It seems that most modern liberals want communism. Most muslims, and some other believers, want theocracy.

This is extremely specific but plain white athletic crew socks  :cheesy2:

If it becomes common place, it'll lose the allure.  But then, it might make people focus more on the acting and craft.

I'm not a big fan of marriage, either, but feel the Original Poster is calling it "meaningless" as a statement of fact, when it's really a subjective opinion.

The practice of mutilating the male sex tool began centuries ago and was intended to make the penis less sensitive, which was to make sex less enjoyable.  It was first used as punishment for the crime of fornication outside of wedlock and was performed on the guilty in a public place, to dissuade other men from responding to their urges in a similar manner.  After a decade or two, someone got the notion to perform the act on all newborn males as a preventative measure.  If you were born a Jew, the community turned the barbaric act that was to be performed on you & yours, into a coming of age party, lucky you, complete with songs & ritual dances and lots of gauze bandages. This atrocity will continue because the mother has the final say.  The line Doctors use to get consent: "If we don't cut off this unnecessary skin now, when the boy begins to mature, he'll require instructions & assistance to keep his penis clean or it will more than likely get infected.  Then we'll have to chop off the entire penis, rather than just a little bitty piece of skin.  So what's it going to be?"  And if that didn't work, they'll make up some statistic that claims 90% of men convicted of rape in the last ten years were uncut. You can blame your mother for your missing foreskin, but the ultimate blame rests with the doctor who got paid an additional fee for the extra operation.

Well, Higgs, I disagree on many of your points. 1. (Scientific knowledge and religion have nothing to do with each other at all.) You might argue that all knowledge is "subjective" because we use our senses to gain it, but each of my senses and senses of all the people around me corroborate that knowledge so it is quite reliable. You seem to be using the term "subjective" to find an excuse to equalize something we observe everyday with things we never do. If I fall from a 10 story building, I will most likely die. That's as close to objective, as you can get. Things like life after death and washing away sins after believing in Jesus have not been observed. Not by reliable sources anyway. And by hampering science, just take a look at evolution denialists for example, that stems from creationism and creationism stems from theistic religion. 2. I don't see how things offensive to common sense can be an advantage. If you don't like that word, I can change it to individual morality: what ever I do has consequences on others and I take those into account. TO say that christianity and islam question the liberal views is totally backwards. It is not liberal views that have slavery condoned into their sacred texts, liberals don't kill gays, liberals don't protect their rapist coleagues in churches. If you had something else that qualifies as a radically different view of truth, by all means say it. Though, whatever you might have, can't be exclusive to religion. I'm not saying that all religious people do afwul things, but if they don't, they don't because they have their own morality and sense of good. 3. Love and charity are something people are capable of with or without religion. "Whatever is good in Christianity belongs properly to Christianity". Please, do name something that is good and is good exclusively in christianity.

people think of porn actors and porn in two main ways: taboo (because sex on screen is something private made relatively public or because it's a job that lacks clothes and relies on primal instincts - or the simulation of such) and glory (porn actors aren't afraid of being naked or having sex in view of other people - it's part of the job). i feel like doing porn these days is a lot more common, but that the infamy isn't as much. studios come out with clips every week, studios make features every so often. so, i feel like if you want to be a notable porn actor, you have to work at it and have about as much press/publicity as a regular actor. there have been a lot of reality stars that have had porn in their past, and usually, it comes up as a little blip after they've been on a show or a couple of articles on the internet. i'm not immaculate, but i've thought about it, thinking both "who's gonna know" and "if i do it, it's gonna be on the internet forever". then again, i haven't, and if you have, who cares. 15mb of fame, or someone getting to see you naked. obviously, i'm in two minds about it, but i have nothing against it.

Hahhaa, like your female friend tell you she has a secret and shits herself in bed everynight and you can't tell anyone, and then you get a hard on and go to your house quickly and masturbate xD

@DCLXVI: Okay, okay, the 'better' body, then. But then that's up for the debate still. I mean there's just so much to consider. Looking back now… This is so dumb. I can now admit the subjectivity of the matter. I'm so sorry. ;D

i am a teenager and the most for me in a day is 3…..immediately after the 2nd time which was in the afternoon my balls were really sore for like 15 mins......after the 3rd time in the night my balls were sore for like half an hour that was a one-off....with the exception of that day...ive never jerked off more than once in a day

Mostly yes.  I am nude as often as possible at home.  I have been to a nude beach, also, which was rather pleasant.  I am not sure how well I would fit in with proper nudists, though.  I still dislike looking at the women and tend to stare at the decent-looking guys. :laugh:

Out of 100%, I would say 75% were some degree of,"Well, that was a waste", while 25% were sweet & magic. @liz: Would you say you've generally had good experiences with one night stands or bad ones?

Through History only 2 factors were really able to enfuriate the masses enogh in order for them to produce change: food and taxes. All other things, for most beautiful and righteous they seem to be, produce nothing but passivity and mere disdain amongst the masses.

@clkkid: Heres the weirdest thing, every time i lost weight, my butt is the first to get slimmed..HELP Squats. @Zeitgeist: @jessiegirl: Sit ups don't help reduce belly fat. They train your abs, which you won't see because of the fat. Also, there are much better core exercises you can do to train abs/oblique etc. The three rules to lose that fat, in order of priority; 1. Diet - count your calories, get rid of processed foods, high protein 2. Strength / Resistance training - you burn a shit load of calories at the gym building muscle 3. Cardio HiiT training 25mins for times a week to speed up the process when you get down to a decent body fat percentage Cardio is a tool put on top of the foundation of the first two when the process slows down a bit and you need to push the body harder to get down into the -15% body fat range. You shouldn't rely on cardio to lose belly fat. Agreed. All three factors are integral to losing belly and gut fat. Well I wouldn't agree on "burn a shit load of calories" at point 2. You're right with most of the things, but strength training doesn't burn a lot of calories. Cardio does, yeah. While doing the training while cutting - strenght training doesn't help you reduce fat. It helps you build muscles yeah, but that's two different things. You can't do both of those. There is one exception - if you don't workout or have a LOOOONG break and then start going to the gym, that's the period when for some time burning fat and building muscle is possible - but only then.

The risk of losing almost everyone you knew so far is one of those situations I guess. This is a real risk if you live in a conservative community.