whats so good about sex?? (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter afro-girl
- Start date
WTF :O :O !!!!hiphophooray123 said:what i find stupid is the big deal of the 'first.' first is usually the worst, first kiss was shit but apparantly i was a great kissertoo bad she wasnt. Everyones like 'lolz loser' @ virgins, but...i dont see the big deal. I'm a virgin and some of my closest friends are too and when people ask 'r u a virgin' if you say 'yes' you just have that feeling that you're being patronised...but why?
anyway, i believe that those who say sex is overrated just aren't doing it right.
i mean...aww thats cool. you respect women and your values.
lolz.... zomg. i cant believe ure a virgin.
I mean i was small, but it's kinda slack still calling yourself a virgin. i still penetrated u
yes, yes it does. it means you've conquered something. it means you've tapped something so worthwhile that you have yourself a title and something to be proud of. you've tamed that slut you only dreamed of tapping years ago. it also brings up your confidence!stazi said:
p.s katy-g i'd do you
people come from different cultures, different social situations and have different friends. most of my friends are still virgins, they haven't had sex yet. they've copped, fingered, done everything else - just not sex. no-one speaks about it like its the BIG thing either. so no-body is getting that idea like sex is the greatest thing ever that was invented. sure, they all want it whenever they can, but it's not being pushed into their heads that its perfect. it's not in your brain 24/7 so you should 'just go get it over and done with'. if you're a show pony about getting girls then you're practically going to shoot yourself in the foot one day. if it's worth bragging then it's even more worth keeping to youself.Mike Ockisard said:
and for the record, my 140kg friend beat us all to having sex ages ago. he drove over to my house and told me personally, and how great it felt. at least i didn't learn from the pornos
katy-g
Member
Haha! Thanks... i think... Are u saying that you'd go me cos im attractive?? Cos in that case you're saying im a slut... Are u calling me a slut??sja said:
katy-g
Member
Kelis. Her name is Kelis.
punk_tartan
Member
whats good about sex ..allows you to be intimae and closeer to ther person, its only overrated if your not doing it for the right reasons
Actually, found out what it means:
Kelis says "Milkshake is just that thing that makes a woman stand out from everyone else. It's a thing that makes you sensual and warm and maternal. It could be about breasts but I don't have huge t*** so you gotta work with what you got."
2) slang - A woman's body and the way she carries it.
Usage:
Ahh shoot cuz, did you see that chick's milkshake? I mean, the way she was walking with that booty shakin' was so off the hizzy.
Kelis says "Milkshake is just that thing that makes a woman stand out from everyone else. It's a thing that makes you sensual and warm and maternal. It could be about breasts but I don't have huge t*** so you gotta work with what you got."
2) slang - A woman's body and the way she carries it.
Usage:
Ahh shoot cuz, did you see that chick's milkshake? I mean, the way she was walking with that booty shakin' was so off the hizzy.
katy-g
Member
Man... read this... i found this via google. Its an analysis of the chorus
"My Milkshake brings all the boys
Sounds like a presupposition to me. Ok, let's take this as a given. The Milkshake, owned by the narrator (that is, the woman) is the principle reason that ALL the boys are drawn to the narrator.
to the yard.
But wait, what does the yard have to do with anything? I would think some of the boys at least initially came to the yard to play basketball or some other sports. Apparently, no boy came to the yard for that purpose. It's because of her milkshake. Let's keep holding on to that.
And their like it's better than yours
Now, that doesn't make any sense. In fact, it directly contradicts the presupposition. I thought it was her milkshake? Yet, the boys in their statement directly contradict this hypothesis. Apparently, "it" (which given the context of the song, I guess we are supposed to assume is a milkshake) is a much better milkshake then the narrators. The boys are kind enough to enumerate this.
Who owns this superior milkshake? Is it the boys themselves? If so, why did they come to the yard, if they already possessed it? Perhaps it is some unknown third party's milkshake.
