The EU could be planning to ban porn in the name of 'Gender Equality'

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Does this mean no more 50 shades of grey?

News in 20 years:

World Perversion Levels at all time Low

New Report from the Institute for Studies shows that fully consensual, missionary-style, safe, painless love-sex is dominant preference; urges couples to "spice things up" with avocados and belts to "keep human experience interesting enough to warrant procreation".

A new report published by the institute for studies shows that sex has become intolerably dull.

According to the study, over 98% of requests to "Go on, just squeeze them a little" are rejected because she "has a headache."

Professor Liam Cruz of the Institute for Studies had this to say: "Sex just isn't interesting enough any more."

"When I was a younger man in more interesting times, I would regularly engage in salacious kink-fests."

"This one time I ate a whole buffet off my girlfriend's creamy inner thighs, it was proper good."

Henry Brubaker of the Liberty Organisation said, " I don't see why I shouldn't be able to strangle my wife in bed."

"What's the point of living a fulfilling life, revelling in the human experience, if you can't eat little rasperries and squirty cream off your wife's back while calling her a dirty slut?"

"Phwoar," he added.

thaluikhain:

frobalt:
Why do people think the way to combat sexism is with more sexism?

I get that specifically excluding women from something when there's no reason to is sexist, but surely forcing a company or whatever to hire a woman over a more qualified man is sexist against the man. After all, in this case he'd be being excluded because he had a penis. I don't get why that is seen as the way to counter sexism. It's completely counter-intuitive.

I'm not naive enough to think that sexism doesn't exist; I'm sure there are places that won't hire a woman just because she's a woman, but it doesn't mean every company is like that.

Basically, I just hate to see that sexism against women is dealt with by being sexist against men.

That's an over-simplification. It fails to take the numbers into account. If, say, the quota was 30% women, that's still leaving the industry massively dominated by men. For a woman to be promoted over a more qualified man, that would require 70% + 1 men to be more qualified than the best women.

Secondly sexism against men isn't necessarily as bad as sexism against women. If official discrimination means one man can't get a job, it is better than unofficial discrimination than prevents two women getting a job.

Positive discrimination may or may not be appropriate under the circumstances, but that's not to say that it's never a solution.

I'm afraid I disagree there. Sexism against men might not be currently seen to be as bad as against women, but it totally is. How can we get equality by discriminating against 'the other side'? We can't. It makes no sense.

Also, why does it matter if x% of the industry is 1 gender? If that gender just happens to have more people qualified for the job than the other, then surely it makes sense that it is dominated by said gender. Notice how I didn't say man or woman there? It's 'cause there will be industries that are dominated by women. Where are the equality laws that try to encourage more men into those professions?

IE: I reckon most hairdressers are probably going to be female. The midwife profession is probably also male dominated.

If a woman isn't hired for a job she is perfectly qualified for (in other words, if she were a man, she'd get it) then yes, we have a problem.

How can people think that hiring a woman who is less qualified for a job than a man, and therefore discriminating against the man the same way women have been, is the right thing to do?

Why does gender make up of a certain industry even matter? We're all human beings at the end of the day.

Edit: To make myself cleared, I'll do a bit of an example:

I'll use the games industry as an example here.

Let's say that the ratio of qualified men to qualified women is 3:1, why does the industry have to then be made up of 50% woman? In this case, it means that if you go into the games industry as a woman, you automatically stand a better chance to get a job than a male peer just because you have a vagina.

Basically, you can't fight discrimination against gender by focusing on gender. We need to realise that everyone is a human being, and it shouldn't matter what genitals they have.

frobalt:
I'm afraid I disagree there. Sexism against men might not be currently seen to be as bad as against women, but it totally is. How can we get equality by discriminating against 'the other side'? We can't. It makes no sense.

Again, official discrimination is better than unofficial discrimination that effects more people. It's not ideal, but that's very different from it being a bad idea.

frobalt:
How can people think that hiring a woman who is less qualified for a job than a man, and therefore discriminating against the man the same way women have been, is the right thing to do?

Strawman. Nobody is saying that.

frobalt:
Why does gender make up of a certain industry even matter?

Because it's because of discrimination. Which is wrong.

SonicWaffle:

Nickolai77:

SonicWaffle:

I don't follow. If the argument is that porn is exploitative and degrading to women by its very nature (which I've seen argued plenty of times), then how can they respect freedom of expression and combat the persistent gender stereotypes presented by porn at the same time?

The word "whilst" is used as a sort of disclaimer in the sentence. It's basically saying, in plain English, that we want to promote the positive and dignified representation of women in media, BUT we also respect freedom of expression and freedom of press, so we're not going to make certain depictions of women illegal.

Yeah, I got that part, it just seems oxymoronic that they want to "combat" (their word, not mine) these gender stereotypes, focusing on the spread of "degrading images", while at the same time respecting freedom of expression. Combat is an aggressive word suggesting direct action against something, so how do they intend to do so while still respecting the right to existence of the thing they are fighting against?

"We respect your right to exist, we just don't want you to exist, and so we're going to take steps to get rid of you. While totally respecting you, of course"

I perfectly agree here to be honest, from reading over the whole motion there seems to be a quite a few contradictions, which i why I don't think it will get through parliament without substantial changes, and even it passes its only a motion, not a law.

To elaborate slightly further, from reading the whole of clause 17 it refers to a previous resolution made back in '97 which aimed to curb female discrimination in advertising. Taken into this context, i'm reasonable sure it means they want to ban female pornography in adverts, not media in general.

The whole motion is very...anti-porn shall we say (note it doesn't call for an outright ban) one of the clauses actually calls for research to be carried out between the links of child porn and adult porn!

Danny Ocean:
News in 20 years:
[b]

World Perversion Levels at all time Low

Bravo. That felt like reading something from Charlie Brooker :-P

frobalt:
Also, why does it matter if x% of the industry is 1 gender? If that gender just happens to have more people qualified for the job than the other, then surely it makes sense that it is dominated by said gender. Notice how I didn't say man or woman there? It's 'cause there will be industries that are dominated by women. Where are the equality laws that try to encourage more men into those professions?

IE: I reckon most hairdressers are probably going to be female. The midwife profession is probably also male dominated.

The question that needs to be asked is why these professions are so heavily biased in favour of one gender. For instance teaching (particularly of younger children) or nursing are usually female-dominated. Given that from a young age girls are fed the idea that the female role is to be "nurturing" and "motherly" (as opposed to males who are expected to be more aggressive and forceful, as well as less open emotionally) via the media they consume, toys they play with, and general societal reinforcement of more traditional gender roles, it isn't a surprise that professions which emphasize these traits tend to be dominated by females.

Is this a good thing? After all, we don't know whether these women might have made great CEOs or pilots or any of the other traditionally male-dominated positions, presumably because many of them never tried. They went directly to the roles they had been socially conditioned to believe they were best suited for. Many females who have tried breaking out of these traditional roles have reported hositility from other people, because they were going against the grain of what those others expected and causing a reactionary backlash against change.

frobalt:
How can people think that hiring a woman who is less qualified for a job than a man, and therefore discriminating against the man the same way women have been, is the right thing to do?

The only people who actually suggest that are Men's Rights Activists and other misogynists, who erect it as a strawman argument so that they can knock it down. What's actually being suggested is that women who are more qualified than a man should no longer be passed over just because they are a woman.

frobalt:
Why does gender make up of a certain industry even matter? We're all human beings at the end of the day.

It matters because some human beings are not being treated the same as other human beings. It's all very well to announce that such things are unimportant because we're all equal, but until there is no longer any actual discrimination, then such noble pronouncements are only so much hot air.

Nickolai77:
The whole motion is very...anti-porn shall we say (note it doesn't call for an outright ban) one of the clauses actually calls for research to be carried out between the links of child porn and adult porn!

That's actually a hot-topic in the British media right now, as well as the supposed links between pornography and the frequency of sex attacks by minors on others minors.

Supposedly it's the proliferation of pornography and the increased accessibility coupled with cultural acceptance of the material that's turning children into rape-monsters. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue personally, it seems to be inferring a great deal of "monkey see monkey do" that we haven't ever confirmed in such media as violent movies/video games, so why should porn be any different?

frobalt:

Why does gender make up of a certain industry even matter? We're all human beings at the end of the day.

Because in many cases different perspectives (not restricted to those of gender) are frequently beneficial to the operation of institutions, organisations, etc. that must deal with multiple groups.

