Epikouros

Damn, i write & read here a bit, and the guest girl is gone... Where did she go? (no replay) I guess I should turn to the CC forum less, lol.

"He"??? Now there is a gender-fluid tenant in the villa, but it's not Karma...

Concerning her shyness: on the other hand, Karma stood up to open the window, giving the guy a splendid view anyway. I guess her semi-covering is unconscious force of habit rather than deliberate.

Has Neytiri's guest girl shown anything yet?

That why I like & respect cats: In the case of dogs, it's clear humans domesticated dogs. In the case of cats, you wonder who domesticated who... 😉 Now that deserves respect! Also, I prefer the entitled behavior of cats a lot more than the drooling/begging of (some) dogs. I don't hate dogs though, just more of a cat person. I don't have a cat myself, but am friends with most of the cats in the neighbourhood.

Any chance she'll be back at RLC now that she's without Smith?

A question about pretty Roxy: is she an ex-tenant? Or simply a not-too-shy guest girl that was named by people on here? I think the former,but would like to know for sure.

As I don't have replay: were the guest's breasts visible? Or did it all happen through the clothing? In the former case: a pic or vid would be nice! 🙂

Who is tonight's guest girl? I think I saw her before, but not sure. I certainly didn't see her naked. I hope she's as uninhibited as yesterday's guest girl. Anyone seen anything interesting by her yet? She looks cute.

I hope she's not reading my remark about her now, as she's on her phone. @Guest girl: if you are reading this, don't feel bad: my remark was a bit oafish. Different guys like different boobs, and I respect you for being not shy on cam. And as I already said, you have a very cute face. 🙂

Edit: my remark in the previous post belongs here: "Turns out I like her face more than her body (breasts especially, a bit too saggy for me, though I don't like obvious plastic ones either: naturally firm is my thing) . Still, nice to see a guest girl not hiding."

Turns out I like her face more than her body. Still, nice to see a guest girl not hiding.

No idea who she is, but she looks cute. I'd welcome her as a participant.

RE: "Why? Why not accept their premises and believes?" I might ask the same question to you. 😉 About Daytona, for example. Or about other tenants you sometimes criticise in a rather conformist, moralising way. In my case: because my triggering might, in a humorous way, challenge the moral absolutes of some people, might make those people think about their beliefs, and maybe see things from different perspectives. But if they don't, that's just how it is. RE: "As far as moral absolutes...how can a country survive without key absolute values and the family structure giving parenting to the government. Leninist/Stalinist Russia did, Maoist China and North Korea are doing it. It's not the governments' job to take control of the children to indoctrinate them into the collective against what their own parents want." I think neither governments (of whatever ideology), nor religions (of whatever creed), nor even parents (especially once the children are old enough to make up their own minds) should try to indoctrinate children. You could "lead by example", but no one should impose moral absolutes. My opinion. RE: "It's great to say live and let live and let everyone do what they want. It ends in mob violence followed by a dictatorship." That's an opinion (to which you are entitled), not a fact. Even though you present it as fact. It's also not exactly what I said (I didn't say people can do all they want, just that they should be able to if they don't harm anyone else doing so - important distinction). It's vital to keep in mind that there's a big distinction between opinion and fact, and that distinction should be clearly made when discussing - though people on all sides of any conflict often don't. The difference between opinion and fact is actually critical thinking 1.0, taught in high schools in most or all European countries (though, alas, not necessarily successfully), and, hopefully (not quite sure), in most US schools as well.

Where did I say Daytona was normal? You may have been referring to someone else. I'm not the only one here countering your conformism. She may not be "normal", but in a free society, she has a right to not be "normal" without being harassed, as she's not harming anyone (with the possible exception of herself, but that comes with freedom). An important difference with psychopaths and molesters. And what is "normal" anyway? Are us voyeurs on CC and RLC "normal"? Who defines what's "normal"?... Is it ok to be a hidden "pervert" but not an obvious one?... It never ceases to amaze me how conformist some voyeurs can be, without realising how they'd be viewed by other conformists if their peeping habits were known. Anyway, I edited my post above, and my edit appeared more or at the same time as your answer above. I'll copy it below: ""I was just countering your statement that animals don't engage in "unnatural" behavior. You didn't adress my counterargument at all, but just keep pushing your viewpoint. And actually I like to trigger all people that tend to think/speak in moral absolutes. This includes both extreme conservatives and extreme wokies (both heirs of American puritanism in their intolerance, cancelling, and use of moral absolutes and lack of a sense of humor). But here on CC it seems mostly extreme conservatives are active and not so much the other extreme. Myself, I'm more of a hedonist, easy going relativist, a bit of an anarchist (some would say nihilist) and a 'just leave people alone' type of guy actually, who likes to see the humor in everything (though getting worried by increasing polarisation as well). I'm thus probably hated by both sides of the (mostly American) culture wars (though it's effects start to trickle in Europe too). Wokes call me a conservative & conservatives call me woke. I'm neither and make fun of both. Both hate nuance, tolerance (though for different things) and humor, so they have more in common than they think. Glad I'm European! (and we don't have death rows over here, another important cultural difference). One more thing: no matter how much you are disgusted by "perverts" of all kinds, remember that in the eyes of most people (again on both sides, and in between too), us voyeurs on CC/RLC are considered "perverts" as well, though of course more hidden ones. But probably more reviled than, say, regular gays or lesbians by most. As long as other "pervs/unnaturals/abominations" are safe and free from harm or harassment, so are we (kind of), and vice versa. Think about that.""

