Manny Pacquiao "Gays Must Be Put To Death"
SN Fairy Godmother
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
From: Far Far Away
This place gets more pathetic every day 
What do you want? A forum where we are not allowed to talk about any thing!! Or a forum where we are only allowed to use certain words to describe something?
Just because some ***** don't like it!!
Who do some people think they are!!
P.S. There's nothing wrong with a bit of bumming!
What do you want? A forum where we are not allowed to talk about any thing!! Or a forum where we are only allowed to use certain words to describe something?
Just because some ***** don't like it!!
Who do some people think they are!!
P.S. There's nothing wrong with a bit of bumming!
Last edited by DJ Dunk; May 20, 2012 at 11:47 AM. Reason: Quoting swear filter bypass
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Wimmins of SN (and the men agreeing with them) aren't we going a bit over the top with the 'banter' issue on here? (I'm not talking about the homophobic issues btw)
I'm not saying it is particularly funny or clever to hear people going on about 'smashing back doors in' or similar phrases but what is the big deal?
Women on here say a man is 'fit', or if they were twenty years younger etc etc. What are they implying? I presume that they find the man sexually attractive and therefore would like to undertake some kind of sexual activity with them.(even if it is just a fantasy)
Is this that different to a man actually saying in black and white exactly what he would like that activity to be ie smashing back doors?
If a man said he would like to kiss a woman all night, or make love to a woman that would be ok? But these are sexual activities too aren't they, no real difference to **** sex.
Don't get me wrong, I don't go around speaking like that. I'd also find somebody who spoke like that all the time tedious, inappropriate and inadequate.
However bizarrely something in me says I'd like to defend the right of others to be able to speak like that if they so wish. Perhaps to a degree I'm playing devils advocate here, but free speech when it does not involve harm or hatred should probably be defended.
I can't see why it is so offensive. It is not like racist, sexist or homophobic comments which will often have an element of hatred in them or incitement to hate. Smashing back doors in (and similar) are just an expression used to convey the fact that a man would like to have a particular kind of consensual sexual encounter with a woman.
Is it really such a big deal?
I'm not saying it is particularly funny or clever to hear people going on about 'smashing back doors in' or similar phrases but what is the big deal?
Women on here say a man is 'fit', or if they were twenty years younger etc etc. What are they implying? I presume that they find the man sexually attractive and therefore would like to undertake some kind of sexual activity with them.(even if it is just a fantasy)
Is this that different to a man actually saying in black and white exactly what he would like that activity to be ie smashing back doors?
If a man said he would like to kiss a woman all night, or make love to a woman that would be ok? But these are sexual activities too aren't they, no real difference to **** sex.
Don't get me wrong, I don't go around speaking like that. I'd also find somebody who spoke like that all the time tedious, inappropriate and inadequate.
However bizarrely something in me says I'd like to defend the right of others to be able to speak like that if they so wish. Perhaps to a degree I'm playing devils advocate here, but free speech when it does not involve harm or hatred should probably be defended.
I can't see why it is so offensive. It is not like racist, sexist or homophobic comments which will often have an element of hatred in them or incitement to hate. Smashing back doors in (and similar) are just an expression used to convey the fact that a man would like to have a particular kind of consensual sexual encounter with a woman.
Is it really such a big deal?
Such will be similar to the gutter level reference like “smashing her backdoor in”. Calling someone goodlooking or beautiful means calling someone such, not necessarily wanting to have sex with them. "Fit" word is one of those informal ones that is used to indicate sexual interest, but it is nowhere as crude as repeated references to **** sex. So, there is a difference, and it’s not hypocritical to object upon the references of **** sex. What's hypocritical is that some like **** with women, but call gays abnormal and twisted for analing each other. Lee was first to spot this hypocrisy (well done, Lee
), which became pivotal to bring out our views on the references of **** sex.Other sexual activity is different to **** sex, as **** sex is more aggressive. It caters for one party, while other one painfully serves the purpose to be at disposal. There are women who like and happily endure **** sex without any problem, but there are women who have developed mental disorders due to their partners or one-off perverts forcing **** sex on them. Forceful entry is wrong; **** or vaginal. But **** is more aggressive, not always consensual, and a lot of people find that it is not normal to fantasise about **** sex. It is indeed sexist to refer to the desire of bursting some female's backside as it involves treating woman as an object of a male's aggresive sexual desires.
