The Receptionist....

DonDaddyD

Has anyone asked the OP if he felt the other guys ball bag smack against his own as they double teamed her from either side?

As a hetro male I don't think I could ride a tandem with another male...

DIESELDOG

DonDaddyD wrote:

Has anyone asked the OP if he felt the other guys ball bag smack against his own as they double teamed her from either side?

As a hetro male I don't think I could ride a tandem with another male...

Post of the week

Love n hugs

DD

flimflam_machine

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's not immoral - I just wouldn't be happy. Just because sex means something emotionally (in certain situations anyway) doesn't make it an act of morality.

It's a componant of a relationship sure, hence its inclusion in divorce, but it doesn't mean its moral.

Causing other people harm and/or unhappiness is generally considered to be a fairly decent guide to morality (from a humanist viewpoint at least). Any action that has consequences for other people is potentially a moral/immoral act. Sex obviously does have consequences, both physical and emotional so what specifically excludes sex from being "an act of morality"?

CiB

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Some stuff...

See there are things that can be thought but never need to be said out loud. The mechanics of a threesome being one of them. I reckon you need to spend the rest of the day doing the Security Awareness training, or the Diversity thing, or re-hashing your pension options, as punishment.

Same for DD too for bringing to mind the business of an alien set of plums knocking your own. Gruugh.

Greg T

So just to make sure we are all on the same page



No No No very bad man, shame, wrong and hell fire, think of the children and hamax, unfaithful worngness! But unhappy perhaps and understanding, seperation opens the door to perhaps and in fairness - might - but if fit and without flaming japanese knob rot then whey-hey and off we go - all red blooded males and all that - string support and let's all go for it



as for best post ever

DDD wrote:

it occurs to me that I've slept with more than one woman within a 24hr period. Chances are they've did exactly the same. (None of those girls I would ever make my girlfriend though... that's just dumb... OP I'm looking at you )

A paragon of virtue and semantics

rick_chasey

flimflam_machine wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's not immoral - I just wouldn't be happy. Just because sex means something emotionally (in certain situations anyway) doesn't make it an act of morality.

It's a componant of a relationship sure, hence its inclusion in divorce, but it doesn't mean its moral.

Causing other people harm and/or unhappiness is generally considered to be a fairly decent guide to morality (from a humanist viewpoint at least). Any action that has consequences for other people is potentially a moral/immoral act. Sex obviously does have consequences, both physical and emotional so what specifically excludes sex from being "an act of morality"?

Because it's more complicated than that. morality is this big judgement where things are either good or bad - when clearly it's neither.

The hurting someone gets complicated, espcially because it is an act between two people that, in isolation, hurts no-one. It's all the emotional baggae that comes with it, and that's impossible to define. Are swingers immoral? Is their sex a bad thing?

The sex isn't the thing that should be judged - it's the context in which it occurs that should be.

Ginjafro

Keep it up......all this talk about alien plum bashing, troilism, double ending and team work has brightened up my day! :shock:

notsoblue

Rick Chasey wrote:

The sex isn't the thing that should be judged - it's the context in which it occurs that should be.

This

Btw, what a brilliant thread. Its got everything!

Headhuunter

Rick Chasey wrote:

flimflam_machine wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's not immoral - I just wouldn't be happy. Just because sex means something emotionally (in certain situations anyway) doesn't make it an act of morality.

It's a componant of a relationship sure, hence its inclusion in divorce, but it doesn't mean its moral.

Causing other people harm and/or unhappiness is generally considered to be a fairly decent guide to morality (from a humanist viewpoint at least). Any action that has consequences for other people is potentially a moral/immoral act. Sex obviously does have consequences, both physical and emotional so what specifically excludes sex from being "an act of morality"?

Because it's more complicated than that. morality is this big judgement where things are either good or bad - when clearly it's neither.

The hurting someone gets complicated, espcially because it is an act between two people that, in isolation, hurts no-one. It's all the emotional baggae that comes with it, and that's impossible to define. Are swingers immoral? Is their sex a bad thing?

The sex isn't the thing that should be judged - it's the context in which it occurs that should be.

But the act of sex can cause an issue of morality and can therefore be described as moral or immoral, surely? If we're arguing that sex itself is simply an act and it's the surrounding circumstances that affect its morality, then surely the same can be said of just about any act which some would describe as immoral? If that is the case what is morality in isolation?

flimflam_machine

Rick Chasey wrote:

flimflam_machine wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

That's not immoral - I just wouldn't be happy. Just because sex means something emotionally (in certain situations anyway) doesn't make it an act of morality.

It's a componant of a relationship sure, hence its inclusion in divorce, but it doesn't mean its moral.

Causing other people harm and/or unhappiness is generally considered to be a fairly decent guide to morality (from a humanist viewpoint at least). Any action that has consequences for other people is potentially a moral/immoral act. Sex obviously does have consequences, both physical and emotional so what specifically excludes sex from being "an act of morality"?

Because it's more complicated than that. morality is this big judgement where things are either good or bad - when clearly it's neither.

That would be an absolute, objective morality and I'm not arguing for that.

The hurting someone gets complicated, espcially because it is an act between two people that, in isolation, hurts no-one. It's all the emotional baggae that comes with it, and that's impossible to define. Are swingers immoral? Is their sex a bad thing?

Indeed, sex isn't necessarily immoral I'm not arguing that it is. Relatively few acts are inherently immoral but many acts have a moral component because we have to weigh up the consequences for ourselves and others of action X vs. action not-X. Whacking someone with a D-lock is a priori immoral but it becomes moral if they are about to shoot someone else.

The sex isn't the thing that should be judged - it's the context in which it occurs that should be.

I sort of agree, it's the decision to have the sex that should be judged but it obviously has to be judged in the given context.

TuckerUK

:shock:

Why man WHY?

Are you short of SINGLE women in your area?

Eeeek.

If I decide to get frisky with a lady, I like to think that that makes me special to her, and vide versa. I'm rather particular about where I stick my bits, I like ladies to earn the right for that and prove their worthiness, and I like my partners to be similarly discerning.

CiB

TuckerUK wrote:

:shock:

Why man WHY?

Are you short of SINGLE women in your area?

Eeeek.

If I decide to get frisky with a lady, I like to think that that makes me special to her, and vide versa. I'm rather particular about where I stick my bits, I like ladies to earn the right for that and prove their worthiness, and I like my partners to be similarly discerning.

You're not the bloke I used to work with then - "Any hole's a goal...".

Carry on.

Greg T

Headhuunter wrote:

But the act of sex can cause an issue of morality and can therefore be described as moral or immoral, surely? If we're arguing that sex itself is simply an act and it's the surrounding circumstances that affect its morality, then surely the same can be said of just about any act which some would describe as immoral? If that is the case what is morality in isolation?

It's a nuanced argument....

Nork size has got to be taken into consideration - surely.

DonDaddyD

TuckerUK wrote:

:shock:

Why man WHY?

Are you short of SINGLE women in your area?

Eeeek.

If I decide to get frisky with a lady, I like to think that that makes me special to her, and vide versa. I'm rather particular about where I stick my bits, I like ladies to earn the right for that and prove their worthiness, and I like my partners to be similarly discerning.

Is it cold up there mate!?

flimflam_machine

Deadeyebumhole wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

But the act of sex can cause an issue of morality and can therefore be described as moral or immoral, surely? If we're arguing that sex itself is simply an act and it's the surrounding circumstances that affect its morality, then surely the same can be said of just about any act which some would describe as immoral? If that is the case what is morality in isolation?

It's a nuanced argument....

Nork size has got to be taken into consideration - surely.

That's a PhD thesis right there "Nork size and the ontological status of morality"

"...To conclude, in agreement with the writings of David Hume, the only logical conclusion is that, if she's got enormous norks, morality can go f*ck itself!"

drays

Deadeyebumhole wrote:

It's a nuanced argument....

Nork size has got to be taken into consideration - surely.

I agree - was she well fit?

rick_chasey

Headhuunter wrote:

[But the act of sex can cause an issue of morality and can therefore be described as moral or immoral, surely? If we're arguing that sex itself is simply an act and it's the surrounding circumstances that affect its morality, then surely the same can be said of just about any act which some would describe as immoral? If that is the case what is morality in isolation?

Bingo!

flimflam_machine

Rick Chasey wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

[But the act of sex can cause an issue of morality and can therefore be described as moral or immoral, surely? If we're arguing that sex itself is simply an act and it's the surrounding circumstances that affect its morality, then surely the same can be said of just about any act which some would describe as immoral? If that is the case what is morality in isolation?

Bingo!

Ah! So you're arguing for the non-existence of an objective morality, not a specific exclusion for sex.

That would make more sense.

Headhuunter

flimflam_machine wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

[But the act of sex can cause an issue of morality and can therefore be described as moral or immoral, surely? If we're arguing that sex itself is simply an act and it's the surrounding circumstances that affect its morality, then surely the same can be said of just about any act which some would describe as immoral? If that is the case what is morality in isolation?

Bingo!

Ah! So you're arguing for the non-existence of an objective morality, not a specific exclusion for sex.

That would make more sense.

So morality only exists in the mind of each individual and there is no objective moral judgement that we can make on another person's behaviour?

MaxwellBygraves

I agree with Nick. Sorry, Rick.

rick_chasey

Headhuunter wrote:

flimflam_machine wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

Headhuunter wrote:

[But the act of sex can cause an issue of morality and can therefore be described as moral or immoral, surely? If we're arguing that sex itself is simply an act and it's the surrounding circumstances that affect its morality, then surely the same can be said of just about any act which some would describe as immoral? If that is the case what is morality in isolation?

Bingo!

Ah! So you're arguing for the non-existence of an objective morality, not a specific exclusion for sex.

That would make more sense.

So morality only exists in the mind of each individual and there is no objective moral judgement that we can make on another person's behaviour?

Guys, guys - this is music to my ears.

lost_in_thought

hambones wrote:

<blah blah blah omg I'm great blah>


I have broken her heart as a consequence... such is life

Ohhhhh I sincerely doubt that.

Greg T

Headhuunter wrote:

So morality only exists in the mind of each individual and there is no objective moral judgement that we can make on another person's behaviour?

Not if you are battered....

Wrecked out of your head on Stella - or preferably leffe (three pnts and you are in fighting order - it's great) - you can poke your moral equivalence book reading up your hoop and stand by.

Monthy Python, Philosphers Song wrote:

Immanuel Kant was a real pissant who was very rarely stable,
Heidegger, Heidegger was a boozy beggar who could think you under the table,
David Hume could out-consume Schopenhauer and Hegel,
And Wittgenstein was a beery swine who was just as schloshed as Schlegel.
There's nothing Nietzsche couldn't teach ya 'bout the turning of the wrist,
Socrates himself was permanently pissed...
John Stuart Mill, of his own free will, with half a pint of shandy was
particularly ill,

Plato, they say, could stick it away, half a crate of whiskey every day,
Aristotle, Aristotle was a beggar for the bottle,
Hobbes was fond of his dram,
And Rene Descartes was a drunken fart, "I drink therefore I am."
Yes, Socrates himself is particularly missed;
A lovely little thinker but a bugger when he's pissed

greg66_tri_v2.0

CiB wrote:

Kieran_Burns wrote:

Some stuff...

See there are things that can be thought but never need to be said out loud. The mechanics of a threesome being one of them.

It is really mechanics, or is it really logistics? I have never been able to fathom that one.

Nice to see that despite the OP binning said burd for getting it on with his co-paramour, (rather than binning her because he was not invited to said getting on), the general population here gets counting "one, two, three,... HEY! WAIDAMINNIT! THREE!" and goes apesh!t.

Perhaps some Guinness would ease things along

greg66_tri_v2.0

lost_in_thought wrote:

hambones wrote:

<blah blah blah omg I'm great blah>


I have broken her heart as a consequence... such is life

Ohhhhh I sincerely doubt that.

Oh - trust you to be the cynic!

lost_in_thought

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

hambones wrote:

<blah blah blah omg I'm great blah>


I have broken her heart as a consequence... such is life

Ohhhhh I sincerely doubt that.

Oh - trust you to be the cynic!

Ah you boys. Fragility is not the first thing that springs to mind when reading about this receptionist.

EKE_38BPM

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

hambones wrote:

<blah blah blah omg I'm great blah>


I have broken her heart as a consequence... such is life

Ohhhhh I sincerely doubt that.

Oh - trust you to be the cynic!

Ah you boys. Fragility is not the first thing that springs to mind when reading about this receptionist.

I don't think its just that receptionist, it seems to be all of the receptionists at that place!

flimflam_machine

Headhuunter wrote:

flimflam_machine wrote:

Ah! So you're arguing for the non-existence of an objective morality, not a specific exclusion for sex.

That would make more sense.

So morality only exists in the mind of each individual and there is no objective moral judgement that we can make on another person's behaviour?

Well, morality certainly doesn't exist independent of the mind/brain. Or if it does then we've not found it yet, maybe the LHC will turn it up .

I don't think that means that you can't reasonably make a judgement on other people's behaviour though. Whether unecessary harm/distress was caused/whether the perpetrator would welcome equivalent treatment/whether that would be the action of an ideal agent under no duress etc. are all reasonable frameworks within which to make such a decision. Our perception of morality does seem to have an objective basis in our evolved tendency for cooperation and mutual altruism and our recognition of other people as feeling entities with emotions that are equivalent to ours. So the lack of a completely objective measure for morality (e.g., "that act was 2.73 wrong!") doesn't mean that we're just making it up as we go along, finessing it certainly but hopefully getting closer to the underlying tendencies.

greg66_tri_v2.0

EKE_38BPM wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

Greg66 wrote:

lost_in_thought wrote:

hambones wrote:

<blah blah blah omg I'm great blah>


I have broken her heart as a consequence... such is life

Ohhhhh I sincerely doubt that.

Oh - trust you to be the cynic!

Ah you boys. Fragility is not the first thing that springs to mind when reading about this receptionist.

I don't think its just that receptionist, it seems to be all of the receptionists at that place!

Perhaps some japester sprays the receptionist's chair with a pheromone...

veronese68

Getting back to nork sizes
Einstein was born March 14, 1879. He would be 132 if he were alive today.
Few people remember that the Nobel Prize winner married his cousin, Elsa
Lowenthal, after his first marriage dissolved in 1919. At the time he stated
that he was attracted to Elsa because she was so well endowed... He postulated
that if you are attracted to women with large breasts, the attraction is even
stronger if there is a DNA connection. This came to be known as Einstein's Theory of Relative Titty