Yup. I’ll gladly accept that wording as identical to what I meant to say.
If Sampiro had said a handjob was sexual, but not sex,* he wouldn’t catch grief for it. But because Bricker said it’s sexual, but not sex, he must be wrong. Even though Bricker acknowledges the guy is a hypocrite and a sleazebag.
Diogenes, go fuck a splintery knothole.
- In fact, he did!
Well, one involves putting your penis in an orifice. The other doesn’t.
How many times will I have to say that in one day? (And even then the waiter still didn’t bring my pepper sauce.)
Definition of Sex in the Jones Case
From the Starr Report
He kissed her bare breasts. That fits definition #1, which is not crossed out. He touched her genitals directly. That fits definition #1, which is not crossed out.
Thank you.
I always hope this kind of thing is obvious to people reading it, but you have no idea how much it helps me to actually see someone confirm it.
What about the “harmonica method”?
Bricker, may I ask why you feel a handjob is not adulterous? Is a blowjob adulterous?
Doesn’t that mean it’s impossible for lesbians to have sex?
I argued with Sampiro just as much as Bricker. Why don’t you actually read the thread, dipshit.
:dubious:
Unless there’s mutual consent between the partners – open marriage; but that’s a whole 'nother can of uh…semen? – that’s exactly where I’m at.
Just don’t get all the semantic bullcrap being played here.
I’ll give them both grief for it. Its a very patriarchal definition of sex…again, lesbians don’t have sex? In fact, I’ll give Sampiro more grief for it - he should know better.
Just curious, what would she cal it and if “not adultery” why would your “marriage be over”?
In short, if you want to jerk-off to words, perhaps you should do it on your own time.
Six pages of definitions of “is.”
I don’t care if we define a Rusty Trombone as a pseudo-non-adulterous-sexual-like-relation-of-the-third-kind, it doesn’t take away from the fact that this Reker guy is a hypocritical bag of shit.
Clinton had not built his career on preaching sexual fidelity to the world. He had other work to do.
To be fair, though, Bricker has a substantial track record of misleading and distracting quibbling about distinctions of meaning in technical terms, and Sampiro doesn’t.
So people get their hackles up more readily when arguing with Bricker over such issues. He’s like the teacher who responds to the question “Can I go to the bathroom?” with “Yes, I suppose so”, and then looks surprised when the student gets up to leave, and asks them why they’re out of their seat.
“You said I could go to the bathroom!”
“Well, I assume you CAN, but I didn’t say you MAY go to the bathroom. Are you asking whether you MAY go to the bathroom?”
That sort of shit gets old fairly fast, and tends to make people irritable. It’s the manufactured “gotcha” aspect of it that’s particularly annoying: he appears to be going along with the evidently intended meaning of what the other person’s saying, and then suddenly contradicts something about it, and when the other person goes “WTF?” he triumphantly pulls out his alternative, not previously explained, interpretation. Yeah, ha ha ha :rolleyes:.
He paid how much? Then spent 10 days sharing a room . At what point can I decide Reker is lying? Oh wait, he is a religious man. He must be telling the truth. Wonder why he felt the need for a disguise?
He should have boldly announced to his flock ,that he is taking a gay escort on a 10 day vacation to an island ,to retrain him. I am sure they would have swallowed it.
The Catholic Church (which is not a gay-friendly organization, but has centuries of experience in legalistic definitions of such things) defines “sexual relations” as those which would normally include the possibility of pregnancy. Anything else would be “sexual activity” (and usually sinful).