J Y F

http://www.xpmedical.com/

Haha, well everyone regardless of their status/standard personality has their own quirks if fetish sites like this or anything else are any evidence. Rather, if my real life friends are any kind of indication, I would think that people in higher level education typically have more quirks, and on a more relevant note are waaaayyy more accepting of certain fetishes than the general population. You're probably better off searching for that special someone on campus rather than on a site like this. As InD stated, you're rlyyyyyyy narrowing down the search, and personally i don't really get the Harvard restriction if you're aiming to just satisfy a certain fetish. Meh I'm tired, kinda just blurted out that last post. Night.

Welp, I don't typically respond to these posts, but just out of curiosity what in particular do you mean by understand? As in the interest that this website caters to or something else? I'm not a Harvard student in particular, but I come from MA and know Cambridge "kind of well." I am a student in one of the Ivies (not saying which in a forum post) =P PM me i guess? I'm quite a bit younger than 35 so... I understand if you'd rather not xD

Well... correct me if i'm wrong but talc is a silicate and is consequently not digestable. It's the same thing with silica gel used for column chromatography which you have to be very careful to not inhale. Because it isn't digestable or can be broken down in any way it'll stay in your lungs for a long time if not forever. If you inhale too much, it'll build up and cause breathing problems. Corn starch is preferable because it can be digested...even if it's in the lungs. In any case it will leave the lungs MUCH faster than talc would.

All in all, i agree with KittenAB's point of view. It bothers me that some people might actually take this test seriously... Many of the questions on this test are rather outdated and though it is based on certain "official psychology" tests, these official tests are still disputed even and...especially in the scientific field. I can't go into the details because there are...a lot and I don't have that much time. You can read the maker's description of what it is...http://www.transsexual.org/wordoncogiati.html She states it's a prototype, but I honestly feel that that may already be giving it too much credibility. Please remember that many of the questions on her test are tailored more towards people who are naturally, by their genetics, born as male or female. As far as I know, there have been no conclusive controlled tests about transexuality that could warrant the creation of an actual transexual test as Laura has attempted to make.

How quaint... I honestly have to wonder what kind of studies they've done on fetishes like ours to understand it well enough to start bringing it up in an undergraduate course... At the very least it's never come up in the psych classes I attend

Lol redneck, you have to tone down your posts a bit xD. Those are all very controversial points and though I agree with the basis of some of them, you've put them a bit out of proportion. You have to stay more calm and nonaggressive when talking about politics for anyone to ever listen to you.

Hm ok I think I half agree with you on the We the People Act. I've reread the Act and I'll admit that I didn't fully remember the actual contents of the act before. Upon my reread, I find that this quote of Section 2 article 7 is most relevant to our discussion. "Supreme Court and lower Federal court decisions striking down local laws on subjects such as religious liberty, sexual orientation, family relations, education, and abortion have wrested from State and local governments issues reserved to the States and the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States." Now my disagreement I feel is stemming from what you typed "It was designed SPECIFICALLY to prevent the federal government and courts from stepping in when states make laws that infringe on individual liberties." -Leilin Now, I find that is only half of the truth. The other half is the fact that this bill would have also prevented federal governments and courts from stepping in and destroy laws that promote individual liberty. I'm repeating myself, but I thought the Supreme Court was totally out of line in restricting the freedom of people to pray. I looked up the actual name of the June 19, 2000 case which was "Santa Fe Independent School Dist. vs Doe" where a student organization was accused of breaking the law for allowing prayer at football games. This organization that tried to promote an individual freedom was infringed upon by the Supreme Court making it so that you cannot pray wherever you want. It's just from this that I do not believe that this bill was written only for the sake of state power at the expense of individual liberty, but rather that is only one of the possible implications because it has the possibility of defending individual liberties as well. I feel like in this bill, he simply put his devotion to the constitution aka the 10th amendment that limits the federal government's power. But I will say that from your posts, I have to agree that Ron Paul does not live up to being a strict libertarian since he has to balance his libertarianism with his constitutionalism. And sometimes those two sides just don't mix very well as shown by the We the People Act. I mean it's not like he can sponsor a law that states "all people should be able to freely express whatever religion or sexual orientation without any negative repercussions" since that would directly contradict his belief that the federal government has no power to instate that kind of law. I wouldn't go as far as to call him an anti-Federalist in that he only tries to take away power from the federal government when the federal government steps past the boundary that is Ron Paul's interpretation of the Constitution. At the very least, I feel like he's just trying to obey his oath of loyalty to the Constitution upon entering congressional office. The issue for me though is that despite this, I don't think he warrants the "fake libertarian" title from a couple of infractions. DADT and the death penalty changes of stance were in my opinion reasonable, and I can see the conflict between being a strict constitutionalist and a strict libertarian in We the People. Of course this is I believe a subjective opinion and anyone can disagree with my stance. Though if you have any other examples, I'm all for hearing about them. I've learned a lot in writing these responses and thanks for starting this conversation with me