Now, even when other sexual activity is different and more acceptable (as it doesn’t involve a sh!thole), constant reference to it in a crude manner isn’t. That’s just my view which I wouldn’t want to impose on others. Scoobynet has a history of posting Cameltails and boobytraps threads which can be perceived as sexist, but I personally don’t have any problem with them being attended by the masses here. But I do reserve a right to give my opinion on them; just like others deserve to post cameltails and boobytraps. Free speech, as you say.
I don't go around talking crude in real circles. Not my style. I have said it a few posts ago. To me, Scoobynet has been a great source of knowledge for crude words and phrases.
About how big deal it is, really, it isn't that big deal for this phrase to be used here on SN. We were rightfully talking personal preferences of such phrases and the double standards here when some slate gays for **** sex while its okay for them to fantasise of having **** sex with a woman. We are used to all sorts of crude exchanges on Scoobynet. It won't matter if some continue to display such fantasies here, or just use it meaninglessly in banter. It doesn't mean that it is acceptable to some of us, though. Does it?
Once again, I couldn't care less if this phrase is repeatedly used here. I am aware that a lot of men are just braggers with crude sense of humour. They act macho and type **** here about wanting to screw a sh!thole. I don't think most of them mean it, anyway. However, one is within one's right to say that it’s not acceptable- even if it continues here forever.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Feb 1999
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
From: Cardiff. Wales
Hi Ding.
It's the hypocrisy that I can't stand. Giving homosexuals a hard time when in some other thread they are wanting to do the very thing that offends them, to a wimmins. I can't get my head around that, at all.
I love a bit of banter, some members on this board have had me ill with laughter at some of their comments.
I am a great believer in live and let live and showing mutual respect to my fellow human beings.
It's the hypocrisy that I can't stand. Giving homosexuals a hard time when in some other thread they are wanting to do the very thing that offends them, to a wimmins. I can't get my head around that, at all.
I love a bit of banter, some members on this board have had me ill with laughter at some of their comments.
I am a great believer in live and let live and showing mutual respect to my fellow human beings.
Before I go on, I will say I am all for the live and let live ethos. Some people can't get over homosexuality full stop, I don't think it is hypocritical to not like the idea of a man entering another man round the back but to want to do it to a woman. These homophobes don't like anything about homosexuality, whether it scares them, angers them, whatever.
If it were to be hypocrisy to do to a woman what you didn't think was normal between two men then most men would be hypocrites. From holding hands right through the spectrum to **** sex, we all do the same kind of stuff dont we, gay or straight?
Myles, I think the reason the point was made had a lot to do with the fact some blokes on here were going on about the arsehole being an exit and it not being designed for things going up it, yet those same people would think nothing of saying they'd smash a woman's back doors in (even if they claim it is all banter).
Thread Starter
Scooby Regular
Joined: May 2008
Posts: 3,957
Likes: 0
Look how ridiculous jamz3k has made himself look and that is only one example from the last few pages. I don't think he even realises how outwitted he has been by Turbohot.
It is like a demonstration how someone can lose all credibility.
Last edited by Dedrater; May 20, 2012 at 12:31 PM.
Myles, I think the reason the point was made had a lot to do with the fact some blokes on here were going on about the arsehole being an exit and it not being designed for things going up it, yet those same people would think nothing of saying they'd smash a woman's back doors in (even if they claim it is all banter).
As for hypocrisy, it would be ultra hypocritical to suggest gay men act unnaturally when lots of men get off on lesbianism (the way it is portrayed in the 'movies', not the reality!).
I think the **** sex is just the cliched personification of the male homosexual. The haters use it as ammo for their all round dislike of the gay lifestyle. Not all gay men go for it, so I'm told.
As for hypocrisy, it would be ultra hypocritical to suggest gay men act unnaturally when lots of men get off on lesbianism (the way it is portrayed in the 'movies', not the reality!).
As for hypocrisy, it would be ultra hypocritical to suggest gay men act unnaturally when lots of men get off on lesbianism (the way it is portrayed in the 'movies', not the reality!).
Maybe.
Looking at this thread a slightly different way, I would like to look at the positive aspects of it, some of which would actually be lost if we just deleted nasty remarks. Like the real world, there are comments posted on here that aren't very nice, but what this thread shows is that a lot of people don't think that way, they don't see being 'gay' as something being wrong with a person or some evil sin. A lot of people just see people as people and that their sexual orientation is of no importance.
Looking at this thread a slightly different way, I would like to look at the positive aspects of it, some of which would actually be lost if we just deleted nasty remarks. Like the real world, there are comments posted on here that aren't very nice, but what this thread shows is that a lot of people don't think that way, they don't see being 'gay' as something being wrong with a person or some evil sin. A lot of people just see people as people and that their sexual orientation is of no importance.
SN Fairy Godmother
Joined: Nov 2003
Posts: 35,246
Likes: 0
From: Far Far Away
Maybe.
Looking at this thread a slightly different way, I would like to look at the positive aspects of it, some of which would actually be lost if we just deleted nasty remarks. Like the real world, there are comments posted on here that aren't very nice, but what this thread shows is that a lot of people don't think that way, they don't see being 'gay' as something being wrong with a person or some evil sin. A lot of people just see people as people and that their sexual orientation is of no importance.
Looking at this thread a slightly different way, I would like to look at the positive aspects of it, some of which would actually be lost if we just deleted nasty remarks. Like the real world, there are comments posted on here that aren't very nice, but what this thread shows is that a lot of people don't think that way, they don't see being 'gay' as something being wrong with a person or some evil sin. A lot of people just see people as people and that their sexual orientation is of no importance.
It's been an execellent platform for the SN wimmins to finally get their point across. Cheers Dedrater. It has also shown extreme ignorance by some members with their attitude towards homosexuality.
I have certainly had my eyes opened.
Maybe.
Looking at this thread a slightly different way, I would like to look at the positive aspects of it, some of which would actually be lost if we just deleted nasty remarks. Like the real world, there are comments posted on here that aren't very nice, but what this thread shows is that a lot of people don't think that way, they don't see being 'gay' as something being wrong with a person or some evil sin. A lot of people just see people as people and that their sexual orientation is of no importance.
Looking at this thread a slightly different way, I would like to look at the positive aspects of it, some of which would actually be lost if we just deleted nasty remarks. Like the real world, there are comments posted on here that aren't very nice, but what this thread shows is that a lot of people don't think that way, they don't see being 'gay' as something being wrong with a person or some evil sin. A lot of people just see people as people and that their sexual orientation is of no importance.
As for the thread there are certain poster's comments on here that need removing IMO but then again the way I would moderate this site is vastly different to the way it is (witness the whole scammers in the FS section scenario) so I guess I just have to accept that!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Posts: 10,765
Likes: 0
I think the **** sex is just the cliched personification of the male homosexual. The haters use it as ammo for their all round dislike of the gay lifestyle. Not all gay men go for it, so I'm told.
As for hypocrisy, it would be ultra hypocritical to suggest gay men act unnaturally when lots of men get off on lesbianism (the way it is portrayed in the 'movies', not the reality!).
As for hypocrisy, it would be ultra hypocritical to suggest gay men act unnaturally when lots of men get off on lesbianism (the way it is portrayed in the 'movies', not the reality!).
Nail on the head. The attitude that being gay is just about **** sex. As in any other relationship, it's about having feelings for another person, aside from sex. That is only a part of it all. And I agree with your point about lesbianism as well.
Throwing my hat into the ring (pun intended!) I know a few gay (male) people mainly from working in bingo halls and casino's in my younger days but wouldn't describe them as friends, rather acquaintances. Due to some gays rampant agenda-pushing and downright perverted (imho) casual sexual escapades and ridiculously promiscuous lifestyles they'll never fit in with my circle of friends as they see a casual fxxking or ******* the same as myself and my circle of friend would see a kiss with a girl in a club.... These people are not suitable for adopting IMHO.
Having said that, some of the gay guys I'm acquainted with are in long-term loving relationships and apparently lead normal "couples" lifestyles. These people would be suitable for adopting IMHO.
As far as the homosexual act of sex, Tbh if it goes on behind closed doors, in a gay bar or a hotel room gang bang etc I don't really care. Cruising, cottaging and outdoor bum-fun however should be punished to the full power of the law, regardless of political correctness.
Gay people shouldn't have special rights regarding this.
Gross public indecency is not a laughing matter....
Having said that, some of the gay guys I'm acquainted with are in long-term loving relationships and apparently lead normal "couples" lifestyles. These people would be suitable for adopting IMHO.
As far as the homosexual act of sex, Tbh if it goes on behind closed doors, in a gay bar or a hotel room gang bang etc I don't really care. Cruising, cottaging and outdoor bum-fun however should be punished to the full power of the law, regardless of political correctness.
Gay people shouldn't have special rights regarding this.
Gross public indecency is not a laughing matter....
Last edited by RJM25R; May 20, 2012 at 02:46 PM.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,736
Likes: 1
From: Northern Ireland
My gutless and thick mind is acting a bit slow but if I understand NSR correctly, it's ok to be gay because you can't choose who you are attracted to nor have they chose to be this way. Is this right?
Scooby Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 6,345
Likes: 1
From: In a house
Dingle, a woman saying a man is fit, of course it implies that she finds him attractive. The good thing is that no woman said that she'd love to smash his backdoors in, or she'd love to bite his "danda". Such will be similar to the gutter level reference like “smashing her backdoor in”. Calling someone goodlooking or beautiful means calling someone such, not necessarily wanting to have sex with them. "Fit" word is one of those informal ones that is used to indicate sexual interest, but it is nowhere as crude as repeated references to **** sex.
So, there is a difference, and it’s not hypocritical to object upon the references of **** sex. What's hypocritical is that some like **** with women, but call gays abnormal and twisted for analing each other. Lee was first to spot this hypocrisy (well done, Lee ), which became pivotal to bring out our views on the references of **** sex.
Other sexual activity is different to **** sex, as **** sex is more aggressive. It caters for one party, while other one painfully serves the purpose to be at disposal. There are women who like and happily endure **** sex without any problem, but there are women who have developed mental disorders due to their partners or one-off perverts forcing **** sex on them. Forceful entry is wrong; **** or vaginal. But **** is more aggressive, not always consensual, and a lot of people find that it is not normal to fantasise about **** sex. It is indeed sexist to refer to the desire of bursting some female's backside as it involves treating woman as an object of a male's aggresive sexual desires.
Now, even when other sexual activity is different and more acceptable (as it doesn’t involve a sh!thole), constant reference to it in a crude manner isn’t. That’s just my view which I wouldn’t want to impose on others. Scoobynet has a history of posting Cameltails and boobytraps threads which can be perceived as sexist, but I personally don’t have any problem with them being attended by the masses here. But I do reserve a right to give my opinion on them; just like others deserve to post cameltails and boobytraps. Free speech, as you say.
I don't go around talking crude in real circles. Not my style. I have said it a few posts ago. To me, Scoobynet has been a great source of knowledge for crude words and phrases.
About how big deal it is, really, it isn't that big deal for this phrase to be used here on SN. We were rightfully talking personal preferences of such phrases and the double standards here when some slate gays for **** sex while its okay for them to fantasise of having **** sex with a woman. We are used to all sorts of crude exchanges on Scoobynet. It won't matter if some continue to display such fantasies here, or just use it meaninglessly in banter. It doesn't mean that it is acceptable to some of us, though. Does it?
Once again, I couldn't care less if this phrase is repeatedly used here. I am aware that a lot of men are just braggers with crude sense of humour. They act macho and type **** here about wanting to screw a sh!thole. I don't think most of them mean it, anyway. However, one is within one's right to say that it’s not acceptable- even if it continues here forever.
