I was circumsized by a crazy ass goat when I was in my early teens. Let this be a lesson to you. Never slap a goat in his head when he is giving you head. It's true. They will eat anything.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by loki: you can pick it up at your local bookstore. if they don't have it in, get them to order it; they'll order in anything, even the anarchists cookbook<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes i know.. i got my local bookstore to order me pihkal, and the sequel, tihkal, by alexander shulgin..... but that wasn't my point... i want a txt copy i can download for free,nada,gratis... i'd rather not pay for the book.... if i don't find a free downloadable copy somewhere i guess i'll bite the bullet and buy it.. or get onea my crack-monkies to steal me a copy.... but i don't wanna read it THAT much yet.... i'm still re-reading hannibal, while watching the vcd, while checking whats been changed.... (quite a lot as it happens)... hannibal... my verdict.. movie .. ok/good book .. excellent..
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skully: It's not a rare book. Last I checked, they had dozens on display, like it was a new Richard Simmons book.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> yes i know... i was in the bookshop today and they had a few copies... but i'd rather not buy it at the moment.. there are other books i wanna read more...
Why are they better in bed?How does a bit od foreskin make you worse in bed? Confused!!!(im only little)
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by littleErn: How does a bit od foreskin make you worse in bed? <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Depends if you like cheese or not.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by littleErn: Why are they better in bed?How does a bit od foreskin make you worse in bed? Confused!!!(im only little)<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Dunno really, just no one I've slept with who's got foreskin has hit that spot yet!! I'll keep searchin!!
i'm not circumsised... and i'm good in bed.. not got much of a foreskin tho... it seemed to recede when i hit puberty... so scraw may have some point there... but it's not the old 'new moon' circumsision scar that hit's the spot.. it's a missing foreskin that does it.... fucking hell... too much information... i'm gonna keep my dick outta the forum!!
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PimpDaddy: i'd like to read the book.... anyone know where i can get a txt copy of it??<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> here
ahem.... i am not paying $12 for it free!! dammit... like the gutenberg project... except obviously it's under copyright still... so....
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Scrawine: Dunno really, just no one I've slept with who's got foreskin has hit that spot yet!! I'll keep searchin!!<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You'll have to do a lot of research to draw anything conclusive! I heard that circumsized guys are better in bed because the lack of foreskin means more friction during intercourse and therefore more sensation for the women. Any truth to this? Is the difference really that noticeable?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PimpDaddy: i'm not circumsised... and i'm good in bed.. not got much of a foreskin tho... it seemed to recede when i hit puberty... so scraw may have some point there... but it's not the old 'new moon' circumsision scar that hit's the spot.. it's a missing foreskin that does it.... fucking hell... too much information... i'm gonna keep my dick outta the forum!! <HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Please do pimp. Somethings are better left unsaid.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by PimpDaddy: ahem.... i am not paying $12 for it free!! dammit... like the gutenberg project... except obviously it's under copyright still... so....<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> Ill tell you what Ill xerox the good stuff and mail it to you for 50 cents.... And you cheap whore!! 12 bucks aint bad!! you shell out 15 for a cheap hooker in D'nang but not a good peice of reading! bad pimp....bad...
Well, what with me always being willing to enhance a womans pleasure... I thought I might try a little 'Home circumcision' But tell me guys... Do you think I took enough off?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Skully: Did Patrick Bateman really commit the murders? Clearly, American Psycho dedicates many scenes to establish the superficiality of its characters, mostly by placing them in frivolous situations. Nevertheless, the film does not render the characters decadent or perverse enough to allow the criminal behaviors of Patrick Bateman. Still, the society's illogical indifference toward Patrick's questionable activities seems to point to the possibility that perhaps Patrick Bateman did not commit the murders but simply fantasized about them. This troubling notion of ambiguity is complemented by the fact that the protagonist offers a subjective --and perhaps unreliable-- narration. However, one must first understand the symbiotic relationship between Patrick Bateman and his society, in order to know if Patrick Bateman really committed the murders, and if so, why he didn't get caught. There are thirteen instances in which Patrick Bateman reveals some truth about his psychosis, and in which he also benefits (or suffers) from not being understood or not being heard. In all cases there is a type of "justifier" which explains the other's indifference or lack of reaction to Patrick's psychosis. The first instance recalls the scene in a dance club, where Patrick is not heard by the female bartender as he threatens to murder her. In this case, the "justifier" is the loud music. The second instance involves a Chinese couple at a cleaners, who Patrick violently insults for not accepting to clean his bloodstained sheets. The justifier here is the fact that all three characters cannot communicate effectively in the same language. Patrick expresses his rage but is not understood; the non English-speaking Chinese woman reacts to the blood stains, but is not understood by Patrick. (In this same scene, Patrick unexpectedly encounters an old girlfriend, who