Damn right
This is now the narrator speaking again from her own point of view. She agrees with the boys. But the boys said that "it" was better then the narrator's. This disagrees with the presupposition. Perhaps the narrator has reconsidered and is qualifying her statement?
it's better than yours
She says "Damn right", but then immediately contradicts herself. This is not what the boys said. They said that someone's milkshake (either the boys or some unknown third party) was better then the narrator. Now, she is saying that someone's milkshake (we can assume it is not the narrator, else she would have said "Mine". Rather she says "it". So, since "it" is better then "yours [that is, the boys]) is better then the boy's milkshake, which is not what the boys said at all. Therefore, we can finally determine that both parties are referring to some unknown third parties milkshake.
Then again, why she would agree with the boys' opinion, then states something that is not the boys' stated opinion, leads us the audience confused.
I could teach you, But I have to charge."
I think before we start talking about the exchange of money for any sort of teaching that we should establish:
1) Whose milkshake is best?
2) If it is some unknown third party's, how can the narrator teach this skill?
3) Raw skill does not mean an ability to teach. In what ways has the narrator proved her teaching skills?
4) Is this program accredited?
All in all, I think given the mutually contradictory statements from the narrator, and the less then glowing reviews by the boys, I would encourage prospective students to pass on this offer.
**cough.... insert cricket insect noises** WTF>?
"My Milkshake brings all the boys
Sounds like a presupposition to me. Ok, let's take this as a given. The Milkshake, owned by the narrator (that is, the woman) is the principle reason that ALL the boys are drawn to the narrator.
to the yard.
But wait, what does the yard have to do with anything? I would think some of the boys at least initially came to the yard to play basketball or some other sports. Apparently, no boy came to the yard for that purpose. It's because of her milkshake. Let's keep holding on to that.
And their like it's better than yours
Now, that doesn't make any sense. In fact, it directly contradicts the presupposition. I thought it was her milkshake? Yet, the boys in their statement directly contradict this hypothesis. Apparently, "it" (which given the context of the song, I guess we are supposed to assume is a milkshake) is a much better milkshake then the narrators. The boys are kind enough to enumerate this.
Who owns this superior milkshake? Is it the boys themselves? If so, why did they come to the yard, if they already possessed it? Perhaps it is some unknown third party's milkshake.
Damn right
This is now the narrator speaking again from her own point of view. She agrees with the boys. But the boys said that "it" was better then the narrator's. This disagrees with the presupposition. Perhaps the narrator has reconsidered and is qualifying her statement?
it's better than yours
She says "Damn right", but then immediately contradicts herself. This is not what the boys said. They said that someone's milkshake (either the boys or some unknown third party) was better then the narrator. Now, she is saying that someone's milkshake (we can assume it is not the narrator, else she would have said "Mine". Rather she says "it". So, since "it" is better then "yours [that is, the boys]) is better then the boy's milkshake, which is not what the boys said at all. Therefore, we can finally determine that both parties are referring to some unknown third parties milkshake.
Then again, why she would agree with the boys' opinion, then states something that is not the boys' stated opinion, leads us the audience confused.
I could teach you, But I have to charge."
I think before we start talking about the exchange of money for any sort of teaching that we should establish:
1) Whose milkshake is best?
2) If it is some unknown third party's, how can the narrator teach this skill?
3) Raw skill does not mean an ability to teach. In what ways has the narrator proved her teaching skills?
4) Is this program accredited?
All in all, I think given the mutually contradictory statements from the narrator, and the less then glowing reviews by the boys, I would encourage prospective students to pass on this offer.
**cough.... insert cricket insect noises** WTF>?
Ellie_Belly
Member
:rofl: post of the day!!!katy-g said:
katy-g
Member
Oh goody!!Ellie_Belly said:
Ellie_Belly
Member
Lol. But then I realised it was from googlekaty-g said:Oh goody!!
But still, good thinking for finding it!!!Ellie_Belly
Member
Errr.... who said anything about good?Dr_Doom said: