Topic: How do I convince my best friend I'm fucking gay?!
b !OudrPWaUDQ started this discussion 14 years ago #19,027
I just can't do it, so what do i do now?nothing?
yes, nothing.
I shall sdo nothing.
foreve and ever
> forever
Killer Lettuce !!iNo3FkiZx joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later[^] [v] #313,490
I was expecting to4str. Now that witty comment about brake calipers is useless!
HaikerensGuide !0VegJ9Jl.Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^] [v] #313,494
unlimited pootmonkeys
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 7 hours later, 8 hours after the original post[^] [v] #313,627
brrie !OudrPWaUDQ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 4 days later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #315,222
Anonymous E joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 hour later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #315,237
rape is only option at this point
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 4 days after the original post[^] [v] #315,314
Offer to suck his dick, then he'll know for sure
brie !OudrPWaUDQ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 6 days later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,345
Anonymous G joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 hours later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,474
Gay sex is a delusion. The hetero cunts only call it sex to marginalize men with the stones to massage other men's genitals. Sex makes babies. Massages do not.
(Edited 23 seconds later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 8 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,477
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,478
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
It's legit. Orgasm is insufficient to define something as sex. If you called masturbation self-sex people would think you were fucking retarded.
Just because a bunch of half-educated self-important morons demanded you call oral genital stimulation SEX doesn't mean they were right. It only makes you a gullible tool.
It's legit. Orgasm is insufficient to define something as sex. If you called masturbation self-sex people would think you were fucking retarded.
Just because a bunch of half-educated self-important morons demanded you call oral genital stimulation SEX doesn't mean they were right. It only makes you a gullible tool.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,479
@previous (G)
Masturbation is sometimes referred to as "sex with yourself" or "solo sex" and when the act involves another person it is definitely sex, just not intercourse. That's why there's oral sex, anal sex, phone sex, etc.
Masturbation is sometimes referred to as "sex with yourself" or "solo sex" and when the act involves another person it is definitely sex, just not intercourse. That's why there's oral sex, anal sex, phone sex, etc.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,480
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,483
@previous (brie !OudrPWaUDQ)
Again, named "SEX" by waspy Christian prudes who felt in necessary to be offended as a means of scoring points toward heaven.
Biology is very clear on the matter. Sex has the potential to make babies. At least in all species that are sexed. But who has time for objectivity when boys are kissing boys. Oops, I mean boys having mouth to mouth sex.
Again, named "SEX" by waspy Christian prudes who felt in necessary to be offended as a means of scoring points toward heaven.
Biology is very clear on the matter. Sex has the potential to make babies. At least in all species that are sexed. But who has time for objectivity when boys are kissing boys. Oops, I mean boys having mouth to mouth sex.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,485
@318,479 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Repeating the propaganda you've been force fed doesn't make it correct or objective. It only makes you a tool.
Repeating the propaganda you've been force fed doesn't make it correct or objective. It only makes you a tool.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,487
@318,483 (G)
Biology is clear that intercourse has the potential to make babies. If a condom and birth control is used, thus eliminating the potential to make babies, is it no longer sex? Intercourse is a specific act. Sex is a construct. Any act of sexual pleasure can be called sex. It's not Christian prudes that decided this. It's actually just the opposite. Prude Christians refuse to refer to anything that's not intercourse as sex, kind of like what you're doing now.
Biology is clear that intercourse has the potential to make babies. If a condom and birth control is used, thus eliminating the potential to make babies, is it no longer sex? Intercourse is a specific act. Sex is a construct. Any act of sexual pleasure can be called sex. It's not Christian prudes that decided this. It's actually just the opposite. Prude Christians refuse to refer to anything that's not intercourse as sex, kind of like what you're doing now.
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,488
Fucking him would be a good start.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,489
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,491
@318,487 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
But you're wrong. Calling it anal intercourse is more accurate and appropriate than calling it anal sex. Calling is sex only severs to dumb people down. So what? Some dude's gonna shit out a baby one day. Give me a fucking break. All intercourse means is sticking a penis in something. You can have intercourse with a watermelon.
I assume you meant coitus. Which specifically refers to a penis being inserted into a vagina.
And just so you know. If you use a condom with a woman, you're actually having intercourse with a dried up piece of tree sap while imagining sex with a woman.
But you're wrong. Calling it anal intercourse is more accurate and appropriate than calling it anal sex. Calling is sex only severs to dumb people down. So what? Some dude's gonna shit out a baby one day. Give me a fucking break. All intercourse means is sticking a penis in something. You can have intercourse with a watermelon.
I assume you meant coitus. Which specifically refers to a penis being inserted into a vagina.
And just so you know. If you use a condom with a woman, you're actually having intercourse with a dried up piece of tree sap while imagining sex with a woman.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,495
@previous (G)
> But you're wrong.
No, I'm not
> I assume you meant coitus.
Same thing. Intercourse is synonymous with coitus and copulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse
> Calling it anal intercourse is more accurate and appropriate than calling it anal sex is.
Wrong again, dummy. Anal sex is more accurate because there is no such thing as anal intercourse. Intercourse is specifically defined as the insertion of a male's penis into a female vagina. See link above.
> All intercourse means is sticking a penis in something. You can have intercourse with a watermelon.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. See above.
> But you're wrong.
No, I'm not
> I assume you meant coitus.
Same thing. Intercourse is synonymous with coitus and copulation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_intercourse
> Calling it anal intercourse is more accurate and appropriate than calling it anal sex is.
Wrong again, dummy. Anal sex is more accurate because there is no such thing as anal intercourse. Intercourse is specifically defined as the insertion of a male's penis into a female vagina. See link above.
> All intercourse means is sticking a penis in something. You can have intercourse with a watermelon.
Wrong, wrong, and wrong. See above.
(Edited 22 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,499
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
More hetrosexism from the closet fag. Big surprise. If gay intercourse doesn't exist, how can gay sex exist?
(I'll get that Wikipedia article changed, btw. Just you wait.)
More hetrosexism from the closet fag. Big surprise. If gay intercourse doesn't exist, how can gay sex exist?
(I'll get that Wikipedia article changed, btw. Just you wait.)
(Edited 3 minutes later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,507
@previous (G)
> can't argue
> calls me a fag
Oh the irony. You're the one who's such a closet fag that you have to call sucking dick "oral massage" because your brain can't handle the idea that you're actually having sex with men, to4str.
Change wikipedia all you want, it will just get reviewed and changed back. That's what great about wikipedia.
> can't argue
> calls me a fag
Oh the irony. You're the one who's such a closet fag that you have to call sucking dick "oral massage" because your brain can't handle the idea that you're actually having sex with men, to4str.
Change wikipedia all you want, it will just get reviewed and changed back. That's what great about wikipedia.
(Edited 54 seconds later.)
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,508
@318,499 (G)
> More hetrosexism from the closet fag.
> PC-speak and an anti-gay slur in the same sentence
> More hetrosexism from the closet fag.
> PC-speak and an anti-gay slur in the same sentence
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,509
@318,507 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
But you can't have sex with a mouth anymore than you can have sex with a watermelon. Why is objectivity so difficult for you?
But you can't have sex with a mouth anymore than you can have sex with a watermelon. Why is objectivity so difficult for you?
kook !nH6RAuX8mo joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,510
Are you gay, or just easy?
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 32 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,511
@318,508 (brainwurms !!gbU9At49F)
What are you even on about? Closet homos are the main advocates of heterosexism because they are the last to defend gays for fear of being found out. Do you know anything?
What are you even on about? Closet homos are the main advocates of heterosexism because they are the last to defend gays for fear of being found out. Do you know anything?
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,512
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 35 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,513
@318,509 (G)
In one post you said that sticking your penis in a watermelon would be intercourse, and now in this post you're saying that you can't have sex with a watermelon. You have your terms all mixed up.
If someone sticks his penis in a watermelon and derives sexual pleasure from it, I would call that sex with a watermelon, just as I call using a mouth for sexual pleasure oral sex. You cannot have intercourse with a watermelon because intercourse is defined as a male's penis entering a female's vagina.
You don't like the mainstream definition of sex. We get it. It's still the mainstream definition. Get over it. No one gives a fuck.
In one post you said that sticking your penis in a watermelon would be intercourse, and now in this post you're saying that you can't have sex with a watermelon. You have your terms all mixed up.
If someone sticks his penis in a watermelon and derives sexual pleasure from it, I would call that sex with a watermelon, just as I call using a mouth for sexual pleasure oral sex. You cannot have intercourse with a watermelon because intercourse is defined as a male's penis entering a female's vagina.
You don't like the mainstream definition of sex. We get it. It's still the mainstream definition. Get over it. No one gives a fuck.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,514
@318,507 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
After which I'll claim it's heterosexist, line up all the big gay sponsors and have it changed back again. That's what's great about money.
After which I'll claim it's heterosexist, line up all the big gay sponsors and have it changed back again. That's what's great about money.
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 24 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,515
@318,513 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Sex is intercourse, but intercourse may or may not be sex. Pay attention.
Sex is a biologically specific term. Why is this so troubling to you?
Sex is intercourse, but intercourse may or may not be sex. Pay attention.
Sex is a biologically specific term. Why is this so troubling to you?
(Edited 2 minutes later.)
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,516
@previous (G)
All intercourse is sex but not all sex is intercourse. I'm not the one who needs to pay attention and I sure as hell don't need to pay attention to you. Everything you've said in this thread is wrong.
You're mixing up the terms sex and intercourse again, moron.
All intercourse is sex but not all sex is intercourse. I'm not the one who needs to pay attention and I sure as hell don't need to pay attention to you. Everything you've said in this thread is wrong.
You're mixing up the terms sex and intercourse again, moron.
(Edited 46 seconds later.)
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,517
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
All intercourse is not sex. I fixed the earlier post to in an attempt to make it more clear.
It's not right in your subjective delusion, but everything I've said is objectively accurate.
All intercourse is not sex. I fixed the earlier post to in an attempt to make it more clear.
It's not right in your subjective delusion, but everything I've said is objectively accurate.
(Edited 16 seconds later.)
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,518
@318,511 (G)
> What are you even on about? Closet homos are the main advocates of heterosexism because they are the last to defend gays for fear of being found out.
Putting your pet theory aside, having different conceptions about what a word means and a source to back it does not mean you hate gays.
> Do you know anything?
More than you, apparently.
> What are you even on about? Closet homos are the main advocates of heterosexism because they are the last to defend gays for fear of being found out.
Putting your pet theory aside, having different conceptions about what a word means and a source to back it does not mean you hate gays.
> Do you know anything?
More than you, apparently.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 38 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,519
@318,517 (G)
You're delusional, to4str. I've already proven you wrong and everything you're saying at this point is just ad nauseam.
You're delusional, to4str. I've already proven you wrong and everything you're saying at this point is just ad nauseam.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,520
@318,518 (brainwurms !!gbU9At49F)
Straights hate gays. It's a fact. Even when the act is invisible to them, they hate it. Even when it's not sex, it is.
You are all cattle. You can't even think about what I'm saying for one second because it offends your subjective delusions. Pathetic.
Straights hate gays. It's a fact. Even when the act is invisible to them, they hate it. Even when it's not sex, it is.
You are all cattle. You can't even think about what I'm saying for one second because it offends your subjective delusions. Pathetic.
(Edited 1 minute later.)
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,521
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 42 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,522
kook !nH6RAuX8mo replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,524
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,526
@318,520 (G)
> You are all cattle. You can't even think about what I'm saying for one second because it offends your subjective delusions. Pathetic.
No, it's because you are rude, pushy, and boring. If what you were saying was especially original or insightful it would excuse the former two, but it's nothing you can't find off some naive 16-year-old's livejournal.
> You are all cattle. You can't even think about what I'm saying for one second because it offends your subjective delusions. Pathetic.
No, it's because you are rude, pushy, and boring. If what you were saying was especially original or insightful it would excuse the former two, but it's nothing you can't find off some naive 16-year-old's livejournal.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,527
@318,518 (brainwurms !!gbU9At49F)
And it's much more than a pet theory. There are legions of religious leaders and politicians who've promoted anti-gay agendas while simultaneously gaying it up on the side.
And it's much more than a pet theory. There are legions of religious leaders and politicians who've promoted anti-gay agendas while simultaneously gaying it up on the side.
Anonymous G double-posted this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,528
@318,526 (brainwurms !!gbU9At49F)
Irrelevant. I don't need to stroke your ego to be correct. And that fact someone is 16 is insufficient to make them incorrect.
Irrelevant. I don't need to stroke your ego to be correct. And that fact someone is 16 is insufficient to make them incorrect.
(Edited 5 minutes later.)
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,530
@previous (G)
> Irrelevant. I don't need to stroke your ego to be correct.
I wasn't asking you to. I just think it indicates a certain insecurity that you are incapable of a civilized debate but rather have to insult everyone and then storm off in a huffy.
> Irrelevant. I don't need to stroke your ego to be correct.
I wasn't asking you to. I just think it indicates a certain insecurity that you are incapable of a civilized debate but rather have to insult everyone and then storm off in a huffy.
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F double-posted this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,533
@318,528 (G)
> And that fact someone is 16 is insufficient to make them incorrect.
It does not, but coupled with naivety it implies a youthful and immature grandiosity common in those who have little control over their own lives.
> And that fact someone is 16 is insufficient to make them incorrect.
It does not, but coupled with naivety it implies a youthful and immature grandiosity common in those who have little control over their own lives.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,535
@previous (brainwurms !!gbU9At49F)
But not so naive as to think a good old-fashioned ass fucking is the same as sex.
But not so naive as to think a good old-fashioned ass fucking is the same as sex.
brainwurms !!gbU9At49F replied with this 14 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,537
@previous (G)
Have you changed that article yet? If your views really are as self-evident as you claim they are, then they should hold up there. Unless they're all cattle over at Wikipedia too.
Have you changed that article yet? If your views really are as self-evident as you claim they are, then they should hold up there. Unless they're all cattle over at Wikipedia too.
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,538
@previous (brainwurms !!gbU9At49F)
Collectivism is a poor substitute for correctness. But keep trying.
Collectivism is a poor substitute for correctness. But keep trying.
brie !OudrPWaUDQ (OP) replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,539
squeegee !firstkPE1Q joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 30 seconds later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,540
Anonymous G replied with this 14 years ago, 3 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,541
@previous (squeegee !firstkPE1Q)
The correct often seem arrogant to the profane masses for simply refusing to play along in their collective delusion. The atheist is arrogant to the Christian. The Christian is arrogant to the atheist. What's any of that have to do with right and wrong?
The correct often seem arrogant to the profane masses for simply refusing to play along in their collective delusion. The atheist is arrogant to the Christian. The Christian is arrogant to the atheist. What's any of that have to do with right and wrong?
(Edited 21 seconds later.)
squeegee !firstkPE1Q replied with this 14 years ago, 17 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,548
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 6 minutes later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,549
@318,491 (G)
> If you use a condom with a woman, you're actually having intercourse with a dried up piece of tree sap while imagining sex with a woman.
Oh we know.
> If you use a condom with a woman, you're actually having intercourse with a dried up piece of tree sap while imagining sex with a woman.
Oh we know.
Anonymous M joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 week after the original post[^] [v] #318,551
Anonymous N joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 4 days later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #319,959
@318,519 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
You didn't prove anyting. The article you referenced specifically references "sexual" intercourse. That adjective is used deliberatly and necessirally to produce a phrase which is synonomouos with coitus.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_intercourse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_intercourse
So basically, LOL.
You didn't prove anyting. The article you referenced specifically references "sexual" intercourse. That adjective is used deliberatly and necessirally to produce a phrase which is synonomouos with coitus.
Also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_intercourse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anal_intercourse
So basically, LOL.
Anonymous O joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 9 minutes later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #319,969
Plug your dick into his asshole during a sleepover and keep it in there till he wakes up in the morning and begins to question and wonder
Anonymous P joined in and replied with this 14 years ago, 2 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #320,022
Anonymous G: buttmad in space
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 14 years ago, 5 hours later, 2 weeks after the original post[^] [v] #320,101
@319,959 (N)
> click first article, redirects to oral sex
> click second article, redirects to anal sex
> search for intercourse
> only sexual intercourse comes up
> click first article, redirects to oral sex
> click second article, redirects to anal sex
> search for intercourse
> only sexual intercourse comes up