molotovmuffin
Experimental Member
Calling someone narrow minded and calling them stupid are two entirely different things. To me you are narrow minded.
So please, tell us what female genital characteristics turn you off?
genital appearance
- Thread starter kc2007
- Start date
Calling someone narrow minded and calling them stupid are two entirely different things. To me you are narrow minded.
So please, tell us what female genital characteristics turn you off?
Laughable? I think not. If someone calls me anything to which I take offense I respond by letting them know it offended me and explaining why and then going further to explain why I am not what they think. This is what I would do. I mentioned another approach. That being said, being narrow minded isn't a very harsh description. It may be inaccurate but harsh? Not to me.( opinion of course) I wasn't defending anyone. If anything I was attempting to help you. And you can talk all day about your tough skin bub, but as far as I can see you are easily baited and angered. <----NOT BAITING.
Your views may be seen by some here as myopic and will come under fire. I was merely trying to extend some strategies for taking control of that type of situation and turning it into a "win" or atleast an agreeable stalemate. I'm not perfect and I may rise to the bait on some things quicker than others. But as Molotov said, your views are a tad narrow minded. (Narrow minded is not the same as stupid as Molotov put it.)
Last edited:
Why, so you can justify your comment and really lay into me for my personal tastes? ...no thanks. Perhaps if this developed into a mature discussion on the matter. Talk about thick skin, I'm sure the thread watchers here would be in attack mode.
Besides, I'm not even sure I could describe it. I just know certain things turn me off when I see it or touch it and I'm not even sure why. Yeah, I'm narrow minded...or maybe I just have high standards, be it physical, moral, mental, or otherwise.
Depending on context I guess. But the point is, she meant it as an insult. I would just like to know how I am narrow minded, I still haven't gotten a response to that.
I thought she answered that. But I'll allow her to clarify. My point on THAT particular matter is that no matter what your preferences there are always circumstances that can change that. But you may just be a person for whom such things are black and white. I didnt even know I liked certain things about women until I met my wife, and now I realize that its not about the physical. That's some of it ofcourse, but for some like me its about more than just a collection of body parts even if you don't love a person they are a persona and they have things about them that may over power your need for what you call "preferences". I'm not sure if I'm making much sense or getting my point across.
molotovmuffin
Experimental Member
Dude...If I meant to insult you, I'd of called you a tool. Which I didn't. I personally think you are narrow minded. In this case you repeated state that you don't like genital of a "certain" kind but you'd still fuck her (my words) anyway. Then you refuse to tell us your standards but demand it from us.
So...in order to answer your original question, I have no preferences in size or shape of the male genitalia. Now...what are yours?
Wow, you're full of it. What did I demand from you? I'd like to know how I'm narrow minded? I asked originally if women had issues with certain penis characteristics that would turn them off. I didn't necessarily even need specifics, however the more detailed obviously the better. I am not here to insult or degrade, and my intention was not to turn this into my particular dislike of female genitalia. I never said anything about fucking anyone, I just said I wouldn't at the very moment I see a chick's parts, jump out of bed exclaiming, "I just cannot go on, your pussy disgusts me". There is a middle ground.
Everybody has a range of what they deem acceptable physical traits in a mate, so to come here and say someone is narrow minded for a preference because it might be more stringent than yours is..well.."narrow minded".
Ok, Intrigue, I see you are a very genuine and "open minded" person. So what if you found out your wife was actually a man a few dates in. Yes with a penis. Of course inside she was a woman, just with a penis. Would you carry things out because you fell in love with the person. Or would you have to draw the line at some point?
Now of course you can say well that's different. But it's really not, maybe your physical needs fall out of the range of what this person can provide to you. Are you narrow minded for this, of course not. Everybody has a range and I just feel no one has a right to tell others what they should fine acceptable in a long term partner.
Kotchanski
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Posts
- 2,850
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 105
- Points
- 193
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Female
I'm somewhat hesitant to bring this up but...
I also posted that I felt much the same as kc2007 when it came to female genitalia. I was not however called narrow minded by anyone, and this may form part of why kc2007 feels targeted in some way, rightly or wrongly.
I think posting history, and manner of posting history may play a part in why he was called on it and I wasn't (women, correct me if I'm wrong!)
I've been here for just short of 5 years, have a good 8000 posts under my belt, I've pissed off most, if not all of the women posting in this thread at least once if not more, but those incidents are generally speaking, few and far between. I've demonstrated that I can admit when I'm wrong, apologise when I step on toes or cause offence, and most importantly, that when I'm called on something, I will take the time to ensure I'm understood correctly... If they're still pissed after they understand, then so be it!
You however, have been here for quite some time, have relatively little history to fall back on, and have demonstrated very little in the ways mentioned above (possibly down to low post history, possibly because you simply aren't the type to do those things... I don't know)
All in all, as others have said, there were better ways to deal with being called on something others found distasteful (for want of a better word) than by reacting the way you did... Had you taken the time to explain what you meant, give a few examples and open yourself up for questions rather than criticisms based on the face value of your initial opinion, you'd have not only found things far less hostile in this thread, but you'd have been remembered for it, and people would have been more prepared to reply to you in other threads.
As I said, I'm open to corrections, but that's how I'm reading it anyway...
Now, what was this thread about again? Star Trek wasn't it? Are we sticking to a specific series, or will any of them do?!
I also posted that I felt much the same as kc2007 when it came to female genitalia. I was not however called narrow minded by anyone, and this may form part of why kc2007 feels targeted in some way, rightly or wrongly.