Entirely homogenous institutions may function internally in way hostile to outside groups (and vice versa): they may be less inclined to hire outsiders, treat outsiders less well, operate in a way more difficult for outsiders to work with, trust and be trusted less by outsiders, and so on.

It is probably a sad reality that on average, people tend to prefer to mix with people like them; by race, gender, age, social class, sexuality, etc. Using this (very plausible and scientifically defensible) theory, prejudice and thus disadvantage - overwhelmingly to minorities - is innate to society. For a government to counteract this may potentially involve policies that are, at face value, unfair. People may vary on whether they consider government-imposed "unfairness" beyond the pale, or simply a price to pay for counteracting an equal or worse unfairness.

SonicWaffle:

Nickolai77:
The whole motion is very...anti-porn shall we say (note it doesn't call for an outright ban) one of the clauses actually calls for research to be carried out between the links of child porn and adult porn!

That's actually a hot-topic in the British media right now, as well as the supposed links between pornography and the frequency of sex attacks by minors on others minors.

I know- If that part of the motion passes i'd love to see how the Daily Mail handles the news of the EU doing something they would actually approve of.

Supposedly it's the proliferation of pornography and the increased accessibility coupled with cultural acceptance of the material that's turning children into rape-monsters. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue personally, it seems to be inferring a great deal of "monkey see monkey do" that we haven't ever confirmed in such media as violent movies/video games, so why should porn be any different?

I certainly think there needs to be academic and unbiased studies carried out to assess the extent to which the sexual behaviour of adolescents has been changed as a result of easier access to pornography, what i don't want conservative think-tanks churning out biased research that ends up on Daily Mail headlines. But still, in the past, a teenage boy would usually find dad's secret porn stash and that would be their only exposure to porn, now they have the whole internet to browse- I think that's significant. But the key questions that needs to be ask is can we relate trends in teenage sexual behaviour to internet porn, and is this harmful?

And you need to be critical to deduce wherever such trends are because of the internet- or just the way teenagers and adults normally behave. For instance I recently found out that my great-great grandfarther when he was about my age (early 20's) knocked up and married at 15 year old. He certainly wasn't the first man in history to do that and nor will he be the last, but if that happened today it would still trigger a rant by some Daily Mail columnist about how the internet is sexualising children.

thaluikhain:
Secondly sexism against men isn't necessarily as bad as sexism against women. If official discrimination means one man can't get a job, it is better than unofficial discrimination than prevents two women getting a job.

Positive discrimination may or may not be appropriate under the circumstances, but that's not to say that it's never a solution.

There are the same amount of jobs to go around either way. If an employer is misogynistic, he'll hire the most qualified man when his gender ratio is within tolerance, and the most qualified woman when he has to hire a women. From a prospective employees perspective, a coin is flipped and the best person of the chosen gender is selected, which means that 50% of the time the best person will be the wrong gender, Which is no better then being sexist, because 50% of the time the woman is most qualified but would still not be hired, it's just that in that case the dice was flipped at birth.

Imho, there is no such thing as positive discrimination, everything should be irrelevant but ability. Society cannot tell people that they should treat gender as though it does not matter if they are doing it themselves, and all such laws do is make the gender of the employee something people have to pay attention to when hiring.

Nickolai77:

SonicWaffle:

Nickolai77:
The whole motion is very...anti-porn shall we say (note it doesn't call for an outright ban) one of the clauses actually calls for research to be carried out between the links of child porn and adult porn!

That's actually a hot-topic in the British media right now, as well as the supposed links between pornography and the frequency of sex attacks by minors on others minors.

I know- If that part of the motion passes i'd love to see how the Daily Mail handles the news of the EU doing something they would actually approve of.

Ha, that would be amazing!

"Barmy Brussels beurocrats have today voted for crazy new legislation that takes away your rights and...uh...oh, hang on. They want less pronography and...um...fuck. What do we say? What do we say, Gary, what the fuck do I write?! I don't know whether I'm trying to make the readers angry or pleased, and I think my brain is coming out of my ears!"

Nickolai77:

Supposedly it's the proliferation of pornography and the increased accessibility coupled with cultural acceptance of the material that's turning children into rape-monsters. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue personally, it seems to be inferring a great deal of "monkey see monkey do" that we haven't ever confirmed in such media as violent movies/video games, so why should porn be any different?

I certainly think there needs to be academic and unbiased studies carried out to assess the extent to which the sexual behaviour of adolescents has been changed as a result of easier access to pornography, what i don't want conservative think-tanks churning out biased research that ends up on Daily Mail headlines. But still, in the past, a teenage boy would usually find dad's secret porn stash and that would be their only exposure to porn, now they have the whole internet to browse- I think that's significant. But the key questions that needs to be ask is can we relate trends in teenage sexual behaviour to internet porn, and is this harmful?

And you need to be critical to deduce wherever such trends are because of the internet- or just the way teenagers and adults normally behave. For instance I recently found out that my great-great grandfarther when he was about my age (early 20's) knocked up and married at 15 year old. He certainly wasn't the first man in history to do that and nor will he be the last, but if that happened today it would still trigger a rant by some Daily Mail columnist about how the internet is sexualising children.

It's also worth bearing in mind that historically, by the time they were teenagers we considered people full adults and expected them to be married and popping out babies. The issue is not so much that they are exposed to the reality of sex, because that actually happens less in the modern era, it's that the sex they are being exposed to is often extreme. Being a member of the first generation whose teen years were marked with widespread internet access (I'm 26) I was surprised when one newspaper quoted a woman at a meeting regarding the topic as being shocked that "many teenagers today think anal sex is normal!". My response was "...well, isn't it?". It's certainly not a taboo, and has occured in every sexual relationship I've had with a minimum of fuss. The internet allows for all kinds of kinks and variety in sex which gives people learning about sex a greater range of inspiration for sexual experimentation until they find what they like.

Is it that sexual standards are changing as a result of porn, or as a result of a more sexually open and experimentative society? Is it some measure of both? I certainly don't think it's as simple as "kids see porn, kids rape people".

SonicWaffle:

Nickolai77:
The whole motion is very...anti-porn shall we say (note it doesn't call for an outright ban) one of the clauses actually calls for research to be carried out between the links of child porn and adult porn!

That's actually a hot-topic in the British media right now, as well as the supposed links between pornography and the frequency of sex attacks by minors on others minors.

Supposedly it's the proliferation of pornography and the increased accessibility coupled with cultural acceptance of the material that's turning children into rape-monsters. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue personally, it seems to be inferring a great deal of "monkey see monkey do" that we haven't ever confirmed in such media as violent movies/video games, so why should porn be any different?

I actually have a tendency to think the opposite may be true. I have actually noticed (this is totally anecdotal) that people from conservative (sexually speaking) environments tend to be much more sexually driven. Probably because all that has been suppressed suddenly comes out in force. On that aspect i think porn may work as a great "tension relief". But than again, i have never conducted any studies on this.

SonicWaffle:

frobalt:
How can people think that hiring a woman who is less qualified for a job than a man, and therefore discriminating against the man the same way women have been, is the right thing to do?

The only people who actually suggest that are Men's Rights Activists and other misogynists, who erect it as a strawman argument so that they can knock it down. What's actually being suggested is that women who are more qualified than a man should no longer be passed over just because they are a woman.

frobalt:
Why does gender make up of a certain industry even matter? We're all human beings at the end of the day.

It matters because some human beings are not being treated the same as other human beings. It's all very well to announce that such things are unimportant because we're all equal, but until there is no longer any actual discrimination, then such noble pronouncements are only so much hot air.

What makes men's right's activists misogynists? Have you seen women's right's activists these days? If you wanted legislation to prevent people from being passed over for someone less qualified because of their gender then laws about the ratio of men to women in the workplace are probably the worst way to do this.
If you proposed a system wherein people could complain to a government institution which could then investigate and find if they were in fact better qualified, I would have agreed with you, but even if the ends justify the means, it means nothing if the same end could have been reached without the losses.

SonicWaffle:

It's also worth bearing in mind that historically, by the time they were teenagers we considered people full adults and expected them to be married and popping out babies. The issue is not so much that they are exposed to the reality of sex, because that actually happens less in the modern era, it's that the sex they are being exposed to is often extreme.
Being a member of the first generation whose teen years were marked with widespread internet access (I'm 26) I was surprised when one newspaper quoted a woman at a meeting regarding the topic as being shocked that "many teenagers today think anal sex is normal!". My response was "...well, isn't it?". It's certainly not a taboo, and has occured in every sexual relationship I've had with a minimum of fuss. The internet allows for all kinds of kinks and variety in sex which gives people learning about sex a greater range of inspiration for sexual experimentation until they find what they like.

