{ASSD} More Ranty Goodness
vinnie...@yahoo.com
About Cervical Penetration?
0mn1vore
(in message
<1117914845.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
> Anatomical ignorance: a case study, or, Why Are There So Many Stories
> About Cervical Penetration?
>
> http://www.livejournal.com/users/vinnie_tesla/10676.html
>
[...]
> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
> I suspect people writing porn in the pre-sex-ed era didn't
> include many cervix references. It's not something that really
> comes up in real-life sex much. These guys seem to have learned
> about the cervix in high school, but forgotten (or failed to
> absorb) it's actual function. Much of this may not be their
> fault, and instead be attributable to the squeamishness of
> sex-ed-curricula, with its heavy emphasis on reproductive
> function, and avoidance of details about the actual fuckin'
> part of the business.
Actually, it does come up in real-life sex once in a while, but
not in a good way. Bumping [not penetrating] a woman's cervix
the wrong way usually hurts her.
And I don't mean *that* in a good way either. I've heard that
nipple clamps and clothes-pins hurt nicely though.
And no, I'm not bragging. Unfortunately, some cervixes [cervii?]
are a little too easy to hit from some positions/angles.
--
[For email replies, it's really a `dot-net' address.]
vinnie...@yahoo.com
it was more distracting than informative.
And yeah, I have a lover with a touchy cervix too. She's well
acquainted with 'good' pain, and bumping her cervix definitely ain't
it. Telling her about the essay I was working on was enough to make her
wince.
cmsix
<vinnie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117919603.2...@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
Well I can tell you why there are many stories about it, since I know
from experience. Ignorance. People often write about things that they
think they know and most writers are people. Then someone reads about
it and thinks it is true and writes about it in their next work.
That's how it comes up so often. Now you know.
cmsix
>
Frank McCoy
Sadly, I think I am at least indirectly to blame for a lot of those
stories; as many were based on some of mine. ;-{
Though I was *not* the first person to write such a story; remembering
reading an old sex story back in the 60s or 70s where a man penetrated a
woman's cervix.
I got *my* real story idea from reality, believe it or not.
Yes:
A. My prick *is* a slight bit longer than average ... or was anyway.
I haven't measured it lately. At that time, at full erection, it
was close to 9 1/4 inches. Not HUGE, but big enough.
B. The female I penetrated had given birth about three months earlier.
She was still sloppy (cervix-wise) at the time.
C. I *have* read "true stories" about others who have done the same
thing. In each case, the guy was fairly long, and the woman had
a sloppy cervix left over from giving birth ... though in one case
at least, the birth was several years earlier, not just a few
months, like the one time I did it. None were young virginal
girls or ones who hadn't yet given birth.
The sensation of her uterus around the head of my prick (it happened
only the one time) is something I will never forget; and when I came,
knowing I was ejaculating *directly* into her womb was mind-blowing.
So ... I put the experience into my stories.
Only, unlike reality, in my *stories*, it was a young girl, barely into
puberty, not a grown woman who had already just borne a child. It
seemed more erotic that way.
Sorry about that.
I know that several of the other people have picked up this idea from me
and from others who did get it from me, in a cascade effect. Once I
made it seem real, by describing the truly *real* experience I had, it
was adopted by many others ... most of whom also adopted the completely
*unreal* part about it being a young or almost virginal girl.
The part about loving being anally raped or forced into cervical
penetration though, they did *not* get from me. All of *my* stories on
such matter were consensual and loving.
Still, by mis-describing a real thing that happened, I feel somewhat
responsible for the monster that grew from there. Not completely, mind,
only somewhat. I should have stuck to what *really* happened, not what
my fevered imagination thought would be even more erotic. What did
happen that one time WAS (you would think) erotic enough for anybody.
Sorry about that.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
Frank McCoy
My wife *still* complains if I get a little too energetic when fucking
"doggy style" because it bumps her cervix. OTOH, in the few times she
is *really* aroused, she *still* says, "Harder, harder!" even then.
It's *afterward* that she complains about the bruising.
BTW: It's not that much fun for the man, having a hard rock of a cervix
banging into the tip of your prick, either.
vinnie...@yahoo.com
could find you dozens of anatomical impossibilities that appeared in
one story, then disappeared from view.
Also, the consistency of the women's reactions in the scenes suggests
to me that it's more than just a random misunderstanding.
Denny Wheeler
>cervixes [cervii?]
cervices, I think.
--
-denny-
"Do your thoughts call ahead or do they just arrive at your mouth unannounced?"
"It's come as you are, baby."
-over the hedge
Tesseract
Would this be a good point to bring up the perennial discussion about
the location of the hymen?
BTW, it would help if you could quote what you are responding to. It
seems you are using google groups. You cannot use the obvious "Reply"
button at the bottom of a post. Click on "show options" and use the
"Reply" button that is revealed.
--
Tesseract
cmsix
<vinnie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117936426.9...@g44g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
So you're saying what? We are involved in a conspiracy to show our
ignorance?
cmsix
>
vinnie...@yahoo.com
> So you're saying what? We are involved in a conspiracy to show our
> ignorance?
>
> cmsix
>
Nah. Just that errors that take root aren't random--they have something
appealing about them--something that makes people *want* te believe
them.
Brogan Wayfarer
wrote:
>
>
>vinnie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Yeah, except that some errors have legs, and others don't. I'm sure I
>> could find you dozens of anatomical impossibilities that appeared in
>> one story, then disappeared from view.
>>
>> Also, the consistency of the women's reactions in the scenes suggests
>> to me that it's more than just a random misunderstanding.
>
>Would this be a good point to bring up the perennial discussion about
>the location of the hymen?
>
http://storiesonline.net/docs/hymen.php
Frank McCoy
>
>
>vinnie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> Yeah, except that some errors have legs, and others don't. I'm sure I
>> could find you dozens of anatomical impossibilities that appeared in
>> one story, then disappeared from view.
>>
>> Also, the consistency of the women's reactions in the scenes suggests
>> to me that it's more than just a random misunderstanding.
>
>Would this be a good point to bring up the perennial discussion about
>the location of the hymen?
>
Somewhere around, there's a medical site with pictures of intact,
perforated, and various other hymens. They're NOT all where some people
who have them say they all are. The location varies more than you might
expect. Some are *very* close to the vaginal entrance, and some as far
back as an inch or three. None are (as some stories would have it) five
or six inches inside. The deepest are easily visible just by holding
the labia minora open with fingers. In the deepest ones, a guy with a
big prick *might* be able to get the head and glans of his penis inside
the outer lips without destroying the girl's virginity ... might; but no
more.
Um ... OTOH, I mind one girl with an extremely *tough* hymen ....
I wondered why she and her boyfriend picked *me* at a swinging-party out
in California. I did have the biggest prick there, but that didn't
occur to me to be why, until afterwards ... a month or so later. At the
time we had sex, I wondered why she was so bloody *short* inside ... and
afterwards, both she and her boyfriend seemed rather disappointed with
my performance; though I thought I was gentle enough ....
It was only later ... *much* later, like a month or so, that it dawned
on me. The woman was one of those poor gals you *hear* about, with an
extremely tough hymen ... And they picked ME, the guy with the big
prick, to "solve her problem." Yeah, right. Of course, they never
*told* me that; simply expecting a guy with a big prick to BE a big
prick, an asshole, and simply *jam* it in. I, of course, was nice and
gentle.
