Fucking holidays

124

Comments

  • It is frequeArschloch
    Pope Francis on Thursday appealed for greater international commitment to protect women and children "who are violated and exposed to every form of exploitation, enslavement, violence and abuse." He called for ways to "uproot this evil and to provide ways to restore their dignity."
    I don't agree with the pope on lots, but do agree about this.

    Sure and we can all agree on that quoted sentence, but the point is that not everyone (including not every sex worker) will agree that sex-work is necessarily characterized by those four things.

    TBH I think this kind of moral indignation can sometimes serve as cover for other situations in which combinations of those four things occur.
    I'm not convinced that anyone actually aspires to "sex work" as a career.
    I've met people who say they got into it* as a preference. Granted, the factors you mentioned will still be involved in many cases, probably even in the majority. I certainly do not have a problem condemning that. The issue I do have is the general condemnation of sex outside of marriage that underlies these discussions.

    *Sex work is a broad category. I listen to a sexologist on Youtube and though she is not a hands on practitioner (i.e. sexual surrogate, etc.), she speaks highly of the practice.

    Working in health care, perhaps it's seeing only those who need something for a problem biases my understanding. The general received wisdom in medical contexts is that people engaged in selling use of themselves for sex have a much higher proportion of early sexual victimization, experience of violence, poverty, low education, addictions, mental health issues. The comparative data where prostitution is legal shows that some of these negatives are ameliorated - which suggests that criminalizing is it unwise public policy - but that the same patterns exist among those who are prostitutes/do sexual work.
    Legalised prostitution does not end trafficking, unfortunately. And since transactional sex still has a stigma, the factors you mention will permeate.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 0
    edited November 2019
    .
  • Simon Toad wrote: »
    Nevertheless, we have had this out before, and having regard particularly to people who have flashbacks to experiences of sexual violence when they see or hear the word, I used spoiler tags. I also had regard to your opinion and the opinion of other shipmates to the effect that they are offended or triggered by the word. Perhaps my method can be criticised as not a sufficient warning to these people. That is why I asked your opinion about that aspect.
    Without rehashing the whole thread from this past summer, the problem, it seems to me, is that the context undercuts a claim that the spoiler tag was there out of regard for those who might be triggered. The spoiler tag came at the end of a paragraph basically pooh-poohing those who find offense in things you don’t think should be seen as offensive, and at the end of a sentence about those who clutch their pearls at the word you then hid behind a spoiler tag. So at the same time you say you’re trying to show regard for those who may be triggered, you also seem to be saying they’re silly for having any problem with the word.

    I’m not saying that was your intent. I’m saying that’s how it came across, at least to me.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is frequeArschloch
    Pope Francis on Thursday appealed for greater international commitment to protect women and children "who are violated and exposed to every form of exploitation, enslavement, violence and abuse." He called for ways to "uproot this evil and to provide ways to restore their dignity."
    I don't agree with the pope on lots, but do agree about this.

    Sure and we can all agree on that quoted sentence, but the point is that not everyone (including not every sex worker) will agree that sex-work is necessarily characterized by those four things.

    TBH I think this kind of moral indignation can sometimes serve as cover for other situations in which combinations of those four things occur.
    I'm not convinced that anyone actually aspires to "sex work" as a career.
    I've met people who say they got into it* as a preference. Granted, the factors you mentioned will still be involved in many cases, probably even in the majority. I certainly do not have a problem condemning that. The issue I do have is the general condemnation of sex outside of marriage that underlies these discussions.

    *Sex work is a broad category. I listen to a sexologist on Youtube and though she is not a hands on practitioner (i.e. sexual surrogate, etc.), she speaks highly of the practice.

    Working in health care, perhaps it's seeing only those who need something for a problem biases my understanding. The general received wisdom in medical contexts is that people engaged in selling use of themselves for sex have a much higher proportion of early sexual victimization, experience of violence, poverty, low education, addictions, mental health issues. The comparative data where prostitution is legal shows that some of these negatives are ameliorated - which suggests that criminalizing is it unwise public policy - but that the same patterns exist among those who are prostitutes/do sexual work.
    Legalised prostitution does not end trafficking, unfortunately. And since transactional sex still has a stigma, the factors you mention will permeate.

    I don't think you read as I wrote. Data by nature are aggregated across a sample we presume represents a population. An anecdote by a sexologist of youtube note is not data, it's anecdotal information. We can dispute that a sample doesn't represent the population, but it is likely that the understanding I conveyed holds because there are multiple samples from multiple studies in different places.

    Legalisation does not eliminate but it probably reduces the negative issues. I don't have understanding of that data, but have a vague memory of seeing somethings in the past. It isn't something I care to look up.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    It is frequeArschloch
    Pope Francis on Thursday appealed for greater international commitment to protect women and children "who are violated and exposed to every form of exploitation, enslavement, violence and abuse." He called for ways to "uproot this evil and to provide ways to restore their dignity."
    I don't agree with the pope on lots, but do agree about this.

    Sure and we can all agree on that quoted sentence, but the point is that not everyone (including not every sex worker) will agree that sex-work is necessarily characterized by those four things.

    TBH I think this kind of moral indignation can sometimes serve as cover for other situations in which combinations of those four things occur.
    I'm not convinced that anyone actually aspires to "sex work" as a career.
    I've met people who say they got into it* as a preference. Granted, the factors you mentioned will still be involved in many cases, probably even in the majority. I certainly do not have a problem condemning that. The issue I do have is the general condemnation of sex outside of marriage that underlies these discussions.

    *Sex work is a broad category. I listen to a sexologist on Youtube and though she is not a hands on practitioner (i.e. sexual surrogate, etc.), she speaks highly of the practice.

    Working in health care, perhaps it's seeing only those who need something for a problem biases my understanding. The general received wisdom in medical contexts is that people engaged in selling use of themselves for sex have a much higher proportion of early sexual victimization, experience of violence, poverty, low education, addictions, mental health issues. The comparative data where prostitution is legal shows that some of these negatives are ameliorated - which suggests that criminalizing is it unwise public policy - but that the same patterns exist among those who are prostitutes/do sexual work.
    Legalised prostitution does not end trafficking, unfortunately. And since transactional sex still has a stigma, the factors you mention will permeate.

    I don't think you read as I wrote. Data by nature are aggregated across a sample we presume represents a population. An anecdote by a sexologist of youtube note is not data, it's anecdotal information. We can dispute that a sample doesn't represent the population, but it is likely that the understanding I conveyed holds because there are multiple samples from multiple studies in different places.

    Legalisation does not eliminate but it probably reduces the negative issues. I don't have understanding of that data, but have a vague memory of seeing somethings in the past. It isn't something I care to look up.
    Yes, mine was an anecdote and not meant to be anything else. Data is a dangerous thing, without proper methodology and presentation. Not doubting the stats, just saying that they do not represent the entire picture.
    And legalisation can reduce the negative issues, not arguing against that. Just saying that it is not a panacea and that the negative issues are broader than legal v illegal.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    The issue I do have is the general condemnation of sex outside of marriage that underlies these discussions.

    [citation needed]
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The issue I do have is the general condemnation of sex outside of marriage that underlies these discussions.

    [citation needed]
    Hilarious flourish: full points.
    Technically accurate: I don't recall it being explicitly stated on this thread.

    But... is it really not something that is fairly safe to assume as being dogmatically true for most of the cults represented on these boards?
  • I mean, dogmatically, yes. But as far as the pew warmers are concerned? I think, perhaps, for themselves, and possibly, for their co-religionists, but to those outside their faith? Not really our business?

