Active Users:1132 Time:23/11/2024 12:46:04 AM
You don't even understand oral sex? Cannoli Send a noteboard - 17/08/2018 12:43:50 AM

You clearly show aversion to homosexuality, unless you are attracted to "grave sin", and thus, you are a homophobe.
But the homosexuality is not the root cause of my aversion. So I am a peccataphobe and not actually enough of one for my own good.

But even if your formulation is correct, you've pretty much robbed the term of all meaning, you policophobic bigot.


As for the word "sucks", your comparison with the word stinks fails because the authors point is not that each instance of using "sucks" represents an insult to sexually submissive people, but instead points to how deeply embedded our contempt for people on the receptive end of intercourse is.

People on the receptive end of intercourse are not the ones who "suck". The people who suck are the ones who PERFORM oral intercourse, whereas the other parties are said to have received oral sex, fellatio, cunnilingus or "a blow job".
That aspect is part of our daily language. And the word sucks isn't used exclusively by people who hate homosexuality, which is precisely the author's point.
In which case, so what?
Like the guys who decided homosexuality is a sin to signal virtue in their own heterosexuality?

Which guys were those? Conversely, what prehistoric moral tradition or source of divine revelation made politically incorrect speech a sin?
Indeed. And so deep is your own sanctimony that you fail to see the irony in railing about sins invented for virtue-signaling while doing the same damn thing just a few paragraphs above!

And so flawed is your reading comprehension that you don't even see the difference. Whom was I calling out or condemning for their homosexuality? I don't even know for sure than any of the self-identified homosexuals in our community commit the sinful acts in question, and unless they are doing them in public, are NOT my business. Nor do I attempt to invalidate their positions by citing their apparent alignments. Your own explanation of the suffix -phobia suggests you understand that I was explaining my views on the subject to differentiate them from phobia.
Cannoli
“Tolerance is the virtue of the man without convictions.” GK Chesteron
Inde muagdhe Aes Sedai misain ye!
Deus Vult!
*MySmiley*
Reply to message
Interesting article in my Twitter feed last night on an issue Greg (The Shrike) brought up... - 15/08/2018 03:05:37 PM 1098 Views
I thought this response in the comment sectionwas funny - 15/08/2018 08:12:49 PM 437 Views
I was thinking about this at lunch today.... - 15/08/2018 11:43:33 PM 407 Views
I don't - 16/08/2018 12:09:32 AM 420 Views
It seemed more like moondog was making a prostitution reference to me *NM* - 16/08/2018 02:51:23 AM 231 Views
Say what? - 16/08/2018 09:47:19 PM 416 Views
It is a more of a domination / hierarchy reference I think *NM* - 16/08/2018 09:57:23 PM 229 Views
Re: Say what? - 16/08/2018 10:33:43 PM 463 Views
Yes, but there's more to it... - 16/08/2018 10:38:05 PM 397 Views
Says who? - 19/08/2018 05:05:37 AM 437 Views
However much of a hypocrite moondog is, the article, I feel, represents something else - 16/08/2018 05:51:59 AM 437 Views
Phobia - 16/08/2018 10:55:05 PM 425 Views
You don't even understand oral sex? - 17/08/2018 12:43:50 AM 425 Views
Get to a sex education class, won't you? Or at least, use Google - 17/08/2018 05:29:25 AM 365 Views
I am a normal male person, who had conversations with other male people. - 17/08/2018 08:25:48 AM 420 Views
Yes, yes, you're so male, your penis has a penis. We get it. - 17/08/2018 04:13:09 PM 429 Views
Re: Yes, yes, you're so male, your penis has a penis. We get it. - 19/08/2018 03:23:10 AM 435 Views
You are wrong about Cannoli. - 17/08/2018 02:49:35 AM 437 Views
No - 17/08/2018 05:41:22 AM 408 Views
Re: No - 19/08/2018 03:29:15 AM 443 Views
Cannoli is right: "sucks" implies the active party in oral sex - 17/08/2018 03:04:40 AM 504 Views
That would be the "receptive partner" in scientific terminology - 17/08/2018 05:44:16 AM 391 Views
Fuck scientific terminology. It blows. - 17/08/2018 08:26:16 AM 407 Views
Regarding phobia - 17/08/2018 06:30:51 PM 427 Views
There's a pretty simple test, I think - 17/08/2018 08:02:31 PM 404 Views
Once again...who are you to make that determination. - 17/08/2018 09:54:41 PM 387 Views
*I* don't make the determination, liberal society did. - 18/08/2018 12:02:22 AM 421 Views
So for clarity - 18/08/2018 01:28:17 AM 412 Views
Yes! - 18/08/2018 01:46:05 AM 412 Views
Who said I was surprised? - 18/08/2018 02:10:46 AM 403 Views
Re: Who said I was surprised? - 18/08/2018 02:32:41 AM 407 Views
Are you asking a serious question? - 18/08/2018 02:45:03 AM 430 Views
Yes, I was - 18/08/2018 01:59:48 PM 426 Views
"liberal" society does not police speech - 19/08/2018 03:31:54 AM 425 Views
You don't need to protect speech everyone agrees with. *NM* - 19/08/2018 06:02:17 PM 267 Views
It most certainly *does* police speech. - 20/08/2018 03:01:32 PM 410 Views
But to follow up on that. - 20/08/2018 03:16:07 PM 403 Views
Well, that's why we didn't stop with the FIRST Amendment *NM* - 21/08/2018 04:25:53 PM 212 Views
That's individuals policing speech, not society. Agregate individual action =/= collective action - 21/08/2018 04:25:23 PM 432 Views
I completely agree. - 21/08/2018 04:35:38 PM 392 Views
heh, heh, heh - 21/08/2018 05:00:32 PM 402 Views
Hump it like you mean it! - 21/08/2018 07:00:01 PM 432 Views
About the casual part - 16/08/2018 10:33:45 PM 386 Views
I don't think it's appropriate, but I think it's more about sexual shaming - 16/08/2018 10:35:53 PM 465 Views
Precisely - 16/08/2018 10:59:42 PM 419 Views
You are absolutely correct - 17/08/2018 02:43:21 AM 412 Views
I, for one, am glad to see this topic go flaming. - 17/08/2018 05:16:55 PM 478 Views
Yes, it is a tool used by those who should "know better". - 20/08/2018 03:14:30 PM 387 Views
well said - 20/08/2018 03:50:50 PM 437 Views

Reply to Message