https://youtu.be/87lUoaGhUbU
https://youtu.be/ilglSpeqpx8

Wew.

Comments disabled and like/dislike counts hidden. That's never a good sign.

Yeah i saw those, lol

what if we prearranged to get super smashed then smash

You saw those too? Hey, at least I'm possibly not the only one attracted to some of those birds and/or bees.

1. I saw that the other day and immediately wondered where the r34 was.
2. What drugs can someone be on without causing sex with them to be considered date rape? For the purposes of this discussion, we'll cross alcohol, qualudes, and rohypnol off the list.
3. "what if we prearranged to get super smashed then smash"

Lance_Armstrong said:
2. What drugs can someone be on without causing sex with them to be considered date rape?

Flibanserin! Oh wait, that knocks them out cold... um...

Caffeine?

caffeinated sex sounds awful

Knotty_Curls said:
caffeinated sex sounds awful

I don't know. Give them enough red bulls they become a human vibrator.

I'm already Michael J Fox tho

https://youtu.be/RftQ5-rrQ9Q?t=6s

The date rape and harassment thing I can completely understand, but the thing in the second episode where the bird dude bullies the bee guy into deleting a post on the Internet, that's... I dunno, it just sets wrong with me. It's like the Grammar Nazis of a few years back. Sure, they were usually right about grammar, but they were also annoying pricks who used their "correctness" as a means of making themselves look extra-important. People like that tend to make matters worse rather than better.

InannaEloah said:
The date rape and harassment thing I can completely understand, but the thing in the second episode where the bird dude bullies the bee guy into deleting a post on the Internet, that's... I dunno, it just sets wrong with me. It's like the Grammar Nazis of a few years back. Sure, they were usually right about grammar, but they were also annoying pricks who used their "correctness" as a means of making themselves look extra-important. People like that tend to make matters worse rather than better.

First one seemed fine, second one seemed off.

I think there's a better way to portray "try to convince people you know to stop being pricks on the Internet" than demanding that they delete their posts.

Every time I watch something a week before, everyone else sees it later on. Y'all stalking me :V

I'm angry now for some reason.
Is this what it feels like to be old and out of the times?

3rd episode:
Duuuuuuuuuuude, having sex with animals is soooooooo, like, TOTALLY LIKE, not ok, dude.

Munkelzahn said:
3rd episode:
Duuuuuuuuuuude, having sex with animals is soooooooo, like, TOTALLY LIKE, not ok, dude.

Fine, I'll go fuck a tree instead.

Hey, that cherry tree looks like a good sort. Let's see if she wants a root.

I've heard Whispy Woods gives the best blowjobs.

It's hip to fuck birds.

It's good that society are finally actively telling men not to rape. This needs to be taken further and introduced into schools. Crime mitigation should be pre-emptive and not reactive.

Lance_Armstrong said:
1. I saw that the other day and immediately wondered where the r34 was.

It's happening bees

Lance_Armstrong said:
2. What drugs can someone be on without causing sex with them to be considered date rape? For the purposes of this discussion, we'll cross alcohol, qualudes, and rohypnol off the list.

If it interferes with the womans ability to withdraw consent while still leaving the mans ability to violate intact.. then it can be used as a rape drug.

Lance_Armstrong said:
3. "what if we prearranged to get super smashed then smash"

See #2 answer.

CuteCoughDeath said:
It's good that society are finally actively telling men not to rape.

Because they totally haven't been doing that for over 50 years.

CuteCoughDeath said:
If it interferes with the womans ability to withdraw consent while still leaving the mans ability to violate intact.. then it can be used as a rape drug.

It's interesting that you specify a woman's ability to withdraw consent while leaving a man's ability to violate intact.

EDIT: And now I know why you did.

We need to teach lesbians that licking a passed-out woman's vagina is not ok.
unless i get to watch

InannaEloah said:
The date rape and harassment thing I can completely understand, but the thing in the second episode where the bird dude bullies the bee guy into deleting a post on the Internet, that's... I dunno, it just sets wrong with me. It's like the Grammar Nazis of a few years back. Sure, they were usually right about grammar, but they were also annoying pricks who used their "correctness" as a means of making themselves look extra-important. People like that tend to make matters worse rather than better.

Internet and social media are really weird places, sometimes you write things that you would never say in face-to-face conversations and sometimes you forget that the message is publicly available instead of just talking between friends or groups. And most, including goverments, haven't grasped this idea at all, resulting someone saying on twitter they want to kill somebody because they are simply angry, resulting law to take actions of it being threat.