    What I think underlies these discussions more certainly is the notion of consent, and the ability to give it freely without physical, emotional or financial coercion.
  • As if any of us is a picture perfect representation of our respective cults. Hell, I'm Orthodox and I don't think gay people have cooties.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I mean, dogmatically, yes. But as far as the pew warmers are concerned?
    I'll refrain from my ground-to-dust hobby-horse regarding people supporting cults they don't really agree with.
    I think, perhaps, for themselves, and possibly, for their co-religionists, but to those outside their faith? Not really our business?
    This comment makes me wonder about the voting power of several largish cults in our western societies. I smell bullshit.
    What I think underlies these discussions more certainly is the notion of consent, and the ability to give it freely without physical, emotional or financial coercion.
    I can appreciate and agree with that. But there is a long legacy of derision regarding non-traditional sexuality that is hard to ignore.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Doc Tor wrote: »
    I mean, dogmatically, yes. But as far as the pew warmers are concerned?
    I'll refrain from my ground-to-dust hobby-horse regarding people supporting cults they don't really agree with.
    Good luck with that. When you say "don't really agree with", these things aren't walled off, no matter how much the faith professionals want it to be. Religious belief is open countryside, and we wander, even if we all agree that trees are just great.
    I think, perhaps, for themselves, and possibly, for their co-religionists, but to those outside their faith? Not really our business?
    This comment makes me wonder about the voting power of several largish cults in our western societies. I smell bullshit.
    So do I. Age, income, and education play a far greater part than religious affiliation.
    What I think underlies these discussions more certainly is the notion of consent, and the ability to give it freely without physical, emotional or financial coercion.
    I can appreciate and agree with that. But there is a long legacy of derision regarding non-traditional sexuality that is hard to ignore.

    But it's a legacy that mostly detached from actual religious belief.
  • RossweisseRossweisse Hell Host, 8th Day Host
    Nick Tamen wrote: »
    Without rehashing the whole thread from this past summer, the problem, it seems to me, is that the context undercuts a claim that the spoiler tag was there out of regard for those who might be triggered. The spoiler tag came at the end of a paragraph basically pooh-poohing those who find offense in things you don’t think should be seen as offensive, and at the end of a sentence about those who clutch their pearls at the word you then hid behind a spoiler tag. So at the same time you say you’re trying to show regard for those who may be triggered, you also seem to be saying they’re silly for having any problem with the word.

    I’m not saying that was your intent. I’m saying that’s how it came across, at least to me.
    As it did to me.

  • EutychusEutychus Shipmate
    edited November 2019
    RooK wrote: »
    I'll refrain from my ground-to-dust hobby-horse regarding people supporting cults they don't really agree with.
    Maybe you need to revise your use of the term "cult". A characteristic of a cult is groupthink, whereas many churches represented here do not impose absolute uniformity of belief. The idea of ongoing discussion and debate is virtually a defining characteristic of protestantism. If you think religious belief has to involve ticking a long list of belief boxes, you're far astray.
    But there is a long legacy of derision regarding non-traditional sexuality that is hard to ignore.

    There's a big gap between "no sex outside marriage" and "derision regarding non-traditional sexuality". Unless by "non-traditional sexuality" you mean "faithfulness", which is something I'd uphold and do so from a Christian set of values.
  • I'm not convinced that anyone actually aspires to "sex work" as a career.

    You could say the same about a hell of a lot of careers. Hell, I never aspired to sit at a computer pushing numbers round spreadsheets all day, but that’s what I do.

    But nobody cares about whether workers freely and enthusiastically consent to that sort of work. The only difference i can see is prudishness about sex.
  • I'm sorry, I don't see a direct comparison between sitting at a desk and accepting other people's bodily fluids into your body.

    There may be some circumstances where someone should be empowered to make that choice with the protections of healthcare, effective protection of a system of law etc and so on.

    It sure as hell isn't when they are servicing clients from the other side of the world who are simply there because you are so cheap.

    I can't imagine you'd think it acceptable for a Brit to travel the world to satisfy the urge to shit into some Thai person's open wound. Because that's gross.

    It's a transaction borne out if poverty exploited by a world system that's completely fucked and morally degraded fools here that think exploiting the health and safety of poor people is funny.

    Shame on you.
  • I'm not convinced that anyone actually aspires to "sex work" as a career.

    You could say the same about a hell of a lot of careers. Hell, I never aspired to sit at a computer pushing numbers round spreadsheets all day, but that’s what I do.

    But nobody cares about whether workers freely and enthusiastically consent to that sort of work. The only difference i can see is prudishness about sex.

