[ rss / options / help ]
post ]
[ b / iq / g / zoo ] [ e / news / lab ] [ v / nom / pol / eco / emo / 101 / shed ]
[ art / A / beat / boo / com / fat / job / lit / map / mph / poof / £$€¥ / spo / uhu / uni / x / y ] [ * | sfw | o ]
logo
news

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]

Posting mode: Reply
Reply ]
Subject   (reply to 13682)
Message
File  []
close
DJ_POZ_1997.jpg
136821368213682
>> No. 13682 Anonymous
8th October 2017
Sunday 4:52 pm
13682 Neg holes beware!
https://www.independent.co.uk/california-hiv-infecting-felony-misdemeanor-a7988261.html

>California just reduced the penalty for knowingly exposing someone to HIV from a felony to a misdemeanour.

>Governor Jerry Brown signed the bill that also covers blood donors who did not disclose to a blood bank that they are HIV-positive.

>“HIV has been the only communicable disease for which exposure is a felony under California law,” the LA Times reported.

>“Today California took a major step toward treating HIV as a public health issue, instead of treating people living with HIV as criminals,” on of the co-sponsors of the bill Democratic State Senator Scott Wiener said.

>Mr Wiener said the law finally treats HIV like any other infectious disease.

>The current law requires an element of intent to be proved in order for a felony charge. Mr Wiener said it discourages people from even getting tested for HIV so that the element of intent is not present and they do not risk a felony charge.

>He said this new law will actually end new HIV infections because instead of threatening people with jail time, the state is providing an opportunity to get tested and access necessary medical care.

>Other supporters also said the new bill reduces what they felt was a disproportionate target on women working in prostitution as well.

>Opponents like Republican State Senator Joel Anderson said “it’s absolutely crazy to me that we should go light on this.”

>Mr Anderson argued that a felony charge is appropriate in cases where a person intentionally “alters” another person’s entire lifestyle and puts them on a rigorous lifelong regimen of medication.

Legal poz loads, lads.
Expand all images.
>> No. 13683 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 12:21 am
13683 spacer
Ok I am not going to bite on the whole "Mr Wiener" what-have-you. That's for the teenlads to get amused about.

But you are effectively giving somebody a permanent illness which, according to current medical science, will still require lifelong treatment or you will eventually succumb to AIDS.

I don't think it's discrimination against people with HIV to say that knowingly, or even intentionally infecting somebody with the virus should remain classed as a felony and grievous bodily harm. You have many quite easy ways of preventing a sexual partner from contracting the disease from you.

You wouldn't say that driving your car head-on against a tree to cause your passenger serious injury or even kill them shouldn't be a felony because it unfairly discriminates against law-abiding motorists.

>Mr Anderson argued that a felony charge is appropriate in cases where a person intentionally “alters” another person’s entire lifestyle and puts them on a rigorous lifelong regimen of medication.

As a matter of principle, I tend, and try to disagree with U.S. Republicans wherever possible. But in this case, the man has a point.
>> No. 13684 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 10:45 am
13684 spacer
>>13683

It's because it is considered a 'gay's disease'. And therefore it is considered homophobic discrimination to quarantine it appropriately, and that is more important than public health and treating a disease with a proportional level of caution.

Now you may be thinking, isn't it incredibly homophobic and the exactly the opposite of everything you were taught to consider AIDS just a gay stigma? Well yes, Californian politics is so obsessed with trying to reverse all prejudice it simultaneously creates and acknowledges some of the worse prejudice whilst denying their existence. Because apparently it is a virtue to have prejudices as long as you are guilty enough about them to over compensate.
>> No. 13685 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 10:48 am
13685 spacer
>>13684
Isn't the most appropriate quarantine against gay diseases to just not have sex with them?
>> No. 13686 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 12:20 pm
13686 spacer
>>13684

What is true enough is that gay men are still the segment of the general population with the highest infection numbers. This is probably because at least in the Western world, the virus began spreading in the gay community at first, and secondly because gay men tend to be greatly more promiscuous than the average person.

But indeed if you say it's gay discrimination to charge people with a felony who infect others, then you are acknowledging the fact that it's, well, a "gay disease" (which is nevertheless an overbroad statement in itself).

