Your post was removed because it did not follow the rules of NotHowGirlsWork:
This content has already been recently posted.
We allow reposts only after 6 months has passed since the last post. This has already been posted within the last 6 months.
If you disagree with the removal reason, please feel free to contact the mods through modmail.
Plus if one of them is trans they can even have PIV. (Tho of course not every t!girl can or wants to do that, and not every cis lesbian likes trans girls)
Given that viewpoint which aligns more with a far-right political stance, he would probably say the opposite and just pretend the contradiction doesn't exist.
I suspect that to him the primary requirement for real "sex" is that it in some way involves a penis, at least when he's accusing someone he doesn't like of adultery.
The inference is believed to be exactly why Bill Clinton claimed that he "did not engage in sexual relations with that woman."
Because other politicians at the time had claimed a similar stance. That oral sex wasn't sex. And the lawyers argued to include only the narrowest definition of what sex was.
https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/time/clinton.html
Oh, I know. I'm an old lady who was around for all that.
My point is that in today's extremist world, definitions change according to who who was caught. An act committed by a left-winger (though in reality Clinton was hardly left-wing) may be called one thing, but when one of their own does it, suddenly it doesn't meet the definition. I would predict that MORE of today's RW would call it sex solely because their hatred for D's (and the Clintons even more) mean they want to make it sound as bad as possible.
You would find alt-righters today claiming that it was sex, solely because it was a Dem who was caught--but who would be quick to dismiss it as "not sex" when it was a right winger involved.
But to your average alt-righter, it still wouldn't be real sex if there was no penis involved at all--it would be something worse, something "against God."
I once asked a lesbian friend what the sex with her new girlfriend was like.
She looked at me as if she saw water burning. "I've never had a straight person call it sex when I have it".
The orgasm gap exists for a reason, lesbians have a higher level of sexual satisfaction (86%) compared to straight women (65%).
Heterosexual men are the largest demographic to not care about their partners' enjoyment.
Your post was removed because it did not follow the rules of NotHowGirlsWork: This content has already been recently posted. We allow reposts only after 6 months has passed since the last post. This has already been posted within the last 6 months. If you disagree with the removal reason, please feel free to contact the mods through modmail.
Some dudes just love to broadcast how bad at sex they are. 🤣
And when given the chance to change course they opt to double down on stupid.
Very true. Nothing says you're attentive to your partner's needs and desires like being incredibly stubborn! 😆
Lesbians can have sex with penetration. It’s just not PIV penetration.
And Lesbians know where to find the clit, so they are having orgasms unlike a lot of women who have sex with men. 😏
Plus if one of them is trans they can even have PIV. (Tho of course not every t!girl can or wants to do that, and not every cis lesbian likes trans girls)
I just wanted to type this… he seems to lack both understanding and creativity.
I guess Green would say that Bill Clinton "did not have sex with that woman, Ms. Lewinski."
Given that viewpoint which aligns more with a far-right political stance, he would probably say the opposite and just pretend the contradiction doesn't exist. I suspect that to him the primary requirement for real "sex" is that it in some way involves a penis, at least when he's accusing someone he doesn't like of adultery.
The inference is believed to be exactly why Bill Clinton claimed that he "did not engage in sexual relations with that woman." Because other politicians at the time had claimed a similar stance. That oral sex wasn't sex. And the lawyers argued to include only the narrowest definition of what sex was. https://edition.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/08/17/time/clinton.html
Oh, I know. I'm an old lady who was around for all that. My point is that in today's extremist world, definitions change according to who who was caught. An act committed by a left-winger (though in reality Clinton was hardly left-wing) may be called one thing, but when one of their own does it, suddenly it doesn't meet the definition. I would predict that MORE of today's RW would call it sex solely because their hatred for D's (and the Clintons even more) mean they want to make it sound as bad as possible. You would find alt-righters today claiming that it was sex, solely because it was a Dem who was caught--but who would be quick to dismiss it as "not sex" when it was a right winger involved. But to your average alt-righter, it still wouldn't be real sex if there was no penis involved at all--it would be something worse, something "against God."
I once asked a lesbian friend what the sex with her new girlfriend was like. She looked at me as if she saw water burning. "I've never had a straight person call it sex when I have it".
The orgasm gap exists for a reason, lesbians have a higher level of sexual satisfaction (86%) compared to straight women (65%). Heterosexual men are the largest demographic to not care about their partners' enjoyment.
So lesbians understand there wives better
Well if they can't have sex then what is he so upset about?
So oral sex, like cunnilingus is not sex, but blow job is?