mates to her.
Now, to be honest I have no way of knowing, and nor does anyone other than the seven people involved, which of these three situations pertains in this case and it would be interesting to know why the prosecutor dropped the case - maybe she hadn't admitted, or had denied, these chats, and so that's why her credibility was "shot to pieces".
But there is an undertone in here that the mere fact that she fantasised about group sex tainted her. And although there is an implication in the article that she had (in advance of the situation, over MSN) agreed to have group sex, it doesn't actually say this; her lawyer said "It is right to say that there is material in the chatlogs from the complainant, who is prepared to entertain ideas of group sex with strangers". There's a big difference between entertaining ideas and consenting to something. I routinely entertain ideas about all manner of things I have no desire at all to actually really do.
But actually her fantasies in advance of the situation aren't really relevant. There is a profound difference between fantasy and reality. The fact of the matter is, whatever you say in advance, if you don't agree to people having sex with you at the actual time it's happening, and they do it anyway, it's . Whatever fantasies you have. It shouldn't make a difference whether or not she had had and enjoyed group sex before, or whether she had actually agreed to have sex with all the men; if when she got there she didn't want to do it, that should be the end of things.
But the law evidently doesn't see things that way. is, of course, often hard to prove, and often comes down to whether the jury believe consent was given, and if the lawyers decided the jury were going to view her negatively because of her fantasies... it would have been hard to get a conviction. So where does that leave things? I guess if you are going to meet people for whatever reason, and you've been talking about your fantasies over the internet beforehand... be very careful where you meet them? Because writing down your fantasies can be interpreted in court as written consent. Even if you're only entertaining ideas.
T
(oh also - hello! I haven't been on here for some time but this article made me want to come on the forum.)
I would say that -
- this is definitely the case, you shouldn't beat yourself up or feel guilty because you're nervous. That's absolutely fine. No decent person would have an issue with that. The only problem is perhaps messing people about. That's why this -
- is a good idea. If you've told people you're nervous then they'll understand if you want a raincheck, and as long as you're open and you give them as much warning as possible, then they'll be fine with it I'd have thought (disappointed, but...)
One more idea perhaps is that you make absolutely clear (to yourself and the person you're meeting) that the first time you meet would be entirely no-sex. It's not so scary just meeting someone in the afternoon or early evening for a cup of tea and a chat, is it? If you're nervous about jumping in the deep end, dip your toe in first. Try it out in small steps that, on their own, aren't that scary. Munches are good for that reason (although I found it a little bit scary and didn't know quite what to do). Going to a club is another easy early step because nobody's expecting YOU to do anything. You can just have some drinks and hang about in the background and take the temperature, and if you decide it's not for you, you can just slip away and you haven't buggered up anyone's evening.
I think that if you make it clear it's your first time a lot of guys would be happy to take it as gently and as slowly as you want - up until the point where you WANT them to be fucking your brains out over the kitchen table!
Quote by noladreams30
Everyone has to take things at their own pace and do what feels comfortable.
- this is definitely the case, you shouldn't beat yourself up or feel guilty because you're nervous. That's absolutely fine. No decent person would have an issue with that. The only problem is perhaps messing people about. That's why this -
Quote by cockslut
my only advice is to be fair is tell the guy at the start of conversation that your nervous about a physical meet
- is a good idea. If you've told people you're nervous then they'll understand if you want a raincheck, and as long as you're open and you give them as much warning as possible, then they'll be fine with it I'd have thought (disappointed, but...)
One more idea perhaps is that you make absolutely clear (to yourself and the person you're meeting) that the first time you meet would be entirely no-sex. It's not so scary just meeting someone in the afternoon or early evening for a cup of tea and a chat, is it? If you're nervous about jumping in the deep end, dip your toe in first. Try it out in small steps that, on their own, aren't that scary. Munches are good for that reason (although I found it a little bit scary and didn't know quite what to do). Going to a club is another easy early step because nobody's expecting YOU to do anything. You can just have some drinks and hang about in the background and take the temperature, and if you decide it's not for you, you can just slip away and you haven't buggered up anyone's evening.
I think that if you make it clear it's your first time a lot of guys would be happy to take it as gently and as slowly as you want - up until the point where you WANT them to be fucking your brains out over the kitchen table!
Although I am very predominantly straight, I have to say that I do find the penis to be a magnificent organ (or maybe that's just because I get to see mine a lot...); I think that's pretty much the only thing that makes me think about bisexuality. They can be beautiful things. And so photographed right, the picture can be sexy - I have seen cock pictures that made me think, yeah, I'd like to suck that. I'm not interested in men's bodies at all, or faces, or bums; so I guess a picture that shows me only the thing I want to see, and none of the things I want not to see, can really work. But it has to be a good picture and a good cock - not something that looks like some kind of horrible deformed slug. And probably photographed from above or the side, not front on (why?); probably with something in there for scale (like a hand); definitely erect.
As far as pussy shots go - actually women's bodies interest me quite a lot; it's not just about the aperture into which I'm potentially going to insert my magnificent organ. I usually want to see some idea of what her body looks like. Pretty much the only pussy shots that work for me are ones from behind, with her bending over; so it's essentially an arse picture, with added pussy.
As far as pussy shots go - actually women's bodies interest me quite a lot; it's not just about the aperture into which I'm potentially going to insert my magnificent organ. I usually want to see some idea of what her body looks like. Pretty much the only pussy shots that work for me are ones from behind, with her bending over; so it's essentially an arse picture, with added pussy.
Quote by winchwench
To tomu:
"U whispered something
It took my mind out like a
G flat major with an E in the bass
Your face looked so good
I wanted to touch your mouth
My brain is jackin' all over the place
If a man is considered guilty
4 what goes on in his mind
Then give me the electric chair
4 all my future crimes-OH!"
:inlove:
Hm. I wonder who likes Prince?
Ah.....but there's more than one Prince fan here you know!
I never knew you felt that way! :smitten:
Quote by noladreams30
To tomu:
"U whispered something
It took my mind out like a
G flat major with an E in the bass
Your face looked so good
I wanted to touch your mouth
My brain is jackin' all over the place
If a man is considered guilty
4 what goes on in his mind
Then give me the electric chair
4 all my future crimes-OH!"
:inlove:
Hm. I wonder who likes Prince?
Quote by winchwench
Freddie has to have been the best frontman ever, too
What, better than Elvis? Really?
He was certainly fucking good... I can only really think of Elvis or Prince as being comparable as performers. Or Marilyn Monroe. Or Michael Jackson actually (when he was good).
I've never really loved anything by the Beatles. But I think this sort of question goes beyond personal taste. They were massively important, at several stages in their career. They did more things first than anyone else. They were able to move from writing fantastic pop songs to creating serious works of art, with equal success, a very rare feat indeed.
They made a lot of the rules that everyone else has been following ever since. They created the landscape (yes, in conjunction with some brilliant managers and producers). I'm giving them the points.
(Even though I much prefer Queen, actually...)
I've both pissed on someone and been pissed on, more in a spirit of experimentation than any erotically charged need to do it. In both cases, we did with the pissee squatting in that bath and the pisser standing over them, and it was more funny and odd than sexual. After pissing on her, I felt, "Well, now I've pissed on you." The other way round it was "Hum, now I am covered in piss. I think I'll have a shower."
I imagine in a domination and submission scenario it would take on an entirely different kick - it would be really a thing of marking who was in charge and who was their slut.
I imagine in a domination and submission scenario it would take on an entirely different kick - it would be really a thing of marking who was in charge and who was their slut.
Hey.
Apologies for dragging this one up from a thousand years ago but: did anyone see this in the Metro the other day?