I agree that the key issue behind increased availability of internet porn is the increased exposure to extreme sex. The trouble is, as your example shows, how do we define what is extreme- and therefore "inappropriate" for adolescents? Especially because the internet is likely a major factor in creating a more sexually permissive society, our definition of what is extreme is changing.

mathsisfun:
What makes men's right's activists misogynists? Have you seen women's right's activists these days?

Well, yes. That's why I tend to consider them misogynistic. Even a reasonable article that strives to make good, balanced points is going to be followed by a horde of commenters screaming words like "feminazis" and claiming that there is some grand conspiracy by evil women to keep males under the thumb.

generals3:

SonicWaffle:

Nickolai77:
The whole motion is very...anti-porn shall we say (note it doesn't call for an outright ban) one of the clauses actually calls for research to be carried out between the links of child porn and adult porn!

That's actually a hot-topic in the British media right now, as well as the supposed links between pornography and the frequency of sex attacks by minors on others minors.

Supposedly it's the proliferation of pornography and the increased accessibility coupled with cultural acceptance of the material that's turning children into rape-monsters. I'm not sure where I stand on the issue personally, it seems to be inferring a great deal of "monkey see monkey do" that we haven't ever confirmed in such media as violent movies/video games, so why should porn be any different?

I actually have a tendency to think the opposite may be true. I have actually noticed (this is totally anecdotal) that people from conservative (sexually speaking) environments tend to be much more sexually driven. Probably because all that has been suppressed suddenly comes out in force. On that aspect i think porn may work as a great "tension relief". But than again, i have never conducted any studies on this.

I wonder how exactly one would conduct a study on the subject? Asking people about the political/religious background to their upbringing and then asking just how dirty they like to get in bed?

As to the suppression-of-sexuality argument, I'm sure you have a point, but what then is the explanation for the supposed increase in sexual behaviour by ordinary, non-repressed children?

Nickolai77:

SonicWaffle:

It's also worth bearing in mind that historically, by the time they were teenagers we considered people full adults and expected them to be married and popping out babies. The issue is not so much that they are exposed to the reality of sex, because that actually happens less in the modern era, it's that the sex they are being exposed to is often extreme.
Being a member of the first generation whose teen years were marked with widespread internet access (I'm 26) I was surprised when one newspaper quoted a woman at a meeting regarding the topic as being shocked that "many teenagers today think anal sex is normal!". My response was "...well, isn't it?". It's certainly not a taboo, and has occured in every sexual relationship I've had with a minimum of fuss. The internet allows for all kinds of kinks and variety in sex which gives people learning about sex a greater range of inspiration for sexual experimentation until they find what they like.

I agree that the key issue behind increased availability of internet porn is the increased exposure to extreme sex. The trouble is, as your example shows, how do we define what is extreme- and therefore "inappropriate" for adolescents? Especially because the internet is likely a major factor in creating a more sexually permissive society, our definition of what is extreme is changing.

I'm not sure there really is an answer to how we stratify sex acts into appropriate age brackets, or even why we'd do so. Ostensibly anyone viewing the images should be over 18, even if we all know that many people aren't, so a blanket ban in theory only punishes those legal adults who choose to watch it.

I think the problem with adapting such laws is that the extreme right and left wings (the religious conservatives and the overly restritive nanny-state liberals) would be in favour of ever more restriction. While society itself begins to accept sex acts we currently view as fringe into the mainstream, these groups would be constantly pushing ever harder for such things to be vilified.

mathsisfun:
There are the same amount of jobs to go around either way. If an employer is misogynistic, he'll hire the most qualified man when his gender ratio is within tolerance, and the most qualified woman when he has to hire a women. From a prospective employees perspective, a coin is flipped and the best person of the chosen gender is selected, which means that 50% of the time the best person will be the wrong gender, Which is no better then being sexist, because 50% of the time the woman is most qualified but would still not be hired, it's just that in that case the dice was flipped at birth.

Hey? Are you saying that once quotas are reached, then the employer can be sexist again? Well, yes, it doesn't totally fix the problem, but something only merely improving the situation doesn't make it bad.

mathsisfun:
Imho, there is no such thing as positive discrimination, everything should be irrelevant but ability.