seems shocked as she notices the bloodstained sheets, but who is nevertheless distracted by her own eagerness to set up a date with Patrick.) The third instance pertains to a scene where Patrick socializes with a group of women. One, a model, asks him "what he does", and although Patrick answers honestly "...mostly murders and executions," she understands a more logical "mergers and acquisitions." Here, the justifier is her logical expectations plus the similar sounds of the phrase. In the fourth instance, Paul Allen is about to be murdered. Offering what seems like a warning, Patrick tells him: "I like to dissect girls," yet in this case the justifier is that Paul Allen is too drunk and he naturally has the justification to doubt what he heard. In the fifth instance, Patrick drags Paul's corpse, which he put inside a large bag, across the lobby of his apartment building, and passes the building's security guard. Incredibly, the guard does not notice a trail of blood across the lobby's floor. This may be regarded as proof that there was no trail of blood, and therefore no murder. However, although this instance does confront the viewer with what is occurring versus what is unlikely to occur (i.e., the guard not seeing the blood), the scene acts in support of the notion that most characters lack the instinct or the will to see (and much less to question) the symptoms of Patrick's psychosis. The justifier for this instance recalls the medium-long shot of a weary guard sitting in a low chair behind a high counter, who with a glance recognizes Patrick and instantly lowers his eyes to the original position, resuming whatever he was doing. In the sixth (and most effective) instance, Patrick is recognized by an acquaintance as he loads the bag/corpse inside the trunk of a car. The friend looks at the unnaturally bulky bag with an expression of awe and states: "Ooh!... Where did you get that overnight bag?" Clearly, the justifier is the character's instinctive attention to the material, superficial aspects of his surroundings. The seventh instance is the most extreme. In this scene, Patrick feels persecuted and desperately needs to unmask himself. He calls his lawyer and confesses to his answering machine that he has killed many people, including Paul Allen. When he encounters the lawyer soon afterwards, the lawyer not only congratulates him for the joke but has mistaken Patrick for another client of his. The justifier stresses the lawyer's incapacity to distinguish between a real and a false declaration of guilt, and emphasizes the lawyer's resistance toward the notion of truth. Furthermore, having confused Patrick with someone else establishes the lawyer's unreliability and tendency to confuse people. This weakens the lawyer's statement that he had seen the supposedly dead Paul Allen in London. The eighth and ninth instances involve Patrick's fiancée Evelyn, and his secretary Jean. In the first instance, Patrick and Evelyn are in a restaurant and he decides to terminate the engagement, adding vaguely that he has problems and that he needs help. During this explanation, Patrick draws on the table's paper cover a woman being split open with a chain saw. Although signs are provided to point out Patrick's psychotic tendencies (which he seems to want to communicate), the justifier shows that Evelyn is too distracted by the thrill of spotting an acquaintance at a distance. In the ninth instance, Patrick suffers a crisis and calls Jean from a pay phone. However revealing his words, the noise from the street drowns his voice and provides the justifier which exempts Jean from hearing Patrick's confession. (Jean, however, is the only character who gains some understanding of Patrick's psychosis. She is also the only character who addresses Patrick with a meaningful idea. [She asks: "Have you ever wanted to make someone happy?"]. Jean is the only character who Patrick shows some sympathy for and who he spontaneously decides not to kill. Lastly, Jean is the only character who discovers the sadistic drawings that evidence Patrick Bateman's psychosis.) The tenth and most important instance where Patrick Bateman is misjudged involves detective Donald Kimball, who seems to have the information necessary to reveal Patrick's culpability of Paul Allen's disappearance. Kimball promises to be a pivotal character who will determine the fate of Patrick Bateman. However, during a lunch meeting, Kimball clears Patrick's fear of being caught by explaining that someone claimed that Patrick had dinner with the usual group of friends on the night and the time of the murder. Although the viewer might seem confused with this information and may begin to doubt the reality of Paul's death, an important justifier returns all culpability to Patrick Bateman: due to the fact that the usual group of friends is previously seen making reservation after reservation, day after day, night after night, and that the same group of friends is also seen drinking or using drugs, it is therefore acceptable and expected that the friend might have automatically assumed that Patrick had joined the group that evening, as he so commonly did. One may argue that, in the eleventh instance, it was no coincidence that detective Kimball showed Patrick the "Hip to Be Square" compact disc to test his reaction, as he claims simply to have recently purchased it. Perhaps it seems likely that Kimball knew about Patrick's murder scene in which he played this song. However, it is important not to deny the fact that the music pertains to the 1980s and explains the fact that millions of Americans purchased the same music. Thus, the setting (1980s New York) acts as the justifier for this instance. The twelfth instance offers an ambiguous resolution to the mechanics of eliminating the evidence sorrounding the murder case of Paul Allen. After Patrick has met with detective Kimball, who "figures out" that Patrick "could not have been" the murderer, Patrick goes back to the slaughter house, that is, Paul Allen's apartment. Before entering, Patrick places a painter's mask to cover his mouth and nose from the expected stench of the victims' decomposing corpses. This detail implies an ellipses of time between the revelation of the "hidden compartments" full of victims (during Christie's forced tour of the house) and the present