User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:40:54 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
some salty language there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
He came out in a thread a while ago. It's no big deal. It's not about when he came out, it's about what he came in 
Seriously, the set-up lines in this thread just keep coming thick and fast... Thick and fast eh? 
some salty language there. It's this kind of in-your-face, back and forth that I love about GD. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:41:12 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
what the hell happened to you people? What do you mean, "you people"? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:43:47 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted: A bold claim, but you're hinging it on some unprovable history. In order for so-called "straight buttfuckery" to be the baseline act which the "non-straight buttfuckers" have appropriated (supposedly soiling its dignity in the process), it requires the presupposition that the "straight buttfuckery" is the older of the two practices. Sex in antiquity being rather unknowable in general, we can only look at what records we have. After braving a small bit of online research (believe me, a search for "cave painting anal" with safe search off might not be something you want to do), I've found an interesting article here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47418532/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/female-sex-organs-focus-oldest-known-cave-art/#.Vbk1s3nbLIU The gist is, the oldest known depiction of sex prominently features detailed images of female genitalia. No butt stuff for neanderthals. It's one data point, sure, but it is some reliable evidence that actual straight sex preceeded buttfuckery of all forms. Then there's the issue with contemporary records. Starting in the 1960s or so, the development of sexual documentaries gives us an insight into the sexual practices of individuals of the various decades. And, of interest, the so-called "straight buttfuckery" you're championing didn't exist at all before the late 70s, and even then not at a significant frequency until the early 1990s. Curiously, the frequency of increase in cinematic buttfuckery, presumably paralleling the increase in the population of buttfuckers, also trends along with the decrease in display of female pubic hair. Now, is this simply pure coincidence, or is it a direct artistic representation of the desire on the part of the buttfuckers to partner with prepubescents (potentially even boys, in the classic style of homosexual pedophilia), but which is actually depicted using well-shorn of-age females both as a means to stay within the bounds of the law and also to placate the buttfucker's closeted desires by assuring them that what they are viewing is, indeed, "straight" sex? Since the buttfuckers here have informed us that buttfuckery is principally about dominance - a very similar relationship in terms of the social power disparity present in a pedophilic relationship - the latter theory may hold quite a bit of merit. Which, of course, isn't to say that all buttfuckers are closeted homosexual fantasizers whose true desire is to rape young boys, yet choose a legal and less socially deplorable outlet for their fantasies instead, but surely that does describe some of them. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: The straight buttfuckers aren't doing it because it's interchangeable with gay sex, the non-straight buttfuckers are doing it because it's interchangeable with straight sex. In other words, people have the buttsex because it's functionally the same as having the buttsex with women. A bold claim, but you're hinging it on some unprovable history. In order for so-called "straight buttfuckery" to be the baseline act which the "non-straight buttfuckers" have appropriated (supposedly soiling its dignity in the process), it requires the presupposition that the "straight buttfuckery" is the older of the two practices. Sex in antiquity being rather unknowable in general, we can only look at what records we have. After braving a small bit of online research (believe me, a search for "cave painting anal" with safe search off might not be something you want to do), I've found an interesting article here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47418532/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/female-sex-organs-focus-oldest-known-cave-art/#.Vbk1s3nbLIU The gist is, the oldest known depiction of sex prominently features detailed images of female genitalia. No butt stuff for neanderthals. It's one data point, sure, but it is some reliable evidence that actual straight sex preceeded buttfuckery of all forms. Then there's the issue with contemporary records. Starting in the 1960s or so, the development of sexual documentaries gives us an insight into the sexual practices of individuals of the various decades. And, of interest, the so-called "straight buttfuckery" you're championing didn't exist at all before the late 70s, and even then not at a significant frequency until the early 1990s. Curiously, the frequency of increase in cinematic buttfuckery, presumably paralleling the increase in the population of buttfuckers, also trends along with the decrease in display of female pubic hair. Now, is this simply pure coincidence, or is it a direct artistic representation of the desire on the part of the buttfuckers to partner with prepubescents (potentially even boys, in the classic style of homosexual pedophilia), but which is actually depicted using well-shorn of-age females both as a means to stay within the bounds of the law and also to placate the buttfucker's closeted desires by assuring them that what they are viewing is, indeed, "straight" sex? Since the buttfuckers here have informed us that buttfuckery is principally about dominance - a very similar relationship in terms of the social power disparity present in a pedophilic relationship - the latter theory may hold quite a bit of merit. Which, of course, isn't to say that all buttfuckers are closeted homosexual fantasizers whose true desire is to rape young boys, yet choose a legal and less socially deplorable outlet for their fantasies instead, but surely that does describe some of them. Actually, anthropology and logic tells us otherwise. First of all, cave art was reserved for items of significance. If it had been "in regular use" then it would not have been significant enough for them to waste resources carving it into a wall. Secondly, the sudden appearance of this artwork, and the subsequent obsession with female genitalia (see for reference the multitude of "Venus" statutes) coincided with an initial explosion in the human population, eventually displacing the previously dominant Neanderthals. So, by applying our minds to a little bit or archaeobuttfuckery, we find ourselves coming to one inevitable conclusion. Something prior to the appearance of this artwork was preventing humans breeding effectively. That "something" was somehow related to the use - or lack thereof - of female genitalia. Still being creatures largely of instinct at this stage, it also suggests that the "something" was something that people were instinctively choosing to engage in, possibly from the moment the first fish grew legs to crawl out of the sea and attempt buttsex with a starfish washed up on the beach. Is it a coincidence that we still hold this almost genetic predisposition for referring to the anus as a "starfish"? I think not. On this basis, I think it's scientifically sound to suggest that the search for buttsex may well have been the trigger for evolution. Returning to the artwork: this artwork was clearly part of a concerted prehistoric media campaign to encourage people to engage in vaginal intercourse. The only reason this would have been necessary, is if Homo Sapiens had been acting a bit too "Homo Erectus". Therefore, logic dictates that buttsex must have been prevalent enough that a number of unconnected groups independently reached a conclusion that they needed to encourage and normalise vaginal intercourse. Doing this resulted in a population explosion soon after. And just to put the nail in the coffin, why do you think the dinosaurs died out? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:47:10 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
