posted
[Used to be: How these little fingers please a woman every night]
I discovered this secret the other day and was asked to pass it on.
You start by running your fingers over that delicate little thing she wears.
Carefully fold it and put it in a pile. Add other delicates.
Then put the whites in another pile.
Then put the colored clothes in a third pile.
Take them to the laundry room and put them in the laundry.
Then ... well you get the picture.
I swear, if you do the laundry every night, maybe the dishes now and then, even the occasional--dare I say it--vacuuming you will please your woman to no end.
posted
Elmer, if you have 20 days worth of clothes do you leave them dirty in the hamper until day 21?
Women like men who wash clothes when they are dirty, not when they are out of clothes and have no other choice.
Posts: 1941 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Women like men who wash clothes when they are dirty, not when they are out of clothes and have no other choice.
It seems more sensible to be a man who washes clothes when his family has accumulated enough dirty clothes of a given type to fill a washing machine.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
You probably have less people in your household than some of us, creating smaller loads. Washing two people's one day worth of laundry every day would indeed be wasteful. But if you have 3 or 4 kids, you easily create a full load or two of dirty clothes every day.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
You probably have less people in your household than some of us, creating smaller loads. Washing two people's one day worth of laundry every day would indeed be wasteful. But if you have 3 or 4 kids, you easily create a full load or two of dirty clothes every day.
Obviously the OP was directing his comments toward couples with families, but this was not stated, and single people my age don't assume such things all the time. I immediately wondered why someone would do laundry every day as well.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: Ha ha! I loved this!
It reminded me of that silly song about the guy on Wednesday night, which is th night for whoopie. (something like that) It cracks me up.
But I will tell you, my husband just went out to buy my daughter shoes, because her flip-flops broke. He is bringing back dinner.
He is so sexy to me right now!
So I guess it's business time?
You know when I'm down to just my socks it's time for business. That's why they're called business socks.
Posts: 1945 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote: It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
When we were newly married we did laundry once a week. Now (4 kids later) we go through 6 loads a week in summer, about 8 in winter. So it's either spend a whole day and a half doing nothing but laundry, or do one load every day (and two on some days).
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
You probably have less people in your household than some of us, creating smaller loads. Washing two people's one day worth of laundry every day would indeed be wasteful. But if you have 3 or 4 kids, you easily create a full load or two of dirty clothes every day.
Obviously the OP was directing his comments toward couples with families, but this was not stated, and single people my age don't assume such things all the time. I immediately wondered why someone would do laundry every day as well.
There was no judgement attached, I was just pointing it out. Not that I'm assuming you assume there was judgement involved in my clarification, but my assumometer is broken so I'm clarifying my tone of my clarification just in case.
And now my head hurts. Oh well, at least we have home made peach ice cream. *wanders off*
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
You probably have less people in your household than some of us, creating smaller loads. Washing two people's one day worth of laundry every day would indeed be wasteful. But if you have 3 or 4 kids, you easily create a full load or two of dirty clothes every day.
I have six people in my family. I was thinking it was just a couple though, so I guess you could fill a load everyday. I still doubt you could fill an oversize load everyday.
Posts: 1287 | Registered: Apr 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I basically do my laundry when it's down to slim pickings. But then I'm 18, and don't concern myself about my parents' laundry.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have a two year old who spills on everything and is a heavy wetter, so after every nap her pull-up has soaked through and she needs new pants (and often socks and shirt and crib sheet, too.) We have a three month old who goes through about four to eight outfits a day (depending on how much spitting she's doing that day and how her diapers are holding), and a recently potty trained four year old who still has accidents a few times a week (at least.) Not to mention spit rags, towels, and oh, yeah, we go through sheets at a phenomenal rate. Plus it's summer, so we often go swimming and have swimsuits, towels, and cover-ups to wash. Oh, and my sling, I'm always getting food (and spit up, and baby poop) on my sling.
Yeah. There are days when we go through only maybe a half load, but there are days when we easily make enough laundry to fill 2 large-capacity washers in one day.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
We have a two year old who spills on everything and is a heavy wetter, so after every nap her pull-up has soaked through and she needs new pants (and often socks and shirt and crib sheet, too.) We have a three month old who goes through about four to eight outfits a day (depending on how much spitting she's doing that day and how her diapers are holding), and a recently potty trained four year old who still has accidents a few times a week (at least.) Not to mention spit rags, towels, and oh, yeah, we go through sheets at a phenomenal rate. Plus it's summer, so we often go swimming and have swimsuits, towels, and cover-ups to wash. Oh, and my sling, I'm always getting food (and spit up, and baby poop) on my sling.
Yeah. There are days when we go through only maybe a half load, but there are days when we easily make enough laundry to fill 2 large-capacity washers in one day.
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
(Not to mention, most people probably don't have access to a large-capacity washer. I know we didn't, unless we loaded up the car and schlepped it all to the laundromat, until new management bought our apt. complex and they changed out the old washers and driers for newer, bigger ones.)
Posts: 21182 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the title of this thread. It's a joke on the inside, but it still means that the front page of the forum looks like it belongs on a porn site.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Only if porn forums generally only have one thread with a mildly racy title anywhere on their front page, and actually spend most of their time discussing popular (non-porn) movies. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Still. It doesn't belongs here - it is much too crude for a family site. It would be nice if the title were changed.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Still. It doesn't belongs here - it is much too crude for a family site. It would be nice if the title were changed.
I rather vividly remember there being an entire thread devoted to the adult discussion of sexual relations when I first got here. I can't find it now, but I'm rather surprised that you honestly think that title is too racy for Hatrack.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There is a difference between discussing adult topics maturely and pornatastic thread titles like this one.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:There is a difference between discussing adult topics maturely and pornatastic thread titles like this one.
Sure, but this thread is also a joke. The pornatastic thread title is a far bit of what makes the joke so funny.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I know it is a joke. It is an inappropriate joke and the porntastic title.
Not everything is justified by "it is supposed to be funny." There are a number of jokes that are inappropriate.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I know it is a joke. It is an inappropriate joke and the porntastic title.
Not everything is justified by "it is supposed to be funny." There are a number of jokes that are inappropriate.
I strongly disagree that it's inappropriate. I don't think we actually have anyone on this forum who wouldn't get the joke immediately upon entering this thread, and who hasn't already been exposed in one form or another to content such as that in the title.
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
"There are worse things out there" is not a good justification for anything.
You don't know who all reads this forum, and you most certainly cannot say that everyone gets the joke immediately and thinks it is great. It isn't, and just because there are worse things out there doesn't make it okay.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:"There are worse things out there" is not a good justification for anything.
You don't know who all reads this forum, and you most certainly cannot say that everyone gets the joke immediately and thinks it is great. It isn't, and just because there are worse things out there doesn't make it okay.
I didn't say that they'd think it was great, I said they would get the joke. Meaning they would understand it. Meaning that the content isn't too mature for them. And therefore that it is not inappropriate.
Where something is or is not appropriate, especially in the realm of off color humor, is based on the maturity level of the consumers. In this case my argument was that the consumers of Hatrack are more than mature enough to handle the content of this joke -- whether or not they think it is a funny or good joke. The "exposure to similar content" comment was a side bit supporting my assertion that the denizens of Hatrack are fully capable of understanding and handling this joke. The fact that you are the only one who finds the joke to be inappropriate so far also supports that assertion. If there are many who join you in decrying it, then I might come to agree with you. Though I would find myself rather disappointed in just how prudish Hatrack would have become then.
Seriously, an innuendo referencing fingers pleasing a woman is too much for a Hatrack thread title -- that turns out to be about those fingers doing laundry?
Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it's worth noting that the joke is naturally selective of an audience with the maturity to make the association necessary to understand the innuendo. If you aren't mature enough, i.e. lack the experience or exposure to the elements of the joke, then you just won't get it. Either way, it's not in itself objectionable to anybody except those who are mature enough to understand, and yet believe that others are not, and yet fail to consider the above.
What I am about to post is very interesting, but please understand that it is *mildly* racey.
