Charisma Carpenter, aka Cordelia.

She wasn’t the star, so the title is weird. But that’s who they’re talking about, and Cordelia ded.

Even portapros!

Eh, it’s alright.

But we gotta be honest here, both vaginal secretions and semen are thin snot. They may have different trace components but they’re snot. Mucous. Bottom boogers. It’s proteins suspended in water with tiny amounts of random stuff.

You get variances, yeah, but the bulk of the actual flavor is like gelatin. It’s kinda neutral.

Diet can make it taste more or less neutral but if it tastes bad, it’s a good time to talk to a doctor, just in case.

There’s a limit to how much the actual taste can go.

At the great end, you get something tangy with hints of umami and a touch of sweetness. At the bad end (but healthy) you get something like egg whites that are over salted and metallic. But it’s still not even the level of flavor you get out of something like seltzer with fruit juices.

Plus, there’s a limit to how reliable it is. The monthly cycle changes the taste a lot. You can sometimes tell a difference across a day, so when it’s days to weeks, good luck predicting.

If someone doesn’t shout tiki while I’m getting groped, I won’t come either

I mean, so unreal and non hetero.

Anon didn’t even suggest incels and femcels trade virginity

Dude. Whatever.

Well, between the internet and real life, you can kinda guesstimate.

Irl, between partners and patients, I’ve seen a good amount of labia. Add in what you can run into online without even needing to look, and that’s a decent sized sample. And I’ve gone looking lol.

On average, it’s not really a clear and clean delineation though. Innie and outie implies that there are clear cut definitions of either. They’re both slang terms though, so even if we come up with a usage for this, it might not hold for anything else. That being said, I’d draw that line where enough labia minora protrudes that it/they can be folded or otherwise do more than just be visible.

With that in mind, I’d say it’s roughly equal. If you limit the definition to the labia minora not being visible without extra effort (as in spreading the labia majora to expose them), then “innies” are rarer.

I’ve never run across anyone that had no labia minora. I’ve seen some that amounted to no more than a very thin ridge, barely visible and difficult to feel, but still present.

I’d also say the the most common configuration would be where perhaps as much as a quarter inch of minora protrudes with no extra effort involved, while standing or laying flat.

But, even that has to be taken with a grain of salt since people willing to share pictures of their genitals don’t necessarily represent all configurations equally. And, it’s not like I went around measuring labia or anything like that, it’s just visual impressions from memory.

Marmite is love, marmite is life

That’s literally what I said originally

Well, no, it doesn’t mean that. That is one meaning out of a solid eight or nine, depending on what dictionary you use.

Also, seems like you’re being pretty strict about what it and isn’t strict. If you’re that inflexible about that, what else are you inflexible about?

There isn’t a single one for me.

However, I gotta put a lot of weight to the “all the way” that’s pretty much the default in my area. Mustard, onions, slaw, and what’s called either hot dog sauce, or chili sauce. Which, the sauce is similar to “hot dog chili”, but not the same; it’s a little different spices and in cooking methods. Secret family recipes abound.

It’s an amazing combination when paired with any of the standard store brands, or the “red” hot dogs the are popular here in the south.

I’m also a big fan of mustard and kraut. I tend to prefer it on fancier frankfurters and other kinds of sausage, brats and kielbasa in particular.

There’s the “pizza dog”, aka an “italian” dog. Has zero to do with Italy anything that I’ve ever seen, but that’s what it gets called sometimes. This is a double preparation dog. You cook the franks however you prefer (I recommend either “dirty water” or a mid tier beer boil). You then place them in buns, top them with your choice of tomato sauces like marinara, then with the usual “italian” melty cheeses; mozzarella, provolone, maybe some parmesan. Do this in a baking pan or whatever, then put it in at 350F until the cheese melts and slightly browns.

You can get fancier with that, but it’s absurdly satisfying just like that.

I don’t mind what I call a basic dog. Bun, frank, mustard and ketchup. That’s for when you’ve got a really solid flavored dog that you want to savor. The acid from the mustard and ketchup cut through the fats as you chew, bringing the meat flavors back across your palate in waves. But a lot of the time, I’d rather do kraut and mustard if the dog is really rich on its own.

I fucking love hotdogs tbh.

Magical burnout, where some event overloads the “circuits” of how magic flows through their body. It can range from a permanent loss of ability to use magic, and/or frying the mind/brain, down to just being painful for a few weeks or months.

There’s magically altered substances. Regular drugs changed to be more intense and/or nore addictive. The worst spells and curses used can get almost literal hooks into you, where even the effort to treat it causes harm beyond the pain itself.

Technically not a medical condition, but both vampires and were-creatures are filled with a symbiotic viroid that transforms every cell in their body, and serves to channel magic energy into the various abilities they have.

There’s also been magical plagues created, one of which wiped out a species of cryptids related to bigfoot.

That’s a perfect example of where it isn’t strict, it’s abuse. Or at least right on the border.

Also, damn. I’m sorry you went through that. I’m just glad you found a doc that handled things right.

Yeah, it’s a thing. Word usage varies. One range of the various usages of strict is adhering to, or enforcing adherence to, a set of rules. It can also mean that part of “strict” is enforcing discipline to maintain those rules.

Taken to its extreme, it edges into authoritarian behaviors. But the usual, more typical usage would be far less extreme.