no, I'm putting it in the shit can where it belongs Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You're putting the butt hole on a pedestal. no, I'm putting it in the shit can where it belongs Pull up a stool(no pun intended). I've got a pretty funny story. One day in high school, a bunch of guys and myself were in shop class and talking about sex and whatnot. Well, this one dude who was kind of a geek but got along with everyone was in on the conversation. He had been going out with the same girl for years, since as long as anyone could remember. She was also a straight A student, and seemed really proper. Well someone asks him something along the lines of had they had sex and how often. He admits she does not want to have sex until she married. Everyone says bummer man, that sucks, does she at least give you BJs? He says oh yeah all the time and she likes anal....we do anal sex all the time. We carried him around on our shoulders and cheered for him for at least a week straight. He ended up telling other people, and those people talked. Eventually word spread and his gf found out he told people. She got real mad and ashamed and dumped him. I don't know what the moral of the story is, but there you have it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:47:56 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Do you need them to show you on the doll where they were touched? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: what the hell happened to you people? Do you need them to show you on the doll where they were touched? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:48:02 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oral sex and anal sex are both considered Sodomy, so there you go. The funny thing is, one guy was running around screaming about Sodomites, and their sinful wicked nature, yet he started a thread months ago about nailing his wife in the pooper. I guess it's all a matter of perspective. 
Personally, I've had anal with both sexes, and it's pretty much the same. It's a butthole. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
has the blowjob been commended as an abomination to God yet? Seems like it was going that way on page one Oral sex and anal sex are both considered Sodomy, so there you go. The funny thing is, one guy was running around screaming about Sodomites, and their sinful wicked nature, yet he started a thread months ago about nailing his wife in the pooper. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
Personally, I've had anal with both sexes, and it's pretty much the same. It's a butthole. So you have had anal sex with women and men? Just clarifying in case you worded that wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:49:46 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why the Doll? The entire thread is about the butt so we know exactly where the touching, etc. happened. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
what the hell happened to you people? Do you need them to show you on the doll where they were touched? thatsthejoke.jpg |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:56:11 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted: thatsthejoke.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: what the hell happened to you people? Do you need them to show you on the doll where they were touched? thatsthejoke.jpg Bouncy-Bouncy-BottomStyle is serious business, young lady, this is no time for jokes  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:58:04 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pull up a stool(no pun intended). I've got a pretty funny story. One day in high school, a bunch of guys and myself were in shop class and talking about sex and whatnot. Well, this one dude who was kind of a geek but got along with everyone was in on the conversation. He had been going out with the same girl for years, since as long as anyone could remember. She was also a straight A student, and seemed really proper. Well someone asks him something along the lines of had they had sex and how often. He admits she does not want to have sex until she married. Everyone says bummer man, that sucks, does she at least give you BJs? He says oh yeah all the time and she likes anal....we do anal sex all the time. We carried him around on our shoulders and cheered for him for at least a week straight. He ended up telling other people, and those people talked. Eventually word spread and his gf found out he told people. She got real mad and ashamed and dumped him. I don't know what the moral of the story is, but there you have it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You're putting the butt hole on a pedestal. no, I'm putting it in the shit can where it belongs Pull up a stool(no pun intended). I've got a pretty funny story. One day in high school, a bunch of guys and myself were in shop class and talking about sex and whatnot. Well, this one dude who was kind of a geek but got along with everyone was in on the conversation. He had been going out with the same girl for years, since as long as anyone could remember. She was also a straight A student, and seemed really proper. Well someone asks him something along the lines of had they had sex and how often. He admits she does not want to have sex until she married. Everyone says bummer man, that sucks, does she at least give you BJs? He says oh yeah all the time and she likes anal....we do anal sex all the time. We carried him around on our shoulders and cheered for him for at least a week straight. He ended up telling other people, and those people talked. Eventually word spread and his gf found out he told people. She got real mad and ashamed and dumped him. I don't know what the moral of the story is, but there you have it. The moral is if the driveway to the new house isn't ready, the owner makes you park in the back where it's probably muddy. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 5:59:21 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
why do you think the dinosaurs died out? they were all gay, you can see them doing the gay thing with their hands in various documentaries |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:02:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted: they were all gay, you can see them doing the gay thing with their hands in various documentaries Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: why do you think the dinosaurs died out? they were all gay, you can see them doing the gay thing with their hands in various documentaries I wouldn't go that far, there's no evidence to suggest that sexual orientation had anything to do with it. They just liked big butts, and they couldn't lie. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:07:37 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So you have had anal sex with women and men? Just clarifying in case you worded that wrong. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
has the blowjob been commended as an abomination to God yet? Seems like it was going that way on page one Oral sex and anal sex are both considered Sodomy, so there you go. The funny thing is, one guy was running around screaming about Sodomites, and their sinful wicked nature, yet he started a thread months ago about nailing his wife in the pooper. I guess it's all a matter of perspective.
Personally, I've had anal with both sexes, and it's pretty much the same. It's a butthole. So you have had anal sex with women and men? Just clarifying in case you worded that wrong. Yes. No poo poo was extracted during these experiences. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:12:10 PM EDT
[#13]
Support this thread by buying the official laptop of buttfuckers!
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:13:40 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Anything's a dildo, if you're brave enough. Sig line material if I've ever seen it. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:14:06 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Actually, anthropology and logic tells us otherwise. First of all, cave art was reserved for items of significance. If it had been "in regular use" then it would not have been significant enough for them to waste resources carving it into a wall. Secondly, the sudden appearance of this artwork, and the subsequent obsession with female genitalia (see for reference the multitude of "Venus" statutes) coincided with an initial explosion in the human population, eventually displacing the previously dominant Neanderthals. So, by applying our minds to a little bit or archaeobuttfuckery, we find ourselves coming to one inevitable conclusion. Something prior to the appearance of this artwork was preventing humans breeding effectively. That "something" was somehow related to the use - or lack thereof - of female genitalia. Still being creatures largely of instinct at this stage, it also suggests that the "something" was something that people were instinctively choosing to engage in, possibly from the moment the first fish grew legs to crawl out of the sea and attempt buttsex with a starfish washed up on the beach. Is it a coincidence that we still hold this almost genetic predisposition for referring to the anus as a "starfish"? I think not. On this basis, I think it's scientifically sound to suggest that the search for buttsex may well have been the trigger for evolution. Returning to the artwork: this artwork was clearly part of a concerted prehistoric media campaign to encourage people to engage in vaginal intercourse. The only reason this would have been necessary, is if Homo Sapiens had been acting a bit too "Homo Erectus". Therefore, logic dictates that buttsex must have been prevalent enough that a number of unconnected groups independently reached a conclusion that they needed to encourage and normalise vaginal intercourse. Doing this resulted in a population explosion soon after. And just to put the nail in the coffin, why do you think the dinosaurs died out? Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: The straight buttfuckers aren't doing it because it's interchangeable with gay sex, the non-straight buttfuckers are doing it because it's interchangeable with straight sex. In other words, people have the buttsex because it's functionally the same as having the buttsex with women. A bold claim, but you're hinging it on some unprovable history. In order for so-called "straight buttfuckery" to be the baseline act which the "non-straight buttfuckers" have appropriated (supposedly soiling its dignity in the process), it requires the presupposition that the "straight buttfuckery" is the older of the two practices. Sex in antiquity being rather unknowable in general, we can only look at what records we have. After braving a small bit of online research (believe me, a search for "cave painting anal" with safe search off might not be something you want to do), I've found an interesting article here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47418532/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/female-sex-organs-focus-oldest-known-cave-art/#.Vbk1s3nbLIU The gist is, the oldest known depiction of sex prominently features detailed images of female genitalia. No butt stuff for neanderthals. It's one data point, sure, but it is some reliable evidence that actual straight sex preceeded buttfuckery of all forms. Then there's the issue with contemporary records. Starting in the 1960s or so, the development of sexual documentaries gives us an insight into the sexual practices of individuals of the various decades. And, of interest, the so-called "straight buttfuckery" you're championing didn't exist at all before the late 70s, and even then not at a significant frequency until the early 1990s. Curiously, the frequency of increase in cinematic buttfuckery, presumably paralleling the increase in the population of buttfuckers, also trends along with the decrease in display of female pubic hair. Now, is this simply pure coincidence, or is it a direct artistic representation of the desire on the part of the buttfuckers to partner with prepubescents (potentially even boys, in the classic style of homosexual pedophilia), but which is actually depicted using well-shorn of-age females both as a means to stay within the bounds of the law and also to placate the buttfucker's closeted desires by assuring them that what they are viewing is, indeed, "straight" sex? Since the buttfuckers here have informed us that buttfuckery is principally about dominance - a very similar relationship in terms of the social power disparity present in a pedophilic relationship - the latter theory may hold quite a bit of merit. Which, of course, isn't to say that all buttfuckers are closeted homosexual fantasizers whose true desire is to rape young boys, yet choose a legal and less socially deplorable outlet for their fantasies instead, but surely that does describe some of them. Actually, anthropology and logic tells us otherwise. First of all, cave art was reserved for items of significance. If it had been "in regular use" then it would not have been significant enough for them to waste resources carving it into a wall. Secondly, the sudden appearance of this artwork, and the subsequent obsession with female genitalia (see for reference the multitude of "Venus" statutes) coincided with an initial explosion in the human population, eventually displacing the previously dominant Neanderthals. So, by applying our minds to a little bit or archaeobuttfuckery, we find ourselves coming to one inevitable conclusion. Something prior to the appearance of this artwork was preventing humans breeding effectively. That "something" was somehow related to the use - or lack thereof - of female genitalia. Still being creatures largely of instinct at this stage, it also suggests that the "something" was something that people were instinctively choosing to engage in, possibly from the moment the first fish grew legs to crawl out of the sea and attempt buttsex with a starfish washed up on the beach. Is it a coincidence that we still hold this almost genetic predisposition for referring to the anus as a "starfish"? I think not. On this basis, I think it's scientifically sound to suggest that the search for buttsex may well have been the trigger for evolution. Returning to the artwork: this artwork was clearly part of a concerted prehistoric media campaign to encourage people to engage in vaginal intercourse. The only reason this would have been necessary, is if Homo Sapiens had been acting a bit too "Homo Erectus". Therefore, logic dictates that buttsex must have been prevalent enough that a number of unconnected groups independently reached a conclusion that they needed to encourage and normalise vaginal intercourse. Doing this resulted in a population explosion soon after. And just to put the nail in the coffin, why do you think the dinosaurs died out?  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:23:06 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Don't forget dry humping for the high school trifecta. Gay dudes can do that, too! I mean, I guess I don't really have anything against handjobs, per se, but why are you picking that as your defense of buttfuckery? Buttfuckery doesn't have enough merits to stand on its own? Let's examine the pros and cons of buttfuckery: Con: * Diarrhea * Shitdick * Diseases * Prolapse * Basically like being gay Pro: * Hur-dur, it's buttsex! * The one phrase that will instantly make every woman uncontrollably horny... "Baby, hang on a sec, I saw this in a porno..." You seem mad. Are you the type of guy that sticks to vaginal intercourse for the sole purpose of procreation? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:25:26 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, anthropology and logic tells us otherwise. First of all, cave art was reserved for items of significance. If it had been "in regular use" then it would not have been significant enough for them to waste resources carving it into a wall. Secondly, the sudden appearance of this artwork, and the subsequent obsession with female genitalia (see for reference the multitude of "Venus" statutes) coincided with an initial explosion in the human population, eventually displacing the previously dominant Neanderthals. So, by applying our minds to a little bit or archaeobuttfuckery, we find ourselves coming to one inevitable conclusion. Something prior to the appearance of this artwork was preventing humans breeding effectively. That "something" was somehow related to the use - or lack thereof - of female genitalia. Still being creatures largely of instinct at this stage, it also suggests that the "something" was something that people were instinctively choosing to engage in, possibly from the moment the first fish grew legs to crawl out of the sea and attempt buttsex with a starfish washed up on the beach. Is it a coincidence that we still hold this almost genetic predisposition for referring to the anus as a "starfish"? I think not. On this basis, I think it's scientifically sound to suggest that the search for buttsex may well have been the trigger for evolution. Returning to the artwork: this artwork was clearly part of a concerted prehistoric media campaign to encourage people to engage in vaginal intercourse. The only reason this would have been necessary, is if Homo Sapiens had been acting a bit too "Homo Erectus". Therefore, logic dictates that buttsex must have been prevalent enough that a number of unconnected groups independently reached a conclusion that they needed to encourage and normalise vaginal intercourse. Doing this resulted in a population explosion soon after. And just to put the nail in the coffin, why do you think the dinosaurs died out? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The straight buttfuckers aren't doing it because it's interchangeable with gay sex, the non-straight buttfuckers are doing it because it's interchangeable with straight sex. In other words, people have the buttsex because it's functionally the same as having the buttsex with women. A bold claim, but you're hinging it on some unprovable history. In order for so-called "straight buttfuckery" to be the baseline act which the "non-straight buttfuckers" have appropriated (supposedly soiling its dignity in the process), it requires the presupposition that the "straight buttfuckery" is the older of the two practices. Sex in antiquity being rather unknowable in general, we can only look at what records we have. After braving a small bit of online research (believe me, a search for "cave painting anal" with safe search off might not be something you want to do), I've found an interesting article here: http://www.nbcnews.com/id/47418532/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/female-sex-organs-focus-oldest-known-cave-art/#.Vbk1s3nbLIU The gist is, the oldest known depiction of sex prominently features detailed images of female genitalia. No butt stuff for neanderthals. It's one data point, sure, but it is some reliable evidence that actual straight sex preceeded buttfuckery of all forms. Then there's the issue with contemporary records. Starting in the 1960s or so, the development of sexual documentaries gives us an insight into the sexual practices of individuals of the various decades. And, of interest, the so-called "straight buttfuckery" you're championing didn't exist at all before the late 70s, and even then not at a significant frequency until the early 1990s. Curiously, the frequency of increase in cinematic buttfuckery, presumably paralleling the increase in the population of buttfuckers, also trends along with the decrease in display of female pubic hair. Now, is this simply pure coincidence, or is it a direct artistic representation of the desire on the part of the buttfuckers to partner with prepubescents (potentially even boys, in the classic style of homosexual pedophilia), but which is actually depicted using well-shorn of-age females both as a means to stay within the bounds of the law and also to placate the buttfucker's closeted desires by assuring them that what they are viewing is, indeed, "straight" sex? Since the buttfuckers here have informed us that buttfuckery is principally about dominance - a very similar relationship in terms of the social power disparity present in a pedophilic relationship - the latter theory may hold quite a bit of merit. Which, of course, isn't to say that all buttfuckers are closeted homosexual fantasizers whose true desire is to rape young boys, yet choose a legal and less socially deplorable outlet for their fantasies instead, but surely that does describe some of them. Actually, anthropology and logic tells us otherwise. First of all, cave art was reserved for items of significance. If it had been "in regular use" then it would not have been significant enough for them to waste resources carving it into a wall. Secondly, the sudden appearance of this artwork, and the subsequent obsession with female genitalia (see for reference the multitude of "Venus" statutes) coincided with an initial explosion in the human population, eventually displacing the previously dominant Neanderthals. So, by applying our minds to a little bit or archaeobuttfuckery, we find ourselves coming to one inevitable conclusion. Something prior to the appearance of this artwork was preventing humans breeding effectively. That "something" was somehow related to the use - or lack thereof - of female genitalia. Still being creatures largely of instinct at this stage, it also suggests that the "something" was something that people were instinctively choosing to engage in, possibly from the moment the first fish grew legs to crawl out of the sea and attempt buttsex with a starfish washed up on the beach. Is it a coincidence that we still hold this almost genetic predisposition for referring to the anus as a "starfish"? I think not. On this basis, I think it's scientifically sound to suggest that the search for buttsex may well have been the trigger for evolution. Returning to the artwork: this artwork was clearly part of a concerted prehistoric media campaign to encourage people to engage in vaginal intercourse. The only reason this would have been necessary, is if Homo Sapiens had been acting a bit too "Homo Erectus". Therefore, logic dictates that buttsex must have been prevalent enough that a number of unconnected groups independently reached a conclusion that they needed to encourage and normalise vaginal intercourse. Doing this resulted in a population explosion soon after. And just to put the nail in the coffin, why do you think the dinosaurs died out? I bow to you. That was the best post of the thread. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:27:44 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
would make Caligula blush. Morrissey much? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:29:17 PM EDT
[#19]
Ha that's good
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:30:49 PM EDT
[#20]
Lol. This thread really took off since last night.
My final thoughts on this topic are this: The stink star is nothing to write home about, imo. I've done it at the request of a few women, but given the choice I'm taking the pussy every time. The vagina is the Glock 19 of human orafices- perfection. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:32:41 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. This thread really took off since last night. My final thoughts on this topic are this: The stink star is nothing to write home about, imo. I've done it at the request of a few women, but given the choice I'm taking the pussy every time. The vagina is the Glock 19 of human orafices- perfection. Hopefully it doesn't kaboom on you. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:33:03 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
What do you mean, "you people"? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
what the hell happened to you people? What do you mean, "you people"? I mean: you people. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:35:41 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol. This thread really took off since last night. My final thoughts on this topic are this: The stink star is nothing to write home about, imo. I've done it at the request of a few women, but given the choice I'm taking the pussy every time. The vagina is the Glock 19 of human orafices- perfection. Meh, after 40 minutes of work it's all beaten out of shape and feels like you're rogering a rubber glove. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:35:48 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Hopefully it doesn't kaboom on you. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Lol. This thread really took off since last night. My final thoughts on this topic are this: The stink star is nothing to write home about, imo. I've done it at the request of a few women, but given the choice I'm taking the pussy every time. The vagina is the Glock 19 of human orafices- perfection. Hopefully it doesn't kaboom on you. Once a month. Leaves a bloody awful mess. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:36:56 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Once a month. Leaves a bloody awful mess. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Lol. This thread really took off since last night. My final thoughts on this topic are this: The stink star is nothing to write home about, imo. I've done it at the request of a few women, but given the choice I'm taking the pussy every time. The vagina is the Glock 19 of human orafices- perfection. Hopefully it doesn't kaboom on you. Once a month. Leaves a bloody awful mess. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:39:33 PM EDT
[#26]
Nope nope nope nope nope nope no way I'm shooting a load up in that yucky place.