In the end, gay or not, discrimination or not, you are knowingly giving somebody a permanent illness that will require constant lifelong treatment, without which that person will quite likely eventually die from AIDS. And it also greatly affects that person's sex life, because unless an actual cure for AIDS is found soon, they will never again be able to have unprotected sex with a steady long-term partner. Even conception will be limited to artificial insemination.

I don't think there's anything wrong with it being grievous bodily harm if you knowingly infect another person. Making it a misdemeanor sends the most wrong message imaginable. Because there will be enough people who will take that as an invitation.
>> No. 13687 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 1:24 pm
13687 spacer
>>13685

It is but you have to know someone has the disease to not have sex with them because they have HIV. This is about people not disclosing they have the disease before they have sex with people, knowing that it will infect them, because they think they won't get laid otherwise.
>> No. 13688 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 1:37 pm
13688 spacer
>>13686

The kind of pressure groups who push for these changes aren't concerned with the facts that lead to a particular outcome, all they care about is an oversimplified re-interpretation of the outcome, so if gay people are being disproportionately charged and convicted of this crime it must be a tool of discrimination.

Someone will almost certainly in arguing about this change will have said some sort of hypebole about if this was a straight white man disease this would never have been a felony in the first place.
>> No. 13689 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 2:22 pm
13689 spacer
>>13688

>so if gay people are being disproportionately charged and convicted of this crime it must be a tool of discrimination.

Yes but then you could also argue that legislation against terrorism discriminates against eskimos because very often in our times, terrorism is committed by Islamic daft militant wogs, and so eskimos are disproportionately the target both of convictions for terrorism and monitoring by police and secret services. Should we make daft militant wog acts a misdemeanor because the majority of attackers are eskimos?

Gay HIV-positive men, as well as any other HIV-positive person, have a choice whether or not they infect somebody with the virus. They know the risk, they know what it does to a person to have the virus.


> Someone will almost certainly in arguing about this change will have said some sort of hypebole about if this was a straight white man disease this would never have been a felony in the first place.

It's the old "discrimination is fine as long as it's against straight white men" nonsense. And then sometimes also that whole "positive discrimination" what-have-you. It's all just a load of rubbish. Either discrimination because of your skin colour, gender or sexual orientation is bad or it isn't. But you can't pick and choose.
>> No. 13690 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 2:34 pm
13690 spacer
>>13689

>Yes but
I feel like you are agreeing with me but phrasing it like a confrontation or disagreement, I find it a bit perplexing.
>> No. 13691 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 2:57 pm
13691 spacer
>>13690

No, I was indeed agreeing with you. I was just trying to point out a little more how flawed the idea is.
>> No. 13692 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 3:15 pm
13692 spacer
People who know that they have HIV generally aren't infectious. Modern antiretroviral treatment reduces the amount of virus in your blood to undetectable levels. It's the people who are newly infected and undiagnosed who are the problem, hence the emphasis on testing.

http://www.tht.org.uk/myhiv/Staying-healthy/Sex/Viral-load
>> No. 13693 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 3:29 pm
13693 spacer
>>13689
Christ, get back in your box Grandpa.
>> No. 13694 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 3:31 pm
13694 spacer
>>13692

I'm not sold on the study it stands to reason that a person with an undetectable viral load would pass on an undetectable viral load, I need longer incubation period than 6 months to believe there isn't a risk for a disease which can take 10 years under normal circumstances to show symptoms.
>> No. 13695 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 3:33 pm
13695 spacer
>>13693

What exactly did you find old-fashioned about his statement? Can you just not read properly?
>> No. 13696 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 3:39 pm
13696 spacer
>>13691
>No...

You did it again!
>> No. 13697 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 3:51 pm
13697 spacer

Jim_2.jpg
136971369713697
>>13696

No, no....no. No. Yes, he did.
>> No. 13698 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 3:59 pm
13698 spacer
>>13694
>a person with an undetectable viral load would pass on an undetectable viral load
... which, without treatment, can fairly quickly become a detectable viral load.
>> No. 13699 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 4:09 pm
13699 spacer
>>13698

"Undetectable" means just what is says. Not detectable. Using conventional means of detection that are available to medical science.

