"If most people treated their gardens the way they treat sex, they'd never see a single rose grow."

I like that line.

I'd read more of these comments, but it's disappointing to see so many stereotypes. Thank God I don't have these communication problems with my lover.

Trolls are like mis-behaving dogs, if you just turn your back and ignore them they will eventually go away.

I like the following people: WoLand, Doktor Krankheit, Wendy in California, HeddaGabler, captcrisis (sometimes), Sarah-London, Juliebird, chris_k, bartotome

I feel sorry for for the countless people who had bad experiences with porn, or people who dealt with random jerks that desperately needed someone's help to mature, most likely due to a failure in communication whose blame is ultimately of complex origins.

.

Human sexuality is infinite in its types, and this can make it difficult to find porn that appeals to you. Imagine being dropped on a random geographic location on the planet; what are the chances you end up somewhere you like to be? If you went to a video store, you probably found mass-marketed stuff, and it's hard to tell from a cover whether this is worth your money.

I only like about 5-10% of the porn I see, and you'd probably like less so I definitely suggest that you use the Internet. There are web sites like youtube (one of them is even called youporn) that have all kinds of porn that you can reasonably imagine, with a search engine.

Some of the sex I've seen: hanging from a rock climbing harness (fearless!), riding horses, and underwater (OMG). I've seen normal people (you know, people with moles and birth marks) making real love to each other, holding each other, staring into eyes, bodies close.

If you find something you like, say..lpolson's desire to see stripping, and you further stumble on a strip that you like, say..someone from Twisty's, you could go to Twisty's website and get more of that kind of thing.

Oh, by the way, if anyone of any gender wants sex of any kind, it's pretty much obligatory to be FRESHLY washed (with soap!). For the oral kind, flossing with pubes is awful, so trimming is a minimum courtesy (for EVERYONE) though shaved may be a bit too far. Oral might not be fun at first, but it is usually a small price to pay if you enjoy your lover's reaction.

Remember that mainstream videos are edited down, so that's why you won't see any laughter. Not all porn is fake, and there are more varieties than can be imagined. Homemade videos of amateurs romantically engaging each other. There's a site called Beautiful Agony, it's just faces of women having orgasms, no nudity. Sometimes they even laugh; I once saw a chick getting nailed by a guy in an Easter bunny costume, and that HAD to be funny at some point. There are even good mainstream actresses (my girlfriend and I like Tori Black because she seems genuine in some of her videos).

Pornography can be a mind-opening experience, because it can expose you to new types of sexuality that you weren't even aware of, allowing you to decide what you like and what you don't. You said it yourself; how do you really know what you like, without sleeping with everyone? How do you know what your fetishes are? (How do you know the safe way to engage in BDSM?) Our society is quite bad at sharing social scripts for how to interact sexually with each other. Pornography can fill this void, but it's important to remember that it only provides disparate templates from which one can build a more complete repertoire.

Sure, some people will find some of the scripts obnoxious, but if you really love your partner, you'll let them know what scripts you like and don't like. For instance, my girlfriend loves dirty talking, but doesn't like getting dressed up. Sometimes she likes it when I pull out, creating a sense of anticipation, and other times it is just frustrating. But, with a healthy dose of communication, we have been able to learn not only what scripts we both enjoy, but when we enjoy them.

Your rescinded question to your readers compared the legal surveillance of foreign nationals to, specifically, "unchecked" surveillance, which implies the illegal warrantless surveillance of Americans' communications. There was less than zero implication that such surveillance could be performed with legally and with checks, and that is specifically what justified GG's scrutiny. It was not to paint your whole post as an attack on civil libertarians, but rather to show the inherent (and sometimes unintentional) bias surrounding national security discussions.

The sad thing is that there was almost a nice discussion about privacy in the comment thread, but sadly Mr. Mackey's comment section is now closed. One of your readers, eba, makes an excellent point - that intelligence sharing agreements mean the British government used the American government's spying powers to circumvent British law, and that the American government could use the British government to circumvent American law, and that this is troubling.

Recall that the alleged recidivism rate for Guantanamo detainees who were released is something like 15%. (I think GG has detailed how the real number is probably lower than that)

Given that the real-world rate for actual criminals is about 50% or so, and assuming that the percentage of innocents falsely imprisoned is low, we can estimate that the number of real criminals is twice the recidivism rate.

This would imply that, at best, only 30% of the people who were in Gitmo belonged there (and that's the conservative estimate!)