  |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:41:56 PM EDT
[#27]
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:44:55 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
In before someone quotes that last line and adds it to their sig. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So there you are. Two inches away from the thing every straight man dreams about from about age ten until he dies. And you think... You know... Pussy is great and all, but... I'm really curious what it feels like to have sex with a dude. In before someone quotes that last line and adds it to their sig. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:48:51 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You seem mad. Are you the type of guy that sticks to vaginal intercourse for the sole purpose of procreation? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Don't forget dry humping for the high school trifecta. Gay dudes can do that, too! I mean, I guess I don't really have anything against handjobs, per se, but why are you picking that as your defense of buttfuckery? Buttfuckery doesn't have enough merits to stand on its own? Let's examine the pros and cons of buttfuckery: Con: * Diarrhea * Shitdick * Diseases * Prolapse * Basically like being gay Pro: * Hur-dur, it's buttsex! * The one phrase that will instantly make every woman uncontrollably horny... "Baby, hang on a sec, I saw this in a porno..." You seem mad. Are you the type of guy that sticks to vaginal intercourse for the sole purpose of procreation?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:49:06 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are you the type of guy that sticks to vaginal intercourse for the sole purpose of procreation? I'll reiterate that the particulars of my sex life are completely irrelevant to the matter of buttfuckers' depravation. That said, I will say that I am a great admirer of the wisdom of Ben Franklin. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:50:34 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Eh. You don't really feel those benefits for longer than a dozen thrusts or so. There's a perfectly good hole a just few inches away, and you won't be forced to handle your junk like a dirty diaper afterwards. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I do not understand the straight male fascination with plowing female butt hole. Tighter, warmer, more friction. Eh. You don't really feel those benefits for longer than a dozen thrusts or so. There's a perfectly good hole a just few inches away, and you won't be forced to handle your junk like a dirty diaper afterwards.  
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:54:20 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryI've always found that odd, considering the role it plays in theology. Think about it. The mouth/throat doesn't need to be as big as it is. Neither does the anus. The only orifice that needs to be large enough to accept a penis... is a vagina. Yet, amazingly, and in defiance of traditional evolutionary theory, both the mouth and the anus are the perfect size to accept a penis - and both men and woman are equally equipped in this manner. The male sex drive is constantly on, which is pretty much at odds with females who find themselves otherwise unavailable once a month. This rather suggests that the human body is designed to be constantly used. Which brings us back to some conveniently-sized orifices that have no other reason for being that specific size. Coincidence, you say? There's no evidence to support the idea that oral sex is part of our genetic make up, you say? I'd like to point out that the human body has one unusual feature that puts it at a significant disadvantage to nearly every other species. We have a terrible sense of smell. What possible reason could that serve an animal that has always relied heavily on its ability to detect and evade predators? None whatsoever. It is only useful in one specific scenario. I'll give you a clue: it involves unwashed caveman cock. If there can be no evolutionary basis for it, the only possible reason for this amazing and interlocking set of human design features would be... intelligent design. The capacity (and inclination) for anal sex is pretty much the smoking-gun proof of the existence of God. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:55:24 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I do not understand the straight male fascination with plowing female butt hole. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:55:56 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
<a href="http://s207.photobucket.com/user/mdar15manager/media/Motivators/hqdefault_zps90drg3s3.jpg.html" target="_blank">http://i207.photobucket.com/albums/bb277/mdar15manager/Motivators/hqdefault_zps90drg3s3.jpg</a>
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:56:41 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've always found that odd, considering the role it plays in theology. Think about it. The mouth/throat doesn't need to be as big as it is. Neither does the anus. The only orifice that needs to be large enough to accept a penis... is a vagina. Yet, amazingly, and in defiance of traditional evolutionary theory, both the mouth and the anus are the perfect size to accept a penis - and both men and woman are equally equipped in this manner. The male sex drive is constantly on, which is pretty much at odds with females who find themselves otherwise unavailable once a month. This rather suggests that the human body is designed to be constantly used. Which brings us back to some conveniently-sized orifices that have no other reason for being that specific size. Coincidence, you say? There's no evidence to support the idea that oral sex is part of our genetic make up, you say? I'd like to point out that the human body has one unusual feature that puts it at a significant disadvantage to nearly every other species. We have a terrible sense of smell. What possible reason could that serve an animal that has always relied heavily on its ability to detect and evade predators? None whatsoever. It is only useful in one specific scenario. I'll give you a clue: it involves unwashed caveman cock. If there can be no evolutionary basis for it, the only possible reason for this amazing and interlocking set of human design features would be... intelligent design. The capacity (and inclination) for anal sex is pretty much the smoking-gun proof of the existence of God. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've always found that odd, considering the role it plays in theology. Think about it. The mouth/throat doesn't need to be as big as it is. Neither does the anus. The only orifice that needs to be large enough to accept a penis... is a vagina. Yet, amazingly, and in defiance of traditional evolutionary theory, both the mouth and the anus are the perfect size to accept a penis - and both men and woman are equally equipped in this manner. The male sex drive is constantly on, which is pretty much at odds with females who find themselves otherwise unavailable once a month. This rather suggests that the human body is designed to be constantly used. Which brings us back to some conveniently-sized orifices that have no other reason for being that specific size. Coincidence, you say? There's no evidence to support the idea that oral sex is part of our genetic make up, you say? I'd like to point out that the human body has one unusual feature that puts it at a significant disadvantage to nearly every other species. We have a terrible sense of smell. What possible reason could that serve an animal that has always relied heavily on its ability to detect and evade predators? None whatsoever. It is only useful in one specific scenario. I'll give you a clue: it involves unwashed caveman cock. If there can be no evolutionary basis for it, the only possible reason for this amazing and interlocking set of human design features would be... intelligent design. The capacity (and inclination) for anal sex is pretty much the smoking-gun proof of the existence of God. Meh. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:57:49 PM EDT
[#36]
Oh man, this thread is great
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:58:26 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Oh man, this thread is great It is a pretty good one, plenty of laughs to be had. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 6:58:44 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sig line material if I've ever seen it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Anything's a dildo, if you're brave enough. Sig line material if I've ever seen it. 
I'm surprised TM is taking such a hard stance being a Navy man. Any port in a storm and all that. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:02:27 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q17/surveyor3/WVyIzKd_zps3c9a6bad.jpg I'm surprised TM is taking such a hard stance being a Navy man. Any port in a storm and all that. Maybe he's tired of being the tugboat |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:13:01 PM EDT
[#40]
GD buttfuckers' new motto:
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:36:04 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Wut?! Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Personally, I've had anal with both sexes, and it's pretty much the same. It's a butthole. Wut?! |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:38:32 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe he's tired of being the tugboat
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
http://i132.photobucket.com/albums/q17/surveyor3/WVyIzKd_zps3c9a6bad.jpg I'm surprised TM is taking such a hard stance being a Navy man. Any port in a storm and all that. Maybe he's tired of being the tugboat
Oh, no, I'm an engineer and now I'm green side. I did walk onto a surface Navy boat once by accident (true story), but I got off before any shenanigans went down. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:38:47 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Why would I want to troll buttfuckers? I'm just saying, it's kinda gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I guess. Sing your self song, buttfuckers. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
I do like the "having sex with a girl makes you gay" argument. It's excellent trolling. After all, everyone knows the best holes are unisex. Why would I want to troll buttfuckers? I'm just saying, it's kinda gay. Not that there's anything wrong with that, I guess. Sing your self song, buttfuckers. Buttsex with women can only be seen as gay by guys who are insecure in thier sexuallity. They must be fighting thier subconscious urges for men so they avoid the female butthole like an alcholic avoids the liquor store. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:39:20 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
some salty language there. Arrr...some be a butt pirate here.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:40:34 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
shhhh. let it happen. I'll be gentle. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
The fuck kind of thread did I just walk in on? The best thread we've had in weeks I just don't even... shhhh. let it happen. I'll be gentle. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 7:47:42 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've always found that odd, considering the role it plays in theology. Think about it. The mouth/throat doesn't need to be as big as it is. Neither does the anus. The only orifice that needs to be large enough to accept a penis... is a vagina. Yet, amazingly, and in defiance of traditional evolutionary theory, both the mouth and the anus are the perfect size to accept a penis - and both men and woman are equally equipped in this manner. The male sex drive is constantly on, which is pretty much at odds with females who find themselves otherwise unavailable once a month. This rather suggests that the human body is designed to be constantly used. Which brings us back to some conveniently-sized orifices that have no other reason for being that specific size. Coincidence, you say? There's no evidence to support the idea that oral sex is part of our genetic make up, you say? I'd like to point out that the human body has one unusual feature that puts it at a significant disadvantage to nearly every other species. We have a terrible sense of smell. What possible reason could that serve an animal that has always relied heavily on its ability to detect and evade predators? None whatsoever. It is only useful in one specific scenario. I'll give you a clue: it involves unwashed caveman cock. If there can be no evolutionary basis for it, the only possible reason for this amazing and interlocking set of human design features would be... intelligent design. The capacity (and inclination) for anal sex is pretty much the smoking-gun proof of the existence of God. Quote HistoryQuoted:
