Gay Teachers

The Let's Japan eikaiwa forum. Use this forum to discuss eikaiwa and teaching-related issues.

Moderator: Shawn

Postby iwantmyrightsnow » Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:15 pm

Smurfette wrote:Sorry, one more that really isn't related but I had to share:

It is legal for a male to have sex with an animal as long as it does not exceed 40 lbs. (West Virginia)

It doesn't specify as to whether the animal must be female or not.

:rotfl:


It appears GayRamey may have found a place to relocate to once he gets flamed out of here.
iwantmyrightsnow
Enthusiastic Newbie
Enthusiastic Newbie
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Thu Dec 11, 2003 12:11 pm
Location: Osaka, Japan

Postby Ozintokyo » Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:17 pm

Smurfette, that's funny. You're first series, not the last one :roll: , makes you wonder what kind of people were allowed to pass laws and not only how fuckin prudish they were, but that they felt strongly enough about it to make it a law. :shock:

Reminds me of an "instruction manual" for the young bride, from 1894 - think I will put it up in the regular Japan Topics.
Sadness flies away on the wings of time.
-Jean de La Fontaine
User avatar
Ozintokyo
Intruder
Intruder
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:24 pm
Location: Loitering with intent

Postby valve-bouncer » Thu Jun 10, 2004 1:41 pm

Do ya reckon Jay is a "waaaaaaambulance" chaser....... :rotfl: :rotfl: hehehehehehe, fuck I'm funny :roll: ....anyway Jay I'm sure once you've gone the website will somehow struggle on without your monumental ego there to support it. :roll:
valve-bouncer
9 miles of bad road
9 miles of bad road
 
Posts: 1403
Joined: Fri Aug 08, 2003 8:37 pm
Location: A box filled with dirt

Postby barten » Thu Jun 10, 2004 2:32 pm

Nice one Smurfette! Seems even Tasmania is ahead on this:

In Tasmania before 1st May 1997 either or both partners in a homosexual or heterosexual relationship could be convicted of having "unnatural sexual intercourse" (Section 122 a&c). A man could be convicted for "gross indecency" with, or "indecent assault" upon, another man (Section 123). The law applied regardless of the age of the partners or the place of the act.
"Unnatural sexual intercourse" meant anal or oral intercourse, or any penetrative sex which isn't vaginal.
"Gross indecency" could mean any act of physical intimacy between men, but generally refers to any sexual activity which isn't penetrative. Indecent assault also refers to physical intimacy. (Assault here doesn't mean coercion or abuse, it simply refers to physical contact.)

These laws were almost impossible to enforce but as recently as 1980 they were used against consenting men in private. Moreover, the Police Commissioner and the Director of Public Prosecutions both stated that they would respectively charge and prosecute where there was sufficient evidence.
Even if the law was not used, however, it could have been invoked sometime in the future. Redundancy has never been a good argument for retaining a law. The law had also been used as a threat by governments, the police and private citizens to control, intimidate and blackmail gay men and lesbians.

There was a maximum of 21 years gaol for breaking these laws. The general sentence was a small fine, but the public ignominy and disgrace that would have accompanied court appearance could match the suffering of any gaol term.
These laws did not stop men having sex with men. Sexual orientation is largely unchanging and the threat of arrest did not persuade gay men that they should be heterosexual.
But there is antagonism and hostility in our society towards homosexuality which these laws reinforced. Sometimes this hostility takes the form of blackmail, harassment or even violence - all of which cause damage to the individual and society and all of which were harder to eradicate while the law remained in place.

People will only take this kind of treatment for so long. After a while gay men and lesbians become angry at not being given the respect they deserve as people who contribute so much to this society.

The Tasmanian Parliament removed Sections 122 a&c and 123 on the 1st of May 1997 after 9 years of high profile public campaigning for their removal, including cases to the United Nations Human Rights Committee and the High Court of Australia


Taken from http://www.tased.edu.au/tasonline/tasqu ... s_ans.html
Ungaretti
uomo di pena
ti basta un
barten
Weaver of Tales
Weaver of Tales
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:03 pm
Location: under the table

Postby coffee_bear » Thu Jun 10, 2004 2:33 pm

Smurfette wrote:Hmm...it seems like many states have anti-heterosexual laws as well. I'm sure you were counting these as some of your "anti-homosexual" laws, but don't forget they apply to heteros as well! I only did half of the alphabet (plus VA).

