129
submitted 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

It's recently come out that, on September 10th, Lauren Boebert was removed from the play Beetlejuice in Denver. This would be all fine and good, right? A politician is being an asshole. The sky is blue. Well, Hexbear, it is anything but fine. Anything but.

The plot thickens when it's revealed that, beyond the vaping and the being loud (which is it's own struggle session whether that's based), that part of her contribution to getting owned was that she was giving her partner an over the pants handjob. Now, this would have gone through the news cycle with a sensible chuckle for me, but, my fellow hexbearians, do I look like I'm having a sensible chuckle? NO! This is literally me right now. See, what had happened was that this news circulated to the website that I like to post on. The title of the post was "boebert was giving a no-foolin for-reals handjob during the beetlejuice musical" This post got some of the most vile, vitriolic comments I've ever seen in all my posting.

>no-foolin for-reals handjob >over the pants rubbin Y'all that's not even a handy to a seventh grader. @[email protected]

unironically this @[email protected]

Let's get one thing straight here, hexbear. Over the pants is a handjob. This is my central thesis. Let's start with the most obvious positive case. If you have sex with a condom, do you call it over-the-condom sex? Of course not! Protected sex, maybe, but you wouldn't call it not sex. Would you call a blowjob with a condom not a blowjob? Of course not! If you did that'd be annoying and weird. Let's try not to be annoying and weird. skin-to-skin contact with the genitals isn't a requirement for something to be called a job. Repeat it once more for the people in the back getting a handjob rn: skin-to-skin contact with the genitals isn't a requirement for something to be called a job. If home runs are so unambiguous, why is third base so "ambiguous?" Because of a single fringe case. If it wasn't for the existence of this fringe case, then there's be no argument about how getting your genitals stimulated works.

Fairies, monsters, and others that go bump in the night, let me introduce you to the water jet/bubbling system of a hot tub. Wikipedia defines a hot tub as "a large tub full of water used for hydrotherapy, relaxation or pleasure." Let's explore that last word, pleasure. Whom amogus hasn't used a hot tub as it was meant to be used. I think this is where the friction comes from, the jet stream in a hot tub. Dissenters will say (like sniveling cowards) "b-b-but WDYMP, the hot tub isn't sentient, it can't give you a job!" Let's get one thing straight, if you had your hands over the edge of a hot tub and your partner was pushing your crotch into a jet stream, that would be a type of job. The solution, my compromise for the haters and losers, is what I would like to call the jetjob. It would be a normal jetjob if they're pushing you via hands on the buttox into a water jet, and a reverse jetjob if they're using their feet. It would be a backwards jetjob if your back is facing the water jet. This also expands the capacity for a combo jobs because your crotch is facing your partner. This would be the exciting introduction of the triple job if they're using a hand, their mouth, and the water jet. I propose that, upon climax in such a fashion, one would exclaim "Tic tac toe, three in a row!"

With this, let's get one thing clear, over the pants is a type of handjob the same way that over the condom sex is a type of sex. If we can start using the term jetjob, then it will be easier to recognize when something is a job and when something is not. This would also be a step closer to communism. Thank you. I hope I haven't fractured our fragile community too deeply with this.

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top new old
[-] [email protected] 14 points 2 years ago
[-] [email protected] 13 points 2 years ago

yeah I mean I don't think there is any dispute about if you used your mouth over the pants it would still be a blowjob, how is this different?

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

it's not a blowjob if there's no penetration of the mouth. it's still oral but oral isn't automatically a BJ,

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

what's a lick-job with no blowing called?

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago)

licking.

maybe something with the -ingus suffix if you're pretentious

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] [email protected] 7 points 2 years ago

It's not different and I'm tired of pretending it is

[-] [email protected] 12 points 2 years ago

"Tic tac toe, three in a row!"

order-of-lenin

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago
[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago

Don't masturbate in public folks

[-] [email protected] 11 points 2 years ago
[-] [email protected] 10 points 2 years ago

I endorse this message.

[-] [email protected] 9 points 2 years ago

i fully agree and move that condoms be considered acceptable outer wear based on these principles

[-] [email protected] 8 points 2 years ago
[-] [email protected] 6 points 2 years ago

Yeah it’s for sure a handy.

[-] [email protected] 4 points 2 years ago

Anyone else find it odd that he same weird old dudes who decided that sucking a dick was a job are probably the same dudes that pretended they didn't eat pushy and complained about their wives making them do chores? You'd figure they'd just use the latter to excuse the former instead of making it seem like women are being put to work going down on them like it's something they'd rather not do. Seems like the job terminology is really inverted when it comes to the ego of men who invented the terms

load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›
this post was submitted on 16 Sep 2023
129 points (100.0% liked)

chapotraphouse

13920 readers
832 users here now

Banned? DM Wmill to appeal.

No anti-nautilism posts. See: Eco-fascism Primer

Slop posts go in c/slop. Don't post low-hanging fruit here.

founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS