Guns good, sex toys bad

Indigo Violent · Post by **Indigo Violent** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 6:42 pm

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/6308419/
They can have my toys when they pry them from my cold, dead...uh, never mind.

E~Man · Post by **E~Man** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 7:48 pm

What is it with the anti-sex attitude in the Southern States?

Why is it considered a good thing that horny, frustrated and well armed people can wonder about the place.

Swordsman3003 · Post by **Swordsman3003** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:11 pm

Kingofthemorlocks · Post by **Kingofthemorlocks** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:14 pm

"THE GUN IS GOOD."

"The Gun is Good."

"THE PENIS IS EVIL, THE PENIS SHOOTS SEEDS."

"..." (silence)

My everlasting respect to the first person to recognize what that's from.

Halo299 · Post by **Halo299** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:18 pm

this is a joke right? it simply has to be.

-halo

Proconsul Merrok · Post by **Proconsul Merrok** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:32 pm

kingofthemorlocks wrote:"THE GUN IS GOOD."

"The Gun is Good."

"THE PENIS IS EVIL, THE PENIS SHOOTS SEEDS."

"..." (silence)

My everlasting respect to the first person to recognize what that's from.

Go forth and kill!

More ontopicly, at least these laws are pretty much only enforced against stores. The day they outlaw mail-order sextoys, there will be riots in the streets

Shirt Guy Xom · Post by **Shirt Guy Xom** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 8:40 pm

Eva haet penis!!

Sweet or Sour · Post by **Sweet or Sour** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 9:21 pm

Perhaps it is misplaced optimisim, but really can't see this law lasting all that long. There are all kinds of strange laws that get shredded shortly after being passed.

Aeridus · Post by **Aeridus** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:17 pm

Can someone tell me where there might be a sex toy shop in Virginia then?

Virginia may be for lovers but they sure keep all the smut stores very well hidden...

Proconsul Merrok · Post by **Proconsul Merrok** » Tue Mar 21, 2006 10:59 pm

It's not actually in Virgina, but Good Vibrations deserves much recommendation.

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:17 am

Proconsul Merrok wrote:

My eyes!! For the love of god, my eyes!!

Fucking John Boorman. Some things even Excalibur can't make up for.

Honor · Post by **Honor** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:23 am

aeridus wrote:Virginia may be for lovers but they sure keep all the smut stores very well hidden...

Actually, Virginia is for Haters.

Jackalope · Post by **Jackalope** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 5:27 am

Hahah. I'm glad someone else had that same reaction. Though it would be the dyke. I'm bi, but some things are just plain revolting. I'm not sure if it's all the body hair or if it's that red diaper thing he's got on, or the fact that he looks vaguely like my evil ex-from-hell with that long hair and mustache.

Someone popped that photo into a "caption this" thread. The winning entry was "Someone hurry up and change my diaper or I'll shoot you."

Queenhank · Post by **Queenhank** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 7:38 am

Proof of the suckage of Virginia.*

Two of those people are good friends of mine, damn it!

*the second segment. Not the first one. The first one is about something very different, although related, now that I think about it...

Squidflakes · Post by **Squidflakes** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:50 am

Ahhhhh Zardoz.

Proconsul Merrok · Post by **Proconsul Merrok** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 11:50 am

Wikipedia wrote:In 2004 the magazine Total Film described Connery's costume (consisting of a ponytail wig, leather knee boots, and a loincloth which bears a strong resemblance to a giant orange nappy or diaper) as the number 1 "dumbest decision in movie history".

Nithos · Post by **Nithos** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 1:06 pm

That movie single handedly ended the years running tradition of having bad-movie thanksgivings. A couple friends in town always host thanksgiving for anyone that's not going home to family for thanksgiving, and for a few years running the theme was always bad movies, until my sister, in her evil glory, brought Zardoz. It's just been games and booze for entertainment since

Chiropteran · Post by **Chiropteran** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 8:10 pm

Unfortunately, with the current supreme court, sexual privacy is in serious danger at the national level too.

Before the courts that handed down Griswold V. Connecticut or Lawrence V. Texas, those laws would not stand.

However, Lawrence V. Texas is, unfortunately, in serious jeopardy of being a 3 year decision; our illustrious Usurper in Chief has pushed through a Bowers court. And that'll only push us back 20 years; it's downhill from there. And the right-wingers will attack Griswold once they're done with Roe. They're already working on it.

Flipping theocrats! I believe in Hell now. Never did before, but I think that whatever Divine Being there might be would have to create one just for people who spread evil, death, and hatred in Hir name.

On the plus side, W has gotten enough ill-will towards the US government; and most of the world is aware enough that US citizens (especially the ones trying to move) are not the same thing as the US government; that civilized countries will be pretty receptive to asylum-seeking sexual minorities if (unfortunately, actually, it's when) push comes to shove.

Toawa · Post by **Toawa** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:16 pm

With Lawrence being decided on 6-3, with one of the dissenters now gone and another one (Thomas) referring to the law in question as "silly", I don't think the current situation justifys panic yet. Concern, perhaps; discussion, always; but not panic.

Anyway... I find it hard to believe that no one has mentioned the (In)Famous Five Dildo Limit yet.

Aeridus · Post by **Aeridus** » Wed Mar 22, 2006 9:41 pm

Well, if things get so bad that differently-minded people have to move to another country to avoid being persecuted for their sexuality, the US will lose half of its population. And that'll kill the economy. I'm sure eventually someone will figure out that persecuting sexuality is not the brightest idea. Going after murderers and people that really harm society should be the focus, not people who make other people feel a little uncomfortable in their sexuality.