Assdddffff

As far as I know, “whiskey dick” refers to not being able to get it up, losing your erection, or having a partial erection due to drunkenness.

To your original question, alcohol/drunkenness will often make a guy last longer. I think this is a relatively well known phenomenon.

One reason is desensitization: alcohol tends to numb sensations. This leads to needing harder oand/or longer stimulation to get off.

Another reason is mental state: alcohol tends to help people let go of inhibitions and nerves. Guys (really, people in general) can get anxious about their performance. Worry about cumming too fast is often self fulfilling; the anxiety and focus on the problem makes it happen. Alcohol usually lowers anxiety, keeping that vicious cycle at bay. It’s the same with erection issues. Alcohol can quell anxiety and make it easier to get it up… but it’s also walking a tightrope; too much alcohol and whiskey dick may occur.

Edit: oops, I’m not a lady. Just a dude who has experienced of all these things :p

It looks like an oddly worded way to ask a question to straight people. I think the first part of the title would work better as something like “Straight identifying people, have you ever…” or the question could have been asked more generally like “have you ever had a sexual experience that didn’t match with your sexual identity? How did it go?”

A workaround for you: upvote twice (ie upvote and remove the upvote) to get the post marked as read.

There have been meta discussions on this topic and there really isn’t a clear answer. It quickly devolves into “how do you define NSFW”. And there are good arguments for a broad variety of answers there.

Looking at OP’s particular kink as an example, one argument is that, even though you’re showing completely clothed people, you probably shouldn’t be showing pictures of sexy girls wearing watches on your work computer. It isn’t porn, but I think your coworkers would quickly see that you are getting a sexual kick out of it regardless. on the other hand, most people consider this a porn instance. There are a lot of things that aren’t safe for work that really don’t fit with what most people consider the purpose of this instance (porn).

As I recall, the instance doesn’t prohibit SFW content. It’s just that people here aren’t looking for SFW content and a lot of them are going to downvote SFW content because they don’t want to see it. The instance could try to tell people not to downvote these posts, but that’s not going to do much to change behavior. While some people do follow such guidelines, most aren’t going to follow upvote/downvote guidelines and are going to vote as they wish.

OP is in the process of “discovering” eugenics. Good times.

OP, first thing is terminology. Yes, cosmo and the like have referred to the prostate as “the male g-spot”, but you’re better off using accurate terminology. You are looking for a “prostate massager”, “prostate toy”, or “prostate wand”. You’ll have an easier time finding products if you use those terms.

Thanks!

Op, you should add “uniquely” to the post title. That word in the title on the infographic is important. This is not showing the most popular Halloween candy, it’s showing candy that is much more popular there than the national average.

As an example, let’s say tootsie rolls are the 30th most popular candy in the us. But in the state of Stateland, it’s the 10th most popular, which makes it Stateland’s biggest deviation from the national popularity. This makes it Stateland’s most uniquely popular candy because it is much more popular there relative to the overall us. Snickers is actually the most popular in Stateland, but tootsie rolls show up on the chart as the state’s most uniquely popular Halloween candy.

Edited and she’s wearing butt pads.

Director: “No, not like that! We need to see your tongues!”

actors proceed to stick out their tongues and flick together

Director: “Yes, perfect!”

Me: … bye.

This is nothing new fighting pedophilia and human trafficking are the smokescreen used to enact most laws controlling the internet.

Edit to fill in what I’m implying: these laws (eg FOSTA-SESTA) are either ineffective or counterproductive in their stated goal, while simultaneously having broad add-on effects, generally harming free speech.

FOSTA-SESTA makes sex work less safe for those who are not trafficked. Meanwhile it pushes actual traffickers “underground” and off the internet, making it much harder for law enforcement to find and successfully prosecute them. Bonus: the law has been used to push sex education and general discussion of sex and sexuality off of major websites.

Is there a way to view this article without subscribing?