• PenisWenisGenius@lemmynsfw.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    edit-2
    5 months ago

    “Investigators found numerous videos of the Republican couple having sex with other women”.

    I think the real news here is a republican was caught doing something besides full on gay sex for once.

      • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        I mean, it all came to light because of a rape allegation. The investigation was what uncovered the entire thing, where they found tens of thousands of (potentially non-consensual) videos of their threesomes. And no, that number isn’t an exaggeration; Investigators found nearly 30k videos. So even the “consensual” part is dubious at best.

        The lady who accused him of rape only consented because she thought it was going to be a threesome. Then Bridget backed out, so the lady said she wasn’t interested anymore. But Christian still showed up and had sex with her while she was drunk.

  • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I don’t give a shit that she’s having threesomes. I’ve had two FFM and one FMF threesomes and have an MFM one planned for the near future. I hate her because she’s a sanctimonious power hungry hippocrite.

      • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        edit-2
        5 months ago

        FFM is two women who are into each other and a man. In the first case it was my girlfriend, Heather, and another girl named Helen when we were 16. The girls were really into each other and I was there playing along. Much later, like 30 years later an old (20 years before) fuck friend named Terry reached out and asked if she could have a threesomes with my wife and I. We had offered in the past but she declined. In that case Terry was there for my wife and I just grabbed whatever hole was exposed at the outside of the pile. After a few visits she said that she would like to continue just with my wife. I said that that was ok but my wife declined.

        FMF is two women who aren’t into each other but are there for the man. I had a longtime girlfriend that my wife knew about named Heather, a different Heather. We were coworkers. When I left that job we were in a state of turmoil, I had been diagnosed as having Asperger’s and being a sex addict. My wife suggested that I invite Heather over for a threesome. She came but she wasn’t into my wife so we did things FMF (Heather on my face and my wife riding me sort if thing.) My wife put a lot of effort into breaking down barriers and made a lot of progress and everyone had a lot of fun. Heather lost her father and stopped coming to visit.

        The MFM thing is a married woman that I’ve had a crush on for about 15 years who has also crushed on me. We’ve talked a lot but she wasn’t willing to risk her marriage despite the fact that it was very stale. She sent me a note a about a month ago asking if she could ask me a question. The question was had I ever had a threesomes? Two women and a man or two men and a woman? I told her what I wrote above. She said that she had talked to her husband and that he wanted to watch another man have sex with his wife. Would I consider being that man? We talked and I said that I was interested. We met (at Starbucks) and talked as a group about rules and agreed to go forward. He’s not interested in having sex with me and I’m not interested in having sex with him. Is just two guys with his wife. They are about to move into a home that they have built and once they are in they will invite me over. After talking with them I got the impression that it wasn’t his idea and that she pushed for it because she wanted to have me and this was a way to do it that she was comfortable with. Either way she’s tall and pretty and I’m looking forward to a playdate. I told them a lot about my relationship with my wife that she could use as ammunition to argue that she should be able to have me on the side between threeway playdates.

        • Lost_My_Mind@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          He’s not interested in having sex with me and I’m not interested in having sex with him. Is just two guys with his wife.

          Back in 2000 when I was 16, I had a video camera, and made the equivilant of youtube videos, on vhs tape years before youtube existed. That quote of yours reminds me of a scene I shot in a hotel. We rented a porn juat so we could have this distracting thing in the background.

          The line I remember most is “We want to SCREW the wife. And we want YOU to do it.”

          I thought our acting, and premise of this scene was shotty at best, but it always makes me laugh because of that one line I could recording our scene.

          • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            edit-2
            5 months ago

            Nice.

            The first porn movie I ever watched was Debbie Does Dallas. The one I telemedicine most was a parody called Debbie Does Dishes. I think Nina Hartley was in that one. It was stupid.

        • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          Bragging involves embellishment. I just stated facts that were relevant to my point. Your envy does not make my simple statement of the facts bragging.

            • Maple Engineer@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              I was not excessively proud of boastful. I simply stated facts.

              As I said, the readers jealousy of my lived experience does not make what I said bragging. That’s a you problem, not a me problem.

  • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    A small part of me feels bad for Christian Ziegler. Guy is 41 years old with no career whatsoever outside of politics and now he can’t do that. Most politicians have law degrees but he doesn’t.

    It’s a small part. He is at best a sex pest and piece of crap homophobic self serving shitstain. At worst he is all that and a rapist.

    Maybe a much better person than I am can start some sorta program to help people who ruined their life with the alt-right rejoin society.

    • PM_Your_Nudes_Please@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      Don’t feel too bad; He’ll inevitably get a cushy job as a lobbyist, where he can leverage his existing connections to further influence politics while staying out of the spotlight. The politician>lobbyist pipeline is extremely apparent, and it’s basically a revolving door where politicians exit, throw on a “lobbyist” hat, and walk right back inside.

    • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Maybe, but pointing out that it isn’t heterosexual makes it look worse for those hypocritical puritanical fucks, so I’m fine with it.

    • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      No, not inherently. If the two same sex people dont engage in any sexual contact directly, its just a heteosexual threesome.

      Bisexual threesome is when everyone is having sex with everyone else.

      • Empricorn@feddit.nl
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        No offense to anyone’s preference, assignment, or kinks… but yes. You have to at least be a little bit gay to bang someone with another of your same gender.

      • credo@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        But I mean, for one person it’s not bisexual. Isn’t that just bisexual sex with a plus one?

        • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          edit-2
          5 months ago

          Isn’t that just bisexual sex with a plus one?

          Only if the bisexuals same sex partner is the their primary partner, and not the plus one.

          If not, I would call it a threesome, or to be more specific, a bisexual threesome.

          • Zron@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Are you going by “it’s not gay if it’s a three way” rules?

            Either all people are of one gender, in which case it’s homosexual. Or there’s some combination of genders. So for someone in a MFF or FFM threesome, there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.

            • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Im just getting specific in a reply to the commentor above.

              A bisexual + “plus one” implies that the plus one is not the regular partner, and that if the “plus one” is not bisexual, i.e in this context engaging in sex with the same gender, then that implies the original couple is instead.

              So a threesomes is not a “bisexual, plus one” unless the couple is in a same sex relationship, i.e 2 men or 2 women who invite a 3rd of the opposite sex to bed.

              A threesome with an otherwise hetro couple who invites a 3rd of either gender to all have sex with is a bisexual threesome, but not a “bisexual, plus 1” situation. The same threesome where everyone engaged in only hetrosexual contact would just be a hetrosexual threesome.

              • inb4_FoundTheVegan@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                edit-2
                5 months ago

                😂 😂 😂

                The convoluted techincal logicistics of why it’s not gay and precisely when it does become so is silly. The answer is that yes, doing sexual acts with someone of the same sex/gender meets the common definition of being gay. But gay and straight are just words used to self identify. Humans are way dynamic than trying to cling to these arbitrary labels. Having a threesome has zero impact on you telling a potential partner that you are gay/straight because you’re interested in them.

                Labels are important and helpful, but we gotta remember they are just words that can’t define the sum of a human not accurately catch the essential essence of any single person. So it’s healthy to recognize their limitations, trying to precisely define what is and isn’t gay just feels like cope so you can keep calling yourself straight. Just do it, this doesn’t matter.

                • mosiacmango@lemm.ee
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  5 months ago

                  Im not concerned about “gay or not.” I personally think you have to physically interact with someone to have sex with them, but honestly dont care if someone considers all threesomes gay. “Be gay, do threesomes” would be a fine credo for the world.

                  Im just making a pedantic comment in reply to a pedantic comment.

                • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  The real point here the people discussing this seem to be missing is that it doesn’t matter what any of us consider to be gay. The members of Moms for Liberty would definitely not call this “normal” in terms of sexuality and would be against it if it were any other three people.

            • CoggyMcFee@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              So for someone in a MFF or FFM threesome, there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.

              What if you keep your eyes closed the whole time though?

            • throbbing_banjo@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              edit-2
              5 months ago

              Straight guy in an open marriage here. Have never engaged in sex with another man, have had plenty of mfm threesomes. Two men fucking the same woman at the same time are not fucking each other.

              The transitive property does not apply to intercourse.

            • brbposting@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              5 months ago

              there is an element of bisexuality no matter what way you look at it.

              Element of multi-gender participation, but if say two guys are both wishing the other guy wasn’t there, they never look at each other or come into contact… it’s not very bisexual, no?

              Wonder how much has been written about this…

              • Zron@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                5 months ago

                I’m not going to assume your experiences, but I’m a mostly straight guy who’s had both FFM and MMF threesomes while I experimented with polyamory.

                I vastly preferred the FFM stuff, because boobies, but I did learn that I can find effeminate men attractive, if I couldn’t it would have never worked. If you’re really a person who can’t interact with someone of the same sex, then I really don’t think a threesome is viable.

                I’ve had threesomes end where the other dude just really wasn’t into it, and we all decided to call it off. If everyone isn’t having fun, then no one is.

    • profdc9@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Yeah the pigeonhole principle here would seem to dictate that, or some principle involving holes anyways.

  • sebinspace@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    Now Bridget, let’s be clear: you’re not being out for being bi. That would be hypocritical. You’re being called out for being a hypocritical cunt yourself.

    Now kindly fuck off :3

    • UnderpantsWeevil@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      I’m reminded of Congressman Henry Hyde wrapping up the day’s House hearing on Presidental Blowjobs a bit early so he could run across town a boink his mistress.

  • captainlezbian@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    0
    ·
    5 months ago

    I assume she flirted with a lady and then sprung her husband on her. That’s how most bisexual threesomes are arranged

    • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      Technically the meaning behind the word sodomy was never recorded consistently through the ages so you can basically say it’s whatever you want and therefor the bible is against it. For example, maybe Felatio is Sodomy. Maybe non-metaphorically eating corndogs is Sodomy. Or both or neither.

          • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            5 months ago

            Sure. The Bible was written in Greek and Hebrew with some loan words from Aramaic and like 9 words or so, not related to this, from Latin.

                • FiniteBanjo@lemmy.today
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  0
                  ·
                  5 months ago

                  Then by your argument, the bible contains no English words because it was written in hebrew and therefore any quotes from the bible not made directly in hebrew are false. Sodomy is directly the same in meaning as the Sin of Sodom as it has evolved from exactly that phrase and has kept it’s meaning consistently.

      • Cethin@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        The only thing we can say for sure is that daughters getting their father drunk and raping him to get pregnant probably didn’t happen in Sodom. It happened directly after by the only “good” people allowed to survive.

        • Liz@midwest.social
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          5 months ago

          That’s your reward for being good! You get to rape your dad and have his kid!

    • Son_of_dad@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      ·
      5 months ago

      The original translation of “men are prohibited to lay down with man” is more akin to “men are prohibited from laying down with boys”

      So the only real verse in the Bible that mentions homosexuality is actually telling people to not be pedos

      • PhilMcGraw@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        What is your source for this? Sounds like something my religious grandma drops to justify all of the bad in that book.

      • afraid_of_zombies@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        5 months ago

        No.

        First off there are two passages in the O.T. that directly prescribe the death penalty for male homosexuality, not one like you said.

        Second neither one of which contain the Hebrew word for “boy”. Both use the words to describe a man.

        Third even if they somehow meant to write boy but didn’t in context it would still work out to mean man.

        Fourth the rest of the bible is completely consistent on this which is almost shocking given that it is consistent on so little. From Leviticus all the way to Paul, we got about a thousand years of different writers all saying the same thing on this one issue.

        Fifth even texts that didn’t make it it in the Bible (at least directly) like Enoth still go after it.

        Sixth the oldest commentaries all agree what the rules were about this.

        The abhramic faiths are on the text level homophobic. No amount of apologetics, or crappy translations, or recontextual work will change what they contain. When people or religions tell you what they are about believe them. And stop following these shit tier religions.