~$|>>> Onlyfans! <<<|$~

idk what it’s called but man do I want it. Anyone got a link? I know it lists the forum but I can’t find it for sale anywhere. Fuck I wish search engines still worked…

Edit: Ah, found it. Or at least one souece for it.

No, it’s not true. You wouldn’t ever use magnesium for that anyways, you’d use an actual demolition charge if you were dumb enough to rig every tall building with explosives. But no, nobody is that dumb - the kernel of truth at the heart of that one is that some large buildings have demolition plans drawn up when they’re constructed (important note: the WTC didn’t have that, it’s both very rare to do and a much more modern practice than the WTC buildings), which are just a reference for if/when the building is demo’d in the future. They’re not rigged to blow, though. Hell, aside from all the obvious reasons you wouldn’t do that, chemically most explosives would become uselessly unpredictable after being strapped onto a building for that long. Just an absurd idea.

Nope! Gay content has many viewers, but almost none willing to shell out for it (for all kinds of reasons) and there just plain isn’t a market for straight male content (I could get all the custom straight male content I want for free just by asking. Hell, I turn down offers of free custom content all the time, even on a tiny population community like Lemmy). And gay pornography is very different from gay adult services. But even assuming it follows 1:1 with the straight demographics (which I doubt is the case) means that it’s going to be teeny tiny, if only because you’re starting with a much smaller demographic than otherwise.

It’s porn though, and in porn there’s essentially no market for male content. It would for sure be nice, but even on deeply egalitarian leftist-heavy Lemmy, posting male content on c/gonewild will get you downvoted for your time.

Well fortunately Debian is the right answer for every use case, so problem solved there!

And I wanted a hoboe!

What? I’ve said yes twice now. What has that got to do with this? It’s not, and has not been, my question.

(Sorry - It’s a reference to my post history. You may need to turn on NSFW photos to get the joke, I know some clients block them by default.)

I’m all for the reason they wear them being exhibitionism (clearly) but that’s never been what I’ve said. They’re answering the question “are female beach vollyball players forced to wear bikinis”, an easy question to answer and one I’ve never asked; what I asked was “if they’re clearly a performance enhancement, why are the men not wearing them too?” which is a much more difficult thing to get an answer for.

That’s uh. Well, rather demonstrably wrong. On both points.

You said you were skeptical of two pieces being better for performance than other clothing.

Where did I say this? It has never been the question I asked, but it has been the one you’ve answered and I’ve repeatedly clarified that it was not my question. It would be nice if that was my question - indeed, I think it even requires far less than two minutes to find an answer to. But it’s not my question, nor has it at any point been.

Ah, my apologies - I did not realize someone had lept in for one comment.

And while abstractly interesting, those all continue to not address my thesis. They’re addressing yours quite well, though. I applaud you for having such a well supported thesis. I do invite insight on this - perhaps the journal of ergonomics would be a better place to start looking than Business Insider though.

My thesis statement here is that the female athletes who choose to wear bikinis are choosing to of their own free will, and whatever reasoning a person has to wear what they wear is their own business.

Ah, I see. Unfortunately for this conversation, it’s never been in question that since 2012 women’s beach volleyball players have had the option of several less-revealing outfits. So in light of that, could you please tell me why you felt it was appropriate earlier to insult me when your cited article was evidently provided entirely to address your own thesis, but did not in any way address mine?

I am aware they have options. That has never been in question. But, like your emphasis calls attention to, it’s important to have the freedom to choose what works best for you. So in the spirit of that, why are men not allowed the same freedom? Again, if it actually is a blanket improvement to a player’s performance like the above person implied, you’d think that men would have adopted a similar outfit.

That’s irrelevant.

No it’s not. Especially when the initial topic was male gaze.

and denied them because it actually harmed their performance, compared to the current standard.

The part I responded to by saying "Y’know if that were true and it actually did give an advantage, you’d think the men would be wearing something similar too. " Your link says absolutely nothing about it being a competitive advantage - did you respond to the wrong person?

Since 2012, yes I’m aware. But that does not address anything I said.

Y’know if that were true and it actually did give an advantage, you’d think the men would be wearing something similar too. You got a citation?

You don’t understand, all that suffering and all those dead babies are part of His plaaaaaaan. How can you even have morals without believing in god, please excuse the piles of dead babies.

Stellars Jays spring to mind. One of the most beautifully punk-rock looking birds and worryingly intellegent, but my god their young look like nothing more than cancerous scrotums.