:shock: Not only is it illegal to have sex with the lights on, one may not have sex in any position other than missionary. (Virginia)

:shock: Oral sex can not be given or received anywhere. (Maryland)

:shock: Oral sex is considered to be sodomy. (Arkansas)

:shock: Keeping a house where unmarried persons are allowed to have sex is prohibited. (Colorado)

:shock: When having sex, only the missionary position is legal. (Florida)

:shock: All sex toys are banned. (Georgia)

:shock: Oral sex is illegal. (Indiana)

:shock: A woman can not be on top in sexual activities. (Massachusetts)

:shock: No man may seduce and corrupt an unmarried girl, or else he risks five years in prison. (Michigan)

:shock: Adultery or Fornication (living togeather while not married or having sex with someone that is not your spouse) results in a fine of $500 and/or 6 months in prison. (Mississippi)

:shock: It is illegal to have oral sex. (Missouri)

:shock: It is illegal for a man and a woman to have sex in any other position other than missionary style. (Montana)

In each of these states, someone has deemed these acts as abnormal and unacceptable. Have you ever had sex with an unmarried woman? If so, did you ever let her on top? If so, then if having a law against something makes it abnormal and distasteful, then a great many of us are in trouble.


Not strictly related to sex, but funny nonetheless:
The flooring of adult bookstores and video stores must be nonabsorbant and smooth textured. (Georgia)
:puke:


What I love about the exposure of assinine laws like these is taht they fly in the face of the assertion that "America is the land of the free!" Noe, granted, I doubt if these laws are rarely in forced. But their mere existance speaks volumes about jsut how much respect for human rights and dignaty are really supported in the good 'ole USofA.

BTY, what's up with all the homophobes on this site? Do they come here to get their jollies off or something?
User avatar
coffee_bear
Clean & Sober
Clean & Sober
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:57 pm

Postby Ozintokyo » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:02 pm

"Unnatural sexual intercourse" meant anal or oral intercourse,...


OK, I understand so far....

..... or any penetrative sex which isn't vaginal.


:huh: but, I'm kinda lost here :huh: :huh: :huh: What the hell were people down there gettin up to??????
Sadness flies away on the wings of time.
-Jean de La Fontaine
User avatar
Ozintokyo
Intruder
Intruder
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:24 pm
Location: Loitering with intent

Re: Gay Teachers

Postby BakaMike » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:11 pm

JayRamey wrote:I still stand by my statement that the majority of states of SOME KIND of sodomy laws in the state statutes.

On the statute books maybe but as has been pointed out to you by many of the other posters, and your own admission: unenforced, unenforceable and therefore out of date.

JayRamey wrote:In any event, no one has yet to explain how my poorly worded message makes the following assertion true:

BakaMike wrote:The reason is that your opinions are outdated and are not in-line with current thinking! And before you say that this is not true, pretty much all of the laws in America and the rest of the free world consider homosexual behavior to be legal (read: acceptable).

A note on how laws are brought into existence: Laws are written in democratic countries by a democratically elected institution. The fact that this institution is elected implies that it represents the views of the majority. Should any of the laws at any given time be considered out of step with current thinking then it is assumed that these laws will be changed by the presiding government. Should however, a government fail to change undesirable laws - in the eyes of the majority - then it can be surmised, that the majority will instill a new government to amend these laws. Thus, I think it is fair to say that laws are a good guage of current opinion and consequently what may be considered acceptable standards by society.

My point was quite simple: Your opinions regarding homosexuality are out of date!

I could have said that this was clear from something subjective like the opinions of many of the posters on this board. I decided however, to choose a more measurable guage of public opinion. I chose current, enforceable and enforced laws in democratic countries as my evidence of public opinion. The above statement was my justification for this choice.

You have responded primarily with out of date and/ or unconstitutional legislation. Additionally, you then cite small differences in the treatment of homosexuals or - more often - anti-sodomy legislation as proof that most people think homosexuality is abnormal or disgusting. Again most of these laws are uncostitutional or unenforcable. Can you give one recent example where 2 consenting adults have been prosecuted for a homosexual act, not in a public place?

JayRamey wrote:Also, no one has explained why all the other anti-homosexual laws that I mentioned that do not involve sexual act do not invalid what BakaMike says here.


If you`re referring to gay marriage/ parenting, a difference in the age of consent or the illegality homosexuality in the military. Well, I think it`s fair to say that many people are not comfortable with the idea that gay realationships should have the same status as heterosexual relationships. Hetro relationships are traditionally sanctified with the intention of creating a secure bond and safe environment within which to raise their resulting offspring.

I personally see no reason why this couldn`t be extended to secure gay couples who wish to adopt but that`s just my opinion and a different topic.

Do these laws make homosexual acts abnormal or deviant in the eyes of the majority? I would say that they don`t. I would say that these laws reflect a different view - by the majority - of the nature of gay relationships as opposed to the acceptability of homosexual acts. With regard to the military I think that these rules are there because of the nature of the job i.e. regular, close contact between large groups of men in varying situations - many of which are life threatening. Thus, gay people coming into contact with people holding attitudes such as yours are likely to cause friction - which could result in poor moral - and potentially death - in tense or life threatening stuations. This does not mean that homosexuality is considered abnormal, just that there are too many rednecks in the army to make it a safe place for outed homosexuals.

Now it`s my turn:

1. How do your laws and evidence invalidate my claim that the majority of people in western society consider homosexuality to be acceptable?
2. How do your laws and evidence invalidate my claim that the majority of people in western society do not consider homosexuality to be disgusting?
3. Do you have one recent example of a successful prosecution of privately practising homosexuals in any democratic country?
NOVA IS GREAT!!!... ...FROM THE OUTSIDE!!
User avatar
BakaMike
Hopeless Drone
Hopeless Drone
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:11 pm

Postby BakaMike » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:17 pm

Ozintokyo wrote:
"Unnatural sexual intercourse" meant anal or oral intercourse,...


OK, I understand so far....

..... or any penetrative sex which isn't vaginal.


:huh: but, I'm kinda lost here :huh: :huh: :huh: What the hell were people down there gettin up to??????


Do you want me to draw you a picture? :shock:

Coffee Bear: Great avatar!! Very fucking funny! :D
NOVA IS GREAT!!!... ...FROM THE OUTSIDE!!
User avatar
BakaMike
Hopeless Drone
Hopeless Drone
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:11 pm

Postby Melodious_Thunk » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:21 pm

valve-bouncer wrote:Do ya reckon Jay is a "waaaaaaambulance" chaser....... :rotfl: :rotfl: hehehehehehe, fuck I'm funny


You're a living treasure, VB! ;)

I, for one, take great pride (let's make that gay pride in Jay's honor!) in being called a "punk" by someone who then demonstrates exactly how to go out like one.

My only regret is that I had the opportunity to refer him to both my signature and my avatar and somehow failed to do so. :(
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Melodious_Thunk
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 8:00 pm
Location: Deep in the shed

Postby Melodious_Thunk » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:34 pm

coffee_bear wrote:What I love about the exposure of assinine laws like these is taht they fly in the face of the assertion that "America is the land of the free!" Noe, granted, I doubt if these laws are rarely in forced. But their mere existance speaks volumes about jsut how much respect for human rights and dignaty are really supported in the good 'ole USofA.


I wouldn't read quite so much into it, as I would assume most of these laws were enacted a century or two ago. The existence of an antiquated and unenforceable statute doesn't prove much of anything other than that no one ever thought of going to the trouble of repealing it, since it isn't enforced anyway. Why bother now? The Florida law requiring sex to be in the missionary position is a perfect example. How many of the state legislators even know that it exists? Very few I would wager. Does its existence mean that people there are somehow less free? Has Florida solved all its other problems that they have the time to spend on this? Who does it help? There are scads of non-sex-related laws that aren't enforced anymore, either, such as the one I posted earlier about it being illegal to install a bathtub in some Kansas town.

And just out of curiosity, what country are you from? I would be surprised if there weren't some strange, antiquated laws there as well.
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Melodious_Thunk
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 8:00 pm
Location: Deep in the shed

Postby BakaMike » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:38 pm

In London all Hackney Carriages are required to carry a bail of hay in the rear.

NB: A Hackney Carriage is a Taxi!
NOVA IS GREAT!!!... ...FROM THE OUTSIDE!!
User avatar
BakaMike
Hopeless Drone
Hopeless Drone
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:11 pm

Postby Ozintokyo » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:42 pm

BakaMike wrote:
Ozintokyo wrote:
"Unnatural sexual intercourse" meant anal or oral intercourse,...


OK, I understand so far....

..... or any penetrative sex which isn't vaginal.


:huh: but, I'm kinda lost here :huh: :huh: :huh: What the hell were people down there gettin up to??????


Do you want me to draw you a picture? :shock:

Coffee Bear: Great avatar!! Very fucking funny! :D


BM - Yeah, I think I'm gonna need a picture!!

Penetrative sex that is not oral, anal or vaginal. Please enlighten me, or perhaps I shouldn't ask?? BM, you Tasmanian?
Sadness flies away on the wings of time.
-Jean de La Fontaine
User avatar
Ozintokyo
Intruder
Intruder
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:24 pm
Location: Loitering with intent

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:49 pm

Ozintokyo wrote:Penetrative sex that is not oral, anal or vaginal. Please enlighten me, or perhaps I shouldn't ask?? BM, you Tasmanian?


like with jay after he got himself torn a new asshole. :D

or maybe BM is talking about skull fucking someone.....
Guest
 

Postby coffee_bear » Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:53 pm

Melodious_Thunk wrote:
coffee_bear wrote:What I love about the exposure of assinine laws like these is taht they fly in the face of the assertion that "America is the land of the free!" Noe, granted, I doubt if these laws are rarely in forced. But their mere existance speaks volumes about jsut how much respect for human rights and dignaty are really supported in the good 'ole USofA.


I wouldn't read quite so much into it, as I would assume most of these laws were enacted a century or two ago. The existence of an antiquated and unenforceable statute doesn't prove much of anything other than that no one ever thought of going to the trouble of repealing it, since it isn't enforced anyway. Why bother now? The Florida law requiring sex to be in the missionary position is a perfect example. How many of the state legislators even know that it exists? Very few I would wager. Does its existence mean that people there are somehow less free? Has Florida solved all its other problems that they have the time to spend on this? Who does it help? There are scads of non-sex-related laws that aren't enforced anymore, either, such as the one I posted earlier about it being illegal to install a bathtub in some Kansas town.

And just out of curiosity, what country are you from? I would be surprised if there weren't some strange, antiquated laws there as well.


I'm from the US :D . And you are right maybe I am reading too much into thoes lawe, I should have clarified what I meant. What I wanted to say was that at the time thoese laws were enacted they reflected a general disregard for human rights in thoese socities. Look at where the most of thoes laws come from. The South has never been very empathetic to the concept of human rights, now has it? Nevertheless, I stand by my statment however, based on the fact that such laws remain on the books. It may seem far fetched to believe that anyone could be hauled in on charges of breaking these laws, but with crazies like Bush and Co. who thrive on such invasive laws, I wouldn't discount the possibility completly. Anyhow, MT point taken.
Last edited by coffee_bear on Thu Jun 10, 2004 3:54 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
coffee_bear
Clean & Sober
Clean & Sober
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 9:57 pm

Postby BakaMike » Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:39 pm

I think you`ll find that Tasmania was so named to please a visiting European Lord who had a holiday home there. They named it after his home province but obviously had to shorten it in line with Australian tradition.

To begin with this guy was very popular. He was rich, funny and kept inviting the locals for dinner. However, over time people noticed that the Tasmanian population was slowly declining. Rumours were also rife about strange screams and sexual practices in the home of the visiting lord.

Anyway, in true small town style, rumours became fact, fact became hyperbole and hyperbole became a small mob at the gates of this guys house. This quickly became a large mob and in true hick-mob style they trashed the place, nicked everything in sight and burnt the place to the ground.

However, upon entering his abode, they were disgusted to find that the rumours they had been spreading were not entirely true and that they could have exaggerated even more. This is because what was in the house was actually worse than they had anticipated:

http://erewhon.ticonuno.it/2002/storia/ ... impale.gif

http://www.devlinmagic.co.uk/images/impaled.jpg

http://southpark.overthelimit.com/fanart/impaled.jpg

The people were so disgusted with themselves that they enacted legislation outlawing all and any sexual conduct which involved penetration of any kind.

NB: At a later date this was amended to allow vaginal penetration - due to a dwindling population, artificial insemination being, as yet, uninvented.
NOVA IS GREAT!!!... ...FROM THE OUTSIDE!!
User avatar
BakaMike
Hopeless Drone
Hopeless Drone
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:11 pm

Postby BakaMike » Thu Jun 10, 2004 4:45 pm

Ozintokyo wrote:Penetrative sex that is not oral, anal or vaginal. Please enlighten me, or perhaps I shouldn't ask?? BM, you Tasmanian?


No I`m not but I hope that you`ll find my "in-depth" knowledge of Tasmanian history to be both informative and interesting! :shock: :wink: 8)
NOVA IS GREAT!!!... ...FROM THE OUTSIDE!!
User avatar
BakaMike
Hopeless Drone
Hopeless Drone
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:11 pm

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 10, 2004 5:46 pm

Asshat wrote:For these same reasons,I guess you are also getting ready to ban me from the board. I know it will make you feel like a big man to ban someone that hurt your feelings and with whose opinion you don't like. Therefore, I will save you the trouble and quit posting.


I wasn't going to ban you. (I know you're going to read this)

in fact I hope you'll drag your charred carcass back for some more. you like to make personal judgements about people from on top of your high horse and you don't see anything wrong with writing a giant essay attacking someone you don't like (last year) or calling people names after whining about being called a name yourself (this time) or calling people who think differently than you "abnormal." you have been completely owned this time though. your argumentation skills are actually almost as bad as the Reverend's were. he just made you look good by comparison, and you even use the same techniques he did. you think you can just say whatever you want about people but that they don't have the right to say anything back. well I call bullshit on that. of course your leaving announcement this time didn't have anything to do with you getting your ass handed to you by about 5 or 6 people, and about the law no less. yeah right. :roll:

Asshat wrote:In any event, I started posting again because I thought you had calmed down a little bit after what appeared to your initial inability to handle a little bit of power. But now I can tell, you are the same old fetus, aren't you.


you're the same old Jay Ramey aren't you. a big prima donna with an ego the size of montana who thinks the whole world revolves around him and that anyone who thinks differentyl is "abnormal."
Guest
 

Postby Ziggy » Thu Jun 10, 2004 9:55 pm

Somebody please lock or delete this thread. It's gotten completley off topic and turned into a fist fight.

Aside from this point I don't care to participate in this.
At Nova it's better to be a high profile shit disturber than a low profile bootlicker.
Ziggy
Disillusioned Cynic
Disillusioned Cynic
 
Posts: 921
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:47 pm
Location: Leading the human resistance against the mindless Nova machines.

Postby Ozintokyo » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:00 pm

:lol: a thread gone off topic, who would've imagined! :shock: ;) :)


BM - nice one mate. :thumbsup:
Sadness flies away on the wings of time.
-Jean de La Fontaine
User avatar
Ozintokyo
Intruder
Intruder
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:24 pm
Location: Loitering with intent

Postby Guest » Thu Jun 10, 2004 10:24 pm

Ziggy wrote:Somebody please lock or delete this thread. It's gotten completley off topic and turned into a fist fight.