    Sex releases oxytocin, which is part of our biological system for relationship building, trust and bonding. This is why sexual abuse damages people so deeply, I’d argue that having multiple sexual encounters without any relational contact is psychologically harmful in the long term. Whether I am right or not, I am absolutely sure that spreadsheets don’t have that potential.
  • RussRuss Shipmate
    Does it follow that not having any sexual encounters is also psychologically harmful ?
  • *klaxon* incel alert *klaxon*
  • @Doublethink :"Sex releases oxytocin, which is part of our biological system for relationship building, trust and bonding. This is why sexual abuse damages people so deeply, I’d argue that having multiple sexual encounters without any relational contact is psychologically harmful in the long term."

    This is something I'm really not sure about. Is sex there to deepen intimacy, or is a healthy physical activity, a bit like squash? I'm only thinking of consensual, non-manipulative sex here, not of abuse or exploitation.
  • In my highly limited experience, trying to say sexual activity is either one or the other is impossible. It is both/and, not either/or.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Eutychus wrote: »
    Maybe you need to revise your use of the term "cult".
    ...
    Unless by "non-traditional sexuality" you mean "faithfulness", which is something I'd uphold and do so from a Christian set of values.

    Have you noticed that you wave your arms a lot (figuratively), but don't actually engage with the ideas as presented? It might be sufficient to reassure yourself regarding all the things you've already decided about, but it's hardly persuasive for people with different perspectives.

    But I'll go out on a branch for you:
    Maybe ossified patriarchal ideals of sexuality that hurts people is not necessarily a feature of the cults/religions/faiths we're alluding to. Maybe they're just where most of the people who assert said ossified patriarchal ideals tend to reside coincidentally.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I can't imagine you'd think it acceptable for a Brit to travel the world to satisfy the urge to shit into some Thai person's open wound.

    Um, literally nobody is supporting that. Yet you keep coming back to argue (and ramp up the extremeness) a point in an infatuated way. Not great optics.
  • Eutychus wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    I'll refrain from my ground-to-dust hobby-horse regarding people supporting cults they don't really agree with.
    Maybe you need to revise your use of the term "cult". A characteristic of a cult is groupthink, whereas many churches represented here do not impose absolute uniformity of belief.
    No True Cult? Groupthink is necessary for any voluntary/semi-voluntary group to be a group. "absolute uniformity" is a dodge. Without a significant level of groupthink, there is no religion. People shun/criticise/attack/kill other people for not being groupthinky enough.

  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Sex releases oxytocin
    That's a good point.
    I am absolutely sure that spreadsheets don’t have that potential.
    That lacks imagination.
  • @Doublethink :"Sex releases oxytocin, which is part of our biological system for relationship building, trust and bonding. This is why sexual abuse damages people so deeply, I’d argue that having multiple sexual encounters without any relational contact is psychologically harmful in the long term."

    This is something I'm really not sure about. Is sex there to deepen intimacy, or is a healthy physical activity, a bit like squash? I'm only thinking of consensual, non-manipulative sex here, not of abuse or exploitation.
    Nearly all human activity has the potential for intimacy. When I wore my hair beyond a self-maintained, close crop, getting it done had a level of intimacy. Non-sexual, as I've had both men and women do my hair and I am not bisexual. Touch is intimate, by its nature. Even non contact. internet communication can be intimate. It is our nature.
    Sex has more potential for intimacy than casual touch, but that does not necessarily include deepening intimacy.
  • RooK wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I can't imagine you'd think it acceptable for a Brit to travel the world to satisfy the urge to shit into some Thai person's open wound.

    Um, literally nobody is supporting that. Yet you keep coming back to argue (and ramp up the extremeness) a point in an infatuated way. Not great optics.

    It's a lot more similar than sitting at a desk job.

    You can take your "optics" and shove them where your morals don't shine.

    Which appears to be practically everywhere.
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Eutychus wrote: »
    RooK wrote: »
    I'll refrain from my ground-to-dust hobby-horse regarding people supporting cults they don't really agree with.
    Maybe you need to revise your use of the term "cult". A characteristic of a cult is groupthink, whereas many churches represented here do not impose absolute uniformity of belief.
    No True Cult? Groupthink is necessary for any voluntary/semi-voluntary group to be a group. "absolute uniformity" is a dodge. Without a significant level of groupthink, there is no religion. People shun/criticise/attack/kill other people for not being groupthinky enough.