I've always found that odd, considering the role it plays in theology. Think about it. The mouth/throat doesn't need to be as big as it is. Neither does the anus. The only orifice that needs to be large enough to accept a penis... is a vagina. Yet, amazingly, and in defiance of traditional evolutionary theory, both the mouth and the anus are the perfect size to accept a penis - and both men and woman are equally equipped in this manner. The male sex drive is constantly on, which is pretty much at odds with females who find themselves otherwise unavailable once a month. This rather suggests that the human body is designed to be constantly used. Which brings us back to some conveniently-sized orifices that have no other reason for being that specific size. Coincidence, you say? There's no evidence to support the idea that oral sex is part of our genetic make up, you say? I'd like to point out that the human body has one unusual feature that puts it at a significant disadvantage to nearly every other species. We have a terrible sense of smell. What possible reason could that serve an animal that has always relied heavily on its ability to detect and evade predators? None whatsoever. It is only useful in one specific scenario. I'll give you a clue: it involves unwashed caveman cock. If there can be no evolutionary basis for it, the only possible reason for this amazing and interlocking set of human design features would be... intelligent design. The capacity (and inclination) for anal sex is pretty much the smoking-gun proof of the existence of God. They are not the perfect size. The penis is larger than all those orifices. Whereas the vagina is made to expand to accept the penis (exluding Asians, of course) the mouth only needs to expand to carry food and the anus to pinch off a loaf coming down the lower colon. Dogs reek for eons yet their sense of smell is excellent. Plenty of other animals smell horrid and yet have good sense of smell. Unwashed caveman cock is the least of it 
Maybe the british lost it due to their lack of mouth hygiene
|
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 8:00:43 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: {stuff that's wrong} You can fool yourself but you can't fool science, dude. Sorry  Edited to add: though thinking about it, you do rather prove the point. Except for possibly fruitbats, other animals are not really known to fellate each other, therefore they do not need to have a less developed sense of smell. If "everyone else being smelly" isn't enough of a reason, then logically there must be something very specific that humans are doing that other animals aren't. I think we've already established what that is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 8:21:03 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Pretty neat? That is exactly the phrase I would have used to describe that scenario. Exactly. 
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You guys are doing it all wrong. Put a vibrator in her butt, turn it on, and mount the vagina. You now have a real life vibrating vagina. It's pretty neat. Pretty neat? That is exactly the phrase I would have used to describe that scenario. Exactly.
It is neat. More like super neat for your meat. It can feel a bit gay though because your dick is rubbing on a vibrating dick separated only by a thin layer of girl stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 8:22:55 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You can fool yourself but you can't fool science, dude. Sorry
Edited to add: though thinking about it, you do rather prove the point. Except for possibly fruitbats, other animals are not really known to fellate each other, therefore they do not need to have a less developed sense of smell. If "everyone else being smelly" isn't enough of a reason, then logically there must be something very specific that humans are doing that other animals aren't. I think we've already established what that is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
{stuff that's wrong} You can fool yourself but you can't fool science, dude. Sorry
Edited to add: though thinking about it, you do rather prove the point. Except for possibly fruitbats, other animals are not really known to fellate each other, therefore they do not need to have a less developed sense of smell. If "everyone else being smelly" isn't enough of a reason, then logically there must be something very specific that humans are doing that other animals aren't. I think we've already established what that is. Macramé? |
|
|
|
Posted: 7/29/2015 8:24:17 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Absurd claim. It's called inductive logic. Even without direct empirical evidence, Max may infer certain things by working from the known. He doesn't need to be a buttfucker to know that buttfuckery involves sticking your dick into shit. If sticking his dick into shit isn't something he desires to do, then he may logically infer that buttfuckery is highly probable to be an undesirable activity for him to participate in. It's the buttfuckers who apparently can't figure this out and need to fuck the butt before they know what's in the butt. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: "don't knock it till you try it" is fucking retarded bullshit Regardless, your position is founded in willful ignorance and inexperience. So why do you think your opinion even matters? Absurd claim. It's called inductive logic. Even without direct empirical evidence, Max may infer certain things by working from the known. He doesn't need to be a buttfucker to know that buttfuckery involves sticking your dick into shit. If sticking his dick into shit isn't something he desires to do, then he may logically infer that buttfuckery is highly probable to be an undesirable activity for him to participate in. It's the buttfuckers who apparently can't figure this out and need to fuck the butt before they know what's in the butt. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