Such will be similar to the gutter level reference like “smashing her backdoor in”. Calling someone goodlooking or beautiful means calling someone such, not necessarily wanting to have sex with them. "Fit" word is one of those informal ones that is used to indicate sexual interest, but it is nowhere as crude as repeated references to **** sex. So, there is a difference, and it’s not hypocritical to object upon the references of **** sex. What's hypocritical is that some like **** with women, but call gays abnormal and twisted for analing each other. Lee was first to spot this hypocrisy (well done, Lee
), which became pivotal to bring out our views on the references of **** sex.Other sexual activity is different to **** sex, as **** sex is more aggressive. It caters for one party, while other one painfully serves the purpose to be at disposal. There are women who like and happily endure **** sex without any problem, but there are women who have developed mental disorders due to their partners or one-off perverts forcing **** sex on them. Forceful entry is wrong; **** or vaginal. But **** is more aggressive, not always consensual, and a lot of people find that it is not normal to fantasise about **** sex. It is indeed sexist to refer to the desire of bursting some female's backside as it involves treating woman as an object of a male's aggresive sexual desires.
Now, even when other sexual activity is different and more acceptable (as it doesn’t involve a sh!thole), constant reference to it in a crude manner isn’t. That’s just my view which I wouldn’t want to impose on others. Scoobynet has a history of posting Cameltails and boobytraps threads which can be perceived as sexist, but I personally don’t have any problem with them being attended by the masses here. But I do reserve a right to give my opinion on them; just like others deserve to post cameltails and boobytraps. Free speech, as you say.
I don't go around talking crude in real circles. Not my style. I have said it a few posts ago. To me, Scoobynet has been a great source of knowledge for crude words and phrases.
About how big deal it is, really, it isn't that big deal for this phrase to be used here on SN. We were rightfully talking personal preferences of such phrases and the double standards here when some slate gays for **** sex while its okay for them to fantasise of having **** sex with a woman. We are used to all sorts of crude exchanges on Scoobynet. It won't matter if some continue to display such fantasies here, or just use it meaninglessly in banter. It doesn't mean that it is acceptable to some of us, though. Does it?
Once again, I couldn't care less if this phrase is repeatedly used here. I am aware that a lot of men are just braggers with crude sense of humour. They act macho and type **** here about wanting to screw a sh!thole. I don't think most of them mean it, anyway. However, one is within one's right to say that it’s not acceptable- even if it continues here forever.
Swati, I know your motives are well placed but the text in bold is so misinformed and actually shows hypocrisy on your part.
Why on earth do you feel male/female **** sex is aggressive, one sided, 'endured' by women, often not consensual or the root cause of female mental disorders??
You are depicting it almost as a form of abuse of women by men. However I'm pretty sure 90% of all male/female rapes don't actually involve **** sex and 99% of all male/female **** sex is in fact consensual.
Imho there are plenty of women who enjoy **** sex.
Tbh you are being very hypocritical. You are saying there is nothing unnatural about two men having **** sex (I presume this is a core part of male gay sex) however male/female **** sex is distasteful, aggressive, one sided, usually only enjoyed by one partner and a form of misogyny.
This makes no sense, you can't have it both ways
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 48,539
Likes: 0
Hi Ding,
I will place my paragraph here that you noted and commented on:
Please read my paragraph again. It says, "There are women who like and happily endure **** sex without any problem, but there are women who have developed mental disorders due to their partners or one-off perverts forcing **** sex on them". So, I involve both likers and disliker females there.
When I say "there are women who have developed mental disorders due to their partners or one-off perverts forcing **** sex on them", this means not all enjoy it, and a number of women have developed mental health disorders due to this kind of ****. I stand by it. I do not say there that **** sex is THE root cause of female mental disorders. There are plenty of other causes too, not just **** sex. But forced **** sex has torn people's lives, and I am well aware of it due to my work in the field of psychological trauma. Yes, I do see **** sex as aggressive, one-sided, 'endured' by women, and often not consensual. But, please note that I say it in the context of the women that have been physically hurt and psychologically scarred due to forceful **** entry. Not in relation with the women who enjoy it. And, I quote both types in one sentence in my paragraph you quoted.