I know what a libertarian is. You can’t support Ron Paul and not know what a libertarian is. I'm just saying that the intention that Ron Paul went into the We the People act was done so that individual liberties could be better supported by making sure the federal government doesn't interfere with them. The intention behind the We the People act could be interpreted different ways, one is that he went into it desiring to make the states more powerful than the federal government and the other is that he did it to make sure the federal government could no longer restrict individual freedoms like in the June 19, 2000 case. And this is where the question of whether or not he was following libertarian beliefs becomes subjective. For what intention did he do it for? I argue that he did it because he didn’t want the federal government to oppress individual liberties and if he had the power to restrict the states as well from interfering with individual liberties, well I think he would have. But he’s a congressman and has no power over state legislature. Of course you could have interpreted it as he wanted to make the law to make states more powerful, but I personally don’t follow that logic. The making states more powerful part was in my opinion an implication that he would have rather not have happened. I know that the tenth amendment is not the right of the states to oppress civil liberties, but rather the lack of right of the federal government to oppress civil liberties, and that’s what I think he was aiming for. Of course, neither of us can know what he was thinking and thus this becomes subjective opinion and not objective fact. Now again, about DADT, I feel the blog post at the link to a lobbyist’s blog that I pasted is very interesting in trying to understand Ron Paul’s mindset. I’ll bring up his death penalty contradiction. He was originally for the death penalty, but he changed his mind on it simply because it was not practical. In the PBS debate for the 2008 Presidential election, he stated he changed his mind because he knew from DNA tests that many past executions due to the death penalty were incorrectly done on innocent civilians. This impracticality changed his mind and I personally agree with his change in stance. And that brings us back to DADT. Ron Paul originally thought that DADT protected gay soldiers and their choice of sexual orientation and for that reason supported it as a libertarian. But the issue is that DADT has the potential of making gay soldiers more vulnerable. I mean its very origin was a compromise between a gay ban law and Bill Clinton’s desire to veto said law. It pretty much states that if you revealed you were gay in the military, you’d be fired, which is in my opinion more of a threat than protection. Ron Paul later explained why he changed his mind from supporting to wanting to repeal DADT. "I have received several calls and visits from constituents who, in spite of the heavy investment in their training, have been forced out of the military simply because they were discovered to be homosexual. To me, this seems like an awful waste. Personal behavior that is disruptive should be subject to military discipline regardless of whether the individual is heterosexual or homosexual. But to discharge an otherwise well-trained, professional, and highly skilled member of the military for these reasons is unfortunate and makes no financial sense." –Ron Paul Like with the death penalty inconsistency, Ron Paul though initially supportive of DADT changed his mind since it simply wasn’t the best possible law that could be made to protect homosexuals since extremely well trained officers could be fired for simply their sexual orientation. This didn’t make much sense in Ron Paul’s and my opinion and I respect a politician who listens to his constituents rather than stay stubborn on his original beliefs. And it is for that reason that I still support Ron Paul as a libertarian though there have been like 2 incidents where he has changed position, since I see those changes in position as being quite rational decisions.