moment. As he enters the apartment, Patrick (and the viewer) is completely astounded by the turn of events: the blood stained walls are perfectly white, the apartment is empty, and there are people touring the apartment. Discovering empty buckets of white paint where the corpses had originally been, Patrick's painter's mask nicely proves to be a justifier to the woman who now approaches him. She is a real estate agent who questions Patrick's presence. Realizing he is "looking for Paul Allen's place," she lowers her voice and warns: "Listen, I don't want any trouble here," and asks Patrick to leave. How may this instance be justified? In spite of the effective ambiguity that seems to support the idea that no slaughters ever occurred, there is a quite simple and logical explanation which consistently integrates the society's concern for "outer perfection" and for projecting a perfect image of oneself. The justifier for the thirteenth instance, therefore, proves that as everything points to Paul Allen being the one responsible for all the murders, his family then needs to avoid the scandal. This refers back to an interrogation scene, where Kimball explains that there is no information regarding Paul's disappearance on the newspaper in order to keep the case private. Lastly, a final justifier may also point to society's concern for material objects, and wealth, as it suggests that selling the apartment is a priority (perhaps it would have been more difficult to sell a slaughter house), thus pointing to the inflated value of New York's real estate market. All 13 instances (in which Patrick reveals some truth about his psychosis but is nevertheless misunderstood, not seen or not heard) establish an ambiguity in order to portray a society which --for whatever the reason or the justifier-- does not listen and does not question the truth nor explore the veracity behind recognizable facades. The importance of the "justifiers" lies in that they offer the justifications necessary for understanding why the protagonist is not fully known nor understood by the other characters. The fact that the justifiers describe how Patrick Bateman could in fact commit the murders and not get caught, proves that it is possible for him to commit the murders within this type of society and not get caught. Due to the fact that American Psycho is narrated by Patrick Bateman, the events are narrated through his subjective --and therefore, "doubt-filled"-- point of view. However, the fact that the serial killer doubts his own crimes, and that the way the film is narrated transmits this doubt, does not signify that the crimes did not exist. Simply put, Patrick Bateman --the serial killer-- does not cease to exist simply because the others do not react to his existence nor to his actions. Patrick Bateman did commit the murders. Patrick Bateman is defined as a serial killer whose psychosis will remain unchanged, untouched and undefined by the society that is deaf, blind and detached enough to perpetuate his lack of identity. Toward the end of American Psycho, Patrick Bateman refers to the others' lack of reaction as he narrates his conclusive realization that "there is no catharsis... no punishment." He continues, "I gain no deeper knowledge of myself." These powerful statements accurately reflect the Sartrean notion that one's perception of one's identity, one's actions, and even one's existence is defined by the Others' perception of oneself. Therefore, the ambiguities of what is real and what is fantasy, which are established by the Others' lack of reaction, do not conclude that Patrick Bateman did not commit the murders; instead, they prove that due to the Others' lack of reaction, Patrick Bateman doubts his own identity, his actions, and even his existence. Thus, Patrick resolves: "I simply am not there." This carries the Sartrean notion further, in that the lack of the Others' reaction to oneself and one's actions does not render one's self nor one's actions nonexistent. Rather, the Others' definition of oneself influence one's perceptions and one's way of defining oneself. In Patrick Bateman's case, his perception of himself is the direct result of the Others' definition of Patrick Bateman. Yet the Others' offer no definition of Patrick Bateman which would differentiate him from the other cookie-cutter males. (This is either due to the Others' indifference or to their incapacity to distinguish between the cookie-cutter males.) Patrick Bateman has no real perception or definition of himself, and the Others' lack of reaction produce his lack of identity. Patrick Bateman's lack of identity and his constant drive to capture a definition of himself (a definition which the camera does capture by creating visual portraits of Patrick-Bateman-the-murderer) enables the character to feel compelled to kill and destroy others. Thus, as a serial killer, Patrick Bateman is able to constantly reinforce his own perception of his empty, emotionless self through the repeated anihilation of the Others' --that is, of his victims'-- identities. An American psycho who personifies the notably American phenomenon of serial killing by embodying the undying symptoms of a society that "simply is not there," Patrick Bateman will probably live forever.<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> You know that you can just insert a link to these stories right? fucking long ass posts suck.
and yes I meant to re-post that long ass shit...ok I'm lying, I suck just act like I'm not fucking here
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR>Originally posted by Silent But Deadly: you shell out 15 for a cheap hooker in D'nang but not a good peice of reading! bad pimp....bad...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE> i only paid $2 for that slant fuck... you should remember... you had her sister.. the 9 year old.. and YOU were the one who paid 15 bucks... i guess that shrapnel gave you a selective memory loss.... 'cos you still owe me $50 for that new trolley you use to get about centralpark
i read this somewhere, dont ask me where cause it was a while back. this is what i remember: some guys that are not cucumsized complain of little feelings of sensation while having sex. because of this, they last a long time before reaching orgasm. pinkorbrown69: still need to take off some more...
