[M. Bison]

I remember watching a movie many years ago that was supposed to be a comedy of sorts, but was actually fairly disturbing. There's a scene where some black guy pulls off the socks of some black girl, and sees lots of crap in between her toes. He looked at them and was like :-X and then poured a bunch of hot sauce on them and then sucks on her toes. After the first go, he had a mouth full of crap and hot sauce, and then nearly barfed, but kept going at it. I'm forever scarred from that scene. Anyone know what movie I'm talking about? :-\

That being said, I only suck on my gf's toes after she just showered.

At least you're not sucking on dirty feet... well you better hope they're not dirty.  :o

Well yeah, but hands are also a cesspool of bacteria.

Well obviously. That's why you're not even supposed to touch your eyes unless your hands are completely clean.  :-\

4 the love of Christ, why don't you start fucking your brothers then.  ???

---

[/hr]
WRONG is WRONG(.)

They don't wash their butthole clean enough. :o

[Spartacus]

Oral sex is illegal in my country.

Oral sex is illegal in my country.

LOL, how do people get caught?

[Spartacus]

Oral sex is illegal in my country.

LOL, how do people get caught?

I don't.  :


Anyway it WAS illegal, but not anymore.

ST Nov 7, 2008
Charged for oral sex
By Elena Chong

A MAN was charged in court on Friday with three charges of having oral sex with his Indonesian maid.

Ahmad Dapon, 53, allegedly engaged in oral sex with the 31-year-old woman in his flat on three occasions between April and May last year.

He is represented by Mr Subhas Anandan.

If convicted, he faces a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.

The case has been fixed for a pre-trial conference on Nov 25.

Oral or unnatural sex is an offence in Singapore, punishable with a life sentence, or up to ten years jail and/or a fine.

Oral sex is illegal in my country.

LOL, how do people get caught?

I don't.  :


Anyway it WAS illegal, but not anymore.

ST Nov 7, 2008
Charged for oral sex
By Elena Chong

A MAN was charged in court on Friday with three charges of having oral sex with his Indonesian maid.

Ahmad Dapon, 53, allegedly engaged in oral sex with the 31-year-old woman in his flat on three occasions between April and May last year.

He is represented by Mr Subhas Anandan.

If convicted, he faces a jail term of up to 10 years and a fine.

The case has been fixed for a pre-trial conference on Nov 25.

Oral or unnatural sex is an offence in Singapore, punishable with a life sentence, or up to ten years jail and/or a fine.

Obama belongs in the jungle.
Singapore is weird, even chewing gum is illegal in public.

Have to say, I used to have the same strong reaction against homosexuality as ruplayer and red. But eventually, (as with a few things in my life) I wanted to make sure that what I believed in had some sort of rational justification. I ended up realizing that a person can't force themselves to be attracted to people of the same sex; it's not a conscious decision (For example: a straight person could go through the motions of performing homosexual acts, but that wouldn't necessarily mean that they would be actually attracted to members of the same sex).

I also discovered that homosexuality occurs in many different species of animals, and so is not at all unnatural (in any ordinary sense of the word). Another common criticism of homosexual relationships is that they can't create children. But first of all, there are already people who are barren, or who pledge to be abstinent, or who uses contraception, and no non-religious person insults those people's sense of morality. And secondly, homosexual people can have biological children via donating sperm to a surrogate mother, or (in the case of lesbian couples) by receiving from a sperm donor. On top of that, there's the criticism that anal sex can damage the body, but straight people engage in sodomy too, so we can't have a double standard there.

It seems plain to me, that the only real reason that many people are so opposed to homosexuality is because of their cultural upbringing (including religion), in quite the same way that many white people in the past were opposed to equality for black people, or that some men were against equal rights for women.

Homophobia is a pretty irrational prejudice that doesn't have any justification outside tradition.

P.S. You guys sure know how to have a gross conversation.
P.S.S. Drunk, your gif image is tobuscus!

thanks for summing up the thread's pro-homosexuality arguments haha, thread can end here I think

[Spartacus]

non-religious argument opposing same-sex marriages.

Social and gender roles greatly simply things. If every man has a wife, and kids, I can base loads of policies on this. When looking at specifics, this is not a big deal, but when looking at a big picture, accommodating for non-traditional pairings becomes very difficult.
Maternity leave, healthcare laws, divorce, kids... Any laws that might apply to a husband and wife, now need special considerations for a wife and wife, a husband and husband, as well as a husband and wife (and single parents).
And laws are really nothing compared to the social expectations. Social roles can really help for a smooth running society. On one hand, a handshake is just an arbitrary act that increases the chance the risk of viral spread. On the other it's a show of trust and respect and non-verbal communication. There are entire books written on what different handshakes represent. Similarly, there are years of tradition built on men sitting in smoking rooms, while wives chit chat and cook. Its a system of behaviours that helps us all get along and function. It's completely arbitrary, but it's a system. Imagine if you went to shake someones hand, and they licked your cheek instead - sure it could work, but it's gonna throw a lot of people off.
A lot of traditional values exist partially for these reasons. Why should we drive on the right side of the road (o left as it may be). Doesn't matter which side you drive on, but everyone needs to be on the same page. You might make more complicated rules that say, sometimes, you drive on the right, sometimes on the left, but every time you add a layer of complexity, you open the door to problems.
If everyone had traditional male-female marriages (and gender roles), it's possible for things to go extremely smoothly.
(of course, if someone rejects these traditional roles, if their gay for instance, then roles are broken anyway, regardless of whether the law agrees with them or not, so I would personally argue that it makes more sense for accommodating laws and sociality, but I find I can feel where the traditionalist are coming from a lot better when I view the problem like a backward compatibility upgrade issue. Some people are just not ready to upgrade to the new version of office, because they have loads of legacy documents that willl not work.)

non-religious argument opposing same-sex marriages.

Social and gender roles greatly simply things. If every man has a wife, and kids, I can base loads of policies on this. When looking at specifics, this is not a big deal, but when looking at a big picture, accommodating for non-traditional pairings becomes very difficult.
Maternity leave, healthcare laws, divorce, kids... Any laws that might apply to a husband and wife, now need special considerations for a wife and wife, a husband and husband, as well as a husband and wife (and single parents).
And laws are really nothing compared to the social expectations. Social roles can really help for a smooth running society. On one hand, a handshake is just an arbitrary act that increases the chance the risk of viral spread. On the other it's a show of trust and respect and non-verbal communication. There are entire books written on what different handshakes represent. Similarly, there are years of tradition built on men sitting in smoking rooms, while wives chit chat and cook. Its a system of behaviours that helps us all get along and function. It's completely arbitrary, but it's a system. Imagine if you went to shake someones hand, and they licked your cheek instead - sure it could work, but it's gonna throw a lot of people off.
A lot of traditional values exist partially for these reasons. Why should we drive on the right side of the road (o left as it may be). Doesn't matter which side you drive on, but everyone needs to be on the same page. You might make more complicated rules that say, sometimes, you drive on the right, sometimes on the left, but every time you add a layer of complexity, you open the door to problems.
If everyone had traditional male-female marriages (and gender roles), it's possible for things to go extremely smoothly.
(of course, if someone rejects these traditional roles, if their gay for instance, then roles are broken anyway, regardless of whether the law agrees with them or not, so I would personally argue that it makes more sense for accommodating laws and sociality, but I find I can feel where the traditionalist are coming from a lot better when I view the problem like a backward compatibility upgrade issue. Some people are just not ready to upgrade to the new version of office, because they have loads of legacy documents that willl not work.)