Annoying Questions I'd Like Answered...

violence in the media · Thu Jun 23, 2011 12:35 pm

Maj wrote:
Chamomile wrote:If I ever have a family, I hope to make it tradition that we will primarily live out of a single, gigantic house. It just seems cool.
My mom is like that. She would also be perfectly happy with one big piece of property with lots of little houses on it for each section of her family (because we need a place to put our stuff, right?). That's how her family was growing up.

My wife's family lives like this. They have 40 acres in Plant City and her parents, one her aunts, her grandmother, and her great grandmother all have their houses on the property.

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Jul 03, 2011 1:45 am

I don't have any money, but would like antidepressants.

How does someone without money get a script for such a thing? Last time I was on any meds, the meds themselves were covered under PPA, but I had to see a doc every 3 months and that ran $250 without insurance.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 2:43 am

As far as I know, you pretty much have to see a doctor every three months to get the scripts renewed - they won't just write "with 35 repeats" on it and say "come back in three years".

Partially because it's sort of their duty to keep regular contact and make sure you're not dead/reacting badly to the meds.

So... does America have doctors that bulk-bill, with the public health care system covering the cost?

Count Arioch the 28th · Sun Jul 03, 2011 3:13 pm

I don't think we have that. Despite what Tzor says, there's nearly no federal charity in America. Stuff like that is state-run, and the state I live in runs from radical conservative to slightly less radical conservative. So I would be surprised if there's any government aid. It is possible that a private agency might offer such a thing, I just don't know where to look.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Sun Jul 03, 2011 11:19 pm

Look up local free clinics who may be able to refer you to charitable doctors that don't charge for visits - they may be able to set you up with appointments and prescriptions.

Not that I'm advocating it, but when I was taking drugs that I didn't see a doctor for, I bought them online from other countries.

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:57 am

I have another question. I'm not saying this to stir shit up, I'm curious on this one:

How come that (with few exceptions), women I know make loud and bold statements about how a man is incapable of pleasing a woman it's completely socially acceptable (and even attract men who are looking for a challenge), but when I make the claim that every woman I've been with has been incapable of pleasing me, I'm considered misogynistic?

I'm just curious. My current theory is that 99% of the population are so wrapped up in their own comings and goings they are incapable of pleasing anyone. (I have never had sex with a man before, I'm just assuming they are as incapable of grasping the concept that sex is something you do with someone and not something done to you as women are. I am not feeling adventurous enough to try it).

I'm just curious about the double standard here.

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 8:35 am

I'd assume that it's because men being unable to satisfy women is a well worn trope with a great deal of truth behind it. That the reverse is occasionally true is so rare as to make misogyny a more likely explanation.

You have got to date different women

RobbyPants · Post by **RobbyPants** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:00 pm

Double standards and cultural bias?

sabs · Post by **sabs** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 12:03 pm

It is culturally assumed that the only thing a woman needs to be good in bed, is to actually be IN the bed.

tzor · Post by **tzor** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 2:26 pm

Count Arioch the 28th wrote:I have another question. I'm not saying this to stir shit up, I'm curious on this one:

How come that (with few exceptions), women I know make loud and bold statements about how a man is incapable of pleasing a woman it's completely socially acceptable (and even attract men who are looking for a challenge), but when I make the claim that every woman I've been with has been incapable of pleasing me, I'm considered misogynistic?

Robbypants hit the nail on the head. There is a double standard. Some attitudes and statements that a man might make might be off limits while the same statements from women are either glossed over or are considered acceptable. Most men aren't supposed to talk like "sailors" in mixed company; most women are given a free pass to do so.

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Jul 07, 2011 3:32 pm

Blasted wrote:
You have got to date different women

At this point, I've accepted there is something very wrong with me and I am completely unable to attract women that aren't like that.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 4:22 pm

I'm no expert on male anatomy (technically I'm no expert on ANY anatomy, I just have more experience with the female variety), but from what I've been told, it's usually pretty easy to provide pleasure and orgasm to a male:

"Here is the tummy-banana, rub your thumb over the head or slide your hand up and down the shaft, combine both for best results. You might want lubricant. Tight is good, but there is a limit. Don't go so fast as to tear anything, because you'll be the one explaining it in ER. You'll know you're doing it right when your face suddenly gets splattered with spunk. Keep going for a few seconds so they can ride it out, after that they're spent."

If that's really all there is to it, then it's simpler because with my very limited experience, I've already found more variety when it comes to stimulating lady parts.

What's worst is, few females get much pleasure/get off from vaginal stimulation. It's generally all in the clit. Which rarely gets that much attention from basic penetration and sex. Basically, doing sex the standard way makes it easy for the guy to get off, and not the girl.

Hence it is probably best that they not intermingle, it's not going to work - it's hard to keep both happy at the same time. Let girls be with girls, where a small amount of familiarity can go a long way (and they're not going cross-purposes with the acts), and guys with guys (for the same reasons).

Count Arioch the 28th · Thu Jul 07, 2011 5:39 pm

I don't know if women are really harder to please. I have had several women that said they were "hard to work with" and "didn't climax with vaginal stimulation". Again, small sample size, but I proved them wrong in most cases (although it does seem that even if I could get a woman off both clitorally and vaginally, she still preferred whichever way she was accustomed to before). It is possible they were faking it, but if they were I want to nominate them for an Oscar for acting skill.

Gross, personal facts in sblock so no one has to read it if they don't want.

As far as being easy to get men off? I am statistically insignificant, but I've gotten off maybe 10 times that wasn't self-induced. What you say is mostly true, but every woman I've been with start whining that their hands are tired after two minutes. Women whine that their hands get tired, they whine that their jaws are tired, they whine that I'm hitting their cervix, and it usually is when I'm almost there.

However, they all expect me to go down on them, and expect me to stay down there until they've climaxed a couple dozen times. And are too tired to do much with me. My "sex life" has basically consisted of one long cocktease with no thought for my needs or my wants. And I don't think being gay would help that. I have several really close gay friends and they all make it sound like gay men have all the qualities I hate in women, except snarkier. Yeah no.

Maj · Post by **Maj** » Thu Jul 07, 2011 11:51 pm

Koumei wrote:"Here is the tummy-banana, rub your thumb over the head or slide your hand up and down the shaft, combine both for best results. You might want lubricant. Tight is good, but there is a limit. Don't go so fast as to tear anything, because you'll be the one explaining it in ER. You'll know you're doing it right when your face suddenly gets splattered with spunk. Keep going for a few seconds so they can ride it out, after that they're spent."

That's the way the movies say it works, isn't it?

It doesn't. Guys, for various reasons that I don't understand, have different sensitivities and preferences just like women do, and sometimes it can take forever for a guy to get off (I quit at four hours).

Personal experience tagged...

Way back in the day, before we were married, Ess had similar problems getting off. I couldn't pinpoint the exact change, but it involved one or all of the following:

-More practice.
-Foreplay (including, but not limited to, things like late night sexy phone calls in anticipation for the weekend when we got to be together).
-Less masturbation.

Koumei · Post by **Koumei** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 3:55 am

Okay, I have some questions on drugs.

No, not how to get them, or are ___ safe or anything. Terminology. It's for Dungeon Crusade, in which there are various drugs, and I feel it doesn't hurt to mention how they can be taken.

As a liquid or tablet, it would be "orally".
As a suppository it would be "rectally". Okay, in the Grim Darkness of the far future, this is probably the only way all drugs can be taken.
Injected would, assuming it's into the vein, be "intravenously".
Snorting them like coke, would that be just taking them "nasally"?
Would "orally" also cover rubbing it into the gums/under the tongue?
As a patch, or hypo-spray thing, would it just be "dermally"?
Breathing it in through a gas tank + mask, or an inhaler, or smoking it like a lho-stick, is there a special term for that? Taking it bronchially?

Or should I just go with the tongue-in-arsecheek Grim Derpness of 40k and say there's only one way to take drugs, the Keynesian way (you insert it up the bottom for best results!)

Blasted · Post by **Blasted** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:08 am

According to the majority of fluff I have available, almost all of the drugs are intravenous. The only exception I can think of is the Chem-dogs and their re-breathers.

I'd be happy to use a rewording, long form or passive voice in order to avoid the use of such awkward sounding terms like "rectally", "dermally" and "bronchially".
"The blue pills are suppositories." or "Brilliance is used with a re-breather."

there's only one way to take drugs, the Keynesian way (you insert it up the bottom for best results!)

I lol'd.

DragonChild · Post by **DragonChild** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:15 am

"Topical" can be used for stuff applied directly to the skin on an area it needs to be - like hypo sprays - or for stuff that's somehow put in where you need it. So if the drug works on your lungs, and you breathe it in, it can still count as "topical".

For stuff like a patch that gets into your bloodstream, that's "transdermal". One of the methods for transdermal drug delivery that you may be interested in are these: http://2.imimg.com/data2/DF/GY/IMFCP-16 ... 50x250.jpg

Yes, really, you roll those across the skin to get the drugs.

Count Arioch the 28th · Fri Jul 08, 2011 4:52 am

Maj wrote:

Way back in the day, before we were married, Ess had similar problems getting off. I couldn't pinpoint the exact change, but it involved one or all of the following:

-More practice.
-Foreplay (including, but not limited to, things like late night sexy phone calls in anticipation for the weekend when we got to be together).
-Less masturbation.

I have suggested the first two in all my relationships. None of the women I was with were big on foreplay unless they allowed me to tie them down first (I do not have a bondage fetish per se, but I do like to control the situation, and le sex doesn't start until *I* say it does), but unless I did they were leaping on me within 4 or 5 minutes. And I can forget about foreplay being done to me.

As for the third, a woman loses the right to demand that after the second consecutive week of refusing to sex me, I am not going to forgo release for 2-3 months at a time.

Although my endurance and ability to do it whenever probably stems back from she who must not be named. As is customary for women, she would deny me for months on end. However, if she wanted it and I couldn't do it, I could expect to be screamed at, at the minimum. didn't matter if I had been up for 30+ hours, didn't matter if it was the middle of the night and I was asleep, didn't matter if I had the flu. I was expected to perform on demand or get screamed at (YOU PESTERED ME FOR MONTHS AND NOW YOU DON'T WANT IT!? WHAT THE FUCK IS YOUR FUCKING PROBLEM!).

Now I am pretty sure I have to be dying for my penis to not work.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:11 am

Blasted wrote:I'd assume that it's because men being unable to satisfy women is a well worn trope with a great deal of truth behind it. That the reverse is occasionally true is so rare as to make misogyny a more likely explanation.

It's a familiar trope, but I don't know how true it is. Like Count, my experiences have been the opposite. I've been both more willing to please and better able to than the women I've dated.

Koumei wrote:It's generally all in the clit. Which rarely gets that much attention from basic penetration and sex. Basically, doing sex the standard way makes it easy for the guy to get off, and not the girl.

Speaking of the trope, this is probably where it comes from; if all you're doing is screwing, then the man is generally getting a lot more out of it than the woman. But when it comes to things other than vaginal sex, women expect it (since they usually need more of it than men do to enjoy themselves), but aren't really keen on reciprocating it. I haven't seen a lot of willingness/enthusiasm/know-how/desire to learn.

Though, I've had a lot of luck fixing this just by coming out and saying there was a problem. I get the impression people don't realize your needs (sexual or otherwise) exist until you make them obvious. What horrible, self-centered creatures we are.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:29 am

How the hell do I meet more people? I mean, I know I can go out and say hi and shit, but how the hell do people actually make friends? And furthermore, how the hell does one then parley one of those new friends into a relationship? Or at least a one night, or once in a while bedwarmer?

I honestly don't fucking know. I really don't.

Chamomile · Post by **Chamomile** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:47 am

I second the "how to meet people" question. Not as concerned with the relationship end of it, though. I want to meet friends. Like, real, actual friends I might have a conversation with instead of reading a book, because we actually have overlapping interests to talk about.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:49 am

Least helpful (but true) answer: I have friends for that kind of thing. I distribute the work of finding new people to hang out with to my friends. Not intentionally. I just happen to have friends, they meet new people, and by association I meet them shortly after entirely by accident.

Unrelated, but that sounds a lot like you could model it mathematically with the equation for a spreading epidemic. Knowing me is mathematically similar to an infectious disease.

Prak · Post by **Prak** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:52 am

DSMatticus wrote:Least helpful (but true) answer: I have friends for that kind of thing. I distribute the work of finding new people to hang out with to my friends. Not intentionally. I just happen to have friends, they meet new people, and by association I meet them shortly after entirely by accident.

Unrelated, but that sounds a lot like you could model it mathematically with the equation for a spreading epidemic. Knowing me is mathematically similar to an infectious disease.

Yeah, I meet some people that way. Knowing me is mathematically similar to a poorly evolved infectious disease. The conditions to catch me are very exacting.

DSMatticus · Post by **DSMatticus** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 9:56 am

Prak_Anima wrote:Knowing me is mathematically similar to a poorly evolved infectious disease. The conditions to catch me are very exacting.

Due to an unexpected wipe-out event in my infected population, the rate of recovery and subsequent immunity is quickly over-taking the rate of spreading infection and as a result I may soon be facing extinction.

In other words, I moved a few counties over and my social circle shrank significantly.

Draco_Argentum · Post by **Draco_Argentum** » Fri Jul 08, 2011 10:26 am

In my experience

I can't believe you opened this spoiler block.