Thanks for the figures. The first one does indicate that 10% of male/female rapes may involve **** sex. That's enough to establish that 10% **** sex rapes must take place. Second one is irrelevant to what I was implying. I wasn't implying that most ****-sex female takers do not give consent to it, and do not enjoy **** sex. The ones who take it on regular basis, and get counted as 90% must enjoy it FGS! Otherwise they won't have it, would they? However, yes, **** sex will be classed as a sexual asault for the number of women who complain of being abused for it. I clearly say above that "There are women who like and happily endure **** sex without any problem". So, I am aware that there are women who have no problem with **** sex, and they will not class it as an abuse, nor can others; on their behalf.
Ding, I am not being hypocritical at all. I have said nowhere that gay-to-gay **** sex in natural or unnatural. What I have said is that the ones who find two men having **** sex repulsive are hypocrites as they are okay to keep referring to **** with a woman, but find it repulsive between two men.
Yes, in case of the females who have recognised forced **** sex as an abuse, they have certainly complained that it was distasteful, one-sided, and aggressive that only the abuser enjoyed, hence one-sided. I also say that forces entries are wrong; **** or vaginal or even oral TBH.
Ding, you are reading as if I am universally recognising man-woman **** sex as an aggressive, one-sided, loathesome, degrading activity on women, and that is that. You are wrong. It is not loathesome for the ones who enjoy it; may they be men or women. it is for the ones who genuinely find it aggresive; may they be men or women. Focusing upon first two lines of my paragraph you quoted i.e. "Other sexual activity is different to **** sex, as **** sex is more aggressive. It caters for one party, while other one painfully serves the purpose to be at disposal", I can imagine why you took it as a universal view that I gave on everyone's behalf, but it was actually my view on **** sex, which is based upon what I have heard from the abused ones. I do balance it by adding that there are both types, likers and dislikers; **** sex lovers and **** sex abused. I still think there is as 'endurance' involved; even for the regular ones. I think the endurance is involved in male-to-male **** sex too. Saying that, they must get used to it after a while, fair enough.
Personally, I'd kick a man in his nuts so ******* hard that he'd forget to have an **** with me. Instead he'll come to you or to your nurse to get some stitches. I personally would find it loathesome, correct.
I will say it again that the males who slate gays for **** sex need to check themselves out first, for they are hypocritical for slating analisitic gays when they themselves would "love to smash her backdoors in".
I will also say that constant references to the back door or even front door entry is disgusting. It is my opinion, which I am entitled to.
I will place my paragraph here that you noted and commented on:
Originally Posted by TH
Other sexual activity is different to **** sex, as **** sex is more aggressive. It caters for one party, while other one painfully serves the purpose to be at disposal. There are women who like and happily endure **** sex without any problem, but there are women who have developed mental disorders due to their partners or one-off perverts forcing **** sex on them. Forceful entry is wrong; **** or vaginal. But **** is more aggressive, not always consensual, and a lot of people find that it is not normal to fantasise about **** sex. It is indeed sexist to refer to the desire of bursting some female's backside as it involves treating woman as an object of a male's aggresive sexual desires.
Swati, I know your motives are well placed but the text in bold is so misinformed and actually shows hypocrisy on your part. Why on earth do you feel male/female **** sex is aggressive, one sided, 'endured' by women, often not consensual or the root cause of female mental disorders??
When I say "there are women who have developed mental disorders due to their partners or one-off perverts forcing **** sex on them", this means not all enjoy it, and a number of women have developed mental health disorders due to this kind of ****. I stand by it. I do not say there that **** sex is THE root cause of female mental disorders. There are plenty of other causes too, not just **** sex. But forced **** sex has torn people's lives, and I am well aware of it due to my work in the field of psychological trauma. Yes, I do see **** sex as aggressive, one-sided, 'endured' by women, and often not consensual. But, please note that I say it in the context of the women that have been physically hurt and psychologically scarred due to forceful **** entry. Not in relation with the women who enjoy it. And, I quote both types in one sentence in my paragraph you quoted.
You are depicting it almost as a form of abuse of women by men. However I'm pretty sure 90% of all male/female rapes don't actually involve **** sex and 99% of all male/female **** sex is in fact consensual. Imho there are plenty of women who enjoy **** sex.
Tbh you are being very hypocritical. You are saying there is nothing unnatural about two men having **** sex (I presume this is a core part of male gay sex) however male/female **** sex is distasteful, aggressive, one sided, usually only enjoyed by one partner and a form of misogyny. This makes no sense, you can't have it both ways
Yes, in case of the females who have recognised forced **** sex as an abuse, they have certainly complained that it was distasteful, one-sided, and aggressive that only the abuser enjoyed, hence one-sided. I also say that forces entries are wrong; **** or vaginal or even oral TBH.
Ding, you are reading as if I am universally recognising man-woman **** sex as an aggressive, one-sided, loathesome, degrading activity on women, and that is that. You are wrong. It is not loathesome for the ones who enjoy it; may they be men or women. it is for the ones who genuinely find it aggresive; may they be men or women. Focusing upon first two lines of my paragraph you quoted i.e. "Other sexual activity is different to **** sex, as **** sex is more aggressive. It caters for one party, while other one painfully serves the purpose to be at disposal", I can imagine why you took it as a universal view that I gave on everyone's behalf, but it was actually my view on **** sex, which is based upon what I have heard from the abused ones. I do balance it by adding that there are both types, likers and dislikers; **** sex lovers and **** sex abused. I still think there is as 'endurance' involved; even for the regular ones. I think the endurance is involved in male-to-male **** sex too. Saying that, they must get used to it after a while, fair enough.
Personally, I'd kick a man in his nuts so ******* hard that he'd forget to have an **** with me. Instead he'll come to you or to your nurse to get some stitches.
I personally would find it loathesome, correct.I will say it again that the males who slate gays for **** sex need to check themselves out first, for they are hypocritical for slating analisitic gays when they themselves would "love to smash her backdoors in".
I will also say that constant references to the back door or even front door entry is disgusting. It is my opinion, which I am entitled to.
Last edited by Turbohot; May 22, 2012 at 11:41 PM.
By the way, I don't think you are gutless or thick, I just don't agree with you on this topic.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2007
Posts: 2,272
Likes: 0
From: Buckinghamshire
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,576
Likes: 0
From: Worthing..
No "because" at all. It's ok to be Gay, in the same way it's ok for you to wear a blue tie in the morning. I.e. There is no justificaiton needed
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 15,029
Likes: 0
From: Somewhere in Kent, sniffing some V-Power
So from what many people have said on here, is the general feeling that the only reason a man is gay is because they like having **** sex? Nothing to do with preferring the company of a man and all about **** sex, yes?
And people call me narrow minded for saying that a man being in love with a man i not what nature intended!
And people call me narrow minded for saying that a man being in love with a man i not what nature intended!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 6,736
Likes: 1
From: Northern Ireland
If I was to wear a blue tie in the morning, it would be justifiable as its part of my uniform or that it matched the suit I am wearing.
Scooby Regular
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 3,194
Likes: 31
Man, it has been a while since I tarred everyone with the same brush but it appears everyone on SN are a bunch of homophobic idiots.
One of my best mates is gay and you could not ask for a nicer person to be your friend. Ok, some gay people are very camp but I also know a lot of straight people who are 'Look at me and I will smash you teeth in' macho.....I know which ones are the bigger c***s of the two
One of my best mates is gay and you could not ask for a nicer person to be your friend. Ok, some gay people are very camp but I also know a lot of straight people who are 'Look at me and I will smash you teeth in' macho.....I know which ones are the bigger c***s of the two
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,576
Likes: 0
From: Worthing..
Man, it has been a while since I tarred everyone with the same brush but it appears everyone on SN are a bunch of homophobic idiots.
One of my best mates is gay and you could not ask for a nicer person to be your friend. Ok, some gay people are very camp but I also know a lot of straight people who are 'Look at me and I will smash you teeth in' macho.....I know which ones are the bigger c***s of the two
One of my best mates is gay and you could not ask for a nicer person to be your friend. Ok, some gay people are very camp but I also know a lot of straight people who are 'Look at me and I will smash you teeth in' macho.....I know which ones are the bigger c***s of the two
Who cares what a person's sexuality is? I just don't get why there is so much debate over it. People are people!
Scooby Regular
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 7,576
Likes: 0
From: Worthing..