And just for the record - the Wikipedia article on Heath Ledger ( ) has this to say about the manner of his death:
Just thought it was important to set the matter straight - nobody did anything particularly wrong, Ledger wasn't taking illegal drugs, it was all just very sad. And paracetamol can kill you really easily so be careful!
Apologies for dragging this one up from a thousand years ago but: did anyone see this in the Metro the other day?
And just for the record - the Wikipedia article on Heath Ledger ( ) has this to say about the manner of his death:
Quote by Wikipedia
After two weeks of intense media speculation about possible causes of his death, on 6 February 2008, the Office of the Chief Medical Examiner of New York released its conclusions, based on an initial autopsy of January 23, 2008, and a subsequent complete toxicological analysis. The report concludes, in part, "Mr. Heath Ledger died as the result of acute intoxication by the combined effects of oxycodone, hydrocodone, diazepam, temazepam, alprazolam and doxylamine." It also states definitively: "We have concluded that the manner of death is accident, resulting from the abuse of prescription medications." The medications found in the toxicological analysis are commonly prescribed in the United States for insomnia, anxiety, depression, pain, and/or cold symptoms.
Just thought it was important to set the matter straight - nobody did anything particularly wrong, Ledger wasn't taking illegal drugs, it was all just very sad. And paracetamol can kill you really easily so be careful!
Quote by Pete_sw
I have only ever met one woman who was able to give me an orgasm orally so i guess I'm a bit unusual??
No, the same with me - I think two but I'm not really sure. Certainly not very often.
Not to say I don't enjoy it - in fact I REALLY enjoy it, I usually get right up to the brink and then stick there until we move on to other pleasures, or, in the case of particularly determined ladies, she gives up with lockjaw :giveup:
But can you imagine though? It sometimes feel like I'm coming for 40-odd minutes on end. It's fucking ace.
Oh - I love giving oral as well. :thumbup: to everything Pete said...
Quote by Steve
We'll buy oil from somewhere other than the middle east..
They dont hold a monopoly on it....
They do have about half of it though.
Two maps:
The first map also includes an explanation ( ) about why it's misleading to include the sand and shale based oil reserves - basically they're really difficult to mine and turn into actual oil you can run a car on; it produces masses of pollution and uses up almost as much energy as it eventually yields. So this means that a lot of the reserves often quoted for Canada and the US are not very useful. Same goes for the deep deep sea oil reserves. Yes, they're massive, but they're so hard to get to that we almost may as well not bother (often 2 1/2 times as deep as the North Sea oilfields, for example).
That map lists the global reserves at 900 gigabarrels and current consumption at 30 per year. Even if consumption didn't go up, that's still only 30 years...
All of that said, the second map came from an article in the Independent a few weeks ago that argues that many of the OPEC countries are deliberately underestimating their reserves to keep the price high. Whether you believe that or not is up to you. Their map, you'll note, includes the oil and shale reserves in the US and Canada, but counts Russia as having less oil than the other map... go figure.
It's all just guessing. Fuck it. I'll keep riding my bike.
Quote by kentswingers777
The only thing the UK is now known for is it's financial markets, which are suffering big time.
Yeah this has always worried me - surely if we base our economy on something so abstract, it's only a matter of time before someone else figures out how to do it and we're right up shit creek. Bring back men with hammers making stuff out of lumps of metal, that's what I say.
Don't normally have any truck with forwarded emails and I'd certainly never normally consider pasting one into a forum, but I thought you all might be interested in this: I'll just paste the email I received.
Any thoughts? There are points to be made here relating to freedom of speech, the "word of God", and political correctness, but I'm a little busy right now and will come back to that in a bit... my personal opinion is complicated as to whether she should be allowed to say this, but I strongly, strongly disagree with the sentiments she expresses.
Oh, incidentally, I have no feelings whatsoever regarding the Irish Question in general - as long as they generally refrain from killing each other, and nobody is the subject of sectarian discrimination I really don't care what flag goes on the public buildings.
