Saturday, July 09, 2005

Two Good to be True! 

Weekends are time for indulgence. I either blog abt movies, philosophy (or whatever I think that remotely resembles philosophy) and occasionally some risque stuff. Ok! So what's it gonna be this time? Let's see. I did watch Boondock Saints and quite liked it. I do have some philo too but I guess risque wins this weekend. So all you twenty two year old kids - scoot off!!

So this afternoon Hemo asked me ,if like most men, I too have the two women making out fantasy (the cool ones like to call it girl on girl action). Ok! Men reading this back me up (or call me weird) and women reading this get educated, but the whole concept of men and "girl and girl in love" is HIGHLY OVERRATED. Yup! I said it! A lot of men claim that it's their ultimate fantasy not because they actually care abt it but just because they've been told that it's manly. The only reason a man might be interested in seeing two women do whatever they plan to do is coz he thinks that there might be an outside chance that they're bisexuals. What else do you think is our motivation? Otherwise it's like watching someone else buy the last bottle of soda from the neighborhood shop on a scorching day - it's everything that you can think of then, but you know you can't have it :((

Another thing with me is that I'm a practicalist. Yes, even when it comes to my fantasies. If I ever think of two women together, and me anywhere close to them, I'll try to justify the whole situation. What am I doing there? Am I there to deliver food? Are they planning to steal my money? But, I don't have any money? So what is it that they want? My new T Shirt? What if the two women ask me which one of them I think is prettier (come on, you know that at some point they'll surely ask you that)? And then for some reason I have this mental image that after whatever it is that these women will do in my fantasies, they'll want to go shopping. And I would HAVE TO accompany them. What if one of them wants to buy boots (= three hours) and the other one isn't sure what she wants (= three days). Who will run my simulations then? Man, do you get the picture? No wonder, I'm better of without women+women fantasies.


Well, then, what's this we hear about the joy of 'two for the price of one'??? Seriously though, thanks for the revelation...
its a relief, i think, to hear this justification,coz a lot of us gals cudn't get what gets guys excited about, the two gals together thing. and this also explains American pie2 lesbian thing scene.
Here's the deal. Girl on girl means there is no guy in the picture. When there is something involving 2 girls on TV I can see girls using the full real estate of the screen ...I dont have to block out half of it.

My 2 cents.
@ideasmith - but sometimes one itself is too pricey and for theh second one shipping and handling is extra :))

@sayantani - glad i cleared it up :)

@greatbong (nice nick) - as innocent as i am, i do know what girl on girl is - but that's what i said - that unless the women are bi there is no use including them in our fantasies - it's like a beer bottle that cant be opened if i may say :)
Sagnik, thanks for clearing this up for the female population.

Arnab, get this - what if the women are NOT bi, but after they get their act together they look up and say 'Sweetie, why don't you run and do the dishes while we finish up here'?

Or (and this could really happen) ask you to give them BOTH back runs because they were both so turned on (WITHOUT you!) that they sort of strained themselves ...


Dang! I meant, 'if the women ARE bi'

Besides, who wants to (later) get into the whole 'you were so turned on by her, you never even look at ME any more' loop!


I am BI-agonostic because the mere act of watching a girl-on-girl interaction is pleasure enough---I feel that my interjection into the picture would spoil the pristine nature of the act.


After watching this "kudrat ka nazara" , I wont mind washing the dishes.......giving them backrubs sounds great......and would feel absolutely no jealousy seeing them lost in the throes of passion...mainly because my pleasure would not be contingent upon my participation.
Practicalist is very good. But then it's fantasy no more, right?
But ya, this business of of finding one man/woman (as the preference might be) is tough enough, two is well...
But may be if you aim for two you might get one sort of thing might work. (Like Class 10th school teacher in Chemistry telling me, aim for 100 and you will get 90's type...)
You know, this could have been philosophy too! :)
@JAP - sans the Freudian Slip :)) I completely agree. I walways fear the concept of these women then making me clean the house - and I know I'm bad at that - specially after watching something dirty :)

@arnab - brilliantly put :)) but to me i am not satisfied just gaining the theoretical know-how. i want to be their in the heart of the matter :)

@soup - trust me for a desi grad student sometimes just the thought of one girl seems too difficult to handle :) thinking two makes it a sci-fi in my mind :))
I prefer man on man action. And that's what it should be called instead of 'gay porn' because the audience is much wider. Which leads me into the philosophical moment: is it called gay porn because it's porn by gays? Or because it's for gays (women forgotten)? Children's literature is not written by children, and maternity bras are not made by pregnant women..
I feel G on G is an acquired taste here in USA just like the chicori-less coffee and both of them sucks:). My usual couple of cents.
@bridalbeer - trust you madam to give the much needed philosophical angle to what was otherwise appearing to be a shallow post :)

@gvenum - please tell me you meant the word "suck" in an innocent fashion :))
sshhh!! that "suck" was meant for girls who have a thing for innocent kind.:)
@gvenum - :) shhhhh! we wont tell anyone :)

@sara - are eeeeew offended? ;)
well! i got educated alright..
n 'am wondering if the other way round holds gud for gals?? (i mean gals out there )
@swathi - i'm glad you are informed now but will be gladder if you learn the answer to the q you have and lemme know :)
@S'nik - You forgot to add that if you get to be with with two girls, the chances of HIV infection are doubled.

Practical Fantasies.


You should write a book.
@+vani - yeah a book called "practical fantasies involving two women - a beginners perspective" - how many copies of that do you think would sell ??? :(
I think you should expand the scope of the book a bit. :) Why limit it to only two women? I think anywhere between zero and an infinite number of women is good.

Fantasies: A Practical Perspective (a.k.a. A hundred reasons to kill yourself).

Now that's a book that will sell. No? :)
@rajesh - anywhere "between" ... tell me that was not a pun intended :)) *now we have officially made this place unsuitable for women, children and good boys like me :)
Post a Comment

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?