|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 3, 2011 7:27:45 GMT -5
I propose that we embark on an in-depth study of various types of porn to confirm your hypothesis. Y'know, for science. If it's got scientific value, it's not porn. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jul 3, 2011 10:44:18 GMT -5
I propose that we embark on an in-depth study of various types of porn to confirm your hypothesis. Y'know, for science. If it's got scientific value, it's not porn. Sweet, that means I can post this.  www.bmj.com/content/319/7225/1596.full |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jul 3, 2011 13:30:56 GMT -5
Only in the Netherlands...  Cool pic, though |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 3, 2011 13:49:32 GMT -5
SCIENCE!
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 3, 2011 13:51:31 GMT -5
Am I just seeing things weird, or is that penis bending at 90 degrees? |
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jul 3, 2011 13:54:53 GMT -5
Crikey!
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 3, 2011 14:02:28 GMT -5
Is the moral here that doggy-style, or any position with the woman on top, is superior? Because of, you know, not having boomerang penis?
|
|
|
|
Post by Mlle Antéchrist on Jul 3, 2011 14:02:42 GMT -5
Ahh, now I've sorted it out. I was looking at the root as part of the shaft, and wondering what the fuck was going on and why he wasn't screaming in pain.
So I guess all those guys who claim to be 8 inches aren't lying, at least when you include the root.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 3, 2011 15:04:44 GMT -5
Is the moral here that doggy-style, or any position with the woman on top, is superior? Because of, you know, not having boomerang penis? I dunno. A boomerang penis always comes back. |
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jul 3, 2011 17:34:55 GMT -5
Yeah, but first you have to throw it out, a process I would prefer to avoid with my penis.
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jul 3, 2011 20:07:29 GMT -5
Psssh. I don't see what the big deal is. You've probably been tossing it for years.
|
|
|
|
Post by lighthorseman on Jul 5, 2011 20:10:30 GMT -5
16 seems like a reasonable age of consent to me. That's what it is here, anyway. If it were up to me, I might bump it up to 17, but I can live with the law as it is now. Appearing in pornography should require an age limit of 18+, though. How do you square these sentiments? If an individual is competent at 16 (or 17) to consent to sex, surely he or she is competent to consent to having sex (to say nothing of merely being naked) in front of a camera. How does that lens magically change things? Long term effects? We can all look back on our early, fumbling forrays into sexuality and think "oh man, what was I DOING!?" and laugh quietly to ourselves. Its quite another thing for other people to be able to watch those fumbling forrays at their leisure, until the DVD burns out. We don't let 16 year olds sign contracts either, since the ramifications are similar. |
|
|
|
Post by devilschaplain2 on Jul 5, 2011 20:19:49 GMT -5
Ironbite-bet they argue bias in the appeal. Of course! The Chief Judge is a woman, so she has to be one of those "dirty sluts." What? She should've recused herself from teh case!!!1! |
|
