Stockholm: An Exploration of True Love.

No, no I don't.

I'll predict the next few comments;

Lysander wrote:

Make a reference about Ver's mistress not doing a good job of keep her boy-toy submissive

Verandering wrote:

"You're a dumbass"

Lysander wrote:

Continues asshatery.

Me wrote:

Posts epic double face palms.

Verandering wrote:

Lysander, all this assumptions about my sex life aside

That's funny. Have you ever considered what impressions you've been giving off? You'll be the forum's official leather daddy in no time.

Quote :

Cyberwulf in defending people who face
discrimination, T.S.Orr defending every case of undisciplined cops, A
Note Chaotic advocating the privisitasion of everything under the moon?
Like that, you rod monkey.

Yeah, I get what you're saying. Everyone forms impressions. I speant a week going over healthcare or welfare or something with ANC, oh a year or so ago. On the green board.

I'm just about the angriest person you can imagine when it comes to health care, and we disagreed on just about everything, and I think I might have made her cry, or at least get really pissed off at me . . . and, I think I personally insulted her parents.

But you see, that was a long time ago, and I don't care about it anymore, and as far as I'm concerned, it's all cool between us, and I like her again. I'm sure she's a delightful person, albeit with some wrong-ass beliefs. I'm happy she's still here to hang out with us. I'm glad she joined the exodus from HoBFF, and I think I might have messenged her myself, but Inkweaver got there first.

Restarting a wank that theoretically existed eight-months ago is an Internet grudge.

EDIT: Oh, and tell your mistress she needs to keep her boy-toy in line.

Are we still talking about Stockholm?

Quote :

Impressions + Words that can be interpreted in the way I explained above = Calling out of bullshit.

Quote :

Words that can be interpreted in the way I explained above

Quote :

Lysander wrote:

Quit projecting your issues into it and just have fun with it.

Mainly my interpretation of what 'it' is in this sentence. I read it last night as being sex in general because of your previous sentence:

Lysander wrote:

You look like a complete tool when you're having sex no matter what end you're on.

In which you establish that D/s dynamics totally shouldn't matter at all because it's all ridiculous anyway, to support:

Lysander wrote:

I don't get the emphasis on dominating/submitting during sex.

Your inability to understand an emphasis on a dynamic practice.

Lysander wrote:

Restarting a wank

Quote :

Calling out of bullshit.

Quote :

You know, like having the impression that users will always be writing from a certain stance on any subject?

theweirdkind wrote:

Are we still talking about Stockholm?

Apparently, we're not even talking anymore.

Lysander wrote:

theweirdkind wrote:

Are we still talking about Stockholm?

Apparently, we're not even talking anymore.

Yeah, you just drool and words come out.

Nihilist wrote:

Yeah, you just drool and words come out.

Hm... That could be a problem. :crap:

Nihilist wrote:

Yeah, you just drool and words come out.

Well, feel free to explain it to me. Maybe you'll have better luck.

Lysander wrote:

Well, feel free to explain it to me. Maybe you'll have better luck.

You really are that stupid. Christ.

Hn. Looks more like an interactive movie than an actual game.

Cyberwulf wrote:

Well I know I always feel a powerful burning urge to sexually humiliate men who annoy me, reminding them of their proper place as fucktoys. And that's totally not rape at all!

BOY I'M SURE CONVINCED THAT THIS "FEMINISM" STUFF DOESN'T MATTER AND IS JUST A LOAD OF BATSHIT BELIEFS OH YEAH. NO RAPE CULTURE HERE.

Remember the part where Amazon told him to get bent? Yeah. One deviant fuckwit does not equal a culture.

*looks at Verandering and Lysander's little love-spat*

And people wonder why I'm so private (hell, downright secretive) about myself? At least people have to bitch at me for what I've actually said about something, rather than what they think I might feel about it based on their assumptions about my sexual preferences, nationality, political party, religion, or whatever else. (and yes, I sometimes argue devil's advocate just to throw people off) Everything you think you know about me is probably wrong.

