I’m sure I don’t know what you mean… oh, wait
Little me had a comic with Wonder Woman tied up. And here I am 50-years later…
Her and Margot Kidder started my life long love of fair skinned, blue eyed, brunettes.
Same. And Karen Allen too!
oh speed.
trixie.
oh speed.
trixie.
oh speed.
chim chim.
what!
what?
Having been a little kid in the 1960s, I’m constantly on the lookout for smugglers and quicksand.
Quicksand can be anywhere. I’m looking out for snakes everywhere
I grew up white trash. It is what it is. That belly button changed me. Just…there for all to see!? And she was moving, unlike the Sears catalogs. Crazy.
Shania Twain and Kathy Ireland were my first crushes
I was in love with Kathy Ireland, too!
Fucking totally spies, man
I was four, a whole génération of québécois still know 48 years later, what Passe-Carreau doing thé cat is.
Not a show, but midna in twilight princess 😅
They didn’t clarify if it was end game form or goblin form, so we can give them a pass for now.
Don’t remind me.
Not a kink in any way, but my fascination in age regression stories certainly came from the cartoons I watched, new and old at the time. Whether a plot point of the episode or just a gag.
JLU? Kids stuff
KND? Operations Fountain, Cable TV, amd Grow Up
Tiny Toons? School dance episode
BTBB? The Shazam family & Dr. Sivana episode
MlaaTR? Good Old Sheldon
I could go on, but I think that’s enough.
Wasn’t really allowed to have the tv on in my house. Guess that explains the therapy.
I have no idea what you’re talking about.
genuinely don’t know what this is, a little help?
Star Trek.
The green women are Orion slave girls, but it was reconned later that they’re really in charge and just like being like that.
that pic is star trek? I remember the original series orion greenies…
Pretty sure it’s the episode of Enterprise called Bound.
TY
Ah yes, the only Trek series that could out horny the 60s.
Does your preferred foreplay involve a lot of rubbing each other with petroleum jelly?
If it involves Seven or T’Pol, I’m up for anything.
Rule 34 as a journey into self awareness.
She was the head of my class, if you know what I mean…
xena .
I listened to a thing from a sex psychologist ages ago who talked about this. She said there was a connection between the developing arousal (sexual) and arousal (general emotional) that forms during the transition from childhood to adolescence, so there is commonly a connection formed between something the then-child has strong emotions toward, positive or negative, so a person can develop a sexual fixation on something beloved (mommy/daddy is perfect love personified. Dinosaurs are so frigging cool. etc.) or terrifying. (Mommy/daddy is mad. The monster is going to eat me all up. etc.)
that’s a bunch of Freudian bullshit. Freud’s theories are only popular because they make for stupid dramatic nonsense beliefs like this that sound so clear and obvious to the layperson.
I loved Transformers as a kid, doesn’t mean I want to fuck robots or cars. Maybe for someone it does, but none of this is universal or even reliably generalizable.
Almost nothing is universalizable or generalizable. Theories are maps. Assuming the map describes all territories is an individual error.
Nothing you said here makes any sense, but I suppose it sounds very ‘deep’ to you or something?
Theories are not maps, wtf are you smoking over there?
If you really want some hardcore weird shit, looking Jung. Nobody touches his shit anymore because it was even more whack than Freud. But his work does make for an excellent story telling model for fiction. It has jack shit to do with real psychology though.
The Map and Territory is reference to a now fairly old metaphor for the distinction between reality and our conceptions of it. Theories/concepts/words/ideologies/etc. are metaphorical maps of the systems of the world, simplifying a wildly complex and seemingly chaotic world into, hopefully, broadly useful heuristics for predicting causal relationahips. Freud, Jung, Skinner, Lacan, Piaget, and everyone who has come after them have attempted to ‘map’ the causes and effects of the phenomena of the mind, creating what they hoped would be universalizable explanations for why people think and do what they think and do. This is what I was referring to. Does that help it make sense?
I hope this give sense into Tubular but I think he is on bad faith. Just read his username and it raised even more the probability of a troll
I recognise the name from other posts. They are a bit opinionated, which is less than optimal, but haven’t seemed like a troll just yet.
Theories can be viewed metaphorically as maps. If I define ground with hocus pocus nonsensensical alchemy I can lay the foundations for modern chemistry, same can be said for medicine. I could argue that Plato created Christianity monotheistic god on ‘The Republic’.
Your critic of Freud is valid but that doesn’t mean he didn’t lay a fundamental metaphorical map
No, I’m saying you’re just wrong.
All of those things are straight up wrong.
I can claim that I can grow wings and fly, but I’d be wrong. And yes, stupid people will believe stupid things like Freud’s theories.