Certainly it should, but that's not what is happening. In a perfect world, positive discrimination would not exist, but we don't live in one.

mathsisfun:
What makes men's right's activists misogynists?

Men's Rights Activists, mind, not men's rights activists (usually it's advocates, not "activists", though)

SonicWaffle:

Well, yes. That's why I tend to consider them misogynistic. Even a reasonable article that strives to make good, balanced points is going to be followed by a horde of commenters screaming words like "feminazis" and claiming that there is some grand conspiracy by evil women to keep males under the thumb.

I don't think men are being oppressed, I just think the women who think that women are being oppressed nowadays tend to be crazy to the point where "feminazi" is a quite reasonable descriptive word. Also, it's a damn good pun.

mathsisfun:
There are the same amount of jobs to go around either way. If an employer is misogynistic, he'll hire the most qualified man when his gender ratio is within tolerance, and the most qualified woman when he has to hire a women. From a prospective employees perspective, a coin is flipped and the best person of the chosen gender is selected, which means that 50% of the time the best person will be the wrong gender, Which is no better then being sexist, because 50% of the time the woman is most qualified but would still not be hired, it's just that in that case the dice was flipped at birth.

Okay, that makes very little sense, so let's illustrate why by applying it to a hypothetical hiring situation.

I have a growing business, and I'm going to hire 10 new managers this year. I get 100 applicants, of whom 40 are women and 60 are men (I'm making the distribution uneven to illustrate the point that it really doesn't have to be even). In each group, there is a range of qualification ranging from highly qualified to unqualified. For simplicity in this case, we'll assume an approximately even distribution of qualified and non-qualified candidates. We'll deal with the alternative possibility later.

If I am simply left to my own devices and I simply hire the top 10 male candidates because I unconsciously take males more seriously and don't really pay any attention to the female candidates, then I have almost certainly passed over 4 highly qualified female candidates in favor of less qualified male candidates.

If, however, I am working to a quota which requires 40% of my new staff to be female, then I must individually assess each candidate and thus I am going to end up with the 10 most highly qualified candidates overall. The overall level of qualification among my new employees has actually increased.

Okay, this is an ideal example. In reality, the quota is unlikely to perfectly reflect the distribution of candidates and their levels of qualification in this way. which raises the need for any such policy to be well supported with accurate data and continuously monitored to remain adaptable. But the fact remains that having the policy can very easily improve not just the prospects of the individual women who are now less likely to be passed over for jobs they are qualified for, but also my business as a whole, because I also have a higher quality pool of managers at the end of the day.

I'm tired and I don't really have the energy to delve into the theoretical side right now, but in practice this isn't even a case of necessary evil. Provided its well managed, it's perfectly possible for the effects to be entirely positive.

Still, it bothers me a little that everyone obsesses over these largely pointless debates over hiring practices when hiring practices themselves are actually a pretty insignificant part of the real problems behind workplace inequality. but I'm pretty used to this argument by now, so I'm happy to have it.

mathsisfun:
Also, it's a damn good pun.

Finding a word which shares a single letter with an insult and combining them is not really a "pun" at all, let alone a good one.

If I started calling men's rights advocates "MRArseholes" would you find that equally clever? Seriously, try this yourself, you'll find it's quite easy to do and doesn't require a great deal of wit.

Gorfias:

Seanchaidh:

What evidence do you have that the 'original intent' of the First Amendment was to protect only 'political' speech?

I read it from something Robert Bork said. Given that historically, "obscenity" law existed, seems likely. Not that I like them.

In any case, what a pole dancer is saying is "Have a look at these! Like what you see?"

I'm never asking you what the sound of one hand clapping is!

I wrote a limerick a while back about this, and now seems like the only time I'll ever get to share it with ya'll without getting mod wrath. Ahem...

What is the sound of one hand clapping?
I'll give you a hint, some call it fapping.
You may think me crude,
but there is nothing too lewd
about love of one self pre-napping.

/bows

OT: I don't see this passing. Just make more porn not aimed at hetero guys, problem solved.

I think that this image sum it all up:
image
MTV here is EU of course. This ain't fucking Saudi Arabia. Are they out of their fucking mind!?

This won't pass.

But it's funny nonetheless. Here was me thinking it was only the Republicans obsessed with what goes on in a person's bedroom.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked