“Obviously this Woman Reporter is a Homosexual”

Poor Ron over in the comments at Pith seems to think I have a much more exciting sex life than I do. But the part that gets me is this:

In case someone didnt educate you, the tongue is for taste and talking. The human rear is for body waste to be removed. The penis naturally fits in one place. Can you figure out where?

I’ve known a lot of dudes. Never have I met one who would publicly admit to being opposed to blowjobs and French kissing.

Until Ron.

19 thoughts on ““Obviously this Woman Reporter is a Homosexual”

  1. I’m left wondering how he knows what fits where, naturally. Just seems like a tacit admission of something he didn’t mean to reveal.

  2. Please tell me that you aren’t reading Pith comments without antidepressants. Or strong liquor. Or both.

    Although this? Was an utter riot.

    I’m betting this fellow has never in his life heard of felching.

    And a “like” to bridgett’s comment.

  3. The only time this guy comments seems to be when homosexuality is somehow related to the topic at hand. (Yes, I clicked on his profile.) At those times he goes on and on and on. I think he’s got an obsession. So, yeah to what Bridgett says.

  4. As I recall, many of the anti-sodomy statutes that used to be on the books outlawed blowjobs. So the Tea Party might be anti-anything-but-the-missionary-position, too.

  5. That’s the weird thing–a penis naturally fits a lot of places, maybe not all comfortably or in a sexy manner, but I feel like using Ron’s standard of where a penis fits means basically you can’t stick your penis in anyone’s nose, ear, or eye. And that’s probably good advice anyway. A “natural fit” leaves a lot open, if one has even the tiniest bit of imagination. That’s why, for instance, I always carry one around in my armpit.

  6. No, no. For those moments when you realize that you’re not having a conversation but a metaphorical dick-waving. That’s when I de-pit my penis and put it on the table.

  7. The penis naturally fits in one place.

    In Ron’s case that would be the hand.

    Seriously, the idea that the penis only fits in one place is hilarious. Always reading stories about guys getting their dicks stuck in weird places like vacuum cleaners (and yes, DO Google “penis stuck in vacuum cleaner” for a laugh …). Ron needs to get out more.

  8. Pingback: SayUncle » Gay cooties

  9. I may have to mark some posts and comment threads here at Tiny Cat Pants PG-60, so that everyone under that age knows to check with their parents or someone’s parents anyway about whether it’s safe for them to read.

  10. AuntB: This is a friend of a friend story, but there is apparently an attorney who did that with a large *ahem* prosthetic device she brought from her nightstand. She declared that hers was larger, so could they all please get along with the actual business of the meeting.

  11. You mention the one, but not the other. I like the following:

    “As a Tea Party member, I disapprove of the language and tone of the tweet above. However, I do sympathize with the feeling of relief at Frank’s imminent departure.

    I find it odd that the tweet, which is the work of only one person, regardless of what the name on the account is, is being attributed to the ENTIRE TN Tea Party, which includes Democrats and Republicans alike. When several OWS supporters were heard shouting anti-semetic statements, it was quickly pointed out that these individuals do not represent the beliefs of the movement/group as a whole. Why is this same benefit not being extended to the Tea Party?

    The four commenters previous to me seem to feel that the appropriate reaction to being outraged at calling Frank such horrid names is to call the “namer” the same names. So is the outrage over the comment, or the target?

    If this tweet is evidence that homozexuals need special protection under the law, then, by the same principle, Jews need special protection from OWS. However, what special protection does this tweet necessitate? No violence is threatened, promised, or even mentioned, unlike the protest signs calling for the hanging of George W. Bush, or pictures of other GOV officials on BOTH sides in crosshairs.

    The “outrage” over incidents like this seems very strangely timed and intensely focussed on defending liberal targets. Perhaps the outrage is symbolic more of bias than actual principle. I imagine any outrage over the tweets calling Palin and Bachmann “bit*hes”, “wh*res”, “c*nts”, and the like would be swiftly cut down by echoing cries of “they have the right to free speech”.

    Bottom line, if the comment offends you, then the target should be irrelevant and you should not respond with the same words; if the words of one are enough to condemn the whole group, then OWS should be equally condemned. However, if it’s the TARGET that bothers you more, then please do not pretend this is an issue of principle instead of your own personal bias. A principle must be concrete and universal, else it is not a principle. I am dubious that the same consideration would be shown to conservative public figures, so it could not be universal.

    I hope I am wrong about this last presumption; Nashville, the Scene, readers, please prove me as such.”

  12. Oh, please, anonymous. If you can see the difference between a tweet from an official Tea Party account and some rumors of something someone said maybe someplace, I honestly can’t help you. It’s a false equivalency.

Comments are closed.