So in that sense I can see it being issue, but the way video approaches it does seem really aggressive. Pretty sure that kind of stuff never happens in real life and people actually saying that kind of stuff are assburgers or similar who are never taken seriously anyway.

BlueDingo said:
It's interesting that you specify a woman's ability to withdraw consent while leaving a man's ability to violate intact.

Because it's impossible for males to have non-consensual sex or be raped or assaulted. [/sarcasm]

Reminds me of news several years ago where man was calling to 911 because woman was abusing them and 911 simply asking "are you taking hits from a woman?". These things exsists but because males should always be strong and manly, them getting abused in any way are taken much lighter.

Mario69 said:
These things exist but because males should be strong and manly, them getting abused in any way are taken much lighter.

Much lighter indeed.

CuteCoughDeath said:

Lance_Armstrong said:
3. "what if we prearranged to get super smashed then smash"

See #2 answer.

If it interferes with the womans ability to withdraw consent while still leaving the mans ability to violate intact.. then it can be used as a rape drug.

This is actually an extremely gray area.

Obviously I don't want to imply that either party is now obligated to follow through. Consent should be able to be withdrawn at any point in the night, and one would hope that the other wouldn't hold it against them like a child throwing a tantrum at a broken pinky swear.

But let's not be unrealistic: this situation involves alcohol. The ability to make sound decisions is impaired.

I believe that if all decisions on what we are doing with our bodies were made before we ever got anywhere near alcohol, then we are both absolutely certain that - barring an emergency - we want to fuck while hammered. And we're gonna make this work together, because (hopefully) nobody wants a partner who lies there like a sandbag.

If two adults truly thought this through, then there should be a level of implicit trust that neither adult wants to entrap the other.

But how many times do we actually truly think things through, right? Food for thought

putting it out there that I hate college students

I hate everyone at party scenes, actually.

Knotty_Curls said:
Consent should be able to be withdrawn at any point in the night...

We... Not any point. Doing so five seconds after you've finished is a bit of a dick move.

BlueDingo said:
Because they totally haven't been doing that for over 50 years.

Only 50 years? It's been a lot longer than that.

It's interesting that you specify a woman's ability to withdraw consent while leaving a man's ability to violate intact.

EDIT: And now I know why you did.

Yup, figured as much. There's a word for people like that: they're called misandrists (people who hate and are sexist against men).

InannaEloah said:
Only 50 years? It's been a lot longer than that.

I said over, not only.

BlueDingo said:
I said over, not only.

I know that. It's called 'humor.'

InannaEloah said:
I know that. It's called 'humor.'

Fair enough.

CuteCoughDeath said:
It's happening bees

Specifically, sexual_violence_with_the_birds_and_the_bees. Four at the time of this comment.

Lance_Armstrong said:
2. What drugs can someone be on without causing sex with them to be considered date rape? For the purposes of this discussion, we'll cross alcohol, qualudes, and rohypnol off the list.

Well, as far as Title IX is concerned, aspirin is probably a date rape drug.

Knotty_Curls said:
putting it out there that I hate college students

I hate everyone at party scenes, actually.

Was not expecting this sentiment.

Anyway, I am disgusted that a male bee is portrayed with a stinger. Shame on them!

Universities are magnets for small-town success kids who breezed their way through high schools which beat the "you're exceptional" sentiment into their heads. They think they know everything. They think they can do no wrong. They think they're invincible. They are cozy and warm in their dorms which they personally aren't paying for. A bunch of clueless kids who have no idea how clueless they are (yet, hopefully) because they were sheltered all their lives. Now they're away from home and this culture owes them a good time.

When I hear there's been an alcohol poisoning or an STI passing around on campus, I'm not surprised. They're all kids.

So to clarify, I don't hate all college students. I just think most American underclassmen aren't worth talking to. Some of them never grow up.

Mario69 said:
Because it's impossible for males to have non-consensual sex or be raped or assaulted. [/sarcasm]

Actually. While it is possible for men to have sex while not consensual men cannot be technically raped. Rape requires a power dynamic that women don't have also because during sex the man is considered the actor.
Just like non-white people cannot be racist is white dominated countries but they can be bigoted.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Actually. While it is possible for men to have sex while not consensual men cannot be technically raped. Rape requires a power dynamic that women don't have also because during sex the man is considered the actor.
Just like non-white people cannot be racist is white dominated countries but they can be bigoted.