What you see in the photo is determined by your experience. Experiments show that children of a certain level of maturity, when shown this picture, see an arrangement of 10 dolphins. By default, the picture exposes your level of experience, rather than, well, anything you haven't seen before.
(If this picture offends you, I offer only that it did appear in my high school psychology book, way back when.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have considered everything, and in my judgement it is a problem. Of course it contains explicit innuendo of a particularly bombastic type - that's why it was used as a joke in the first place. It does nothing for my opinion of the opening poster.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I just didn't like the joke that much and before I finally came to the thread I was wondering what somebody was doing posting something with a title like that.
Posts: 655 | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:I just didn't like the joke that much and before I finally came to the thread I was wondering what somebody was doing posting something with a title like that.
Does that warrant censoring it for people who did enjoy it?
Before I saw that it was a joke, I was wondering the same thing. But that was when I thought the thread itself was going to be in the same vein as the title. Now that I know the joke, I find it highly amusing and not at all offensive.
quote:What you see in the photo is determined by your experience. Experiments show that children of a certain level of maturity, when shown this picture, see an arrangement of 10 dolphins. By default, the picture exposes your level of experience, rather than, well, anything you haven't seen before.
It's possible I have a very dirty mind... I had to struggle to see the dolphins Posts: 3295 | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
once i knew they were there i saw them, but I still see them in the context of the "other" picture, not as a separate or alternate picture.
Posts: 8741 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I wasn't offended by the subject line, and I'm generally kind of a prude about stuff like that. Now, if the thread had not been a joke (which I assumed it was), I would have been offended.
I think you'd pretty much have to be a child to see the dolphins first in that picture. It took me a while to see them, and even after I did, it didn't make a lot of sense to my eyes--why are they swimming in a pool of white surrounded by dark?
Posts: 3149 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:It took me a while to see them, and even after I did, it didn't make a lot of sense to my eyes--why are they swimming in a pool of white surrounded by dark?
posted
I'm not offended whatsoever by the subject line. Porntastic?? Really? I must hang out in dirtier areas of the internet.
I'd add weeding the garden to the list of things I find very attractive in a man, and maybe grout cleaning, although grout is not all that appealing a thing, clean or not.
Posts: 628 | Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't like the thread title, either. It's just a little too crude to feel appropriate here, and it makes me cringe a little every time I see it. *shrug*
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Orincoro makes a great point. You'd have to have a certain level of sophistication about what people might mean when they say "please a woman" to even make the association that could lend an "adult" flavor to the thread title. The joke automatically screens out the audience for which it would be inappropriate, IMO.
(If the argument is that it's inappropriate to post anything that might invoke some imagination about mature audiences subject matter, then there really is no difference between this and threads that "maturely" discuss adult subject matter.)
Anyway, one might note that by posting objections on the thread they are keeping it near the top. If they think a line has been crossed it might be more productive to address the concern to the moderators.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
It isn't nearly as sophisticated humor as you think it may be - it doesn't take a wide breadth of knowledge and experience to get the "joke."
And I hate that it is explicit and cluttering up the page of a family forum.
There is definitely a difference between maturely discussing adult subject matter and using macho, sexual bombast in a thread title.
Posts: 26077 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:And I hate that it is explicit and cluttering up the page of a family forum.
The whole point that people are making (and the point of the joke really) is that it isn't explicit.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think the title violates the terms of service, and as such there's no reason to involve the moderators. I'm not even asking Dan to change it. . . I think it's creepy, but whatever. My purpose in posting is mainly because of Alcon's comment that kat was the only one bothered so far. Just wanted to make sure this didn't devolve into a bunch of people telling her to lighten up.
Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm just the tiniest bit discomfitted by the title. Not really in the "I care about this at all" manner, but more in the "This just doesn't seem to fit here" manner. Just for the record.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think it falls quite short of "bombast" and even any real prurient quality whatsoever, except what the reader infers. Sure, I made the association, but it's not like I wouldn't have had a similar thought today anyway.
Edit: and "explicit innuendo" is an oxymoron.
Posts: 4287 | Registered: Mar 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah, I think kat has been pretty out of proportion and even completely inaccurate in some of her descriptions.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