But back to the topic at hand: Freedom of speech includes freedom of vile, abhorrent speech. Speech that doesn't bother anyone doesn't need protection. When we give a government the power to draw the line on what is "too offensive" where we want it, we've given them the power to draw that line where someone else wants it. Someone we don't agree with. Let them ban Stockholm, and we give them the power to ban GTA, or Assassin's Creed, or anything else the fundies get a bug up their ass about.

I find it interesting that what some modern people (with probably no more knowledge of history than they can get from Hollywood) think of as "natural" and "manly" behavior would, throughout most of history, have gotten them called barbarians by most civilized people, called savages by most barbarians, and simply killed by most savages.

Their "ideal" life reminds me of the joke about the guy who promised to contact his buddies after he died ... so they get out the Ouija board a couple years later, and he tells them "Beautiful green grass as far as the eye can see, I'm surrounded by thousands of females, and I'm the only male" ... his friends say "So that's Heaven?" ... and he answers "Who said anything about heaven? I'm a bull in Montana!" They have this Hollywood-fueled idea of what life for "real men" was or should be like, and absolutely no clue that they can fantasize about it only because of civilization itself -- because laws and customs prevent people who find them obnoxious from doing whatever they think is right, like killing them and calling it a public service. It's ironic, really, that their only protection is the civilization they condemn. Because in a world where might makes right, the odds are very, very small that you're gonna have the most might.

Can we please go back to pointing and laughing at the creators of this game?

Wandering Critic wrote:

a well-reasoned defense of Freedom of Speech that is only tangentially related to anything in this thread

So...this guy can still be allowed to make this game and Amazon can still refuse to let him sell it on their site and we can still rip it to pieces on ours?

Good to know.

Quadratus wrote:

Lysander wrote:

Well, feel free to explain it to me. Maybe you'll have better luck.

You really are that stupid. Christ.

Feel free to use small words, then.

gaijinguy wrote:

One deviant fuckwit does not equal a culture.

You're kidding, right? This game is just one in a whole genre of rape games.

Cyberwulf wrote:

You're kidding, right? This game is just one in a whole genre of rape games.

People have fetishes, so what?

Not when every H-game in Japan has rape in it.

Quadratus wrote:

Not when every H-game in Japan has rape in it.

Some fetishes can be really popular, so what?

Psy-4 wrote:

Quadratus wrote:

Not when every H-game in Japan has rape in it.

Some fetishes can be really popular, so what?

Or a culture can some really fucked up views on sex.

Quadratus wrote:

Or a culture can have some really fucked up views on sex.

Every Japanese man has every single H-game ever produced, don't you know.

Psy-4 wrote:

Quadratus wrote:

Or a culture can have some really fucked up views on sex.

Every Japanese man has every single H-game ever produced, don't you know.

The point
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
V
Your head

Quadratus wrote:

The point
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
l
V
Your head

Yeah, you're right, the point landed straight on my head; it was quite painful.

Admitting that a large number of people with a fetish = culture, would mean that furries are a culture. Yeah, no.

It's a fandom dedicated to something. At best. (Unless you're reffering to Japanese culture as a whole having fucked up ideas about sex, in which case, correlation does not imply causation)

So my question still stands - so what?

Psy-4 wrote:

Admitting that a large number of people with a fetish = culture, would mean that furries are a culture. Yeah, no.

While it's true that a large number of people who share the same traits aren't automatically a culture, I do think such a group can affect the culture in which the group is embedded. The creation and acceptation of, say, a gay club is symptomatic of a culture where gay people are, at the least, tolerated and therefore says a lot about the culture in which it is located. While a prevalence of games in which rape is a dominant theme doesn't mean that rape is a dominant in the entire culture that allows for such games, but it does mean the culture in question has made room for such a fetish to exist. If it's true that these games are somewhat accepted within Japan (or any culture, really), I'd say that there's something going awry.