Vegans Taste Better?
Posted by Skywalker7 on Nov 09, 2010 · Member since Jun 2010 · 89 posts
I was wondering if anybody can support or challenge the claim that vegans taste better from personal experience. Most information tells me that just as garlic finds it's ways through our pores, meat and dairy works through our bloodstream into our love juices and affects the smell and taste. That vegan cum is more sweet and fruity and that omnivores are more bitter and repugnant. Just curious
It's really hard to take a discussion thread seriously when the author starts out with such a subjective opinion. There have been several discussions on this topic already here which can be found by the search function, anecdotal evidence scattered around the internet and even scientific studies. If Skywalker had wanted verifiable studies, he could quite easily have found them. If he had wanted impartial discussion, he wouldn't have started out with a leading question which called a natural bodily function "repugnant" and continued to crack jokes which imply that calling someone gay is hilarious.
But, to answer the question: the taste and smell of a number of bodily fluids including semen and urine is based partly upon diet and partly upon how an individual's body processes substances found in foods. Very strong-flavoured foods like curries, alcohol, garlic and fish will produce more pungent fluids, while a diet rich in fruit and vegetables (with the exceptions of beetroot and asparagus) produce the opposite effect. However, studies have shown that some asparagus eaters can metabolise the vegetable sufficiently that there is no change to the smell or taste of their bodily fluids and so there are two variables at work here.
Basically, in order to produce a more favourable flavour of semen one needs a combination of fruit- and vegetable-rich diet and good luck in how you metabolise. A beer-swilling, junk food vegan will probably potentially taste less pleasant than a teetotal omnivore with a well-balanced diet.
Catski, First, in my first sentence of the thread I stated that I was interested in personal opinion and experiences here, I'm well aware that statistical data exists on the subject and I referenced my exposure to it in that first post as well.
Secondly, repugnant is a word that best described the state of the body fluid I was discussing, if you have a personal issue with a valid word in the dictionary then that's your problem. Would it have been better if I said foul or putrid. It is what it is.
Third, when did I ever make implications that calling someone gay is hilarious?? You are really reaching, unjustly injecting a sensitive issue and card, and putting words in my mouth to gain further support for your argument that is already weak, shame on you. >:(
Fourth, thank you for your insight on the subject at hand, I really appreciate it, I was actually more interested in your personal experience instead of your personal articulation of "statistical data" that can already be found on the net as you mentioned.
In the interest of staying on topic, here are my personal thoughts and experiences in the matter: Different people are different.
This is an entirely subjective matter that is going to impact everyone differently. From personal experience, one person will have a "baseline flavour" if you will, and that will vary to a small degree depending on time of the month, diet, and many other factors I'm probably not smart enough to include. In my experience, there is more variation in flavour from person to person than one person has ever been able to manipulate in their own "flavour spectrum" due to diet, exercise, or other controllable factors. I can only claim knowledge of the flavours of women and myself, I've had no sexual exposure to other men. There is my personal experience on the matter.
To point out the reasons I have obviously been trolling this thread - while I do not claim to be the final word on flavour I do realize the massive subjectivity of taste. Not only are there variations from person to person, but everyone will have changes to their preferences over time. As a specific example raised while I was in culinary school, it is well known that tomatoes are often found overpowering by children and yet as adults we enjoy them in myriad dishes. Does that mean every child dislikes them, or that every adult enjoys them? Absolutely not. Combining the moving target of one person's flavour with another's preference at the time of that sampling seems rather futile.
Beyond this, querying whether "vegans taste better" requires subjective analysis of both vegans and non-vegans, but by immediately labeling the latter category as "repugnant," a stigma is associated with that group and immediately unveils the inquirers preconception of them, which is likely an insurmountable bias.
Then we have a thread created which covers a discussion which has been and gone more than once before. As an excuse for repetition, we are basically given the answer "I'm lazy" - although along with that statement it is acknowledged by Skywalker that circumstances are ever variable, presenting a disconnect between the desire for information and realization that said information will be utterly irrelevant in a personal scope.
Finally, the not so subtle attempts at personal attack have led me to return the favour, for pure entertainment value.
Then we have a thread created which covers a discussion which has been and gone more than once before. As an excuse for repetition, we are basically given the answer "I'm lazy" - although along with that statement it is acknowledged by Skywalker that circumstances are ever variable, presenting a disconnect between the desire for information and realization that said information will be utterly irrelevant in a personal scope.
No, this entire paragraph is irrelevant. I didn't rush you at gun point and make you post in this thread. Your diet is more lazy than I am and I don't give a flying 47 f#%k if this thread been posted a million times before, sue me.
Your entitlement astounds me. The one fact you know about my diet is that I label myself omnivorous, and based on this alone you take a quote entirely out of context to label my lifestyle lazy. Never mind the fact you've gone entirely off the topic of the thread a mere two posts after ridiculing me for doing this, where I at least wrote something on-topic in my last post.
Please, define how an omnivorous diet is "lazier" than a vegan diet. If an omni carefully selects every product they use from markets and cooks every one of their own meals and a vegan grabs a can of soup for every meal, who is lazier? You're painting with an awfully broad stroke.
To educate you on my personal habits: I do not cook meat at home, every meal I make is at least vegetarian, and at least 80% of my meals are self prepared. This is admittedly a rough estimate although the actual number is likely higher. The reason I do not use "vegetarian" is because I have seen how sensitive the issue of labeling is to this community - take the "Practical Vegetarian" thread as an example. At the end of the day, if I am at a restaurant and the vegetarian options aren't going to satisfy my hunger, I will opt for an omni meal. More and more often I will still take a vegetarian option even at a restaurant. For a touch of relevance, I do not believe the near entire removal of meat from my diet has significantly affected my flavour.