So, the first virgin (and I think *only* virgin) I ever had, was still a
virgin after we had sex. (If you call a woman who has had full vaginal
intercourse, but *still* has an intact hymen, a "virgin".)
Methinks the couple *should* have done the logical thing, and gone to
see a doctor instead of showing up at a swinging party looking for a guy
with an oversized prick. Damn. If I *had* been successful, methinks it
would have been a really *painful* situation all around ... and if they
kept trying in *that* manner until somebody was asshole enough to
succeed ....
<Shudder.>
Thank God, it wasn't me!
>BTW, it would help if you could quote what you are responding to. It
>seems you are using google groups. You cannot use the obvious "Reply"
>button at the bottom of a post. Click on "show options" and use the
>"Reply" button that is revealed.
--
Frank McCoy
In this case, something about removing yet another barrier between your
seed and the woman's egg. The mucous of a woman's cervix/uterus
prevents by far the most sperm from ever getting to a woman's womb, let
alone as far as her fallopian tubes where contact takes place for
pregnancy.
So, if (as like with *some* people writing stories) pregnancy is a
*positive* turn-on for you, then ejaculating sperm-filled semen directly
into a woman's womb, can add to that excitement.
For others, it might be the depth: If you're *really* long in the prick,
often you cannot get the entire thing inside some women without banging
on their cervix (Which, as has been pointed out, can be painful). So,
for those people, imagining it *not* being painful but pleasurable for
the woman when pushing *through* what is after-all just another
muscle-ring, gives the idea of not only getting *all* of your prick
inside the willing woman, BUT ALSO adds the fillip of having your prick
practically strangled right behind the most sensitive part (the
glans-penis), as some sex-stories tell, "Like a vagina within a vagina."
Or ... Perhaps various combinations of the above.
Tesseract
Frank McCoy wrote:
> In alt.sex.stories.d "Tesseract" <HyperTe...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >vinnie...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >> Yeah, except that some errors have legs, and others don't. I'm sure I
> >> could find you dozens of anatomical impossibilities that appeared in
> >> one story, then disappeared from view.
> >>
> >> Also, the consistency of the women's reactions in the scenes suggests
> >> to me that it's more than just a random misunderstanding.
> >
> >Would this be a good point to bring up the perennial discussion about
> >the location of the hymen?
> >
> Somewhere around, there's a medical site with pictures of intact,
> perforated, and various other hymens. They're NOT all where some people
> who have them say they all are. The location varies more than you might
> expect. Some are *very* close to the vaginal entrance, and some as far
The hymen is at the vaginal entrance -- pretty much by definition.
The vagina grows as an internal organ. Shortly before birth, one end
ruptures, providing access to the outside world. The remnants of that
rupture form the hymen. If it is not at the surface then the entrance
is surrounded by other tissue, not by more vagina.
--
Tesseract
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
>Um ... OTOH, I mind one girl with an extremely *tough* hymen ...
(snip Frank's story)
Yah, I had such an experience as well. In this girl's case, there was
just enough opening not covered by the hymen for an average-diameter
penis to get by. Painfully. Not painful for her, but not comfortable
either. I'm sure she eventually had a doctor cut the tissue.
chaz_d...@yahoo.com
character development, and consistency. These are FANTASY stories. Do
you really believe that most males have twelve inch by three inch
penises, that they can have unlimited orgasms once every five minutes,
spew forth semen by the half cup, and so on? Cervical entry is just
another metaphor for the typical male desire for extreme penetration.
I also cringe when an author seems to locate the hymen inside the
vagina rather than at the entrance, but again, for some stories, the
mislocation helps the story flow.
You must remember that most of the authors are amateurs as writers and
certainly don't have professional medical or anatomical knowledge. The
fact that they can rub two verbs together and make a story is worthy of
accolades rather than micro-criticism.
One requirement for enjoyment of a fair amount of fiction is suspension
of disbelief. So, enjoy.
Chaz
oosh
news:49n4a153l01fuml7c...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 14:08:03 -0700, 0mn1vore <pAb...@telus.wtf> wrote:
>
>>cervixes [cervii?]
>
> cervices, I think.
Yes!
O.
cmsix
<vinnie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1117980888.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
It just sounds like something a "long dicked bastard" would do that
might be even more exciting and feel better than what the reader can
do. It is perceived as "better sex" than normal and something only
"heros" can do. Not really an insidious plot.
cmsix
>
cmsix
<chaz_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118039759....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
> Geez, if you want to nit-pick choose the weak grammar, spelling,
> character development, and consistency. These are FANTASY stories.
> Do
> you really believe that most males have twelve inch by three inch
> penises, that they can have unlimited orgasms once every five
> minutes,
> spew forth semen by the half cup, and so on? Cervical entry is just
> another metaphor for the typical male desire for extreme
> penetration.
This is a little different. A twelve inch penis is possible without
manipulation of the plot device. The do occur in the wild.
This particular blunder is among the many mistakes that caused me to
attempt to rewrite "NanoVirus," though my progress as been limited.
cmsix
Denny Wheeler
wrote:
:)
I was noticing that with a very slight rearrangement, that word
becomes 'crevices'--upon which I'll not comment.
vinnie...@yahoo.com
Denny Wheeler wrote:
>
> I was noticing that with a very slight rearrangement, that word
> becomes 'crevices'--upon which I'll not comment.
>
I think you just brought the discussion full circle.
vinnie...@yahoo.com
Frank McCoy wrote:
>
> So, if (as like with *some* people writing stories) pregnancy is a
> *positive* turn-on for you, then ejaculating sperm-filled semen directly
> into a woman's womb, can add to that excitement.
That makes sense--thanks for the insight.
Now I'm imagining a sci-fi story where a miniaturized preg fetishist
gets to actually fuck an egg cell...
>
> For others, it might be the depth: If you're *really* long in the prick,
> often you cannot get the entire thing inside some women without banging
> on their cervix (Which, as has been pointed out, can be painful).
Frank, I don't wanna damage your self-esteem or anything, but that's
not a length issue--that's an angle issue. THE CERVIX IS NOT AT THE
BOTTOM OF THE VAGINAL CANAL. You're a married man--you can check this
with your fingers tonight if you don't believe me. When I'm fisting a
lover, the ends of my fingers go *past* her cervix. Yeah, the
'bottoming out' thing plays a big role in this meme, but it only works
in conjunction with a big dose of minsunderstood basic anatomy.
vinnie...@yahoo.com
cmsix wrote:
> This particular blunder is among the many mistakes that caused me to
> attempt to rewrite "NanoVirus," though my progress as been limited.
>
> cmsix
>
You get brownie points in my book for acknowledging and trying to fix
your mistakes.
Jack C Lipton
> Frank McCoy wrote:
>> For others, it might be the depth: If you're
>> *really* long in the prick, often you cannot
>> get the entire thing inside some women without
>> banging on their cervix (Which, as has been
>> pointed out, can be painful).
>
> Frank, I don't wanna damage your self-esteem
> or anything, but that's not a length issue--
> that's an angle issue.
Yes and I'm told the angle varies.
> THE CERVIX IS NOT AT
> THE BOTTOM OF THE VAGINAL CANAL.
Actually, when standing up, it's at the top.
A lot also depends upon whether the uterus is
tipped and "which way" it's tipped.
Of course a complete hysterectomy which removes
the ovaries and fallopian tubs will, in usual
cases (i.e. high risk of CA) remove the cervix
as well. Mind you, the sudden change in my
wife's hormonal levels didn't make any detectable
difference in behavior.
But I will tell you that hitting the cervix,
even once, was enough to p1ss her off and end
the session right then and there-- and don't
f**king go near her, either, for a couple of
weeks.
Now running the fingers in and gently playing
with the rim of the cervix will likely get you
some exceptionally weird reports... if you hear
anything at all after she hits you over the head
with the heaviest f**king object she can find.
I have no idea what you'd find w/ a nulliparous
woman, though, in dealing w/ the cervix.
(Gawd... I'm thinking about Rocky Roccoco)
--
Jack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/
Those people most incapable (or unwilling) to see themselves as being
sent to Hell are those most likely to become permanent residents. - me
Kelli Halliburton
>> cervices, I think.
>
> Yes!
Do gynecological textbook illustrators get paid for cervices rendered?
Thinking Horndog
something I came out with... I'm careful about the hymen thing, now,
and I don't ever remember trying to tell anyone it was six inches deep
in the first place, (although I was a bit ignorant about right at the
opening), but the 'vagina within a vagina' thing...
... I perpetuated that...
Thinker
Frank McCoy wrote:
suzee
>
> Frank McCoy wrote:
>
>>For others, it might be the depth: If you're *really* long in the prick,
>>often you cannot get the entire thing inside some women without banging
>>on their cervix (Which, as has been pointed out, can be painful).
>
>
> Frank, I don't wanna damage your self-esteem or anything, but that's
> not a length issue--that's an angle issue. THE CERVIX IS NOT AT THE
> BOTTOM OF THE VAGINAL CANAL. You're a married man--you can check this
> with your fingers tonight if you don't believe me. When I'm fisting a
> lover, the ends of my fingers go *past* her cervix. Yeah, the
> 'bottoming out' thing plays a big role in this meme, but it only works
> in conjunction with a big dose of minsunderstood basic anatomy.
You're correct, there's a little more vagina past the cervix, and most
of the time, a penis will slide past it. But when it bumps the end of
the cervix - hard... OW!
sue
suzee
> vinnie_tesla wrote:
>
>> THE CERVIX IS NOT AT
>>THE BOTTOM OF THE VAGINAL CANAL.
>
>
> Actually, when standing up, it's at the top.
>
> A lot also depends upon whether the uterus is
> tipped and "which way" it's tipped.
>
> Of course a complete hysterectomy which removes
> the ovaries and fallopian tubs will, in usual
> cases (i.e. high risk of CA) remove the cervix
> as well. Mind you, the sudden change in my
> wife's hormonal levels didn't make any detectable
> difference in behavior.
>
> But I will tell you that hitting the cervix,
> even once, was enough to p1ss her off and end
> the session right then and there-- and don't
> f**king go near her, either, for a couple of
> weeks.
>
> Now running the fingers in and gently playing
> with the rim of the cervix will likely get you
> some exceptionally weird reports... if you hear
> anything at all after she hits you over the head
> with the heaviest f**king object she can find.
>
> I have no idea what you'd find w/ a nulliparous
> woman, though, in dealing w/ the cervix.
Geeze she's touchy. I understand the occasional bump happens by
accident, but it sure doesn't make me swear off sex for a couple weeks,
let alone that night. And a touch during foreplay feels real nice.
> (Gawd... I'm thinking about Rocky Roccoco)
I don't even want to know why...
suzee
Jack C Lipton
> Jack C Lipton wrote:
>> But I will tell you that hitting the cervix,
>> even once, was enough to p1ss her off and end
>> the session right then and there-- and don't
>> f**king go near her, either, for a couple of
>> weeks.
>>
>> Now running the fingers in and gently playing
>> with the rim of the cervix will likely get you
>> some exceptionally weird reports... if you hear
>> anything at all after she hits you over the head
>> with the heaviest f**king object she can find.
>>
>> I have no idea what you'd find w/ a nulliparous
>> woman, though, in dealing w/ the cervix.
>
> Geeze she's touchy.
I've noticed. Now that she doesn't have one she
isn't. And she had a "tipped uterus" whatever
that means; I seem to recall it was right where
the g-spot is supposed to be.
> I understand the occasional
> bump happens by accident, but it sure doesn't
> make me swear off sex for a couple weeks, let
> alone that night.
Well, it might be the fact that it's *me* and that
there's nothing for her, anyway. (shakes head)
> And a touch during foreplay
> feels real nice.
Who said anything about foreplay?
All right, so it's been a while since I've been
making any efforts to help her feel nice since,
no matter what I did, she didn't seem to get
anything out of it.
(shakes head)
If it ain't fun for her I'll just use my right
hand. At least it ain't increasing the frequency
of such use by more than 3 to 4 percent.
At this point I've been declining "opportunities".
I bought her a vibrator (massager, actually) that
is still in the box; until she takes an interest
in getting off herself (and convinces me that my
efforts aren't a waste of my time) I ain't goin'
near her. I don't need to feel shitty enough to
contemplate the abyss any time soon, thank you
very much.
In any case, when she had one, she was *REAL*
touchy about her cervix. Even running a finger
gently around the rim almost got me eviscerated;
it sure was never comfortable. One can understand
why this was an infrequent exploration.
I married a woman who was silent when something
feels good (I think, I'm not sure anything with
me *ever* felt good to her) but sure was vocal
when something went wrong.
Heck, one time she started to respond to me looking
for her g-spot (post hysterectomy); since then,
if there were any nerve endings there, they've
apparently since gone dead.
(shakes head)
Well, she's diabetic so I guess she's suffering
from neuropathy; after all, she can't feel her
feet any more.
Seriously, she has so many physical ailments
that, really, sex should be out of the question
*anyway*.
(shrugs)
Life goes on.
>> (Gawd... I'm thinking about Rocky Roccoco)
>
> I don't even want to know why...
From the Nick Danger sequence on the back of "All
Hail Marx and Lennon" by Firesign Theater:
Catherwood:
"Who's that ugly dwarf with his hand in your
mouth?"
Rocky:
"Rocky Roccoco at your cervix..."
It is likely considered dangerous for all those
nearby when I practice free association considering
the huge quantities of mental debris I have
accumulated during my life.
Frank McCoy
>
><chaz_d...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:1118039759....@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>> Geez, if you want to nit-pick choose the weak grammar, spelling,
>> character development, and consistency. These are FANTASY stories.
>> Do
>> you really believe that most males have twelve inch by three inch
>> penises, that they can have unlimited orgasms once every five
>> minutes,
>> spew forth semen by the half cup, and so on? Cervical entry is just
>> another metaphor for the typical male desire for extreme
>> penetration.
>
>This is a little different. A twelve inch penis is possible without
>manipulation of the plot device. The do occur in the wild.
>
Yeah ... About one per 100,000,000 men. Not enough to notice except in
certain select porno films. Even ten inch pricks are extremely rare.
Hell, *mine* was only a hair over 9", and I never met a man bigger.
(Never *met*. Saw several in various porno-films. Some girls I knew
told me about guys *they* knew who were bigger ... some extensively so.)
I once saw a porno-star in a movie, where they *claimed* he had 13" ...
and he was shorter than me ... and *FAR* shorter than John Holmes.
I always wondered how he measured his prick?
Kinda like the old joke about the guy who bet his prick was longer than
a cat's tail ... so they measured the cat's tail at 9 1/2 inches, and it
was obvious the guy had barely over half a foot ... until he insisted,
"Oh no you don't! You measure MY prick the same way you did the cat's
tail! From the tip to the asshole!"
Getting back to stories though: It's bad enough when a story has *one*
prick in it that's 12" long. Once they get a whole family of men with
twelve and thirteen inch pricks, my "willing suspension of disbelief"
tends to get a bit frayed.
>This particular blunder is among the many mistakes that caused me to
>attempt to rewrite "NanoVirus," though my progress as been limited.
>
>cmsix
>
>>
>> I also cringe when an author seems to locate the hymen inside the
>> vagina rather than at the entrance, but again, for some stories, the
>> mislocation helps the story flow.
>>
>> You must remember that most of the authors are amateurs as writers
>> and
>> certainly don't have professional medical or anatomical knowledge.
>> The
>> fact that they can rub two verbs together and make a story is worthy
>> of
>> accolades rather than micro-criticism.
>>
>> One requirement for enjoyment of a fair amount of fiction is
>> suspension
>> of disbelief. So, enjoy.
>>
>> Chaz
>>
--
Bingain
> Yeah ... About one per 100,000,000 men. Not enough to notice except in
> certain select porno films. Even ten inch pricks are extremely rare.
> Hell, *mine* was only a hair over 9", and I never met a man bigger.
> (Never *met*. Saw several in various porno-films. Some girls I knew
> told me about guys *they* knew who were bigger ... some extensively so.)
> I once saw a porno-star in a movie, where they *claimed* he had 13" ...
> and he was shorter than me ... and *FAR* shorter than John Holmes.
>
> I always wondered how he measured his prick?
>
> Kinda like the old joke about the guy who bet his prick was longer than
> a cat's tail ... so they measured the cat's tail at 9 1/2 inches, and it
> was obvious the guy had barely over half a foot ... until he insisted,
> "Oh no you don't! You measure MY prick the same way you did the cat's
> tail! From the tip to the asshole!"
>
> Getting back to stories though: It's bad enough when a story has *one*
> prick in it that's 12" long. Once they get a whole family of men with
> twelve and thirteen inch pricks, my "willing suspension of disbelief"
> tends to get a bit frayed.
It is okay if one writes a story about Lance Énorme, the
superstar and god of all porn stars.
Bing
Tesseract
Not the whole brownie? Do brownies have points?
--
Tesseract
Denny Wheeler
8888888888888888
88888888888888
0mn1vore
(in message
<1118129507....@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Yes, eight points and twelve edges, if they've been cut into
squares. If you cut off each point, you'll end up with
tweny-four, more obtuse points, kind of a beveled brownie effect
overall.
[sigh] Of all the people to be explaining this to...
--
[For email replies, it's really a `dot-net' address.]
0mn1vore
(in message <3hm4a190srvhqttq6...@4ax.com>):
> In alt.sex.stories.d 0mn1vore <pAb...@telus.wtf> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 4 Jun 2005 12:54:05 -0700, vinnie...@yahoo.com wrote
>> (in message
>> <1117914845.0...@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>):
>>
>>> Anatomical ignorance: a case study, or, Why Are There So Many Stories
>>> About Cervical Penetration?
>>>
>>> http://www.livejournal.com/users/vinnie_tesla/10676.html
>>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
>>> I suspect people writing porn in the pre-sex-ed era didn't
>>> include many cervix references. It's not something that really
>>> comes up in real-life sex much. These guys seem to have learned
>>> about the cervix in high school, but forgotten (or failed to
>>> absorb) it's actual function. Much of this may not be their
>>> fault, and instead be attributable to the squeamishness of
>>> sex-ed-curricula, with its heavy emphasis on reproductive
>>> function, and avoidance of details about the actual fuckin'
>>> part of the business.
>>
>> Actually, it does come up in real-life sex once in a while, but
>> not in a good way. Bumping [not penetrating] a woman's cervix
>> the wrong way usually hurts her.
>>
>> And I don't mean *that* in a good way either. I've heard that
>> nipple clamps and clothes-pins hurt nicely though.
>>
>> And no, I'm not bragging. Unfortunately, some cervixes [cervii?]
>> are a little too easy to hit from some positions/angles.
>
> My wife *still* complains if I get a little too energetic when fucking
> "doggy style" because it bumps her cervix. OTOH, in the few times she
> is *really* aroused, she *still* says, "Harder, harder!" even then.
> It's *afterward* that she complains about the bruising.
>
> BTW: It's not that much fun for the man, having a hard rock of a cervix
> banging into the tip of your prick, either.
>
Yes, but when she's saying `OW!' it never seemed the right time
to say `ow'.
Tesseract
Unless you live a two dimensional existance, a rather flat life, you
surely mean cubes. Beyond that, You cut then up? Shouldn't you code
that? Talk about obtuse.
--
Tesseract
0mn1vore
(in message
<1118136895.9...@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
Okay, let's talk about obtuse. :-)
Were you referring to brownies, as in the small-ish, dense cakes,
the small-ish mythical creatures, or that cultish organization of
girls who go around selling cookies door-to-door?
I was referring to the small-ish, dense cakes, and since they're
almost never cut into exact cubes, I referred to them as squares
-- generally flatter than they are wide. A better term might
have been rectilinear somethingorothers. But this was a thread
about cervices. Let's please stay away from rectums [and
especially rectal brownies], for now.
Tesseract
Starting with the math lesson, it's a Rectangular Parallelepiped.
Strange, isn't it, that such a common object doesn't have a more common
name. A square is a two dimensional object that does not exist in the
real world that I, and probably you, live in.
And I was referring to whatever Vinnie was referring to. But they
obviously have points. Is there a connection to cervices there? Should
we ask Officer Sherry? Maybe we could borrow Kenny's thesaurus.
--
Tesseract
0mn1vore
(in message
<1118142386.4...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>):
The last cervix I ran into did feel slightly pointed, yes. But
that's just one point, and [only a guess] it was probably pink,
not brown.
Could ask Officer Sherry, or her cousin, Constable Kerry of the
RCMP, or even her aunt, Judge Shelly, if we're feeling especially
masochistic.
[Can't help thinking of that line from the Matrix Reloaded,
spoken by the medusa twins; "We are getting aggravated." -- "Yes,
we are." But I honestly don't know why.]
suzee
> suzee wrote:
>>I understand the occasional bump happens by accident, but it sure
>>doesn't make me swear off sex for a couple weeks, let alone that night.
>
>
> Well, it might be the fact that it's *me* and that
> there's nothing for her, anyway. (shakes head)
No Jack, it's her and she'll use any excuse not to have sex.
>> And a touch during foreplay feels real nice.
>
> Who said anything about foreplay?
>
> All right, so it's been a while since I've been
> making any efforts to help her feel nice since,
> no matter what I did, she didn't seem to get
> anything out of it.
>
> (shakes head)
She won't put up with that either? She's missing out on a lot. For most
women at least half the enjoyment of sex is foreplay. But then, she's
not most women....
> At this point I've been declining "opportunities".
> I bought her a vibrator (massager, actually) that
> is still in the box; until she takes an interest
> in getting off herself (and convinces me that my
> efforts aren't a waste of my time) I ain't goin'
> near her. I don't need to feel shitty enough to
> contemplate the abyss any time soon, thank you very much.