Subject: Oppose Iris Robinson – petition
Iris Robinson is a Democratic Unionist Party MP and wife of Peter Robinson, the leader of the DUP since the recent retirement of the Reverend Ian Paisley. She is also the chair of the NI Assembly's Committee on Health.
Mrs Robinson is now the subject of complaint to the police on account of her recent public announcement that gays are "an abomination", and need psychiatric help to be "turned around". Yesterday she intensified her stance, with a BBC interview in which she announces that "as sinners", gays should be regarded alongside murderers.
Local press coverage from Northern Ireland makes it clear her activities have begun to fuel hatred in Northern Ireland; and it is deplorable that the first lady should seek the limelight by replacing guns with homophobia to dismantle the peace process.
Northern Ireland trade unions are calling for Iris Robinson to stand down from the Committee on Health which she chairs, and a petition addressed to the Prime Minister in support of this call is now in circulation. I hope you will use the link below and add your name to the petition. Please also forward it to anyone and everyone who will be opposed to this return to darkness that be firmly in the past.
I'd also note that the DUP is the party whose support enabled the passage through Parliament of legislation to extend to 42 days internment by the police of "terrorist suspects" – legislation which is to apply throughout the UK. DUP spokespersons have already made it evident they expect government favour for their help in passing this legislation, which Amnesty International has described as an affront to civl liberty. As an MP, Mrs Robinson was among those who voted to carry this bill. In other words, to view Mrs Robinson and the DUP as influential solely in Northern Ireland is to disregard the role they are now taking in the wider sphere of UK politics.
Please add your name to the petition, to join in voicing opposition against these developments.
Thanks for reading this.
Paddy
Petition link
Iris Robinson interviewed yesterday
Belfast Telegraph report
Iris Robinson's opening salvo
Any thoughts? There are points to be made here relating to freedom of speech, the "word of God", and political correctness, but I'm a little busy right now and will come back to that in a bit... my personal opinion is complicated as to whether she should be allowed to say this, but I strongly, strongly disagree with the sentiments she expresses.
Oh, incidentally, I have no feelings whatsoever regarding the Irish Question in general - as long as they generally refrain from killing each other, and nobody is the subject of sectarian discrimination I really don't care what flag goes on the public buildings.
Subject: Oppose Iris Robinson – petition
Iris Robinson is a Democratic Unionist Party MP and wife of Peter Robinson, the leader of the DUP since the recent retirement of the Reverend Ian Paisley. She is also the chair of the NI Assembly's Committee on Health.
Mrs Robinson is now the subject of complaint to the police on account of her recent public announcement that gays are "an abomination", and need psychiatric help to be "turned around". Yesterday she intensified her stance, with a BBC interview in which she announces that "as sinners", gays should be regarded alongside murderers.
Local press coverage from Northern Ireland makes it clear her activities have begun to fuel hatred in Northern Ireland; and it is deplorable that the first lady should seek the limelight by replacing guns with homophobia to dismantle the peace process.
Northern Ireland trade unions are calling for Iris Robinson to stand down from the Committee on Health which she chairs, and a petition addressed to the Prime Minister in support of this call is now in circulation. I hope you will use the link below and add your name to the petition. Please also forward it to anyone and everyone who will be opposed to this return to darkness that be firmly in the past.
I'd also note that the DUP is the party whose support enabled the passage through Parliament of legislation to extend to 42 days internment by the police of "terrorist suspects" – legislation which is to apply throughout the UK. DUP spokespersons have already made it evident they expect government favour for their help in passing this legislation, which Amnesty International has described as an affront to civl liberty. As an MP, Mrs Robinson was among those who voted to carry this bill. In other words, to view Mrs Robinson and the DUP as influential solely in Northern Ireland is to disregard the role they are now taking in the wider sphere of UK politics.
Please add your name to the petition, to join in voicing opposition against these developments.
Thanks for reading this.
Paddy
Petition link
Iris Robinson interviewed yesterday
Belfast Telegraph report
Iris Robinson's opening salvo
