Re: Random Thoughts: The Randoming

by Wondering Thu Jul 02, 2015 1:49 am

That's why I've only ever played Lord of the Rings Online. I started when the game was new, and many of us were playing because it was Tolkien, not because we knew anything about MMOs. So we kinda grew up on the game together. Also, I play with my husband, so he explains things to me when I don't get it (like just now I asked what a "rotation" means Wink

). And he found a great "guild" (called "kinship" in that game) where no one behaves like that. We had a kin member who would take half an hour to explain everything about a raid fight before we did it. It was kind of funny. Endearing funny. So timing and some luck with that game.

Man, I miss that game. Haven't played since the baby was born.

by **reboot** Thu Jul 02, 2015 9:00 pm

Friend's son,

I have got to admire your guts and it is good that you talked to me before talking to your mom or the young lady in question. Yes I know age is just a number, but numbers matter, especially when they are 15 and mid 20s. No, do not try to find her on FB.

Coworker,

Nice handling of the 15 year old flirting with you. You kept it friendly, showed you were flattered, but made it clear that he should not be asking you out before he asked you out.

Friend,

Good job on the kid. He is great and I am sure is giving you fits with his flirting confidence.

by nearly_takuan Thu Jul 02, 2015 11:45 pm

I said I wasn't killing myself and I meant it. I really thought it was true.

Health stuff:

Life is funny sometimes.

(ETA: To be clear, I know this is a thing I'm doing to myself, but I do not know how I can stop doing it.)

by BasedBuzzed Fri Jul 03, 2015 9:32 am

I miss the old forum's rep system. You can't see who likes/dislikes your posts and why.

by waxingjaney Fri Jul 03, 2015 12:38 pm

Who cares? People who +rep are generous and wise and people who -rep are stupid and ignorant, especially when they're the same person.

by The Wisp Sun Jul 05, 2015 1:35 pm

Suddenly realized something that is very strange: a shirtless man in a movie isn't even noteworthy while a shirtless woman (with no bra) gets a movie a PG-13 rating; a naked man's butt can be sneaked into a PG movie if it's comedic while a naked women's butt will get an R rating; HOWEVER, with full frontal nudity the double standard suddenly switches so that full frontal nudity from a woman is pretty common and accepted, albeit only in R movies, while full frontal nudity in men is *extremely* rare even in R movies and often is avoided for fear of the dreaded NC-17 rating.

by **Robjection** Sun Jul 05, 2015 3:45 pm

Open up the spoiler bit to have your mind blown.

Spoiler:

by Guest Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:00 am

I've been noticing this for a while now:

Why are mine and nearly_takuan's username's a darker shade of blue?

by **Enail** Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:28 am

The visited link colour is slightly darker than the unvisited one, maybe that's it?

by **Robjection** Mon Jul 06, 2015 11:53 am

Yeah, I can confirm that a darker username means you've visited that person's profile.

by Guest Tue Jul 07, 2015 4:11 am

But it doesn't change even when I'm logged out.

by Guest Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:02 am

The Wisp wrote:Suddenly realized something that is very strange: a shirtless man in a movie isn't even noteworthy while a shirtless woman (with no bra) gets a movie a PG-13 rating; a naked man's butt can be sneaked into a PG movie if it's comedic while a naked women's butt will get an R rating; HOWEVER, with full frontal nudity the double standard suddenly switches so that full frontal nudity from a woman is pretty common and accepted, albeit only in R movies, while full frontal nudity in men is *extremely* rare even in R movies and often is avoided for fear of the dreaded NC-17 rating.

Nah, there's more to it than that.

Any sort of nudity is worthy of an R-rating. PG-13 nudity is anything being implied but the camera kept above the shoulders. Stuff like that.

I'm trying to remember what movie it was that got an NC-17 for showing a woman having an orgasm. No nudity, no penetration, it was a woman getting head and the camera doesn't even show the other woman in the scene either (yes, that's right). It's just a close up of her face as she's getting eaten out and enjoying it.

And that got the entire movie slapped with an NC-17 for that ONE scene. I recommend watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated" to get a better idea of how the rating system works. Razz

by **Enail** Tue Jul 07, 2015 11:46 am

HermitTheToad wrote:But it doesn't change even when I'm logged out.

I imagine it's based on your cookies rather than on your user.

by Gentleman Johnny Tue Jul 07, 2015 3:00 pm

Started taking Capoeira with one of my troupe-mates last night, since we each figure that having the other one there will motivate us to keep going. As we're doing various acrobatic kicks, cartwheels etc. it seems like I'm about three inches taller than my kinesthetic sense says I am. I kept finding myself having to back up. I'm guessing its because I have basically zero experience with any position where my feet are above my head.

by Fraulein42 Tue Jul 07, 2015 9:28 pm

The Mikey wrote:
The Wisp wrote:Suddenly realized something that is very strange: a shirtless man in a movie isn't even noteworthy while a shirtless woman (with no bra) gets a movie a PG-13 rating; a naked man's butt can be sneaked into a PG movie if it's comedic while a naked women's butt will get an R rating; HOWEVER, with full frontal nudity the double standard suddenly switches so that full frontal nudity from a woman is pretty common and accepted, albeit only in R movies, while full frontal nudity in men is *extremely* rare even in R movies and often is avoided for fear of the dreaded NC-17 rating.

Nah, there's more to it than that.

Any sort of nudity is worthy of an R-rating. PG-13 nudity is anything being implied but the camera kept above the shoulders. Stuff like that.

I'm trying to remember what movie it was that got an NC-17 for showing a woman having an orgasm. No nudity, no penetration, it was a woman getting head and the camera doesn't even show the other woman in the scene either (yes, that's right). It's just a close up of her face as she's getting eaten out and enjoying it.

And that got the entire movie slapped with an NC-17 for that ONE scene. I recommend watching "This Film is Not Yet Rated" to get a better idea of how the rating system works.

I think it was Blue Valentine.

A man having an orgasm is a PG-13 rating though.

-------

https://nerdlounge.canadian-forum.com/viewtopic.forum?t=963

by Sponsored content