As for irrelevance - it is generally considered good forum etiquette to use the search tool and review existing topics regarding your interests before posting a new thread. In fact, if this thread had been posted a million times before and you were 1,000,001 thread starter, I would be tempted to report you for spam. I would not, of course, have any intention of suing you. Nor am I a moderator of these boards, but I do appreciate good forum etiquette and have been known to point out those who wade into murkier waters.
So please, less foot stomping and more level headed conversation! Also, I would like to thank you for giving me something new to talk about and respond to here on vegweb. I may finally break 100 posts! Thanks.
He also eats a lot of fruit and veg, so make of that what you will :D
This back and forth with you two is getting real old real fast. I was once told don't argue with fools because people from a distance can't tell who is who but my nature makes it hard to overlook someone calling me out. I have little pity for dogs that bark up the wrong tree. Mark, I said your diet was more lazy than I am. I did not say that your lifestyle was lazy and even if your diet wasn't considered lazy by most standards, compared to me it is. As far as going off topic, I defended a position that you initiated. I don't initiate going off topic but if someone else does and it deserves my acknowledgment, I will follow it up.
You ask me how is an omnivore diet more lazy than a vegan diet? Well generally, conforming to the norm, being part of a national or global culture that caters to you, and giving 80% instead of 100% is easier and requires less effort than going against the grain. As you pointed out, it is easier and more lazy to sell out and order meat when you go out to restaurants. If I was a painter, my brush would be the magic stick.
So now you're Charles Bronson, you're suppose to be a vigilante for good forum "etiquette", get out of here with that nonsense. And the spam line was corny. So you want to be a vigilante and a snitch at the same time? you wouldn't last too long in many places.
And I'm always level headed, I haven't lost my cool yet, despite any illusions of anything different. I'm actually waiting to break a sweat.
Mark, I said your diet was more lazy than I am. I did not say that your lifestyle was lazy and even if your diet wasn't considered lazy by most standards, compared to me it is.
Right, but you're comparing a non-corporeal thing, my diet, to "you" - either you mean my diet takes less effort than your diet, and is lazier, or you mean that I am simply lazier than you. Your wording is unclear as to which, so I presumed that my diet and how it impacts my lifestyle (thus me being lazier than you) was the comparison you were trying to make. I'll certainly respond to whichever you mean, but please clarify.
You ask me how is an omnivore diet more lazy than a vegan diet? Well generally, conforming to the norm, being part of a national or global culture that caters to you, and giving 80% instead of 100% is easier and requires less effort than going against the grain. As you pointed out, it is easier and more lazy to sell out and order meat when you go out to restaurants. If I was a painter, my brush would be the magic stick.
Again with the thinly veiled digs! First of all, as explained, I never claimed I was a vegetarian so I'm not entirely sure what you're implying I'm selling out from. I also didn't say at all that it was easier or lazy to order meat, you're putting words in my mouth (are they vegetarian?). What I said was, if there are no vegetarian options to satisfy my hunger I may choose an omni meal - your perspective on this is that I'm lazy. (See, that's how you use that word) My perspective is that if my only vegetarian option is a salad and I know I'm going to be out walking around all afternoon, I will have a headache in an hour flat from low blood sugar so I should eat something more substantial.
So now you're Charles Bronson, you're suppose to be a vigilante for good forum "etiquette", get out of here with that nonsense. And the spam line was corny. So you want to be a vigilante and a snitch at the same time? you wouldn't last too long in many places.
And I'm always level headed, I haven't lost my cool yet, despite any illusions of anything different. I'm actually waiting to break a sweat.
My position has nothing to do with vigilantism or snitching, although I'm flattered you'd compare me to Charles Bronson - he was a cool guy! It has to do with my respect for the people who I share spaces with, whether that space be in real life or virtual. Part of that respect involves understanding the rules and accepted behaviours, that they are there for a reason, and that I don't scorn them lightly.
96!
You "don't initiate going off-topic"? Admittedly dmarkd started out silly, but we've since both given you answers to your question to the fullest of our abilities and provided plenty of context, and you've spent the majority of your responses arguing about the context you don't like. We've provided:
- personal experiences
- statistical context
- comparative analysis
- non-veg*n perspective
- knowledge that a forum search will bring up even more opinions from VegWebbers
I guess the thing to take away from this thread is that you want to hear people's opinions, but only when they confirm what you already believe.
"Yes, Skywalker, I personally have tasted the "love juices" of a wide variety of vegans and non-vegans, and I found in every case that the vegans tasted like manna from heaven while I could barely stand to be in the same bed as those unenlightened, lazy non-vegans. Truly we are a breed apart and in no way is my view subjective or coloured by my personal ideology. Peace, brother."
I was once told don't argue with fools because people from a distance can't tell who is who
8)
:sleep:
Just poking my nose in to say from a distance, I am pretty sure I can tell who is who in this thread...
I think all cum tastes like ass.
I think all cum tastes like ass.
Vegan ass or omni ass?
All of this rules.
I wonder what carni cum tastes like...
I wonder what carni cum tastes like...
Steak tartare.
I think all cum tastes like ass.
+1
I think all cum tastes like ass.
+1
+2
I think all cum tastes like ass.
+1
+2
X infinity
Pages