Please be trolling.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Actually. While it is possible for men to have sex while not consensual men cannot be technically raped. Rape requires a power dynamic that women don't have also because during sex the man is considered the actor.
Just like non-white people cannot be racist is white dominated countries but they can be bigoted.

die in a fire femishit

CuteCoughDeath said:
Actually. While it is possible for men to have sex while not consensual men cannot be technically raped. Rape requires a power dynamic that women don't have also because during sex the man is considered the actor.
Just like non-white people cannot be racist is white dominated countries but they can be bigoted.

I'm going to stop your bullshit right here before the fire spreads too far.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Actually. While it is possible for men to have sex while not consensual men cannot be technically raped. Rape requires a power dynamic that women don't have also because during sex the man is considered the actor.
Just like non-white people cannot be racist is white dominated countries but they can be bigoted.

The dictionary is what defines racism and rape, not you or whatever political agenda you believe in. And the dictionary definition is quite easy to access. You might want to look it up sometime and maybe start using it to define those words rather than letting your political ideology do it for you.

Of course, you'll most likely treat my reference to the dictionary as a form of blasphemy rather than actually acknowledging the valid definition as being, yanno, valid, because in my experience that's exactly what people who believe such tripe tend to do when confronted by inconvenient facts.

Racism: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/racism

"1: a belief that race is the primary determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race

2:
a: a doctrine or political program based on the assumption of racism and designed to execute its principles
b: a political or social system founded on racism

3: racial prejudice or discrimination"

There is nothing in the definition of racism that specifies that only white people can be racist, or that black people can't be racist. There is nothing specifying who has the most authority or which group has the most power. It is 100% centered around the belief that one race is better than another and acting upon that belief. So yes, white people most certainly CAN be victims of racism in a mostly white society, and black people most certainly CAN be racists in a mostly white society.

Rape: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rape

(I used the third set of definitions because the first two consisted of an archaic meaning and a non-sexual, more generalized definition than were relevant to this thread).

"1: an act or instance of robbing or despoiling or carrying away a person by force

2: unlawful sexual activity and usually sexual intercourse carried out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usually of a female or with a person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent — compare sexual assault, statutory rape

3: an outrageous violation"

And before you remind everyone here that it specifies "female" in Definition No. 2, notice that it says "against the will USUALLY of a female." That word "usually" means "most of the time but not always." And since the overarching issue of rape is "force" rather than "penile penetration of a vagina," YES, men CAN be technically raped.

It doesn't matter what your politcal ideology tells you, or what a University professor or high school teacher said racism is or what rape is. And it doesn't matter how popular your ideology may become. What matters is the actual definition of the words, and no matter how much you try to claim otherwise, your definitions of these words are wrong.

CuteCoughDeath said:
Actually. While it is possible for men to have sex while not consensual men cannot be technically raped. Rape requires a power dynamic that women don't have also because during sex the man is considered the actor.
Just like non-white people cannot be racist is white dominated countries but they can be bigoted.

That is the stupidest ideology I have ever seen. The only thing rape "requires" is one of the parties not consenting, doesn't matter if they're male, female, trans, etc. Also, I'm black myself and I've seen many other black people be racist towards others. Anyone can be racist.

Ratte said:
I'm going to stop your bullshit right here before the fire spreads too far.

Too late, it seems!

Am I the only one with "We Didn't Start the Fire" playing in my head right now?

Clawdragons said:
Am I the only one with "We Didn't Start the Fire" playing in my head right now?

Not anymore, but that's just because you mentioned it. Good song.

Hey kids, stop. Final warning.

Back on topic, what is the actual conversation about the birds and the bees? Like, what's the story?

TheHuskyK9 said:
Back on topic, what is the actual conversation about the birds and the bees? Like, what's the story?

I think it's supposed to be an abstract way of talking about sex with respect to nature. You know, something like "Hey child-o-mine, you see the birds out there? You've seen some bird chicks in their nest, I'm sure. Well, when a mama bird and a papa bird love each other, they do some special activities together so the mama bird can lay some eggs", and then likewise, discussing bees, as a way of extending it to all of nature, and finally bringing it around to humans and their activities as well.

I mean, that's my best guess anyway.

That said, birds and bees are not the best examples in reality, because bees are a three-sexed species, and birds... well, I mean, most birds don't even have penises (cloacal kissing ahoy!), so the analogy becomes rather odd. Though that said, I don't think the speech usually dives into the nitty-gritty of how exactly reproduction takes placce.

Then again, maybe they ARE good examples if you're trying to show your child how diverse sexuality is in the animal kingdom. But then that's sort of off topic.

It's a good thing I'm not having kids. I'd probably get sidetracked by telling them all the awesome / interesting details about how various animals reproduce, and then the child would be very confused when in his or her first intimate encounter with another partner and there are no spermatophores to be found.

TheHuskyK9 said:
Back on topic, what is the actual conversation about the birds and the bees? Like, what's the story?

Well... like I said, they have male bees with stingers so I doubt it's accurate at all

Clawdragons said:
I think it's supposed to be an abstract way of talking about sex with respect to nature. You know, something like "Hey child-o-mine, you see the birds out there? You've seen some bird chicks in their nest, I'm sure. Well, when a mama bird and a papa bird love each other, they do some special activities together so the mama bird can lay some eggs", and then likewise, discussing bees, as a way of extending it to all of nature, and finally bringing it around to humans and their activities as well.

I mean, that's my best guess anyway.

That said, birds and bees are not the best examples in reality, because bees are a three-sexed species, and birds... well, I mean, most birds don't even have penises (cloacal kissing ahoy!), so the analogy becomes rather odd. Though that said, I don't think the speech usually dives into the nitty-gritty of how exactly reproduction takes placce.

Then again, maybe they ARE good examples if you're trying to show your child how diverse sexuality is in the animal kingdom. But then that's sort of off topic.

It's a good thing I'm not having kids. I'd probably get sidetracked by telling them all the awesome / interesting details about how various animals reproduce, and then the child would be very confused when in his or her first intimate encounter with another partner and there are no spermatophores to be found.

For some reason, I always thought the story was a bird that had a thing for bees and the bee used its stinger as a reproductive organ or something

TheHuskyK9 said:
For some reason, I always thought the story was a bird that had a thing for bees and the bee used its stinger as a reproductive organ or something

if you want, Actini and I can show you

Knotty_Curls said:
if you want, Actini and I can show you

Sweet mercy

TheHuskyK9 said:
Back on topic, what is the actual conversation about the birds and the bees? Like, what's the story?

A very good question. Nobody I've ever asked seems to actually know, it's apparently just a statement?

Clawdragons said:
I think it's supposed to be an abstract way of talking about sex with respect to nature. You know, something like "Hey child-o-mine, you see the birds out there? You've seen some bird chicks in their nest, I'm sure. Well, when a mama bird and a papa bird love each other, they do some special activities together so the mama bird can lay some eggs", and then likewise, discussing bees, as a way of extending it to all of nature, and finally bringing it around to humans and their activities as well.

I mean, that's my best guess anyway.

That said, birds and bees are not the best examples in reality, because bees are a three-sexed species, and birds... well, I mean, most birds don't even have penises (cloacal kissing ahoy!), so the analogy becomes rather odd. Though that said, I don't think the speech usually dives into the nitty-gritty of how exactly reproduction takes placce.

Then again, maybe they ARE good examples if you're trying to show your child how diverse sexuality is in the animal kingdom. But then that's sort of off topic.

It's a good thing I'm not having kids. I'd probably get sidetracked by telling them all the awesome / interesting details about how various animals reproduce, and then the child would be very confused when in his or her first intimate encounter with another partner and there are no spermatophores to be found.

I'm only aware of two genders: Male and female. They just also happen to have classes: Drones, Workers, and Queens. Queens and Workers are both female, just the Queens are fed royal jelly for much longer, while Drones and Workers only get it for a short time.

What happens when a male larva is given that much Royal Jelly, though? Why haven't scientists tested that?

Furrin_Gok said:
What happens when a male larva is given that much Royal Jelly, though? Why haven't scientists tested that?

Actually, the royal jelly is not what causes a larva to become a queen bee. She becomes a queen bee because she isn't additionally fed pollen and honey like the other larvae are. These additional substances shrink the ovaries, preventing other bees from laying eggs.

So, theoretically, absolutely nothing would change in a male larva.

FibS said:
Actually, the royal jelly is not what causes a larva to become a queen bee. She becomes a queen bee because she isn't additionally fed pollen and honey like the other larvae are. These additional substances shrink the ovaries, preventing other bees from laying eggs.

So, theoretically, absolutely nothing would change in a male larva.

Are we sure they aren't having their testicles (or equivelant) shrunken? Like, ants have "Princes" (I can't find any official name for them?!) who go in mating flights with the "Princesses" (Virgin queens), could something similar happen with bees?

Furrin_Gok said:
Specifically, sexual_violence_with_the_birds_and_the_bees. Four at the time of this comment.

I suddenly feel the urge to write that wiki entry.

Furrin_Gok said:
I'm only aware of two genders: Male and female. They just also happen to have classes: Drones, Workers, and Queens. Queens and Workers are both female, just the Queens are fed royal jelly for much longer, while Drones and Workers only get it for a short time.

Man I need to stop talking about bees. I always get details about them mixed up and hopelessly wrong.

I have no idea why either. I have a great memory for the details of other species. But somehow when it comes to bees I get it wrong every time, and I get it wrong in a different way every time. Dang me.

Clawdragons said:
Man I need to stop talking about bees. I always get details about them mixed up and hopelessly wrong.

I have no idea why either. I have a great memory for the details of other species. But somehow when it comes to bees I get it wrong every time, and I get it wrong in a different way every time. Dang me.

Insects do a lot of things differently.

BlueDingo said:
Insects do a lot of things differently.

Yeah but see for most insects I know anything about, I can get the details right.

It wouldn't be weird to me if I forgot details for all sorts of species, but no. It's always bees. It's always the bees!

BlueDingo said:
Insects do a lot of things differently.

The weirdest thing about bee reproduction is that the unfertilized eggs become male (drone) bees. Only if the egg is fertilized will it hatch into a female (worker or queen). Needless to say, this is a very unusual setup. If I recall correctly, the queen is actually able to choose which eggs will become fertilized, a handy capability given that drones are basically useless to their own colony.

Another interesting fact: the reason males don't have stingers is because the stinger is a result of what would normally be an ovipositor (egg-laying organ). The queen only uses her sting at an earlier stage in life in which there will be multiple competing queens. The new matriarch is determined by the only sensible means: a battle to the death. I think bees have a very fun political/familial system and we should open our minds to appropriating their culture.

Fenrick said:
Another interesting fact: the reason males don't have stingers is because the stinger is a result of what would normally be an ovipositor (egg-laying organ). The queen only uses her sting at an earlier stage in life in which there will be multiple competing queens. The new matriarch is determined by the only sensible means: a battle to the death. I think bees have a very fun political/familial system and we should open our minds to appropriating their culture.

Are you suggesting we should have women fighting each other to the death? Cool. Usually it's the men that do that.

BlueDingo said:
Are you suggesting we should have women fighting each other to the death? Cool. Usually it's the men that do that.

Oh, political leaders in general. Fun for everyone

Fenrick said:

I think that was how our great leader Dwayne Elizondo Mountain Dew Herbert Camacho originally came into power. Can't argue with a system that works that well.

Fenrick said:
The weirdest thing about bee reproduction is that the unfertilized eggs become male (drone) bees. Only if the egg is fertilized will it hatch into a female (worker or queen). Needless to say, this is a very unusual setup. If I recall correctly, the queen is actually able to choose which eggs will become fertilized, a handy capability given that drones are basically useless to their own colony.

Fertilized eggs can also become male larva, but the bees eat these diploid male larva.
What's interesting is that if you remove the diploid males and put them in a separate, synthetic cell and feed them what the other larva get, they grow up into a perfectly normal drone, and if released back into the hive, they accept it.

Furrin_Gok said:
Fertilized eggs can also become male larva, but the bees eat these diploid male larva.
What's interesting is that if you remove the diploid males and put them in a separate, synthetic cell and feed them what the other larva get, they grow up into a perfectly normal drone, and if released back into the hive, they accept it.

I had no idea this was a thing. Where did you find out about this?

There's one thing though. Apparently these diploid drones are the result of inbreeding, and are sterile. If that's the case, culling them would be sensible since they would be absolutely useless to the colony.

Fenrick said:
I had no idea this was a thing. Where did you find out about this?

There's one thing though. Apparently these diploid drones are the result of inbreeding, and are sterile. If that's the case, culling them would be sensible since they would be absolutely useless to the colony.

I actually found articles mentioning it while trying to figure out of a strict royal jelly diet would have any effect on drone larva... Of course, I completely skipped over what the purpose of Drones was.