Ziggy, I appreciate your sentiment. I really do, and I'm not just saying that. but locking or deleting threads is exactly what got this started with Jay. we had some troll talking about fucking someone's mom in the ass last eyar and Jay tried to turn that into a free speech issue. I tried to do my job as moderator, but Jay made me out to be some big brother nazi censor. he wrote a whole big essay just to attack me and my personal life and posted it on the board. I ate it. I just sat there and took it. I let him attack me personally again and again and again and I never hit back.

yeah, you are right. it's a fist fight. and it is personal, but he made it personal a long time ago. I was patient, but after watching this pathetic display, with him equating gays to child molesters, calling regular posters names, arguing the same way RevD did by dodging questions, and making a complete ass out of himself, my patience ran out and I am going to hit back. I think he ran away, so the thread will probably die on its own pretty soon, but I am not going to lock this thread. Jay wants freedom of expression as long as people don't say anything back to him. if he wants to come back, the thread is here, and it will be open.
Guest
 

Postby sirwanksalot » Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:08 am

fetusovereasy wrote:[

you're the same old Jay Ramey aren't you. a big prima donna with an ego the size of montana who thinks the whole world revolves around him and that anyone who thinks differentyl is "abnormal."



Just a :poo: kicker who is botteling up his homosexual tendencies and shaking his fist angryly at god :twisted: for the gayness :hug: he was given or born with. :bdh:
Last edited by sirwanksalot on Fri Jun 11, 2004 1:25 am, edited 1 time in total.
sirwanksalot
Eikaiwa Hero
Eikaiwa Hero
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2003 1:40 pm
Location: here and there

Postby BakaMike » Fri Jun 11, 2004 8:39 am

Ozintokyo wrote::lol: a thread gone off topic, who would've imagined! :shock: ;) :)


BM - nice one mate. :thumbsup:


I aim to please!! :D :wink: 8)
NOVA IS GREAT!!!... ...FROM THE OUTSIDE!!
User avatar
BakaMike
Hopeless Drone
Hopeless Drone
 
Posts: 373
Joined: Mon Dec 01, 2003 12:11 pm

Postby Smurfette » Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:45 am

Melodious_Thunk wrote:I wouldn't read quite so much into it, as I would assume most of these laws were enacted a century or two ago. The existence of an antiquated and unenforceable statute doesn't prove much of anything other than that no one ever thought of going to the trouble of repealing it, since it isn't enforced anyway.

Quite right, though there's one in Virginia that prohibits sexual relations if you are unmarried that dates from the 1950s. It's probably the exception, rather than the norm.


And just out of curiosity, what country are you from? I would be surprised if there weren't some strange, antiquated laws there as well.

Hee, hee, hee...

:shock: If someone knocks on your door and requires the use of your commode, you must let them enter. (UK)

:shock: All English males over the age 14 are to carry out 2 or so hours of longbow practice a week supervised by the local clergy. (UK)

:shock: It is illegal for two adult men to have sex in the same house as a third person. (UK)

:shock: It is illegal to walk on the right hand side of a footpath. (Oz)

:shock: Taxi cabs are required to carry a bale of hay in the trunk. (Oz)

:shock: Only licensed electricians may change a light bulb. The fine for not abiding by this law is 10 pounds. (Victoria)

:shock: You must have a neck to knee swimsuit in order to swim at Brighton Beach. (Victoria)

:shock: You may not pay for a fifty-cent item with only pennies. (Canada)

:shock: If you are released from prison, it is required that you are given a handgun with bullets and a horse, so you can ride out of town. (Alberta)

:shock: It is illegal to kill a sick person by frightening them. (Canada)

I found all of these at http://www.dumblaws.com/laws.php?site=laws&cid=184[/quote]

edit: Apologies to Ziggy for prolonging the thread! :wink:
Last edited by Smurfette on Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:45 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Smurfette
LJ Queen
LJ Queen
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 9:16 pm
Location: Baltimore, USA

Postby Ozintokyo » Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:38 pm

:lol: Smurfette - they're some pretty good ones. And now, along a similar vein, a few more (sorry Ziggy)

Not sure if they are still current though!

