(some!!!!) Mormon & exmormon men and the internet

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:38 am

http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=5526&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Is this discussion essentially about this thread? I haven't read it, but is this where men on here are being inappropriate?

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:41 am

marg wrote:The reason I reacted in opposition to you, is because you had set it up that all 3 of you women, you J.G. & Moniker have noticed this inappropriate behavior and were all non Mormon, therefore you concluded there must be something to your argument. Not only did I think your observations were unfounded, but as a non Mormon, non religious individual I thought a counter voice was warranted.

I don't see that beastie had it "set up". She included me in some of her posts because I chose to comment regarding the nature of the type of postings she was referring to. "It's condescending", is what I offered.

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:41 am

Make it wet and you got yourself a deal, hon.

OOOooooooOOOO.

In retrospect, I have no idea I would want to see marg in a tank-top. I’ll bet she's a wrinkled middle-aged woman with varicose veins and more good years behind her than ahead of her. Right? ;-)

_marg · Post by **_marg** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:42 am

Moniker wrote: I don't do drugs you dodo. I don't even drink! I don't have sex either! But, I have in the past and I can talk about it! I do buy clothes that I think are CUTE -- and sexy. Yep, sure do. Burn me at the stake.

You know marg, for a non-LDS you sure as f*** act a lot like Charity.

No no...not Charity...how could you possible say something so cruel!

Ok now I'm upset, I'm going to go watch t.v. , I'll come back to this later when I get through crying.

Post by **_Moniker** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:42 am

marg wrote:http://mormondiscussions.com/discuss/viewtopic.php?t=5526&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=asc&highlight=

Is this discussion essentially about this thread? I haven't read it, but is this where men on here are being inappropriate?

No, the discussion isn't essentially about that thread. The men were invited by the women to act out sexual "role playing" on that thread -- and some joined in.

I pointed that out to YOU 'cause you said I do more sexual posts than others on this board. It's bs!

We were talking about how the men and women even sometimes act sexually immature. Or that if a women is talking about sexuality it doesn't necessarily mean she wants sexual attention.

Post by **_Gazelam** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:43 am

beastie wrote:
I've never read anything from men on this board as being inappopriate regarding sex or the way they treated women as being inappropriate.

I'd love to see you in a T-shirt.

This is the picture marg sent me in his provocative e-mail. I don't know what I said that was so titilating, but I was forced to explain to him that I don't swing that way.

Post by **_beastie** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:44 am

The reason I reacted in opposition to you, is because you had set it up that all 3 of you women, you J.G. & Moniker have noticed this inappropriate behavior and were all non Mormon, therefore you concluded there must be something to your argument. Not only did I think your observations were unfounded, but as a non Mormon, non religious individual I thought a counter voice was warranted.

Counter voices are welcome. Voices telling Moniker that she's "asking for it", so to speak, are not. Especially when those same voices have a bit of pertinent baggage, named JAK.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:46 am

I, personally, am waiting for some male poster to come in here and make the typical comment. I'll let you know when they do.

Post by **_Mister Scratch** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:48 am

Actually, Moniker apparently does have quite a few postings dealing with sex. If you plug "sex" into the search engine and pair it with different posters' names, you come up with some intriguing results. I, for example, turn up with some 60-odd posts. Beastie is in the 80-90 range. The Nehor has over a hundred. Liz? About 130. Moniker's count is something like 167.

Now, I'm not quite sure what marg is trying to argue, exactly, but I thought these data were interesting, at least.

Post by **_Jersey Girl** » Mon Apr 21, 2008 2:51 am

Mister Scratch wrote:Actually, Moniker apparently does have quite a few postings dealing with sex. If you plug "sex" into the search engine and pair it with different posters' names, you come up with some intriguing results. I, for example, turn up with some 60-odd posts. Beastie is in the 80-90 range. The Nehor has over a hundred. Liz? About 130. Moniker's count is something like 167.

Now, I'm not quite sure what marg is trying to argue, exactly, but I thought these data were interesting, at least.

Hang on, stat man. Did you count the total search results each time? If so, you have to exclude the posts they replied to that contain the word "sex".