Jump to content

Alright lads, its our turn. Show off your pics for the ladies to comment on.

Drake1 Nightfire

By Drake1 Nightfire,
in Your Avatar

 Share
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 329 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts

Scylla Rhiadra

Scylla Rhiadra

Posted
Posted (edited)
19 minutes ago, TDD123 said:

Bite me. :P

 

( ETA : I mean , isn' t it supposed to just remain tongue in cheek ? ) 

This thread? You should ask Drake, and those who have posted here?

The other one was supposed to be a joke, and my own posts in it are clearly not "glam shots" -- but, again, ask those who've posted? I think some are tongue in cheek? Others, maybe not so much.

Either way, no one dies. They're just pic threads.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
  • Replies 222
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Popular Posts

Nick0678
Nick0678
Echelon Alcott
Echelon Alcott

Away for 8 years, just returned to SL. Learned about mesh heads, mesh bodies, BOM and everything else. Gosh, the skin and clothing stores I used to shop at are gone; same with my friends. Hope I did g

Orwar
Orwar

All right, hit me.

Posted Images

Madelaine McMasters

Madelaine McMasters

Posted
Posted
14 hours ago, Krystina Ferraris said:

Absolutely… this is total BS. There is no correlation between an anatomical feature like fingers and sexual behaviours or autism. I would love to know what paper detailed this study as I couldn’t find any on pubmed, jstor etc… probably some physiology’s student final year project or a desperate lecturer trying to find a FY project for their class 🤣

My index and ring fingers are of equal length and I’m a woman, and yet I have Asperger’s. Can’t comment about sexual partners lol 😂 

I found this, but haven't had time to peruse the papers...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15620791/

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rowan Amore

Rowan Amore

Posted
Posted (edited)
59 minutes ago, Chris Nova said:

Webmd isn’t exactly a source I would use when it comes to medical anything.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3739583/

Where the article was sourced.

As I said, I don't necessarily believe their findings just that there was a study for some.reason.

Edited by Rowan Amore
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scylla Rhiadra

Scylla Rhiadra

Posted
Posted
2 hours ago, Madelaine McMasters said:

I found this, but haven't had time to peruse the papers...
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15620791/

Recognizing that your posting this here is not an endorsement . . .

I really dislike this kind of social science-y study. First, because I don't like how they tend to determine "aggressiveness": we've seen this kind of approach for decades used to gauge the effect of violent video games. I just don't buy that it's a reliable measure.

And secondly because reductive approaches that connect aggressive behaviour with physiological or biological traits, such as excessive testosterone, etc., have the effect of "naturalizing" aggression and discounting free will and choice. I can obviously accept that there are those who are more prone to aggressive behaviour. Some of that will be because of social conditioning, some of it will have something to do with personal history (for instance, being abused as a child), and, yes, possibly some of it will be biological. But focusing on the biological link tends to imply that aggressive people "can't help it": they are "naturally" aggressive because of their biology, and so not really to blame if they break your nose.

No, you are not a mindless bio-machine governed by your hormones. You have free will, and you have choices.

I think it's bad science, and I think it's even worse logic.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scylla Rhiadra

Scylla Rhiadra

Posted
Posted (edited)
29 minutes ago, Rowan Amore said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3739583/

Where the article was sourced.

As I said, I don't necessarily believe their findings just that there was a study for some.reason.

Now, ***** size. THAT'S important! Right?

(Not.)

😉

 

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rowan Amore

Rowan Amore

Posted
Posted
14 minutes ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Now, ***** size. THAT'S important! Right?

(Not.)

😉

 

The study was a fun(ny) read.  Anyway, I only brought it up when someone brought up small hands and what that means.  I apologize to anyone who found the off topic discussion of hands and ***** size offensive.

 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scylla Rhiadra

Scylla Rhiadra

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, Rowan Amore said:

The study was a fun(ny) read.  Anyway, I only brought it up when someone brought up small hands and what that means.  I apologize to anyone who found the off topic discussion of hands and ***** size offensive.

 

Offensive?

I think it should have its own thread. It would be freaking hilarious!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Madelaine McMasters

Madelaine McMasters

Posted
Posted (edited)
11 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

Recognizing that your posting this here is not an endorsement . . .

I really dislike this kind of social science-y study. First, because I don't like how they tend to determine "aggressiveness": we've seen this kind of approach for decades used to gauge the effect of violent video games. I just don't buy that it's a reliable measure.

And secondly because reductive approaches that connect aggressive behaviour with physiological or biological traits, such as excessive testosterone, etc., have the effect of "naturalizing" aggression and discounting free will and choice. I can obviously accept that there are those who are more prone to aggressive behaviour. Some of that will be because of social conditioning, some of it will have something to do with personal history (for instance, being abused as a child), and, yes, possibly some of it will be biological. But focusing on the biological link tends to imply that aggressive people "can't help it": they are "naturally" aggressive because of their biology, and so not really to blame if they break your nose.

No, you are not a mindless bio-machine governed by your hormones. You have free will, and you have choices.

I think it's bad science, and I think it's even worse logic.

Oh, I suspect there's a lot of bad science in this, akin to palm reading or phrenology.

There are very few (no?) aspects of human behavior that are controlled by a single "lever", particularly our love of single lever explanations.

The index and ring fingers of my right hand are similar in length. My left ring finger is nearly 1/2" longer than the index.

Be careful around my left side?

Edited by Madelaine McMasters
Refined my finger length measurements.
  • Like 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scylla Rhiadra

Scylla Rhiadra

Posted
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Jordan Whitt said:

I don't think so or you wouldn't have edited my post to imply I am wanting to see male parts, not pictures of men.

No no no

You see, I joked that we need a new thread devoted to *****.

And then YOU said you wanted more piccies (by which you of course meant pictures).

And then I jokingly corrected your post to say that you wanted more ***** (by which I of course meant *****)

And then YOU said, no you meant more pictures.

And then I jokingly said, yes, so did I, meaning pictures of ***** . . .

And then . . .

 

 

Oh, nvm.

Boys, bring on the beefcake.

Edited by Scylla Rhiadra
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Arkam

Arkam

Posted
Posted
17 hours ago, Scylla Rhiadra said:

I think both threads could usefully die. I don't really see the point of threads for pictures that are specifically targeted at one gender or the other. And it's kinda heteronormative, no? I'm not allowed to be attracted to a photo of a woman in the other thread, because they are only for men to admire?

Be as sexy and provocative as you want (or as the mods will permit)! And people will respond as they will. I don't see any need for threads that are literally soliciting wolf whistles.

We all know you don't like this thread. It's ok, no problem, your right.

Should all threads you don't like usefully die ? 

There are tons of threads for pictures you can admire.

I consider this thread to be light and joyful, funny, and there are others of the same opinion, so... please... stop posting here and let's other people enjoy it.

 

Sorry my bad english, I not mean be offensive, just informative.

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Scylla Rhiadra

Scylla Rhiadra

Posted
Posted
45 minutes ago, Arkam said:

We all know you don't like this thread. It's ok, no problem, your right.

Should all threads you don't like usefully die ? 

There are tons of threads for pictures you can admire.

I consider this thread to be light and joyful, funny, and there are others of the same opinion, so... please... stop posting here and let's other people enjoy it.

 

Sorry my bad english, I not mean be offensive, just informative.

 

Oh, you're quite right Arkam. Sometimes I talk far too much, no?

I've said all I might have wanted to say (except of course about *****).

Enjoy your thread. 🙂

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 329 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...