If it's a Hitachi kind of massager, why don't you offer to use it on her
neck or back? She might not come to associate it with sex, but it might
help her unwind a little, at the least.
> In any case, when she had one, she was *REAL*
> touchy about her cervix. Even running a finger
> gently around the rim almost got me eviscerated;
> it sure was never comfortable. One can understand
> why this was an infrequent exploration.
Interesting. I didn't know they could be that sensitive.
> I married a woman who was silent when something
> feels good (I think, I'm not sure anything with
> me *ever* felt good to her) but sure was vocal
> when something went wrong.
>
> Heck, one time she started to respond to me looking
> for her g-spot (post hysterectomy); since then, if there
> were any nerve endings there, they've apparently since gone dead.
The surgery may well have affected the nerves in that area and it takes
a long time for them to regenerate.
suzee
Jack C Lipton
> Jack C Lipton wrote:
>> suzee wrote:
>>> I understand the occasional bump happens by
>>> accident, but it sure doesn't make me swear
>>> off sex for a couple weeks, let alone that
>>> night.
>>
>> Well, it might be the fact that it's *me* and that
>> there's nothing for her, anyway. (shakes head)
>
> No Jack, it's her and she'll use any excuse not
> to have sex.
Seriously? I have come to believe that one of
the issues is that of "control". Additionally,
as an adult child of alcoholics, she has a
strong desire for _consistency_ of behavior.
These two traits, taken together, have made the
last two decades a bumpy ride for me.
But, then, it's not supposed to be about me,
is it? The world doesn't revolve (or rotate)
around me, does it? (smirks) (And, yes, I
stated something that I've heard all too often
whilst growing up but know, intellectually, that
*I* have to consider my own needs since no one
else will. I'd not gotten the former half of
this message growing up, just the latter half.)
Now I'll admit that, up to a point, consistency
is a wonderful thing, but, seriously, having the
"same" woman I take shopping also be in the
bedroom may be, well, somewhat sub-optimal. At
least for _my_ interests.
It is *possible* that the cervix bumping was an
excuse but she was, to my eyes, in obvious
pain. (And, as background for the curious, it
would appear that I'm somewhat smaller than the
"average", so it wasn't a matter of how much of
me there was but the angle.)
So there is no doubt she found the pressure very
uncomfortable-- but that's par for the course
since no two human beings are identical or will
respond in an identical fashion.
At the other end of the bell curve _may_ be some
women who can actually handle having their cervix
penetrated but I suspect this number would be
rather small.
>>> And a touch during foreplay feels real nice.
>>
>> Who said anything about foreplay?
>>
>> All right, so it's been a while since I've been
>> making any efforts to help her feel nice since,
>> no matter what I did, she didn't seem to get
>> anything out of it.
>>
>> (shakes head)
>
> She won't put up with that either? She's missing
> out on a lot. For most women at least half the
> enjoyment of sex is foreplay. But then, she's
> not most women....
I *believe* (hopefully mistakenly) that she gets
far more pleasure watching me clean house, do the
dishes or run laundry. At least it _seems_ that
way, given her facial expressions.
We have enough *other* dysfunctions between us
that it seems that whenever we start converging
that something comes up to make our paths diverge
again.
Y'know, I'd like to think that I'm not a paingiver
but my experiences seem to confirm that I'm _not_
not very good at providing pleasure but too damn
good at driving displeasure...
>> At this point I've been declining "opportunities".
>> I bought her a vibrator (massager, actually) that
>> is still in the box; until she takes an interest
>> in getting off herself (and convinces me that my
>> efforts aren't a waste of my time) I ain't goin'
>> near her. I don't need to feel shitty enough to
>> contemplate the abyss any time soon, thank you
>> very much.
>
> If it's a Hitachi kind of massager, why don't
> you offer to use it on her neck or back? She
> might not come to associate it with sex, but it
> might help her unwind a little, at the least.
Actually, I bought a smaller unit which isn't as
easily impeded given her current weight but I have
refused to use it on her, telling her she needs to
choose to use it on herself, first.
Why?
Very simple, really. Until she chooses to focus
on her own pleasure (by her own hands, etc) then
anything *I* try to do is wasted effort. I've
spent enough time in futile efforts with hands
and/or tongue to get her up and interested before
giving up and rolling over to get some sleep.
(shakes head)
I wonder how many people in the world have the
same kind of issues over control and resistance
to suggestions (much less requests or orders)
that my wife has. By comparison my own issues
w/ rejection and adequacy are as nothing... but
it seems we're the synergistic match from hell.
>> I married a woman who was silent when something
>> feels good (I think, I'm not sure anything with
>> me *ever* felt good to her) but sure was vocal
>> when something went wrong.
>>
>> Heck, one time she started to respond to me
>> looking for her g-spot (post hysterectomy);
>> since then, if there were any nerve endings
>> there, they've apparently since gone dead.
>
> The surgery may well have affected the nerves
> in that area and it takes a long time for them
> to regenerate.
My memory may have faded a bit or I'd misunderstood
or misremembered this, but, before the hysterectomy,
when I went looking for the g-spot (which is really
only a paraurethral gland) it seemed her cervix
(and maybe uterus) was in the way; I suspect this
is what was meant by a "tipped" uterus.
Since the surgery I seemed to find it *once* but
given the limited response (which was way more
than I'd ever seen before) *and* lack of
repeatability, I had to write off the search as
futile.
I don't know *why* her cervix and uterus were so
sensitive but they _were_. I believe, though, it
was likely because of the apparent internal
arrangement. Given her responses at the time it
was *not* detectably a sham.
So if I was faced with another woman I would likely
be _very_ leery of getting anywhere near her cervix-
with *any* portion of my anatomy.
vinnie...@yahoo.com
Rev. Dodgson appears to not have actually read the first two paragraphs
of my essay. I can think of several ways in which cervical penetration
stories are more interesting to write about than the Cult of the
Foot-long Hot Dog. Eventually, though, I realized that there's one
central reason, and it's rather ironic:
I'd rather explore virgin territory.
Reams have been written about the fascination male pornographers tend
to have with big penes. I don't really have anything fresh to say on
the topic, and I'm unlikely to find anyone to tell about it who isn't
already well aware of the issue. One of the reasons I sat down to write
the cervix rant is that every woman I mentioned the phenomenon to was
stunned to learn that such stories exist.
So. 1) I had something unusual to tell people about, and 2) I had some
theories to account for it that I hadn't seen elsewhere. That's the
essence of it.
chaz_d...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Geez, if you want to nit-pick choose the weak grammar, spelling,
> character development, and consistency. These are FANTASY stories. Do
> you really believe that most males have twelve inch by three inch
> penises, that they can have unlimited orgasms once every five minutes,
> spew forth semen by the half cup, and so on? Cervical entry is just
> another metaphor for the typical male desire for extreme penetration.
>
cmsix
<vinnie...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1118095715.7...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
Frank McCoy wrote:
>
> So, if (as like with *some* people writing stories) pregnancy is a
> *positive* turn-on for you, then ejaculating sperm-filled semen
> directly
> into a woman's womb, can add to that excitement.
That makes sense--thanks for the insight.
Now I'm imagining a sci-fi story where a miniaturized preg fetishist
gets to actually fuck an egg cell...
>
> For others, it might be the depth: If you're *really* long in the
> prick,
> often you cannot get the entire thing inside some women without
> banging
> on their cervix (Which, as has been pointed out, can be painful).
Frank, I don't wanna damage your self-esteem or anything, but that's
not a length issue--that's an angle issue. THE CERVIX IS NOT AT THE
BOTTOM OF THE VAGINAL CANAL. You're a married man--you can check this
with your fingers tonight if you don't believe me. When I'm fisting a
lover, the ends of my fingers go *past* her cervix. Yeah, the
'bottoming out' thing plays a big role in this meme, but it only works
in conjunction with a big dose of minsunderstood basic anatomy.
Makes sense, I wrote such with that same misunderstanding.
cmsix
suzee
> suzee wrote:
>
>>Jack C Lipton wrote:
>>
>>>suzee wrote:
>>>
>>>>I understand the occasional bump happens by
>>>>accident, but it sure doesn't make me swear
>>>>off sex for a couple weeks, let alone that
>>>>night.
>>>
>>>Well, it might be the fact that it's *me* and that
>>>there's nothing for her, anyway. (shakes head)
>>
>>No Jack, it's her and she'll use any excuse not
>>to have sex.
>
> Seriously? I have come to believe that one of
> the issues is that of "control". Additionally,
> as an adult child of alcoholics, she has a
> strong desire for _consistency_ of behavior.
> These two traits, taken together, have made the
> last two decades a bumpy ride for me.
People who live with an alcoholic tend to get into being control freaks.
It's still not you except that whatever you want, she controls the
situation by denying you, or making it go the way *she* wants. It's
still not you.
> But, then, it's not supposed to be about me,
> is it? The world doesn't revolve (or rotate)
> around me, does it? (smirks) (And, yes, I
> stated something that I've heard all too often
> whilst growing up but know, intellectually, that
> *I* have to consider my own needs since no one
> else will. I'd not gotten the former half of
> this message growing up, just the latter half.)
Your life does yes. But you allow for different characters in it. Look
at life as a story where you can make things happen the way you want.
> Now I'll admit that, up to a point, consistency
> is a wonderful thing, but, seriously, having the
> "same" woman I take shopping also be in the
> bedroom may be, well, somewhat sub-optimal. At
> least for _my_ interests.
So? You analyse too much, I think.
> It is *possible* that the cervix bumping was an
> excuse but she was, to my eyes, in obvious
> pain. (And, as background for the curious, it
> would appear that I'm somewhat smaller than the
> "average", so it wasn't a matter of how much of
> me there was but the angle.)
When I get bumped, we just change the angle and go on. She could just be
extra-sensitive there.
> At the other end of the bell curve _may_ be some
> women who can actually handle having their cervix
> penetrated but I suspect this number would be rather small.
It's thought that's occurred to me to wonder what it would be like
(chess paints the act in such overwhelming terms!), but probably not
doable for anyone.
>>She won't put up with that either? She's missing
>>out on a lot. For most women at least half the
>>enjoyment of sex is foreplay. But then, she's
>>not most women....
>
> I *believe* (hopefully mistakenly) that she gets
> far more pleasure watching me clean house, do the
> dishes or run laundry. At least it _seems_ that
> way, given her facial expressions.
Yabbut.... she's got lots of issues around sex so she has to show her
satisfaction in other ways.
> We have enough *other* dysfunctions between us
> that it seems that whenever we start converging
> that something comes up to make our paths diverge again.
>
> Y'know, I'd like to think that I'm not a paingiver
> but my experiences seem to confirm that I'm _not_
> not very good at providing pleasure but too damn
> good at driving displeasure...
Your experience has been limited... and warped.
>>If it's a Hitachi kind of massager, why don't
>>you offer to use it on her neck or back? She
>>might not come to associate it with sex, but it
>>might help her unwind a little, at the least.
>
>
> Actually, I bought a smaller unit which isn't as
> easily impeded given her current weight but I have
> refused to use it on her, telling her she needs to
> choose to use it on herself, first.
>
> Why?
>
> Very simple, really. Until she chooses to focus
> on her own pleasure (by her own hands, etc) then
> anything *I* try to do is wasted effort. I've
> spent enough time in futile efforts with hands
> and/or tongue to get her up and interested before
> giving up and rolling over to get some sleep.
>
> (shakes head)
But you know she won't. In other posts you've written how she seems to
avoid comfort, let alone pleasure. She's not giving an inch and you're
going to have to accept that.
>>The surgery may well have affected the nerves
>>in that area and it takes a long time for them
>>to regenerate.
>
>
> My memory may have faded a bit or I'd misunderstood
> or misremembered this, but, before the hysterectomy,
> when I went looking for the g-spot (which is really
> only a paraurethral gland) it seemed her cervix
> (and maybe uterus) was in the way; I suspect this
> is what was meant by a "tipped" uterus.
It's one that's `dropped' or out of its normal place. My mother has one;
she's has four children, so it may be something that happens to women
after several pregnancies.
> Since the surgery I seemed to find it *once* but
> given the limited response (which was way more
> than I'd ever seen before) *and* lack of repeatability,
> I had to write off the search as futile.
>
> I don't know *why* her cervix and uterus were so
> sensitive but they _were_. I believe, though, it
> was likely because of the apparent internal
> arrangement. Given her responses at the time it
> was *not* detectably a sham.
>
> So if I was faced with another woman I would likely
> be _very_ leery of getting anywhere near her cervix-
> with *any* portion of my anatomy.
If you were faced with another woman, you should explore and find out
what *she* likes. We're all different, you know....
suzee
Nigel Rowe
Possibly you mean parallelepiped (alternately, parallelopiped,
parallelepipedon or parallelopipedon) a 3-dimensional polyhedron with six
parallelograms for faces
(I knew that word would come in useful one day.)
--
Nigel Rowe
A pox upon the spammers that make me write my address like..
rho (snail) swiftdsl (stop) com (stop) au
0mn1vore
(in message
<42a63a0c$0$77567$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>):
[Lots of good points, snipped.]
[...]
> Your experience has been limited... and warped.
>
Yes, I know that was for Jack, but all of a sudden I feel much
better about my own limited, warped experience, and now I want
some more. :-) Actually, there's a few reasons I'd want more,
right now, and a few reasons to notice that the real, live,
physical world isn't all bad. Someone piqued my appetite a while
ago, and then didn't come back for seconds. Good morning and
thank you, *thank_you* for the wake-up call, but I can't wait
around forever. Not another three years, anyway.
Oh well, plenty more where she came from...
Hope I can find someone as nice as you, Suzee. :-)
[...]
>
> If you were faced with another woman, you should explore and find out
> what *she* likes. We're all different, you know....
>
> suzee
Yes. Variety is the splice of life, and we are all uncontrolled
genetic experiments. So welcome one and all, tall, short, light,
dark, spotty, kinky, vanilla and green, to my lab, for a playful
bout of recombinant chromosome-swapping. ;-)
Okay, enough about me...
Jack, it sounds like your sense of self, sense of worth, sense of
sexual fun has been totally thrashed to sh!t over the past
[too-many] years, and I'm sorry about that, because judging from
everything I've ever read here -- from you, about you, and around
you -- you're a great guy, and the negative things you've said
about yourself are just not true. You're awesome, and if I was
gay I'd be all over you like white on rice [and isn't that `if'
part a relief right now? ;-) ].
Mister Jack C++ Lipton, LTFU, especially on yourself.
[And I'll try to do the same, here, and have a little fun while
I'm at it.]
0mn1vore
(in message <11acf4e...@news.supernews.com>):
Yeah, one of those. From the corner please, where there's more
icing. :-)
Jack C Lipton
> suzee wrote:
> [Lots of good points, snipped.]
> [...]
>
>> Your experience has been limited... and warped.
>
> Yes, I know that was for Jack, but all of a
> sudden I feel much better about my own limited,
> warped experience, and now I want some more. :-)
We all get some kind of emotional context from
every trauma we face in life; the problem, of
course, is that many of the conditioned-in
responses are either non-productive or otherwise
*wrong*... but, sometimes, the fiction of our
beliefs is what we hold on to.
I'm *finally* seeing a therapist from the
"cognitive behavioral therapy" school and I've
found it... enlightening.
We all build up emotional contexts that, in my
words, "defines a curve" of expectations, and,
like someone working from a theory and trying
to map raw data to it, the problem is that the
real world seldom matches what we think we
should be seeing. This causes people (like me)
who have been rejecting data points outside our
"curve of expectations" because they _don't_
fit our model/theory/belief from actually being
able to cope with reality.
Consider how this works in a more public venue.
The Shrub had his own "curve of expectations"
but any raw data charted that didn't fit the
curve got rejected... like the multiple data
points indicating that Saddam had no workable
WMDs. It's the same damn myopic mechanism
where one's own internal beliefs are NOT subject
to mid-course corrections based on *real* data.
>> If you were faced with another woman, you
>> should explore and find out what *she* likes.
>> We're all different, you know....
Agreed, though there are some "habits of thought"
that I'll have varying degrees of success at
adjusting or overcoming.
> Yes. Variety is the splice of life, and we
> are all uncontrolled genetic experiments.
> So welcome one and all, tall, short, light,
> dark, spotty, kinky, vanilla and green, to
> my lab, for a playful bout of recombinant
> chromosome-swapping. ;-)
Ummm... you suffer from a fetal attraction?
BTW the Hacker's Dictionary lists "SEX" as
"Software EXchange"... because, when you come
right down to it, it *IS* an exchange of the
executable code for a lifeform.
> Jack, it sounds like your sense of self,
> sense of worth, sense of sexual fun has
> been totally thrashed to sh!t over the
> past [too-many] years, and I'm sorry about
> that, because judging from everything I've
> ever read here -- from you, about you, and
> around you -- you're a great guy, and the
> negative things you've said about yourself
> are just not true. You're awesome, and if
> I was gay I'd be all over you like white
> on rice [and isn't that `if' part a relief
> right now? ;-) ].
Agreed, the "if" was reassuring... though I
have a *serious* squick when it comes to MM
contact.
Otherwise... kind of reassuring.
For a *long* time I have distrusted and so
discounted praise. I'm *still* having my
own issues with it, though now limited to
face-to-face delivery. A part of me waits
for the other shoe to drop. My therapist
has been getting me to *think* about this
and analyze why I tighten up. I _know_
why but learning that I needed to disconnect
the emotional response has *helped*.
> Mister Jack C++ Lipton, LTFU, especially
> on yourself.
Hey, I'm a paranoid. But I'm _good_ at it.
> [And I'll try to do the same, here, and
> have a little fun while I'm at it.]
I'm planning to put together a DeMotivational
Poster (like they have at www.despair.com)
for "Perspective" with the legend "Life is
too short to be taken serious but is still
too long to keep a stick up your ass" with
a photo/drawing of a casket being lowered
into a grave with a window showing the
dearly departed's buttocks... in effect
mooning the mourners.
suzee
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:24:26 -0700, suzee wrote
> (in message
> <42a63a0c$0$77567$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>):
>
> [Lots of good points, snipped.]
>
> [...]
>
>
>>Your experience has been limited... and warped.
>
>
> Yes, I know that was for Jack, but all of a sudden I feel much
> better about my own limited, warped experience, and now I want
> some more. :-) Actually, there's a few reasons I'd want more,
> right now, and a few reasons to notice that the real, live,
> physical world isn't all bad. Someone piqued my appetite a while
> ago, and then didn't come back for seconds. Good morning and
> thank you, *thank_you* for the wake-up call, but I can't wait
> around forever. Not another three years, anyway.
>
> Oh well, plenty more where she came from...
>
> Hope I can find someone as nice as you, Suzee. :-)
Thank you, kind sir.
suzee
0mn1vore
(in message
<42a66804$0$87409$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>):
You're welome. :-)
[Mmm, that warm sensation, half blushing, half relieved, when
somone takes a complement in the spirit it was intended. Thank
you, too. :-) ]
0mn1vore
(in message <slrndacob5....@soup2nets.darktech.org>):
> 0mn1vore wrote:
>> suzee wrote:
>> [Lots of good points, snipped.]
>> [...]
>>
>>> Your experience has been limited... and warped.
>>
>> Yes, I know that was for Jack, but all of a
>> sudden I feel much better about my own limited,
>> warped experience, and now I want some more. :-)
>
> We all get some kind of emotional context from
> every trauma we face in life; the problem, of
> course, is that many of the conditioned-in
> responses are either non-productive or otherwise
> *wrong*... but, sometimes, the fiction of our
> beliefs is what we hold on to.
>
[More about habits of thought vs actual sensory input, snipped.
But worth reading. :-) ]
>
>>> If you were faced with another woman, you
>>> should explore and find out what *she* likes.
>>> We're all different, you know....
>
> Agreed, though there are some "habits of thought"
> that I'll have varying degrees of success at
> adjusting or overcoming.
Complements and summarizes the snipped material.
>
>> Yes. Variety is the splice of life, and we
>> are all uncontrolled genetic experiments.
>> So welcome one and all, tall, short, light,
>> dark, spotty, kinky, vanilla and green, to
>> my lab, for a playful bout of recombinant
>> chromosome-swapping. ;-)
>
> Ummm... you suffer from a fetal attraction?
8888888888888888888888888888888888888888888888
No, more of a neural/hormonal/morphological syndrome, with
chromosome damage, and often associated with certain cognitive
dysfunctions. More common than you'd expect, actually. I think
it's called `male heterosexuality'. ;-)
>
> BTW the Hacker's Dictionary lists "SEX" as
> "Software EXchange"... because, when you come
> right down to it, it *IS* an exchange of the
> executable code for a lifeform.
Uh huh. :-)
[...]
>> negative things you've said about yourself
>> are just not true. You're awesome, and if
>> I was gay I'd be all over you like white
>> on rice [and isn't that `if' part a relief
>> right now? ;-) ].
>
> Agreed, the "if" was reassuring... though I
> have a *serious* squick when it comes to MM
> contact.
>
> Otherwise... kind of reassuring.
Oh. Umm. Well, umm... Then try to remember that Suzee had some
nice things to say too [and she said them better].
>
> For a *long* time I have distrusted and so
> discounted praise. I'm *still* having my
> own issues with it, though now limited to
> face-to-face delivery. A part of me waits
> for the other shoe to drop. My therapist
> has been getting me to *think* about this
> and analyze why I tighten up. I _know_
> why but learning that I needed to disconnect
> the emotional response has *helped*.
I get that too sometimes. I know where my talents are, but can
overreact to negatives [obvious or otherwise] and skim past the
complements. Or a comment that doesn't fit my self-image is met
with mild confusion.
`Really? Are you sure? Really? And you've known me *how* long?
Wow...'
I've heard about unrealistically *high* self esteem causing
problems too -- of the `American Idol' sort. I guess any
habituated thought that doesn't reflect on the real world is
going to cause problems. At least, if you mistake some idea or
other for the real thing [this is a *stories* group, where
fictions, lies, and outright truths mingle pretty freely, after
all].
I read a neat article a while ago, about people's insane
expectations for themselves; further reflections on `American
Idol' and the like. This one, brutally honest music producer was
going off about people who really have *no* musical talent at
all, insisting they do, and taking any word otherwise as a
put-down, instead of the helpful advice it was meant to be.
Doesn't mean they have no talent elsewhere. Doesn't mean they're
dumb or anything, but why do they keep trying to *sing*, he
wondered. And try to get paid for it? Nothing wrong with
singing badly, and having fun at it, but jeez...
So there's a flip-side recipe for disaster right there.
He also talked about how kids are amazingly realistic, with
regard to their own talents and shortcomings. Ask most of them
what they want to be when they grow up, and they'll respond with
things like; swimming instructor, because that seems like a
really cool thing to do.
Yeah, it probably is. :-)
Then at some point, they get whacked upside the head with this
Self Esteem nonsense, and they all want to be movie stars.
WTF... [Granted, since he works in the entertainment industry,
running into a disproportionate number of delusional wanne-be's
is just another occupational hazard. But still; WTF...]
>
>> Mister Jack C++ Lipton, LTFU, especially
>> on yourself.
>
> Hey, I'm a paranoid. But I'm _good_ at it.
Well that's a start. :-) Hmm, paranoia. Comes in handy for
closing security gaps, doesn't it?
>
>> [And I'll try to do the same, here, and
>> have a little fun while I'm at it.]
>
> I'm planning to put together a DeMotivational
> Poster (like they have at www.despair.com)
> for "Perspective" with the legend "Life is
> too short to be taken serious but is still
> too long to keep a stick up your ass" with
> a photo/drawing of a casket being lowered
> into a grave with a window showing the
> dearly departed's buttocks... in effect
> mooning the mourners.
>
I think I'd rather be cremated... with fireworks. 8-)
cmsix
"Jack C Lipton" <cupa...@peElMe.cx> wrote in message
news:slrndacob5....@soup2nets.darktech.org...
<snipitall to make room for the line I've wanted to add to this
thread, in honor of my favorite TV show ever>
Are you being cerved?
cmsix
cmsix
"0mn1vore" <pAb...@telus.wtf> wrote in message
news:0001HW.BECB9D1E...@news-60.giganews.com...
> On Tue, 7 Jun 2005 17:24:26 -0700, suzee wrote
> (in message
> <42a63a0c$0$77567$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>):
>
>
> Hope I can find someone as nice as you, Suzee. :-)
No one is as nice a suzee!
Chess
0mn1vore
(in message <psEpe.1942$751...@newssvr30.news.prodigy.com>):
Sorry, my mistake...
Someone faintly reminiscent of suzee then? Sort of? Maybe if
I'm really really lucky. I hope. Maybe.
Frank McCoy
Well ... It shows you notice what she's complaining about.
Jack C Lipton
><snipitall to make room for the line I've wanted to
> add to this thread, in honor of my favorite TV show ever>
>
> Are you being cerved?
or jumping to the "sex organ compared to a car" how
many women think they have a Honda CRV?
Then there's the NASA CRV project-- I recall there
were jokes about the X-CRV vs the CRV-X.
suzee
You trying to get on my good side, Omn1? <G>
suzee
0mn1vore
(in message
<42a7904d$0$93005$892e...@authen.white.readfreenews.net>):
No, I already knew you're with Kenny. Or cmsix... Whatever.
But I did like the clear, bullshit-cancelling supportiveness in
your reply to Jack C++. I liked that a lot, and it backs up what
cmsix said. :-)
suzee
> On Wed, 8 Jun 2005 17:44:46 -0700, suzee wrote:
>>>
>>>Sorry, my mistake...
>>>
>>>Someone faintly reminiscent of suzee then? Sort of? Maybe if
>>>I'm really really lucky. I hope. Maybe.
>>
>>You trying to get on my good side, Omn1? <G>
>>
>>suzee
>
>
> No, I already knew you're with Kenny. Or cmsix... Whatever.
Kenny. I just flirt with chess. Among others... ;)
> But I did like the clear, bullshit-cancelling supportiveness in
> your reply to Jack C++. I liked that a lot, and it backs up what
> cmsix said. :-)
Well see, I've read Jack's posts for about 2½ years now, in this group
and another, and also paid attention to any progress he's made on
figuring out *his* problems. I was just reminding him of stuff he
already knows.
suzee
Tesseract
celia batau wrote:
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> hi!
>
> "Jack C Lipton" <cupa...@peElMe.cx> wrote in message
> news:slrndacob5....@soup2nets.darktech.org...
> > 0mn1vore wrote:
> >> You're awesome, and if I was gay I'd be all over you like white
> >> on rice [and isn't that `if' part a relief right now? ;-) ].
>
> can we be white also?! can we be white also?! :)
>
> we like Jack. :)
>
> take care,
>
> -celia
>
Of course you can, Princess. Can I be rice?
(White is a mixture of all colors, so you can have a little of every
color -- one for each of you? -- and the perfect blend will be white.)
--
Tesseract
> --
> If love is a labor I'll slave 'til the end
> -Rise Against
Tim Merrigan
>
> vinnie...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>cmsix wrote:
>>
>>
>>>This particular blunder is among the many mistakes that caused me to
>>>attempt to rewrite "NanoVirus," though my progress as been limited.
>>>
>>>cmsix
>>>
>>
>>You get brownie points in my book for acknowledging and trying to fix
>>your mistakes.
>
>
> Not the whole brownie? Do brownies have points?
>
> --
> Tesseract
>
Well, there are the two on their chests.
--
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America,
and to the republic which it established, one nation, from many peoples,
promising liberty and justice for all.
Feel free to use the above variant pledge in your own postings.
Tim Merrigan
Jack C Lipton
> Tesseract remarked:
>> vinnie_tesla gushed:
>>>cmsix wrote:
>>>> This particular blunder is among the many mistakes
>>>> that caused me to attempt to rewrite "NanoVirus,"
>>>> though my progress as been limited.
>>>
>>> and trying to fix your mistakes.
>>
>> Not the whole brownie? Do brownies have points?
>
Only when they're chilled.
Tim Merrigan
> x-no-archive: yes
>
>
> "Tesseract" <HyperTe...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1118303430.3...@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com...
>
>>Of course you can, Princess. Can I be rice?
>
>
> chopsticks. Jack will be the bowl. cmsix will be the soy sauce. :)
>
> yummy steamy sticky rice! :)
>
> and when the music stops we'll all switch places. :)
>
> -celia (who's back from chicago and is in her new house and can actually
> maybe join in the conversations again :)
>
> --
> Soft hair and a velvet tongue
> I want to give you what you give to me
> and every breath that is in your lungs
> is a tiny little gift to me
> -White Stripes
>
>
Welcome back, I missed you after your announcement of your manumission.