True Story of the Day

[vegetariantaxidermy]

.

[Age]

see Age now this is autism spectrum stuff.

SO WHAT?

you're unable to disassociate literal meanings from figurative ones in speech expression.

HOW do 'you' KNOW that I am, supposedly, UNABLE to DISASSOCIATE 'literal' meanings from 'figurative' meanings here?

HOW do you' KNOW that I am NOT just PRETENDING? Or, that I do NOT like to ASSUME ABSOLUTELY ANY 'thing'? Or, that I am SHOWING and PROVING just HOW MUCH 'you', posters, would SAY and WRITE 'things' that 'you' NEVER REALLY ACTUALLY MEANT? Or, that BECAUSE 'we' are in a 'philosophy forum', then it would be MUCH BETTER if absolutely EVERY one here just SAID and WROTE, EXACTLY, what they ACTUALLY MEANT, instead of SAYING and WRITING 'things' that they do NOT ACTUALLY MEAN, AT ALL?

HOW do 'you' KNOW that I am NOT just SHOWING, with ACTUAL PROOF, some of the REASONS WHY adult human beings took SO LONG to come to SEE and RECOGNIZE the reasons WHY 'they' HAD BEEN SO CONFUSED, and SO LOST, for SO LONG?

Also, and by the way, the written word is NOT EXACTLY LIKE ACTUAL 'oral speech expression'. Through 'oral', and NOT 'written', 'speech expression' it is said that more than 50% of 'communication' is 'verbal', and less than 10% of 'communication' is from the WORDS, ONLY. The rest of that type of 'communication' is 'vocal'. But what 'we' have here, in this forum, in FRONT of 'us' are just WORDS, ALONE.

So, OF COURSE, SOME 'literal' meanings are NOT going to be DISSOCIATED from 'figurative' meanings, EXACTLY LIKE what happens in 'oral verbal speech', but which would OBVIOUSLY happen MORE SO in and with 'written words' than would do in 'spoken words'.

Even the word 'speech expression' could refer to 'spoken words' and NOT 'written words', which would CONTRADICT what 'you' ACTUAL MEANT here.

I have found NEVER ASSUMING and ALWAYS GAINING CLARIFICATION FIRST means that I could NEVER be Wrong, EVER. And, in case 'you' are UNAWARE I MEAN that LITERALLY and NOT FIGURATIVELY. Which I have found a LOT of MY WRITINGS get taken FIGURATIVELY, and NOT, LITERALLY, in the way that I MEANT them. But this is just because sometimes people are NOT ABLE TO DISSOCIATED my LITERAL MEANINGS, from the PRESUMED FIGURATIVE MEANING, that some people ASSUME I was writing IN.

Oh, and furthermore, maybe it is from a Truly, what is called, 'autistic' APPROACH HOW and WHERE thee ACTUAL and IRREFUTABLE Truth of 'things' can be FOUND, RECOGNIZED, and SEEN. Which, maybe, it would be BETTER if people took THIS APPROACH, or USED and WENT THIS WAY, instead of the ASSUMING and BELIEVING that they KNOW BEST WAY, which is THE WAY ALL adult human beings TOOK, in the days when this WAS being written.

you should be able to discern the sarcastic nature of that bit about homegirl undressing in the woods for sexy ted from the context of the thread and what little u have read of my posts (you'd know i wuz 'that guy' who would post some stupid shit like that just to stir it up).

'you' can 'TRY' and BACKTRACK now, but it REALLY is NOT working for 'you'.

In Fact if 'you' had CONTINUED ON with 'your' ABSOLUTE Honesty, as 'you' WERE, then 'we' could have ENDED UP with 'you' REVEALING some True HARD Facts for "others" here.

By the way, I STILL have NO idea what the term or phrase 'homegirl' ACTUALLY MEANS nor REFERS TO, EXACTLY?

Although I did previously attempt to have this CLARIFIED, by 'you',

concerning the entertainment of such fantasy, the real question is which element of a particular fantasy does the subject covet or lust over.

WHO is the 'subject' word REFER TO, EXACTLY, in this sentence?

is what turns him on the fact that a beautiful girl stands naked before him who he'd love to have sex with, say, or the fact that he's about to have his way with her against her will, is able to control and hurt her, etc.

Well IF 'you' had CONTINUED ON with 'your' VERY Honest APPROACH, then 'we' could have ARRIVED at this VERY 'thing' here. But, because 'you' were, now, supposedly, ONLY being 'sarcastic', then there is NO REAL USE in PROCEEDING here.

now a contextually proper reading of that bit should have made u sense the frivolity of it, that 'he can't be serious' and 'bellbottoms, lol', etc. nuance in the writing, Age, and u might be insensitive to it i dunno. 

So, are 'you', now, SAYING and CLAIMING that 'you' did, or did NOT, get so-called 'hot' IMAGINING watching a young, supply college hottie standing in the woods slowly shimmying out of her bellbottoms in the car headlights as you watch in a drunken, sexually fevered state burning with so much anticipation?

To 'me' there is ONLY One Correct, and True, answer here. But 'you' might give 'us' with OTHER 'one'. We will just have to WAIT and SEE what 'your answer' is here.

By the way, when 'you' wrote, 'supply' here, did 'you' mean 'subtle', or some other word, or did 'you' mean 'supply'?

[Age]

"alright man i just said fuck it and i took Johnson out and kinda raised up a bit in my seat." - me

"Is "johnson" a name that 'you' have placed on the 'penis' of 'that body' are using here to label the 'penis' with?" - Age

No, actually Johnson is a midget I keep in the glove box. I thought that much wuz clear.

Okay. If 'you' are Honest here, then NOW I ACTUALLY KNOW what 'you' are TALKING ABOUT and REFERRING TO, EXACTLY.

[promethean75]

No. Age. U can't fit a midget into a glove box, so I couldn't have been honest when I said that. I musta been kidding when I said Johnson was a midget I kept in my glove box then, right?

Jesus Age we're in bad shape bro.

[promethean75]

"So, if two five year olds, for example, 'consent', in an unspoken agreement between "yourself" and 'them', through, again, a so-called 'sexy-evil smile' and/or a 'wide eyed look', at 'you', (or whatever OTHER EXCUSE 'you' 'tried to' USE before), while 'you' flash to 'them', and/or masturbate in front of 'them', then 'you' would just, AGAIN, proceed with what 'you' did LAST TIME, correct?"

another properly functioning question. see i knew u could do it, Age. Here's some excerpts from my work 100 Days Of Flashery that I wrote while imprisoned in a dungeon.

of the exhibitionistic types, there's the type that derives pleasure from the shock the 'victim' experiences, and then there's the type that seeks and is gratified by a mutually consentual encounter in which, on very rare occasion, the 'victim' isn't shocked in the sense of being afraid and shows signs of interest and/or brief approval. again, the rarest of occasions, but something of an erotic experience in a kind of sex in the city way.

i wuz of the second type... unable to truly enjoy doing it if the 'victim' felt afraid. and since that is only the rarest occasion, my exhibitionistic period didn't last long. but lemme tell u I've have some kinky experiences with willing strangers over these years. one just doesn't wake up one morning as a libertine, Age. they are a selected-for type through positive reward and reinforcement. operant conditioning, as it were.

moving on. the age of the 'victim' u aks about. for me - I'm whatcha call an ephebophile btw... tho I'm also equally attracted to adult women - the 'victim' has to be sexually and psychologically mature enough to understand, grasp, experience and appreciate genuine erotic desire and sexual arousal... as well as be physically developed enough physically to solicit sexual arousal on my part. in other words, a little bean pole pre-pubescent kid isn't in the least bit sexually attractive, and certainly not mentally mature enough to understand what's going on, be intimate, or even experience any hormonally driven erogenous arousal at all.

but a 14 year old, on the other hand, is quite a bit more tuned into what's going on becuz they're already hypersexualized at that age, curious, and willing to engage experimentally in openly flirtatious behavior to see what happens, etc. not to take advantage of a young girl's want of approval and her attention seeking behavior therefore. but, it is certainly there and difficult to resist entertaining the young nymph when she shines like that.

[promethean75]

"But they NEVER gave 'you' 'their number', right?"

of course not dude it wuzzint like that. They prolly woulda if fatty didn't ruin everything tho.

in fact, immediately after i wuz 'done' i wuz seized by astonishment that i had just done that and felt guilty for it. what happened wuz a sudden transformation occured in which eros took flight and my more inhibited super-ego appeared, drawing up in me the paternal sense i should normally have toward/about 14 year olds. my identity, my learned role, as an adult prohibits me from doing what I just did, and i feel ashamed, etc. that kind of thing. What I did wuz utterly abnormal and I wuz plunged into a kinky philosophical abyss in which I wuz faced with having to aks the hardest questions.

anyway at that time i had a girlfriend who wuz a young bonafide beach-born hotty, and despite the disintegrating relationship largely due to my mismanagement of it, the sex wuz outstanding. Homegirl wuz so hot I couldn't even take her out in a bikini (her, not me) cuz I couldn't handle all the eyes on her. She'd put that thang on em if I let her out like that, Age, I ain't playin... and I ain't tryna hurt another man by puttin em through that.

Lol @ the hipocrisy. I'm the first to both encourage and enjoy a young woman displaying her healthy sexuality, and the last two let my own homegirl do it.

again maybe another irony here tho; one would think i would be sexually satisfied and therefore not commit sexually deviant behaviors. i wuz satisfied, absolutely, but what happened wuz... instead of quenching the sex drive, it set it on fire. i wuz at one point, well a few points, thinking about and wanting to find another girl or girls to join me and homegirl in a kinky threesome thing like in Point Break or what's that movie where the two guys and one girl were hippie pot growers in a threesome thing, etc. never happened tho cuz i had no game, wuz working off and on for wages like $15 an hour, and living at an expensive beach in a shithole modified motel room. my whole fantasy collapsed, Age. my harem... never to be.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Nasty, misogynistic prik. Perverts always blame their victims and have contempt for them. Just listen to him calling his young victim 'fat and ugly' and blaming her for his predicament. That shows a level of dislike and contempt that is extremely disturbing. She's not obliged to be 'attractive' for him, a dirty old entitled sleazebag. She's a child with puppy fat.
You seem to be under some sort of delustion that you are an Adonis. Believe me, men who flash their dick to random females are NOT attractive in any way, shape or form. I doubt if ANY women would find that sexy, let alone young girls who don't know how to react to it.
To fourteen year old girls, a man in his thirties is an OLD MAN. You were an OLD MAN exposing himself, uninvited and unwelcome, to girls for the SOLE reason that you can't control your sexual urges and to give YOURSELF gratification.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"But they NEVER gave 'you' 'their number', right?"

of course not dude it wuzzint like that. They prolly woulda if fatty didn't ruin everything tho.

in fact, immediately after i wuz 'done' i wuz seized by astonishment that i had just done that and felt guilty for it. what happened wuz a sudden transformation occured in which eros took flight and my more inhibited super-ego appeared, drawing up in me the paternal sense i should normally have toward/about 14 year olds. my identity, my learned role, as an adult prohibits me from doing what I just did, and i feel ashamed, etc. that kind of thing. What I did wuz utterly abnormal and I wuz plunged into a kinky philosophical abyss in which I wuz faced with having to aks the hardest questions.

anyway at that time i had a girlfriend who wuz a young bonafide beach-born hotty, and despite the disintegrating relationship largely due to my mismanagement of it, the sex wuz outstanding. Homegirl wuz so hot I couldn't even take her out in a bikini (her, not me) cuz I couldn't handle all the eyes on her. She'd put that thang on em if I let her out like that, Age, I ain't playin... and I ain't tryna hurt another man by puttin em through that.

Lol @ the hipocrisy. I'm the first to both encourage and enjoy a young woman displaying her healthy sexuality, and the last two let my own homegirl do it.

again maybe another irony here tho; one would think i would be sexually satisfied and therefore not commit sexually deviant behaviors. i wuz satisfied, absolutely, but what happened wuz... instead of quenching the sex drive, it set it on fire. i wuz at one point, well a few points, thinking about and wanting to find another girl or girls to join me and homegirl in a kinky threesome thing like in Point Break or what's that movie where the two guys and one girl were hippie pot growers in a threesome thing, etc. never happened tho cuz i had no game, wuz working off and on for wages like $15 an hour, and living at an expensive beach in a shithole modified motel room. my whole fantasy collapsed, Age. my harem... never to be.

You are contradicting yourself. Clearly they weren't happy with the encounter or you wouldn't have multiple convictions. You are also giving others the inconvenience and stress of being in the position of having to report it and possibly testify in court. You are the most selfish, self-absorbed piece of shit I have ever had the misfortune to encounter.
The vast majority of 14 year old girls are NOT 'hypersexualised' (whatever the fuck that even means). You are just trying to justify yourself. So-called 'paedophiles' (actually child-haters) justify themselves in the same way. In their twisted minds children are 'flirting' with them simply by existing. They too have contempt for their victims and blame them for 'seducing' them.
And you are probably getting off on boasting about your exploits here so I won't engage with you further on this.

[promethean75]

hi my name's pro-me-thean
got caught with my pants down
once again
in your neighbor-hoods
you might have seen us
and I'm here right now
cuz you saw my penis

https://youtu.be/SSVwo3AxRvs

[promethean75]

"You are the most selfish, self-absorbed piece of shit I have ever had the misfortune to encounter."

well fuck u then I'm going full Marquis from here on out.

"My manner of thinking, so you say, cannot be approved. Do you suppose I care? A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for vegitariantaxidermists! Either kill me or take me as I am, because I'll be damned if I ever change."

[attofishpi]

"My manner of thinking, so you say, cannot be approved. Do you suppose I care? A poor fool indeed is he who adopts a manner of thinking for vegitariantaxidermists! Either kill me or take me as I am, because I'll be damned if I ever change."

Perhaps you are damned because you wont change.

[promethean75]

Here is an actual case study for u, veg.

https://youtu.be/yV0qxFrnPes

[promethean75]

we have a critical philosophical problem concerning names of burgers and what about burgers those names describe. what is 'american' about a burger, EXACTLY, as Age would aks. what it's made of, where it's made, who eats it, what?

https://streamable.com/wnszwn

[Age]

No. Age. U can't fit a midget into a glove box,

But that ALL depends on the size of both.

so I couldn't have been honest when I said that.

'you' COULD HAVE. But if 'you' were NOT Honest, then okay.

Thank you for now being Honest.

I musta been kidding when I said Johnson was a midget I kept in my glove box then, right?

If 'you' must of been 'kidding', then okay.

'you' were 'kidding', right?

Jesus Age we're in bad shape bro.

WHY, what 'shape' are 'you' in?

[promethean75]

we're still on johnson the midget then. okay let's work it out.

johnson is a eurocentric colloquialism used to describe the male reproductive organ. like 'willy', as I've heard those bloody brits and Aussies call it.

so when I said 'johnson' originally, i wuz, perhaps mistakingly, under the impression that you were familiar with the term.

when u then came back and indicated that you believed me when i said, facetiously, that johnson wuz a midget i kept in my glove box, i momentarily lost all hope in u, in us, in everyone here... that somehow along the way and through these years, we all failed u, Age, failed u becuz we let u believe that carrying midgets in gloveboxes is possible.

i just feel like somehow somebody here should have picked up on that and maybe just one day offered to explain how carrying midgets in glove boxes isn't possible in a general way without saying it directly to u. maybe just plant it in one of your debates or something.

alright so now we're on the same page and I'm feeling good about it.