That doesn't mean you are not passing on a single virus cell.


>>13693
>Christ, get back in your box Grandpa.

I forgot. Old white men are fair game as well. I've barely hit 40
>> No. 13700 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 4:09 pm
13700 spacer
>viral load

What has .gs become? It's either a poz load that is hot and beefy or nothing.
>> No. 13701 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 4:21 pm
13701 spacer

tumblr_n4jmb7wFRR1t41r5fo4_500.gif
137011370113701
>>13700

Enough, teenlad.
>> No. 13702 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 5:00 pm
13702 spacer
>>13701
Like it or not, lad, but this place has memes and hot beefy poz loads is one of them.

In fact, there was a time when this place was the top result on Google for "beefy poz loads". Harry love and cherisher and the Bugchaser's Semen-caked Arsehole remains one of my favourite posts on this site.
>> No. 13703 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 5:02 pm
13703 spacer
>>13702

>there was a time when this place was the top result on Google for "beefy poz loads".

Indeed a rare mark of quality.
>> No. 13704 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 5:24 pm
13704 spacer
>>13703
You had to be there.

Hard to believe it these days, but there was a time when people actually tried to have a laugh on this board instead of sucking the fun out of everything instead.
>> No. 13705 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 5:45 pm
13705 spacer
>>13704

I'll suck the hot beefy fun out of you if you're not careful lad.
>> No. 13707 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 8:33 pm
13707 spacer
>>13683
>>13686
It's the only disease like that though, as stated in the opening post
Why is giving someone hepatitis not also a felony?

If you want to hold to the principle that spreading it should be a felony, you might as well bump all other diseases up in severity too.
>> No. 13708 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 9:28 pm
13708 spacer
>>13707

It's because HIV is historically a death sentence. The legal treatment is proportional with the threat of the disease.

If you started purposely infecting people with anthrax that would at the very least be treated as attempted murder.
>> No. 13709 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 9:50 pm
13709 spacer
>>13707
The previous law required intent, which comes with all the usual legal baggage. How do you prove that someone not only knew they were infected but had sex with the specific intention of infecting their partner? Apparently people were going without tests in order to not be prosecuted and convicted, which is a pretty nasty case of perverse incentive.
>> No. 13711 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 10:44 pm
13711 spacer
>>13708

>It's because HIV is historically a death sentence. The legal treatment is proportional with the threat of the disease.

I'd be all in favour of treating it as a minor offence if one day there was a cure that could verifyably stomp out the infection inside a person's body so that they wouldn't need any additional treatment ever again. A bit like an antibiotics course or whatever.

But the reality is still that an HIV infection is nothing short of a chronic illness that must be treated permanently to keep it in check, and keep a patient from developing full blown AIDS. It puts limitations on an infected person's life that they simply do not deserve as a consequence of trusting a sexual partner enough to have unprotected sex with them.
>> No. 13712 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 11:03 pm
13712 spacer

afp20010201p483-f1.gif
137121371213712
>>13694

If you're infected with HIV, your viral load skyrockets after the immediate infection, then plateaus at a much lower level during the incubation phase. The first 12 weeks after infection are absolutely critical, because that's when most people pass on the disease.

This pattern of infection is why we see such stark disparities in infection rates between different communities. A typical western heterosexual person who engages in serial monogamy has a relatively low probability of passing on the disease, because the chances are fairly good that the initial highly infection phase will have passed before they change sexual partners. Gay men are far more likely to have a very large number of sexual partners, so the risk of passing on the disease is far greater. Africans are much more likely than westerners to habitually engage in non-monogamous relationships, which drastically increases the risk of viral transmission.
>> No. 13713 Anonymous
9th October 2017
Monday 11:45 pm
13713 spacer
>>13712

why is that graph shaped like a butt plug?
>> No. 13714 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 1:17 am
13714 spacer
>>13713
Because you're secretly gay and see buttplugs everywhere.
>> No. 13715 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 1:32 am
13715 spacer
>>13714

Yes, including in graphs that look like buttplugs.
>> No. 13716 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 3:41 am
13716 spacer
>>13715
As they would to someone who's seeing buttplugs everywhere.
>> No. 13718 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 1:08 pm
13718 spacer
>>13714

As a straight male who is unashamed of his buttplug usage and as such carrying no such Freudian interpretation baggage; I can state unequivocally that the graph does indeed resemble a butt plug.
>> No. 13719 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 1:16 pm
13719 spacer
>>13718

>As a straight male who is unashamed of his buttplug usage

This sounds so deep into the closet the white witch is offering you turkish delight.

to a man with a hammer everything looks like a nail as they say.
>> No. 13720 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 1:34 pm
13720 spacer

44597fdb-a576-4925-8bea-f63d6baa86fc-2060x1236.jpg
137201372013720
>>13719

>This sounds so deep into the closet the white witch is offering you turkish delight.

What is this need within you to point fingers at other people and call them gay?

Sometimes it actually points to a conflicted sexuality of the person who does this.

You really think straight people saying a graph looks like a buttplug is a sign of them being closet gays?


https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2014/oct/20/paul-mccarthy-butt-plug-sculpture-paris-rightwing-backlash
>> No. 13721 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 2:27 pm
13721 spacer
>>13719

Are you really saying you must be gay if you like stuff up your arse?

Would you be surprised to learn a lot of gay men have never had anything up their arse?
>> No. 13722 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 2:52 pm
13722 spacer
>>13721
Really?
>> No. 13723 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 3:08 pm
13723 spacer
>>13721

>Just because I am a man and have sex with other men, and like having sex with other men, and have a partner who is a man and have sexual fantasies about having sex with other men, and play with myself sexually in a manner that simulates another man penetrating me, that doesn't mean I am gay.


If it walks like a duckie and quacks like a duckie.
>> No. 13724 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 3:16 pm
13724 spacer
>>13720
>You really think straight people saying a graph looks like a buttplug is a sign of them being closet gays?

No I think sticking things shaped like cocks up your arse might be a tell tale sign though.
>> No. 13725 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 3:22 pm
13725 spacer
>>13723

Sticking feathers up your arse doesn't make you a chicken though.
>> No. 13726 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 4:15 pm
13726 spacer
>>13725

sticking feathers up your bum is not part of a chicken's Modus operandi. Sticking cocks and cock like things up your arse is for a homosexual gentlemen though.

If I fix a toilet that makes me a plumber, if I talk in a bad italian accent and kick turtles to death it does not, even if I wear red and blue clothes.
>> No. 13728 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 4:43 pm
13728 spacer

isis-dildo-flag-premium-hoodie.png
137281372813728
>>13718
Some people will just see butt plugs and dildos everywhere.
>> No. 13729 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 6:00 pm
13729 spacer
>>13719

To further add to your mental confusion, I will let you in on a secret: I also enjoy furry fetish pornography and roleplay, and in that context I am more or less pansexual. Gender means nothing to me as long as the scenario is arousing.

Yet, in real life, I don't find the physical form of a man, or the idea of a cock going in me, remotely appealing. I have a girlfriend whom I shag regularly and vigorously. Indeed, sometimes she puts things in my butt, which may or may not be plugs.

Sexuality is not black and white. It's not even a sliding scale. Yet for all intents and purposes, I'm straight. I can't be gay or even bi when I have no actual interest in men; even if you think a fondness for having one's prostate tickled somehow indicates as such.
>> No. 13731 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 7:20 pm
13731 spacer
>>13729

>Yet for all intents and purposes, I'm straight.

Well lets be fair you aren't 'for all intents and purposes' straight now are you. You are as bendy as a rubber hose you probably beat yourself with. No ones going to mistake your preferance for that of the man on the clapham omnibus with statements like "Gender means nothing to me as long as the scenario is arousing." are they.
>> No. 13732 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 7:20 pm
13732 spacer
>>13719

God... Tilda Swinton feeding me Turkish Delight while I shag men.

