A Beast in my Bed?

That's a whole 'nother matter entirely, one that I'm sure is beyond the scope of this thread.

Back on topic: I agree - what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes, whether it be in RL or SL, is none of my business. If a gerbil and a dragon want to "do it" together, that's fine by me.

I really did LOL at this one. Since I have seen a newbie orgy, the bot groupings/gropings just about could be.

I really did LOL at this one. Since I have seen a newbie orgy, the bot groupings/gropings just about could be.

No need to apologize - to me, anyway. I have learned to completely bypass the posts when you and Pep get going and just read the others.

I suppose some people have not quite figured out how to just ignore you two if they do not wish to read your banter, but I figure that is really their issue, not yours.

I don't. I manage my own perceptions, since that is all I am qualified to do. But even so called Historal Record is nothing more than the perceptions of who put that down, and managed to survive for someone future to read it. That's the beauty of history - it's all just perceptions.

Personally I try not to remember more than 3 weeks in advance, that way it does not get in the way of me building beautiful memories in which to entertain me on the next turn of the wheel of life.

*laughs* it was a deliberately use, designed to indicate an affected tone At least that is my story and I am sticking to it

Interesting thread.

Confirms the theory that PEP's a dick.

Who knew?

Actually I have asked those questions in the past. I've been in sl a long time and I have spoken out about many issues. October 2006 is just Jig's birth. I have consistently questioned the webcam and voice as a positive/negative influence on us. I have always argued for cultural integration and for social connection. I dont think sex is a "bad" choice of topic and I am not sure what "deviancy" is. If you are so chizzed off then dont apply time in entering thread.

I don't know what "chizzed" off means but I doubt it applies to me. I answered the opening post questions and gave my opinions. Nothing more and nothing less. Don't like it?, don't post opinion threads.

"My kink is fine. But, yours crosses the line." << Quoted from across the street. =^-^=

Agreed, which is why I don't want anyone telling me that Asimov's is *the* correct and accurate view of the 20th century rather than McInerney's.

Pep (or vice versa)

Hear, hear!

Pep (*not* "here, here"

A fair point but Polidori's story did not 'endure', did it? Another point to consider is that the popular interpretation of vampires is a staple of middle-European folklore so any claim to originality is always compromised by that fact. Murnau's film was a transparent rehash of Dracula, which was why Stoker's widow forced him to change the title and names of central characters.

You made your point about Shelley and Bronte pretty comprehensively, Jig, but just to emphasise my distinction between their work and Polidori's story:

Frankenstein's creature was a shocking invention because it was a thoroughly original concept that challenged scientific hubris, medical ethics (grave-robbing was hanging offence back in the day) and the notion of man setting himself in the position of God - the very definition of sin by any theology I have studied.

"Goth/Punk headbanger" is an apt description of Charlotte Bronte (ok then, Anne) as well because she was equally iconoclastic and I don't doubt that the streak of Irish Huguenot in her genes was an influence. Her portrait of Heathcliff was a thoroughly accurate and disturbing dissection of masculine passions running riot into and beyond the grave, which is all the more disturbing because it is evidently the product of a young woman's unconscious processes. Bronte even managed to incorporate the vampire/succubus theme in a totally original and individual manner: there is a horrible completeness about Wuthering Heights in the way Cathy's ghost draws her lover back to die on her grave and none of the sugary nonsense that we tend to associate with romance in the modern sense. Not so much as a fang mentioned nor a drop of blood shed.

I often wonder how a guy would have fared, living in the shadow of Charlotte Bronte's (damn, Emily then)* perception of men had she lived to find a partner.


Traumatic experiences are far from amusing but we are driven to make sense of them, often through some creative process that helps us maintain a healthy balance of sanity between ego and libido, which is essentially what romance is about. Historical description has nothing to do with the matter.


Crazy bitches? Assume irony as default.

You are (re)making my arguments for me! LMAO!

Obviously, he would have educated her out of her naivete in some of the realities of life.

This paragraph scores astonishingly high on the BSmeter - consider submitting it to Private Eye's Pseuds' Corner?

Fixed it for ya!

Pep (You were referring to the OP weren't you?)

PS It is very difficult to communicate irony in text - particularly since the suggested punctuation marks are not in general use - but as you may have found, it *is* easy to backtrack after the fact . . .

Deliberately misquoting another's post is very, very poor form.

You are a troll, sir, and a facile scoundrel to boot.

"Fixed" followed by a misquoted post is actually quite alright as anyone reading knows it is intentionally a misquote.

You must be new to the internet.


Why did i look in this thread?

I am neither new to the internet nor to this forum.

I don't tolerate cheap baiting tactics, that is all. When they introduce a [MISQUOTE] tag that makes the respondent's shenanigans semantically clear, I will accept that such behaviour is "quite alright".

And why did you feel the need to comment when you aren't sure why you looked at the thread? Slow day at the office?

You obviously don't have to be new to be a n00b!

Pep (Beginning to feel sorry for Ephraim, but not much)

It could have been worse! You could have looked at the "discrimination" thread . . .

Pep (But thanks anyway)

Sex involving furries and humans, etc. in SL or any other fantasy world is not bestiality as we understand it in the real world. What makes bestiality wrong is that animals cannot consent - they do not communicate on the same level or exist in the same psychological realm as human beings. In contrast, a furry by his/her nature has human-level intelligence, and can consent. It's comparable to, say, alien/human sex in Star Trek. Different species, but both parties have the same intellectual capabilities.

BTW, I don't have time right now to go into a detailed discussion of the various works of Victorian literature that have been mentioned, but the idea that they are not representative of the inner psychological conflicts facing women and men of their time is simply ludicrous. YES, the Victorians had a very repressed culture, on the surface, but behind closed doors, and inside human hearts, the sexuality and sensuality were still there. They had to be, human nature being what it is. It came out in the form of dark and twisted romances, complex metaphors, subtle innuendos, and tales of vampires and men stitched together from corpses. This is not "chick lit", it is women trying to understand and accept their "beastly" desires in a society in which they were expected to be "angels in the house," pure and chaste. Many of these same women authors chose to defy those stereotypes, becoming feminists, wearing bloomers, having sex outside of marriage. Of course, there were many more women who were too afraid or too trapped to live that life, but that doesn't mean they didn't want it, or that they didn't perhaps stand up to their husbands more often, or try masturbating, or make other small but significant changes in their attitudes that gradually pushed us towards the more equal and sexually open society we live in today.

Shall we move on to analysing the repressed sexuality and violence underlying all those nursery rhymes now?

Pep (Jack and Jill wouldn't get a PG rating . . . )

If a furry and a human av love each other and lay with each other in a loving way, and down the track the stork brings them a offspring. Is that offspring a neko?

Err... Mary Shelly wrote Frankenstein in 1818. Victoria didn't become queen until 1837. Frankenstein cannot possibly be conceived of as "Victorian." Just nitpicking...

Please! The OP doesn't allow facts to get in the way of an opinion . . .

Pep (Some of the authors and titles in this thread were inaccurately associated but that was unimportant too)