Well for the "We the People Act" it was built off the 10th Amendment that the Federal government shouldn't mess with stuff not delegated by the Constitution and instead leave it to the states without interference. I mean federal court rulings could go either way to either destroy an oppressive law on religion or sexual orientation or it can bring about new restrictions on these topics. An example would have been when the Supreme Court stated that people are no longer allowed to pray at football games on June 19, 2000. Ron Paul probably felt that if a community decided to protect one’s right to practice religion and as a result pray wherever one wants, the Supreme Court has no right to deny the community that freedom. I believe situations like that were what Ron Paul was aiming to get rid of. The Act was meant “to limit the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and the lower Federal courts over matters that are reserved to the States and to the People by the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

No offense Leilin, but I've been following Ron Paul's debates and newsletters rather closely since 2007, and not once do I remember him stating that he puts states rights as more important than individual rights. I'd totally agree with you though if you could give us your source. As a response to Mischa, the issue of this act is the process of finding out if an individual is directly tied to Al Qaeda or not. What if some American citizens were to join a mosque that on the outside had no affiliations with terrorist groups, but a few individuals just happened to be part of Al Qaeda. Now if those people are discovered, the government could also arrest the innocent American citizens tied to this mosque. They would argue there was sufficient suspicion since they were part of the mosque, but how in the world can those innocent Americans argue their case if they are not allowed to go to court or even have a lawyer? That is the issue. It is unconstitutional for the executive branch to circumvent the judicial branch in this way destroying checks and balances simply because it is a major threat to the security of the rights of human beings. Just remember the Al-awlaki incident. Though he was shown to be a terrorist, his innocent 16 year old son who was yet unproven to be affiliated with Al Qaeda AND was an American citizen was unjustly murdered. How do you justify an accident like that when they could have simply captured him and put him on trial and avoid the death of a possibly innocent civilian. You cannot bypass the judicial branch if you want justice. It's there for a reason, to absolutely prove the guilt of an individual. Timothy Mcveigh was an excellent example of how it should have been done since he was tried, found guilty, and executed. Why avoid the court when it works? And just as an edit...here's a video on secret assassinations.

How is Ron Paul a fake Libertarian? His record has been quite consistent if you just look at how he's voted on bills for the past 30 years. And I don't seem to see how his views contrast with that of a libertarian's. Please elaborate.

The National Defense Authorization Act has been signed by President Obama into law. It permits the President to solely off of suspicion arrest any American citizen without trial or a lawyer through the US military. It essentially destroys the 5th amendment of the Constitution. That is unacceptable in a free country and in my opinion points us in the direction of a dystopia like those described in Fahrenheit 451, 1984, and Equilibrium. Below are videos that discuss the issue. From this I am without a doubt voting for Ron Paul 2012 since Obama has clearly been a flop and the other leading candidate Mitt Romney does not stir my confidence especially since he has flipflopped so much in his career, especially with the issue of abortion. I don't agree with all of Ron Paul's views, but I do believe that he is the catalyst that can propel the United States back to the morality that it had on its foundation. There's a reason why he has more donations from the US Army, Navy, and Airforce than Barack Obama and all of the other Republican candidates combined.

I feel I can identify with your situation to quite a degree having been on the extreme end of social awkwardness in my first couple of years in high school. I couldn't carry a conversation, was excessively opinionated, and would often act nonsensically or very immaturely. Though it was probably because of this lengthy awkward stage that I've become a self help junkie and have, at least in my opinion, greatly improved my communication skills in the last 5 years. From all of this I have come to many conclusions, one of the more important ones probably being that nonsexual conversations should typically have the overarching goal of making sure all participants are comfortable in order to improve relationships. From this, I found after a lot of practice that really any reasonable conversation can be made extremely nonoffensive and enjoyable through improved word choice and emotional self-awareness. What I feel like we need to know from you are the specific instances in which people tell you that "you've crossed the line" or "I'm not comfortable with this subject." For example, what topic were you talking about and how were you talking about it? What kind of emotions did you feel and showcase? I've found that all those embarrassing, regretful conversations really need to be analyzed on a case by case basis since conversation is simply too complicated to have simply a few major guidelines. At the very least that's what I did and I've been getting better and better conversations as the years roll by. Also, I don't fully buy the idea that repression of oneself should not be done around friends. I think we can all agree that those people who showcase the abdl fetish by actions like walking around the mall in full fetish gear are condemnable for forcing their weird fetish on others whether they be close friends or not. I can argue that this is no different than focusing on an offensive conversational topic such as something extreme like... cannibalism at a restaurant or sex at a preschool. Every rational person already restricts themselves in conversation and in public in general. We only feel its wrong when we consciously notice it such as when we have to avoid an offensive topic with a friend. To not restrict oneself is in my opinion quite selfish.

What a waste of supplies. If you want to make it that thick, at least use cloth since liquid would actually soak through the multiple layers.