THE DREAM
>> No. 13733 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 7:56 pm
13733 spacer
>>13729
You are gay.
>> No. 13734 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 8:10 pm
13734 spacer

B0jFZCXCMAEDfJ0.jpg
137341373413734
>>13733 how come everything is so black and white for you? what's it like? I personally fit under fluid and let me just take the time to say what a pleasure it is to find someone so concrete in their sexuality it really is great.
>> No. 13735 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 9:00 pm
13735 spacer
>>13734
You are either straight or not. You like your bum to get a stuffing, so that makes you gay, or at the very least - not straight.
>> No. 13736 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 9:07 pm
13736 spacer
>>13731

> No ones going to mistake your preferance for that of the man on the clapham omnibus

What if the man on the Clapham omnibus is on his way home from an all night fetish party in Vauxhall?
>> No. 13737 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 9:29 pm
13737 spacer
>>13735
To be fair to furryfetishbumfunlad, I'm pretty sure the definition of being gay is to be someone who is attracted to persons of their own sex.
>> No. 13738 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 9:59 pm
13738 spacer
>>13735

You're mental mate. I thought you were having us on, but maybe not.
>> No. 13739 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 10:00 pm
13739 spacer
A lot of poor confused children who don't understand sexuality in this thread. Especially comments like this >>13735.

I'm straight but there are some very pretty men out there and I wouldn't mind seeing what having their cock in my mouth is like. You could call me bicurious if you insist but my overarching point is that labels can be bullshit.
>> No. 13740 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 10:04 pm
13740 spacer
>>13739

He thinks wanting anything up your bum is gay . That's the level he's on. I don't think he has any hope of understanding the true complex nature of sexual preferences.
>> No. 13741 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 10:21 pm
13741 spacer
>>13739
So sucking cock makes you not gay? You can define whatever however you want, but the bottom line is, if you like any of your holes getting a stuffing, then you are not straight.

Make you are homophobic and are afraid of calling yourself gay?
>> No. 13742 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 10:30 pm
13742 spacer
>>13741
But I only want my holes stuffed by feminine penises
>> No. 13743 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 10:36 pm
13743 spacer
>>13741

>So sucking cock makes you not gay?

There are people who are "prison gay", especially if they are in for long sentences and have no other hope of experiencing intimacy. Also, some men in the porn industry are "gay for pay", meaning they will suck cock on-camera if the money is right, even if they don't swing that way in their private lives.

Also, it's not uncommon in adolescence to have homosexual experiences, but which are then not repated when a young person realises it doesn't do much for them. I know we're on the subject of guys noshing cock, but one of my exes told me she had sex with one of her female friends at age 16. But, having had sex with boys even before that, she said it was nice but didn't do much for her in the end, "because it's just more exciting to play with someone's penis in bed" (her exact words).
>> No. 13745 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 10:54 pm
13745 spacer
>>13741
>>Mate you are homophobic and are afraid of calling yourself gay?

if the person is gay solely then yes they are gay but, like most of the general populous its a grey area. If you are comfortable with who you are then fine but don't push labels onto people who still haven't figured it out. I didn't accept my bisexuality till I was 28. I knew I was from 10 but repressed it. It has caused me a lot of issues I won't go into, but labels are for those who want labels like the FurryLad and I have a lot of respect for him for saying that. But in the end, I think you just need to understand that your input is pointless and you should for all intents and purposes. Shut up.
>> No. 13747 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 11:34 pm
13747 spacer
>>13743
Right. Let me explain to you how it works. There are only two ways for a guy to go. Straight or gay. At the very least, I will accept not straight instead of gay, since a lot of homophobic cunts in the closet in this thread are having a teary. So you have straight or not straight.

If all you do is fuck holes, then you are not gay. This includes if you fuck guys too. If you like any of your holes stuffed with anything, then you are gay.

Women can't be gay. They are all straight.

How does this not make sense? It looks very logical to me. Those binary classes hinge on penetration, nothing else. You can create as many metaclasses as you want, but those two classes won't change.

>>13745
Mate, you can make as many labels or categories as you want. You can call yourself attack helicopter raper if you want to, I don't care, and it doesn't change the fact that you are gay. Whether you like it or not, you are gay.
>> No. 13748 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 11:34 pm
13748 spacer
just to throw petrol on the fire I call myself Asexual because I have no sexual interest in real people, but I wank like crazy. This is fun because people are generally most willing to dispute the existence of asexuality, admitting that some form of sexuality is there but has no implications for real life sex would - in person - be crazy.
Always seen sex as something only enjoyable in fiction, and that only really happens to other people. (Both of which make for a great analogy to war, when you think about it.)

since the necessary information to communicate is "I'm not interested in sex with anyone here" asexual is the most functional label (and a subset of it, "autochorissexual", is basically bang on.) although around women I'm often tended to either say I'm gay, or "asexual leaning gay" just to drive the point home that I'm not interested in them. (Since otherwise I almost certainly give off "nice guy" after sex vibes to women, but most men are unlikely to assume you're gay.)

labels are arbitrary. sometimes fun, sometimes tedious, always likely to cause arguments.
>> No. 13749 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 11:36 pm
13749 spacer
>>13748
You are straight.
>> No. 13751 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 11:41 pm
13751 spacer
>>13747


>Women can't be gay. They are all straight. 

And the Earth is flat.
>> No. 13752 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 11:47 pm
13752 spacer
>>13747

>Those binary classes hinge on penetration, nothing else

Why do you say that like it's not something you just made up?
>> No. 13753 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 11:48 pm
13753 spacer
>>13751
No it isn't. Good to know I was chatting to a moron.
>> No. 13754 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 11:48 pm
13754 spacer
>>13752
I don't understand what you are suggesting.
>> No. 13755 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 11:54 pm
13755 spacer
>>13749
Doubtful. If I was ever to have a romantic relationship (sex to one side) I could only ever imagine it would be with a man.

There's an interesting aside to this though - what do you call someone with no interest in living things [or ex living things, you dirty bugger]/sexual penetration whatsoever? What is some deviantart gentleman who's only sexually attracted to pool floats - or the infamous tile poster on the other place called?
(The answer, presumably, is "unhinged" but trying to fit it into the gay/straight model should be food for thought.)
>> No. 13756 Anonymous
10th October 2017
Tuesday 11:54 pm
13756 spacer
>>13747
I know you're trolling, but on the subject of women you literally couldn't be more wrong because a recent study suggested no women were straight, i.e. at least bisexual.
>> No. 13757 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 12:02 am
13757 spacer
>>13755
It isn't that hard, lad. You are straight. All those weirdos with their weird fetishes are straight up until something penetrates them. So you are straight up until you get a good dicking.

Good luck.

>>13756
I am not trolling. Women aren't gay and they can never be gay.
>> No. 13759 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 12:16 am
13759 spacer
>>13757
OK you're just getting tiresome now. Peter Hitchens-tiresome. Can a mod please ban this cunt so we can get back to discussing poz loads?

(A good day to you Sir!)
>> No. 13760 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 2:15 am
13760 spacer
>>13753

well it appears I have been chatting to a proper aspie.
>> No. 13761 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 4:43 pm
13761 spacer
>>13747

>It's only gay if you take it.

Spotted the South-East Asian.
>> No. 13762 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 4:47 pm
13762 spacer
>>13759

Nah. We can just stop replying to him.
>> No. 13763 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 6:13 pm
13763 spacer
So when you get a rectal examination at the doctors, where he puts his fingers up your bum and massages out some secretions, does it instantly make you gay?
>> No. 13764 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 6:36 pm
13764 spacer
>>13763
Yes.

>>13761
I'm not racist, but I generally don't like brown people.
>> No. 13765 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 6:57 pm
13765 spacer
>>13764

>I'm not racist, but

Ah, mirth.
>> No. 13766 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 7:38 pm
13766 spacer
>>13765
Does that make you feel good?
>> No. 13767 Anonymous
11th October 2017
Wednesday 7:40 pm
13767 spacer
>>13765

Why the hell do you keep replying to him? Just call his posts "BRILLIANT" and ignore the wanker.
>> No. 13768 Anonymous
12th October 2017
Thursday 12:43 pm
13768 spacer
>>13767

Brilliant then.

Return ] Entire Thread ] Last 50 posts ]
whiteline

Delete Post []
Password