This is what you wrote on page 3
Well, if the blessed Mr Larkin, a famous English poet, likens the act of making love with a partner as something akin to "squealching", then I would say that he was either no good in bed and therefore failed to achieve a heightened state of orgasm, he was unlucky and just happened to pick the type of English ladies who chose to lay there like a sack of potatoes, he was unattractive to women in either looks or manner and was therefore sadly deprived of ever having a good relationship, he didn't find women attractive, preferring to either aim his attentions to any other blessed poets who were in the vicinity or stare resentfully from his closet, or he was just plain lazy and preferred to be a wanker in order to avoid any unnecessary physical exertion.
So- to get it clear I informed you that-
I hadn't said that Mr Larkin likened the act to "squelching". I had said that Mr Waugh did that in his Daily Telegraph column and he repeated it a few times in his Spectator column. And he was quoting a third party.
You then concluded from that error some alternatives, all of which you made up, regarding Mr Larkin's state of mind or being. Out of those I said that the last was the most likely. I did not say it was the explanation. I said it was the most likely of your explanations all of which derived from an error you made.
I do not know what "good in bed" means nor do I understand how whatever it does mean is related to a "heightened state of orgasm". Your problem seems to stem from the idea that sex=male orgasm combined with the idea that sex with a heterosexual partner in the presence of artificial methods of birth control is the same as sex in the absence of conveniences (a word I use advisedly) provided by modern industrial businesses. Both those ideas are not exactly what real sex is all about. In fact, theologically, and taken together, they constitute masturbation of the dominant male but with the added frisson of using another person's body which provides a power kick.
This is a very complex subject vid and your proven inability to even read my posts properly demonstrates that you simply have not done the necessary reading to properly engage with it and have resolved to set up some not so subtle hints regarding how wonderful your own sex life is and how those not agreeing with you have problems all of which you are defining and describing and doing so without the slightest knowledge of anything outside your own head which has self evidently been filled up with cliches learned from various sources probably associated with sex-aid sales talk.
All of which is self reassuring just like saying that I got "uppity" is. Which is also incorrect.
OK? I never said that you were the one who wrote that Larkin preferred to be a wanker. I said it and you seemed to agree.
What I "seemed" to do is again a matter for you. That is also incorrect and a result of not reading properly.
Yet you seemed to offer it as a view that should be considered, or even supported. You certainly didn't make your views known that you disagreed with this view. If you disagreed with it, why offer it at all in your post? Either you were just showing off about how bookish you were, or you admired the guy for saying it. Don't go backtracking now, spendius, as it won't help your credibility regarding this matter. Like I said before, if you attempt to blow smoke up people's asses by using these obtuse references and quotes, you can end up causing major confusion over what you actually mean. Or was/is that your intention all along? Use plain english in future, spendius, that's what I would recommend.
Regarding "squelching", I think the term quite appropriate. Had you the opportunity to read the ZIT or VIZ adult comics which are popular here you would realise that "squelching" is quite a genteel word to use in this context.
Once again it is your idea that I am "back-tracking" and, having made such an incorrect assumption, it is your idea that it has anything to do with my credibility. It is also your idea that I don't use plain English and I certainly don't recommend that any viewers take up your methods of using the language.
There ya go again. Don't try and sidetrack this with Ulysses, which would no doubt lead on to another one of the classics and then god knows where, as it will only derail from the subject and give you another opportunity to show us how clever you are.
A brief reference to the Ulysses/Sirens story, which every educated person is familiar with, hardly constitutes "sidetracking". It goes to the very core of the matter under discussion. The very fact that it does is why it is such a famous story. When Ulysses evaded the Sirens by having himself tied to the mast and his crew's ears stopped with wax he was taking great pains to avoid the very satisfactions under discussion here and he hadn't seen a woman, let alone a Siren, in a long while. And the Sirens were reputed to offer 10,000% satisfactions.
You know what you were trying to do. Don't go all chicken on it now, just because someone is challenging you.
Now I'm going "all chicken". Wow! You really don't belong on a science forum vid. You're just spouting self serving nonsense which you make up as you go along. I could have you running up the road if I was to run the gauntlet of the mods on this subject. You just want, like all the popular women's magazines, to monopolise the market in male sexual relief so that you can up the price as all monopoly suppliers do. It is quite understandable of course from your point of view.
Truth hurts sometimes, eh?
I am interested in the link you provided as it is now part of the thread and I am set to wondering if the mods are happy with the pushing back of the boundaries which it entails. I never thought a word like "taco" would be allowed on A2K.