Quote:
Originally Posted by JMurder3
Not really sure what you're getting at. This is an unequivocal statement that I believe needs equivocating...
Jack Bauer's family is safer if he has a gun. Maybe JustJ is really Jack Bauer, or at least Jack Baueresque. I don't know. Neither do you.
I don't know. That's my point. I believe you were stating that statistics proved something to be fact that they did not. I don't think statistics, at least those cited, can prove that, whether I agree with the underlying opinion or not.
I'm referring to the way you explain to me that outliers exist almost every time we have any kind of srs biz discussion.
The likelihood of JackBaurdom <<<<<<<<the probability of bad self-assessment.
The word "prove" takes us full circle.
Idk, I'm certainly untested beyond a few years of college, and in omg Im surrounded by super smart, hugely successful men, but I don't "feel" like I'm so stupid that I need someone to start each discussion with the basics. I also know that correlation ≠ causation, and have at least a basic understanding of logical fallacies.
...but what do I know because
self assessment is crap.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pelicanpoker
Solid life strat.
Some advice: if a girl tells you she is on the pill and it's ok to **** her without a condom, ignore her and wrap that ****. Even better, just walk away.
Even in a long term monogamous relationship? If so I'm definitely guilty of that. It seems like other women must have different experiences because there's a market for lube and lubricated condoms, but I find them unnecessary, excessive, and it feels better without for me too.
I've never figured out if I'm weird, or if other women are taking too many "for the team" when they're really not that interested in actually having sex, and thus in need of help?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LonelyBox
I never bareback. Way too scares to catch something.
Get. Tested. First.
Ldo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LuckyLuke01
well aren't you?
Yes.