AGiR, there are some women who like that sort of thing as well.

Human sexuality is terribly broad and varied in its expression. Narrowing the ways in which expression can legitimately occur is terribly discriminatory. If it is unreasonable to discriminate against transgenderism or homosexuality, then it is surely unreasonable to discriminate against other modes of sexual expression just because they make some other people uncomfortable.

The person you described was rude, in my view. I'll bet he got a lot more sex than you did, nonetheless.

Houellebecq, Jack Marx has a knack of getting to the nub of an issue. Impeccably qualitative at every step, mind you...

Ah CJ, aren't you just the Alf Stewart of OLO.
Posted by benk, Wednesday, 10 November 2010 1:44:06 PM

Benk. Thats why he's missed. Or lets all of Australia move to the right. Yes, I can see it now:)

BLUE

@Vanna

CJ was sin binned on the same day I was..for a month :) He was eligible to return when I did...but clearly did not.

But..(deep breath) CJ.. welcome back!

ANTI.. yep...I'm sure that bloke got a lot more sex than I did.
But I also bet his life was empty, bitter and lonely.
(lots of)"Sex" is not the answer to those things.

I shudder to think of such people just 'left' to their own devices... no Word of Salvation or Grace to them.. utterly lost... more so than the average Joe because they rely so much on their own smooth/suave selves for their sense of identity.

Pull the other leg Michael. Columinist Sam on all men are liars had an article on this,

It basically comes down to one woman's interpretation, if she finds the bloke attractive, it is a chat up, if she finds him unattractive he is a sleaze bag.

http://www.alternet.org/sex/148291/why_do_we_demonize_men_who_are_honest_about_their_sexual_needs/?page=3

You might all be interested in THIS case.. which has caused major controversy in the USA.

1/ Muslim man rapes wife.
2/ Activist progressive Judge says "It cannot be rape"

I thought 'no' means 'NO'.

"This court does not feel that, under the circumstances, that this defendant had a criminal desire to or intent to sexually assault or to sexually contact the plaintiff when he did. The court believes that he was operating under his belief that it is, as the husband, his desire to have sex when and whether he wanted to, was something that was consistent with his practices and it was something that was not prohibited."

This is where SHARIA law was taken into account by the Judge.

It's also WHY Oklahoma voted to NEVER have judicial decisions made with either International or Shariah law taken into consideration.

1/ Islamic Sharia Law to Be Banned in, Oklahoma

http://abcnews.go.com/US/Media/oklahoma-pass-laws-prohibiting-islamic-sharia-laws-apply/story?id=10908521

2/ Activist Progressive Judge grants restraining order against law.

http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/11/judge_issues_temporary_injunction_against_okla_sha.php

So....rape of a muslim woman by her husband is 'ok' to progressive judges ? ? ?

I think that Judge should be given the old 'heave ho' off the Bench for ever.

oh..OHHHHHH how I would crack up if some Christian used the same argument "Wives submit to your husbands" and seeeee.. just SEE if that same judge would come to the same decision!

Jack Marx is a real scream.

http://pandora.nla.gov.au/pan/38333/20051023-0000/www.kittennews.com/kn_mag/2004mag/02_feb04mag/jamesh_09.htm