I was just countering your statement that animals don't engage in "unnatural" behavior. You didn't adress my counterargument at all, but just keep pushing your viewpoint. And actually I like to trigger all people that tend to think/speak in moral absolutes. This includes both extreme conservatives and extreme wokies (both heirs of American puritanism in their use of moral absolutes and lack of a sense of humor). But here on CC it seems mostly extreme conservatives are active and not so much the other extreme. I'm more of a hedonist, easy going relativist, a bit of an anarchist (some would say nihilist) and a 'just leave people alone' type of guy actually, who likes to see the humor in everything (though getting worried by increasing polarisation as well). I'm thus probably hated by both sides of the (mostly American) culture wars (though it's effects start to trickle in Europe too). Wokes call me a conservative & conservatives call me woke. I make fun of both. Both hate nuance, tolerance (though for different things) and humor, so they have more in common than they think. Glad I'm European! (and we don't have death rows over here, another important cultural difference). One more thing: no matter how much you are disgusted by "perverts" of all kinds, remember that in the eyes of most people (again on both sides, and in between too), us voyeurs on CC/RLC are considered "perverts" as well, though of course more hidden ones. But probably more reviled than, say, regular gays or lesbians by most. As long as other "pervs/unnaturals/abominations" are safe and free harm or harassment, so are we (kind of), and vice versa. Think about that.

The ultimate voyeur! You'd start to think it's not (only) disgust or outrage, but maybe also jealousy that drives some peeps on here. 😉

There are reports of homosexual lions in Kenya. Some (conservative) people are so shocked by this, they want the lions in question isolated (or worse?...). 😄 Source: too many to list them all here, but very easy to look up.

Man you don't like to be proven wrong.

And the nephew of someone's neigbour's barber in the 16/17th century saw X looking maliciously at Y and a few days later Y's cow died! This is how witch hunts started back then (with often deadly results), and the same patterns are visible in todays hoaxes & smear campaigns. Interestingly, the Joe Rogan you mention is mentioned several times in the wikipedia link I posted about the cat litter box hoax. The guy doesn't appear to be a reliable source at all. The article in the link is an interesting deconstruction of fake news. Also, no school ever confirmed doing this (except as an emergency toilet in case of lockdown due to a school shooting, not just for cat people - this may have sparked the rumor initially). If a school made a move like this, you'd think they'd also own it. Otherwise, what would be the point? Also, no pics or vids of human-sized litter boxes at schools, in an age where everyone (including conservative staff or students) has a camera at hand to film the things & show them to the world to corroborate the rumour & elicit more efficient outrage. Hoax.

Better read up on the later posts. The cat litter box thing is a hoax a lot of people fell for. Identifying as dogs, including their toilet habits, would have been an even funnier story, but was probably a bit too much even for the trolls who thought up the hoax. Imagine a kid taking a dump against the teacher's chair leg (or humping the teacher's leg!), while being held on a leash by another kid! 😄 💩

The fact that Americans are shocked over a triviality like this is a source of amusement for many Europeans. Edit: do you mean the individual toilets had no doors? The toilets didn't have dividing walls? That would be very unusual in Europe, too. I'm not Italian though, and not around yet in the 60s. But the times I was in Italy, I never saw this. But I still would like you to elaborate more on your very credible story about cat litter boxes for pupils who identify as cats. 😉 A story about pupils identifying as dogs concerning their toilet habits would have been even funnier though. 💩

So you just reply with another piece of almost completely unrelated - and a lot less absurd - news? Not a word anymore about the cat litter boxes in schools for pupils who identify as cats? Weaksauce. I'm disappointed. And actually, over here in Europe, you'll often find bathrooms used by both/all genders, long before there was much talk about wokism or LGBTQ+. No fuss. You can (usually) lock each cubicle door, you know. So I don't really see the problem. And even if they are separated, it's not been that big a deal over here for decades now to use the restroom of the other gender if all the toilets for your own gender are occupied. No problem as you can usually lock the toilet door. Girls do it actually more than guys. Handy if you have to go urgently. They'd probably call the cops on you for that in the US?...

Not attracted to Daytona, but I love how this tenant manages to trigger peeps on here! 😄 Reading this forum becomes pure comedy! If I see Daytona (or another tenant I'm not attracted to) shower or otherwise naked, I just click away, without any fuss or freaking out. I wouldn't even dream of kicking up a hissy fit on a voyeur forum about this. No matter how (involuntarily) entertaining that post would be.

Yes, I know that. That's the whole point. They are also (generally) well-sourced, especially the Wikipedia pages in English & other major languages. If they aren't, a stub is usually displayed saying (parts of) the article need additional sources. This one is rather elaborate, with a lot of sources: often clickable, verifiable links. The fact that most pages have different contributors that add different & verifiable source material adds to its strength. So, no one is stopping you (or anyone else who believes this obvious hoax) from adding your own take, with reliable & verifiable sources, to the article. 🙂 But be fair: you nor Max Ragnar actually believe this nonsense, right? 😉