Miki(masochist female)
|
4 years ago •
Oct 11, 2020
Hypnotist wrote: Miki wrote: I simply like calling myself that because it earns me spankings.
As I said previously, something needs to be done about that. You read my mind. Fucking A |
|
|
Online now
| The Thinker(sadist male){NotLooking} |
4 years ago •
Oct 11, 2020
What did A ever do to you, Niki?
|
|
|
amalthea(sub female){Mr Gregory}
|
4 years ago •
Oct 11, 2020
Re: Be mindful
I don't mind if others don't communicate the way I do. What I don't get is why others do mind if I don't communicate the way they do.
If you and I were chatting 1 on 1 your Communication style isn't bothersome at all. In a forum however, open to many to view, there can be a need to be more diplomatic and careful. Think President Trump...his communication style is wretched! But, it is who he is or so he says. If he wants to behave that way privately that is for him to decide but in public as our leader, no. I am NOT saying you are Trump. Dear, God, that would be cruel. I am just using it as an example. So, 1 on 1. I really do not mind your communication style at all. On a forum, I am encouraging you to self examine. Honestly, if I didn't think you had some interesting stuff to say I wouldn't bother. Have a good Sunday |
|
|
| Defender(dom male) |
4 years ago •
Oct 11, 2020
If only Miki lived in England........
|
|
|
| The Thinker(sadist male){NotLooking} |
4 years ago •
Oct 12, 2020
Re: Be mindful amalthea wrote: I don't mind if others don't communicate the way I do. What I don't get is why others do mind if I don't communicate the way they do.
If you and I were chatting 1 on 1 your Communication style isn't bothersome at all. In a forum however, open to many to view, there can be a need to be more diplomatic and careful. Think President Trump...his communication style is wretched! But, it is who he is or so he says. If he wants to behave that way privately that is for him to decide but in public as our leader, no. I am NOT saying you are Trump. Dear, God, that would be cruel. I am just using it as an example. So, 1 on 1. I really do not mind your communication style at all. On a forum, I am encouraging you to self examine. Honestly, if I didn't think you had some interesting stuff to say I wouldn't bother. Have a good Sunday amalthea, Trump is a public servant, elected by the people, to play a certain role, with incredible influence. I am a private individual on an anonymous internet site with no influence on anyone. The comparison was ... strange. I don't make personal attacks, call names, or swear. Id I do, call me out, and I will apologize and efit my post. I present my opinion in a cal, unemotional, logical fashion with back ups as requested. I believe your point is that my opinions may upset people, so I should self-censor. It's unfortunate. I am a dyed in the wool card carrying leftist, but this new generation of leftists that put feelings over anything else is what is going to cause the downfall of the left (just as the MAGAs caused the downfall of the right). |
|
|
Zerospace(dom male){Amalthea}
|
4 years ago •
Oct 12, 2020
Enough. The Thinker wrote: A few years ago, researchers at UCLA and Baylor University made a stunning find: When the Rhode Island legislature inadvertently decriminalized indoor prostitution for a number of years, that state saw a 31 percent decline in reported rapes and a similar decline in cases of gonorrhea. Now comes a new Dutch study that finds much the same causal relationship between decriminalizing prostitution and reducing crime. Researchers at a public research institute in the Netherlands discovered that when major cities in that country opened tippelzones, or areas where street prostitutes could work legally, reports of rape and sexual abuse declined by as much as 30 to 40 percent in the first two years after the zones were opened. In cities that licensed the prostitutes permitted to work in these tippelzones, rapes and sexual abuse dropped by as much as 40 percent, while the reductions in sexual violence were slightly lower in zones that did not enforce the licensing of sex workers." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/legal-prostitution-zones-reduce-incidents-of-rape-and_b_58c83be1e4b01d0d473bce8a So this is my last nerve on this matter. I tried to politely dialogue with you over private messages about this topic, but you decided to respond to my initial presentation (which was not, if you read clearly, my final say on the matter) with rudeness and ego. You accused me of being an academic in the most derogatory sense, when it is you who sounds like every close-minded lazy academic I've ever met. And as a former college professor, I've met a lot. So here is my final retort on this matter, Thinker. Your HuffPost article is poorly researched and completely unfounded. It cites a couple research projects that have, as any proper researcher can tell, spurious conclusions at best. They make no effort to explore the broader definition of sexual assault, instead focusing on reports of sexual assault as they pertain to sex workers. These data do not include ANY of the more prominent but less reported forms of incest, date rape, etc. Not to mention, these studies cited by HuffPost do not even bother to explore what changes were made to the legal definitions of sexual assault as they pertain to sex workers post-legalization. In other words, police don't have to consider an act sexual assault if the john paid the sex worker (who was always primarily considered the criminal in these situations). Now, it is just business malpractice at worst. See the following article for this point and more: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prostitution-decriminalisation-sexual-violence-stis-reduction-sex-work-exploitation-a8120631.html Meanwhile, you are neglecting the larger negative impacts of legalizing prostitution, such as noted increases in human trafficking. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=205055 Again, I can keep going. But I won't because you probably just ignored every damn thing I said. I told you in our private chat that this topic was far more complicated and nuanced than your theory allowed. You didn't want to listen. That seems to be your thing. Mic dropped. I'm done. Feel free to sit on it and rotate. I suggest the rest of you folks do what I should have done in the first place and stop feeding this troll. My bad. Lesson learned. |
|
|
|
Miki(masochist female)
|
4 years ago •
Oct 12, 2020
Defender wrote: If only Miki lived in England........
You just got yourself a friend . Would that I could live in Ol' Blighty! Nothing like Mad Dogs and Englishmen, mate! |
|
|
| The Thinker(sadist male){NotLooking} |
4 years ago •
Oct 12, 2020
Re: Enough. Zerospace wrote: The Thinker wrote: A few years ago, researchers at UCLA and Baylor University made a stunning find: When the Rhode Island legislature inadvertently decriminalized indoor prostitution for a number of years, that state saw a 31 percent decline in reported rapes and a similar decline in cases of gonorrhea. Now comes a new Dutch study that finds much the same causal relationship between decriminalizing prostitution and reducing crime. Researchers at a public research institute in the Netherlands discovered that when major cities in that country opened tippelzones, or areas where street prostitutes could work legally, reports of rape and sexual abuse declined by as much as 30 to 40 percent in the first two years after the zones were opened. In cities that licensed the prostitutes permitted to work in these tippelzones, rapes and sexual abuse dropped by as much as 40 percent, while the reductions in sexual violence were slightly lower in zones that did not enforce the licensing of sex workers." https://www.huffpost.com/entry/legal-prostitution-zones-reduce-incidents-of-rape-and_b_58c83be1e4b01d0d473bce8a So this is my last nerve on this matter. I tried to politely dialogue with you over private messages about this topic, but you decided to respond to my initial presentation (which was not, if you read clearly, my final say on the matter) with rudeness and ego. You accused me of being an academic in the most derogatory sense, when it is you who sounds like every close-minded lazy academic I've ever met. And as a former college professor, I've met a lot. So here is my final retort on this matter, Thinker. Your HuffPost article is poorly researched and completely unfounded. It cites a couple research projects that have, as any proper researcher can tell, spurious conclusions at best. They make no effort to explore the broader definition of sexual assault, instead focusing on reports of sexual assault as they pertain to sex workers. These data do not include ANY of the more prominent but less reported forms of incest, date rape, etc. Not to mention, these studies cited by HuffPost do not even bother to explore what changes were made to the legal definitions of sexual assault as they pertain to sex workers post-legalization. In other words, police don't have to consider an act sexual assault if the john paid the sex worker (who was always primarily considered the criminal in these situations). Now, it is just business malpractice at worst. See the following article for this point and more: https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/prostitution-decriminalisation-sexual-violence-stis-reduction-sex-work-exploitation-a8120631.html Meanwhile, you are neglecting the larger negative impacts of legalizing prostitution, such as noted increases in human trafficking. https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=205055 Again, I can keep going. But I won't because you probably just ignored every damn thing I said. I told you in our private chat that this topic was far more complicated and nuanced than your theory allowed. You didn't want to listen. That seems to be your thing. Mic dropped. I'm done. Feel free to sit on it and rotate. I suggest the rest of you folks do what I should have done in the first place and stop feeding this troll. My bad. Lesson learned. Sighs. |
|
|
|
Truppensturm(sub male)
|
4 years ago •
Oct 14, 2020
Hello
First off I apologize because I didnt read the whole topic. I have a question that I can hopefully ask here. I am on a dating site and was wondering what type of profile picture would attract a master. I don't want to publicly display my facepic (those are hidden behind a share feature), so I was wondering what else I could show that would hopefully pique the interest of a dom/master that would visit my profile. Would it be a picture that shows me in a submissive position? I am a gay submissive man. I feel like showing x-rated pictures would send the wrong signal, as I am not looking for just sex. Sorry if the answer is somewhere buried in this topic. If that is the case I will definetely go back. |
|
|
Sasa(dom female)
|
4 years ago •
Oct 14, 2020
Be just you
|
|
|