🤔 Is it selfish to want a girlfriend who is into plugging, but not being into plugging yourself...literally? It is a delimma I struggle with... 😂

I always wonder how much prep work goes into wearing a plug for extended time. I imagine it is a daily ritual to prep if a woman wants to be plugged and go about her daily schedule...lol

What in the world? Nobody said anything about hating women. The topic is about what you would prefer to see more of in porn. How is my preference of beautiful bombshell women vs the trend of "teenage" girls equal to hating women??? How am I "white knighting" by saying I prefer one over the other? If I say I prefer singers like Pink over Taylor Swift, am I hating on women? Am I white knighting by contrasting Pink's style over Taylor's? You need to reevaluate your understanding of misogyny my dude.

Misogyny? I was not making an attack on women, but merely a dislike of a portrayal of a certain type. If you must, you could perhaps say my tone has a hint of "ageism" (even that's a stretch), but in what way misogynistic? It is fine if they want to make a living in porn, I am not against making a living in porn. I was making a comment as to preferring a different portrayal or style in porn. I don't like a certain style and that's what I am saying unapologetically. I am sure there is a demand for this style even though I don't like it and women can continue to make their living tailoring to the demand. Not sure how there is any misogyny or even more confusingly "white knighting".

More mature hot women, I DON'T mean mature as in grannies. I mean women-ly women instead of the trend seemingly of "teenage looking" girls who just seem washed up. More women-ly sensual women instead of bratty looking girls who just turned 18 or something. Bombshell of a women instead of some girl who failed at tiktok fame or whatever.

Where did this whole thing about her once being an escort come from? Are people just saying that because of the way she looks?

On the contrary, I believe my use of Beijing Colony is accurate for the situation HK is in post 2019.

Mainland China promised many things, whether such promises are kept is another story. China repeatedly says One Country Two System is intact and that HK will enjoy "high degree of autonomy" onto 2047; we have all heard that and I assure you I have seen many in the "Western press" report that line. However, just because you say something is true doesn't make it true. It is apparent in the lead up to the 2019 HK protests that HKers have long been feeling the ever encroaching political interference of Mainland China. The extradition law was just the straw that broke the camel's back. Sure China says One Country Two Systems, but in practice it has been apparent the Two Systems aren't balanced nor equal. So yes, One Country Two Systems is "alive and well", but only China's interpretation of it.

It is true that many countries take national security very seriously; nobody is denying that. The problem is how such laws are enforced and what are considered threats to national security. As you said, sedition laws have long been in the books for HK as a British Colony. The key difference is enforcement. Singing/playing a song (that does not even mention CCP nor independence BTW) is subversive??? Holding an informal political referendum, made clear by the organizers that it is informal and nonbinding, is subversive??? Mentioning or commerating the 1989 massacre, which obviously took place, is subversive??? Wanting to vote is subversive??? How is any of the things I mentioned subversive? There are real threats to national security for nations all around the world, but the problem with China is that it considers political expression and mere difference in political opinions to be threats. Why should disagreeing with the CCP considered to be subversive? Why should disagreeing with a MERE political party be considered subversive? It is only subversive because China/CCP is an authoritarian regime that is only concerned about maintaining power.

You know what? I would even agree with you that there are many "foreign actors" probably funding individuals and organizations in HK. However, I don't see how the National Security Law is really addressing such issues. How is using the threat of prosecution under the NSL and colonial era sedition laws on people wanting to gather or to protest targeting such "foreign actors"? I am sure Mainland China, whether officially or not, funds as much/many, if not much more, individuals and organizations in HK.

To say that the NSL was necessary partly because of covid is laughable. I am sure existing HK laws at the time were more than suitable to exert control not to mention the fact that the gravity of the pandemic itself is not lost to HKers. To say Mainland China had covid in mind as the consideration in implementing the NSL is pure fiction given how Mainland China itself did not take covid seriously in the beginning until the questioning voices from all around became too great.

The violence that took place in HK in the later months of 2019 was definitely wrong, but it is so convenient for China to just declare the entire chain of events to just be "riots" and "black violence". How convenient it is for China to ignore the massive peaceful protest marches that took place in June and July of 2019...to ignore the attacks and violence committed by organized crime/triad members against peaceful protestors and reporters. How is any of the NSL, sedition laws enforcement now really targeting those who committed the violence?

To point to HKFP and SCMP as still operating as proof of continuing freedom of expression/press doesn't inspire confidence in your argument as it is basically the bare minimum. I mean why shouldn't they still be operating? To say "Hey, they are still around!" is not the flex you believe it to be. It also is not accurate to say HKFP and SCMP are both very critical of the CCP and HK government. SCMP editorials are often very pro-establishment and HKFP does not thread too deeply into political matters (not to mention how small it is as a media outlet).

You can continue to be a cheerleader for the CCP, but no matter how many times you yell and scream the party line, you are not convincing anybody.

I am well aware of the history of HK and the Opium Wars. How does such history justify the heavy handed treatment by the CCP and the dismantling of the one country two systems principle? The HK government is now obsessed with "national security" and it is basically the justification for every government response against different political opinions and expression. How does "being part of China" justify any of this? So are you saying HKers shouldn't complain or disagree at all because "HK is part of China"? Somehow being part of China means you have to shut your mouth and kowtow? Perhaps you failed to acknowledge that HK is not just another mainland Chinese city, but that the CCP and its supporters refuse to admit that fact.

According to HK, freedom of speech, expression, and assembly are still protected...how laughable. HK basically transitioned from a British colony to a "Beijing colony" especially since the 2019 protests. Who is the HK government still trying to convince by saying HKers rule HK?

Sigh... Definitely feels like that more and more