I think posting history, and manner of posting history may play a part in why he was called on it and I wasn't (women, correct me if I'm wrong!)
I've been here for just short of 5 years, have a good 8000 posts under my belt, I've pissed off most, if not all of the women posting in this thread at least once if not more, but those incidents are generally speaking, few and far between. I've demonstrated that I can admit when I'm wrong, apologise when I step on toes or cause offence, and most importantly, that when I'm called on something, I will take the time to ensure I'm understood correctly... If they're still pissed after they understand, then so be it!
You however, have been here for quite some time, have relatively little history to fall back on, and have demonstrated very little in the ways mentioned above (possibly down to low post history, possibly because you simply aren't the type to do those things... I don't know)
All in all, as others have said, there were better ways to deal with being called on something others found distasteful (for want of a better word) than by reacting the way you did... Had you taken the time to explain what you meant, give a few examples and open yourself up for questions rather than criticisms based on the face value of your initial opinion, you'd have not only found things far less hostile in this thread, but you'd have been remembered for it, and people would have been more prepared to reply to you in other threads.
As I said, I'm open to corrections, but that's how I'm reading it anyway...
Now, what was this thread about again? Star Trek wasn't it? Are we sticking to a specific series, or will any of them do?!
Thank you Aconitum. However, I never felt low post history is a reason to single someone out in a negative way, just a personal opinion on the matter.
My posts may be few and far between, but they've always been cordial with an attempt to contribute. If you are speaking to my reaction with what I feel is excessive "thread policing" in this section, then I apologize for my tone. But I would never call someone a name based on an opinion or preference so I stand by that part of my objections.
For me I can only say that I have no idea how I would have reacted to that. I don't think having a preference is narrow minded. I think some of the ways in which you were explaining your point may have given the impression that you were narrow minded. I have no issue with you having preferences. I think, as Aconitum put it, your posts were phrased in a way that brought that kind of heat onto you. I wasn't upset, it was Molotov. I was originally trying to explain why she might be upset, because you seemed to have trouble seeing her point of view. My main goal was to help two people understand one another and to give you some tools to use in the future to make sure your posts were appreciated and responded too. No one likes asking a question only to have it ignored. And with enough bad posts and responses people will jump to conclusions based on previous history and not the current merit of your post. Aconitum said it right, imo.
Now as far as Trek is concerned, I'm a Jean Luc Picard fan. TNG was and is the best StarTrek. Discuss. Lol
Last edited:
Kotchanski
Expert Member
- Joined
- Jul 30, 2006
- Posts
- 2,850
- Media
- 10
- Likes
- 105
- Points
- 193
- Location
- England (United Kingdom)
- Sexuality
- Unsure
- Gender
- Female
I think you're misunderstanding me...
Low post history is not a reason to single someone out in a negative way, but on a site like this, you have two choices: Take each post at face value regardless of who posted it, or apply your previous knowledge of the person posting it when you read it... There is less previous knowledge involved when reading your posts, so a lot must rely on the face value of your post itself.
I'm sure you can see how two identical posts made by different people, with different histories may well be read differently by those replying.
Mock example:
I could post that I have a 15" cock, and those reading would laugh, compete, tell tales of their experiences with it. Some guy with no post history makes the same claim, and he's a moronic faker, he'll be ridiculed and challenged.
I don't think you were at all cordial in the thread that was closed. If you had any idea what this section was like before the majority of regular female posters (and there's really not that many of us) started 'policing' this section, as you call it, you might feel different. It was nothing but 'rate my cock' requests and guys looking for wank fodder. It was tiresome. The content here is much better these days and threads like yours, though occasionally bogged down by this type of post (sorry), are much more likely to get a decent number of considered responses because they aren't lost in a sea of dross.
Sorry to thread jack, but I just wanted to explain that there is a good reason for the behaviour you appear to dislike.
Who the fuck is SEAN Luc Picard... SEAN Luc??? Jean Luc's Irish cousin? :lmao: :tongue:
The Dragon
Sexy Member
due to the climate particularity on planet Vulcan all Vulcans have developed nictitating membrane in their eyes. making them immune to solar radiation, blue spectrum light and caustic substances.
is an evolutionary quirk Vulcan utilized in hand to hand combat. most notably effective against the venom of the Spitting Randilian Chickens on Nerdasia.
Mr. Spock found the same membrane works a peach for neutralizing the PH of semen from at least 87 species during an unexpected Pon Farr episode while touring the Mykonos Quadrant.
Nerve Pinch still wins.
eta: stupid auto correct... is semen, not seamen. not sure how well a nictitating membrane would be against having millions of tiny sailors launched at your ocular orbits.
I just fucking love it when you go all "Sheldon Cooper" on me! Bazinga!:mischievous:
molotovmuffin
Experimental Member
gender confusion ain't nothing you own me an apology for... i prefer most of the men on LPSG to think i am a guy.
umm the last bit.. much 'tude, dude. i don't expect any member to read my post history.. you would so grow old before you hit my second year here. i never got on ya bum for not knowing i was rocking girlie bits. i did note how ya tone lacked heaps of condescending shine when you replied to my boy drag.
i suspect the response ya got here was more about how you've been acting on the board in general. ya can come off as a crankypants. you talk down to the estrogen collective. you come in to a thread on the offense. ya just need to not assume ya low post count and ya gender makes you a target.
*paints self green* who wants to be Capt Kirk?
last eta: i did type that i was persnickety about bits appearance.. still.. is scores in the overall that really count. and everyone knows you drop the lowest one.
:biglaugh:
Last edited:
Similar threads