    What is actually wrong with you?

    You are banging the drum that all these horrible religionists are hung up about sex even though the issue here isn't about it per say.

    One might even think that you've got a single song to sing and you insist on performing it at every opportunity.

    Maybe give it a rest, eh?
  • RooK wrote: »
    Sex releases oxytocin
    That's a good point.
    I am absolutely sure that spreadsheets don’t have that potential.
    That lacks imagination.

    Says the guy who can't imagine the lives of people in Thailand who give 50p blowjobs to foreigners.

    You are literally the poster boy for the abuse-and-exploitation of the poor dressed up as fun-and-games.

  • I mean, really.

    Look at these fucking Christians: they deplore the exploitation of poor people.

    Oh the horror.
  • From an evolutionary psychology perspective (often a rather suspect field), that humans don't go into heat with obvious fertility at certain times we know it has something to do with social and relationship connections.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    @Blahblah , maybe venture out of the spittle-flecked corner you've wandered into and actually talk to people?

    Or not. Because, fuck you.
  • BlahblahBlahblah Suspended
    edited November 2019
    RooK wrote: »
    @Blahblah , maybe venture out of the spittle-flecked corner you've wandered into and actually talk to people?

    Or not. Because, fuck you.

    No reason why I'd talk to anyone who is a functioning adult but has less moral reasoning ability than a ten year old.

    What is there to say? You are defending the indefensible with lies about your opponents.

    Talk to you? No thanks.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    I mean, really.

    Look at these fucking Christians: they deplore the exploitation of poor people.

    Oh the horror.
    Actually, if you want to go there, Christians have a pretty strong history of exploiting poor people,* so...
    No one, absolutely no one on this thread is promoting exploitation. No one on this thread is denying that most, if not all, of the sex tourism in Thailand is exploitative.

    *no exclusively doing so, and there are good works in there as well, life is not binary
  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I mean, really.

    Look at these fucking Christians: they deplore the exploitation of poor people.

    Oh the horror.
    Actually, if you want to go there, Christians have a pretty strong history of exploiting poor people,* so...
    No one, absolutely no one on this thread is promoting exploitation. No one on this thread is denying that most, if not all, of the sex tourism in Thailand is exploitative.

    *no exclusively doing so, and there are good works in there as well, life is not binary

    You literally are defending exploitation.

    Maybe go back and read what you've written here and then take yourself outside for a good talking to.

    I'm not defending Christianity. I'm defending people *in this thread* who are appalled by a practice and which you keeping claiming is because it is about sex.

    Even though nobody has said that. There is a word for people like you and it starts with D and ends with ICKHEAD.
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    My long, long, loooooong tenure in Hell has helped me to appreciate the degree to which we're all having our own conversations, in which there is often only modest intersection of perceived realities.

    Rarely is it as obvious as on this thread though. Next @gaggag is going to declare "it's war with no rules" or some such.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    RooK wrote: »
    Sex releases oxytocin
    That's a good point.
    I am absolutely sure that spreadsheets don’t have that potential.
    That lacks imagination.

    Now there's a kink I hadn't heard of before. And if you use open source software it's not exploitative, right?
  • RooK wrote: »
    My long, long, loooooong tenure in Hell has helped me to appreciate the degree to which we're all having our own conversations, in which there is often only modest intersection of perceived realities.

    Rarely is it as obvious as on this thread though. Next @gaggag is going to declare "it's war with no rules" or some such.

    I started the thread.

    A thread which you've clearly not read, as you keep claiming it is about something it isn't about.

    A thread where you stated that your only purpose here was to troll.

    A thread where you thought it acceptable to make a sexual slur about my mother.

    Where do you get off?
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    I mean, really.

    Look at these fucking Christians: they deplore the exploitation of poor people.

    Oh the horror.
    Actually, if you want to go there, Christians have a pretty strong history of exploiting poor people,* so...
    No one, absolutely no one on this thread is promoting exploitation. No one on this thread is denying that most, if not all, of the sex tourism in Thailand is exploitative.

    *no exclusively doing so, and there are good works in there as well, life is not binary

    You literally are defending exploitation.

    Maybe go back and read what you've written here and then take yourself outside for a good talking to.

    I'm not defending Christianity. I'm defending people *in this thread* who are appalled by a practice and which you keeping claiming is because it is about sex.

    Even though nobody has said that. There is a word for people like you and it starts with D and ends with ICKHEAD.
    I've read what I've said and you are a fucking idiot. My problem with your dipshit OP is not that I think the bloke in it wasn't being exploitative but that your outrage seemed to be more about being told about it.
    Your subsequent refusals to address this when queried do not put you in the beast light as far as condemning exploitation.
    So fuck the hell right off with your accusations of defending exploitation.
  • And that's before we even get to the point where you wake up and start making the most warped defence of the indefensible. On the basis that Christians don't like sex.

  • You want to maybe argue with yourself
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    The fucking cost is only a problem if it is exploitive in the place where it is happening. Thailand has a lower cost of living, so EVERYTHING will be cheaper.

    Which is wrong on so many levels I couldn't even be bothered to list them.

    Because you are a prick if you think that someone giving blowjobs for 50p in Thailand is not exploitative on the basis that "everything is cheaper in Thailand".

    Utter head-banging prickdom which could only be stated by someone who hasn't a fucking clue about poverty in SE Asia.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    And that's before we even get to the point where you wake up and start making the most warped defence of the indefensible. On the basis that Christians don't like sex.
    Do you work at being so fucking dense? It is hard to imagine maintaining such imperviousness to functional cognition accidental.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    And that's before we even get to the point where you wake up and start making the most warped defence of the indefensible. On the basis that Christians don't like sex.
    Do you work at being so fucking dense? It is hard to imagine maintaining such imperviousness to functional cognition accidental.

    What's that actually supposed to mean? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you haven't been posting that this topic is only an issue because Christians are squeamish about sex?
  • Russ wrote: »
    Does it follow that not having any sexual encounters is also psychologically harmful ?

    No. Not everything in this universe is symmetrical.
  • Blahblah wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    And that's before we even get to the point where you wake up and start making the most warped defence of the indefensible. On the basis that Christians don't like sex.
    Do you work at being so fucking dense? It is hard to imagine maintaining such imperviousness to functional cognition accidental.

    What's that actually supposed to mean? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you haven't been posting that this topic is only an issue because Christians are squeamish about sex?
    Wow, black hole dense, you are. I will say this simply and with as few syllables as I can and am typing slowly so it hopefully won't go past you before you have a chance to comprehend.
    Exploitation is bad.
    Christians think sex is icky.
    Your OP is mad at sex talk. And maybe exploitation a little.

  • lilbuddha wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    lilbuddha wrote: »
    Blahblah wrote: »
    And that's before we even get to the point where you wake up and start making the most warped defence of the indefensible. On the basis that Christians don't like sex.
    Do you work at being so fucking dense? It is hard to imagine maintaining such imperviousness to functional cognition accidental.

    What's that actually supposed to mean? Are you seriously trying to tell me that you haven't been posting that this topic is only an issue because Christians are squeamish about sex?
    Wow, black hole dense, you are. I will say this simply and with as few syllables as I can and am typing slowly so it hopefully won't go past you before you have a chance to comprehend.
    Exploitation is bad.
    Christians think sex is icky.
    Your OP is mad at sex talk. And maybe exploitation a little.

    Gee, why not keep telling me what I think.

    How many other lies can you state about me? Are you keeping a tally or something?
  • RooKRooK Admin Emeritus
    Ruth wrote: »
    Now there's a kink I hadn't heard of before.

    Rule 34.
  • I bet you use INDEX(MATCH()) instead of VLOOKUP(), you filthy pervert.
  • RuthRuth Shipmate
    I don't know what those terms mean, but I'm afraid to look them up.
  • RooK wrote: »
    @Blahblah , maybe venture out of the spittle-flecked corner you've wandered into and actually talk to people?

    Or not. Because, fuck you.

    The evolutionary psychologists also see a connection between sex and aggression. Nice illustration.

    As for Christian squeamishness about sex: Holy Fuck.
This discussion has been closed.