As an example, ever hear of a strict vegetarian? That just means that don’t deviate from the diet. That’s it.

The problem comes in when the usage of it as unnecessary, arbitrary, and cruel enforcement of rules for their own sake takes over. There are plenty of abusive people that would call themselves strict, despite violating boundaries and social mores in the process, which means they’re just pretending.

But there is a difference between a kid being tightly supervised and abuse. There’s an even bigger difference for having expectations for a kid’s behavior and activity and abuse. Both of those are strict, but not abuse.

The key to that difference is usually in how boundaries are handled. You also get different outcomes, and if the methodology being used isn’t adjusted to the individual kid, it’s often going to feel abusive no matter what the intent is.

Not all kids are going to respond the same way to any parenting methodology. Twins can even respond differently. So you absolutely have to be ready to adjust what you’re strict about and how that’s applied if you want to stay in line with the right balance of structure, support, and freedom. What one kid thrives with, the next may utterly reject and be harmed in the attempt.

Strict is only “bad” when the structure is bad.

Being strict about not playing with fire is a good thing. Being strict about never going near a campfire is, at best neutral, and could be bad when taken to an extreme. Being strict about never going camping is bad.

Strict only means keeping rules in place. It doesn’t mean you can’t be flexible, that you can’t adjust rules as the kid ages and matures. It definitely doesn’t mean the rules have to be arbitrary and can’t be explained and discussed.

You think being strict about a kid not using racial slurs is a bad thing?

Or making them see a doctor regularly and as needed?

Or that they bathe?

The list of things that can’t be negotiable is very long if you go into detail.

The list of things that can’t be negotiable at a given level of age and maturity isn’t short either.

Strict doesn’t have to be done badly at all. It’s just that uncompromising strictness is the opposite end of a slider from utter laissez faire. Which has just as many flaws.

There’s a reason that authoritative is the usual recommended goal; it’s being strict when necessary, and loose when not. But “strict” is part of that. Strict is making sure that there’s a reliable structure a kid can build a foundation of self on. It’s the walls of the sandbox and the sheet of material under out that keeps weeds from poking through.

The sandbox of development is the freedom to play within those boundaries. It doesn’t have to mean all noes, or all have tos.

Strict is, “you’ll do your homework because it’s part of the process of learning. When do you want to do it, and what can I do to help?”

Abusive is “you’ll do your homework or I’ll beat your ass”, and then beating their ass as the first and only option.

A lot of the time, we have a lot of our identity kit tied into our work. Sometimes that also means to specific jobs/employers.

Losing that for any reason can be anything from a mild annoyance to fully traumatic. And unexpected job loss not only affects one’s self view and sense of purpose, it’s a threat to stability and survival.

So, yeah, it can take years to move past.

It’s a form of grief, though that isn’t always easy to understand, and how intense that grief is is variable even for one person in specific. But it’s not at all unusual for someone quitting a job, in a planned way, to experience loss emotionally. When the loss is involuntary, that stack, then it being unexpected stacks higher. A long job hunt after adds more to the pile.

With anxiety already part of your existence, that grief is prone to hitting harder as well as deeper.

It looks like your grief has turned into depression as well. That drained, empty feeling is your brain and mind saying it/they have hit a limit to how much they can process.

I’m going to echo the suggestion that some talk therapy would be beneficial. Processing such events in life can be difficult to do alone because it’s so hard to see things culturally clearly from the inside.

Don’t think you’re alone in what you’re experiencing. It’s a very common thing to go through.

Ahhh, gotcha.

Makes sense.

For whatever reason, the original comment didn’t parse in my head. Thanks for the extra explanation.

This sounds like an attempt to recreate mollosoi dogs, just with extra steps.

I’m fairly confident that the examples given would result in a large (but not giant), smart, and people friendly dog that could still operate successfully without a handler. Not in the first generation, but eventually.

Tbh, don’t even need wolves in the mix; they don’t really bring much to the table, and you aren’t going to maintain that look past three or four generations to begin with. Wolf-dogs that breed with each other don’t hold on to a wolfish look for very many generations as it is, even when they’re all mixed with the same dog breed. Hiding mixing in that many dog breeds, you’re looking at what? 1/32 wolf by the time you have a breed that’s no longer being crosses outside of established individuals from the project. Maybe it’s 1/64th, I can’t remember what it came out to when someone did the math on reddit about how many generations it would take to no longer be breeding half breeds at all, with a stable population for the project.

If you leave wolves out, you already have a more stable pool that you can select traits from for each succeeding generation. You just can’t keep a wolf appearance without breeding wolves only, and even then you’d have to select each generation for that look to the exclusion of other traits.

Part of the reason dog breeds exist is those repeating chains of DNA that most (but not all, supposedly) canids have. Can’t remember the right term for it, but the Russian foxes also rely on that quirk. When that’s in play, you can breed for specific traits, but the more focused you get on one, or one small set, the more the others express themselves, hence the curly tails and floppy ears of the Russian “domesticated” foxes. You select for friendliness, you get “softer” looks. You select for looks, you get some combination of other traits (like the skittishness some smaller breeds are known for).

We already have a good idea of what traits breeding for size gets, and we have an idea of what breeding to visual standards gets when that standard is wolfish.

Edit: the Wiki summary for mollosoi dogs

There’s a difference between strict and abusive.

Yeah, well, I want to kick him in the nuts