Most Middle Eastern countries recognize the following Islamic law:

- After having sexual relations with a lamb, it is a mortal sin to eat its flesh.

- In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the
animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is
punishable by death.

- In Bahrain, a male doctor may legally examine a woman's genitals, but is forbidden from looking directly at them during the examination. He may
only see their reflection in a mirror.

- Muslims are banned from looking at the genitals of a corpse. This also
applies to undertakers; the sex organs of the decease must be covered with a brick or piece of wood at all times. (a brick?????)

- The penalty for masturbation in Indonesia is decapitation. (wonder how
they enforce that one?? Which head do they cut off??)

- There are men in Guam whose full-time job is to travel the countryside
and deflower young virgins, who pay them for the privilegeof having sex for the first time. Reason: under Guam law, it is expressly forbidden for virgins to marry. (now let's just think for a minute...is there any job anywhere else in the world that even comes close to this?)((Lucky guys))

- In Hong Kong, a betrayed wife is legally allowed to kill her adulterous
husband, but may only do so with her bare hands. (the husband's lover, on
the other hand, may be killed in any manner desired.)

- Topless saleswomen are legal in Liverpool, England - but only in tropical fish stores. (of course!!)

- In Cali, Colombia, a woman may only have sex with her husband, and the first time this happens her mother must be in the room to witness the act.

- In Santa Cruz, Bolivia it is illegal for a man to have sex with a woman
and her daughter at the same time. (...we have to presume this was a big enough problem that they had to pass this law...?) :shock:

- In Maryland, it is illegal to sell condoms from vending machines with one
exception: prophylactics may be dispensed from a vending machine only "in places where alcoholic beverages are sold for consumption on the
premises."
Sadness flies away on the wings of time.
-Jean de La Fontaine
User avatar
Ozintokyo
Intruder
Intruder
 
Posts: 1104
Joined: Mon Jan 05, 2004 12:24 pm
Location: Loitering with intent

Postby barten » Fri Jun 11, 2004 12:52 pm

In Lebanon, men are legally allowed to have sex with animals, but the
animals must be female. Having sexual relations with a male animal is
punishable by death.


So hard to tell with birds, though. Heeere budgie!
Ungaretti
uomo di pena
ti basta un
barten
Weaver of Tales
Weaver of Tales
 
Posts: 934
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 11:03 pm
Location: under the table

Postby wade_belak » Fri Jun 11, 2004 2:09 pm

i'd imagine small fresh water fish, like say large mouth bass or maybe walleye, might be tough to distinguish too.
wade_belak
Clean & Sober
Clean & Sober
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 8:33 pm

Postby wade_belak » Fri Jun 11, 2004 9:35 pm

this thread has Image
wade_belak
Clean & Sober
Clean & Sober
 
Posts: 49
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 8:33 pm

Postby Smurfette » Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:22 am

wade_belak wrote:this thread has Image

This thread has...what? :oops: I'm embarrassed to say that I'm stumped. Is it "sunk to new depths"..."drifted"..."jumped over a shark"...what?
User avatar
Smurfette
LJ Queen
LJ Queen
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 9:16 pm
Location: Baltimore, USA

Postby Melodious_Thunk » Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:27 am

Look at this. (A great site, BTW)
http://www.jumptheshark.com/
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts."

Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Melodious_Thunk
 
Posts: 979
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2003 8:00 pm
Location: Deep in the shed

Postby Smurfette » Sat Jun 12, 2004 8:35 am

Ha! Thanks, MT. I guess I was closest with my silly guess. Is this a new saying? It's quite possible that it's been around for ages and I'm just way behind the times, but I have NEVER heard of this.
User avatar
Smurfette
LJ Queen
LJ Queen
 
Posts: 1053
Joined: Sun Aug 03, 2003 9:16 pm
Location: Baltimore, USA

Previous

Return to Eikaiwa

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron