quote of the day right here.Woodsey said:Because there's a girl, and then there's ANOTHER ONE.
Best idea ever.
(and it is so true)
quote of the day right here.Woodsey said:Because there's a girl, and then there's ANOTHER ONE.
Best idea ever.
You're both wrong, the quote is: "You're technically correct, the best kind of correct"necromanzer52 said:Hermes never said that. It was his boss no. 1.0.viranimus said:Hermes Conrad said:"You are technically right, The best kind of right!"
God, I feel nerdy right now.
Hm, that's an interesting way of thinking about it. And from a biological perspective it makes some sense, given I'm not a biologist but still...Gralian said:On a biological level? It might actually have something to do with some kind of thought process that goes along the lines of "I have chosen this sexual partner to potentially birth my offspring because i believe they are of superior breeding stock. If there is another present who is of the exact same genetic make-up, the chances of producing healthy offspring is doubled". Or something like that, anyway. Obviously we don't think of knocking up every sexual partner but that's looking it it from the pure primal baser instinct level.
I didn't mean it to be juvenile, sorry. It was just something I had thought about and thought this would be a good as place as any to ask.Mr.Squishy said:This is incredibly juvenile, but when you mentioned gay people and threesomes, I thought of...well...let's call it a choo-choo train...
I both laughed and winced at that...
I had a similar thought when I saw the scene in which Laurie Jupiter was having a threesome with two Dr. Manhattans. So is a, I believe the politically correct term is, fucktrain between numerous Dr. Manhattans masturbation?Mr.Squishy said:This is incredibly juvenile, but when you mentioned gay people and threesomes, I thought of...well...let's call it a choo-choo train...
I both laughed and winced at that...
Does that mean that "by definition" a woman cannot rape another woman?TheIronRuler said:You can replace it with the word "By definition". It's not Incest.Avatar Roku said:Technically being the operative term.TheIronRuler said:Girl on Girl ==> Technically no Sex ==> Technically NOT Incest.AlAaraaf74 said:I don't mind the idea of threesomes, but twins is a little much. Unless you're into really dirty sex, twins are actually kind of a turn off. Even if they're hot, if they touch each other like that, then they're preforming insest.
Yay for logic.
.
On topic, it would be very strange to have it, I'd think I'm hallucinating.
Not that I'm saying your wrong, but what makes all incest intrinsically "disgusting and wrong". As long as genetically mutated babies aren't produced from the act and no one is hurt or coerced into doing it, what makes incest intrinsically wrong?RussetRanger said:It's incest, ergo disgusting and wrong. Threesomes (or however many floats your boat) are fine so long as there is no family involved. It would also make the interactions awkward.
No problem? Happy I could... not be a spambot for you. I guess?Quaxar said:Woah... I did not expect to come into this thread and not find a spambot link.
Kudos for being an actual person.
Well, no need to post in this thread anymore, is there.Woodsey said:Because there's a girl, and then there's ANOTHER ONE.
Best idea ever.
Ahh... Hentai Logic... My favourite kind!!DeadlyYellow said:If Japanese hentai is to be believed everything's hotter with your sister.