Huckabee on HIV in 1992: "We need to take steps that would isolate the carriers of this plague"

[Mags 112]

there is also a study that shows if the males have

foreskin

the species with that feature are overwhelmingly non-monogomous

*shrugs*

foreskin makes us non-monogamous? i don't get it.

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

Withdraw previous deposits? I don't get it.

Semen and lady juices?

But how does foreskin withdraw it????

I would have thought the fluids can get caught up underneath it.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Concubines for everyone!

What happened to that feminine side of yours that you just discovered yesterday?

I got rid of her, she was pissing me off.

Was that while you got them nails done or during the facial?

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

there is also a study that shows if the males have

foreskin

the species with that feature are overwhelmingly non-monogomous

*shrugs*

foreskin makes us non-monogamous? i don't get it.

oh it's something simple like having

foreskin

is indicative of the species being promiscuous since their

*wang*

is able to

withdraw previous deposits

. Species without this feature have no use for

withdrawing previous deposts

since they are monogamous.

Withdraw previous deposits? I don't get it.

Semen and lady juices?

But how does foreskin withdraw it????

I would have thought the fluids can get caught up underneath it.

yeah i am starting to get it thanks to caladan's "plunger" response....

[mawilson 2,133]

I would have thought the fluids can get caught up underneath it.

Still, I don't think you can "withdraw" any fluids. Not fully release them, maybe.

[Mags 112]

I would have thought the fluids can get caught up underneath it.

Still, I don't think you can "withdraw" any fluids. Not fully release them, maybe.

I agree. You can get the "leftovers" but not the full meal.

[mawilson 2,133]

I would have thought the fluids can get caught up underneath it.

Still, I don't think you can "withdraw" any fluids. Not fully release them, maybe.

I agree. You can get the "leftovers" but not the full meal.

[no name 1]

I would have thought the fluids can get caught up underneath it.

Still, I don't think you can "withdraw" any fluids. Not fully release them, maybe.

I guess I need to spell it out. When a man is fully erect, there is no foreskin so when he ejaculates his foreskin is pulled back - hence, no plunger effect to be had. Not to mention ejaculation is a forcible explosion that foreskin cannot restrain. If it could, the rest of the world's population would have died out eons ago, under the 'plunger' theory.

VJ SHEESH.

Moving on....

Edited December 10, 2007 by devilette

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

forcible explosion, lmao

[jundp 191]

2.9 million people died of AIDS last year. Someone dies once every 11 seconds from AIDS or HIV-related diseases. Worldwide though. I tried to find numbers for the US alone and couldn't. December 1 was World AIDS Awareness Day and I remember reading that in the US the highest age group of people with AIDS is heterosexual women between the ages of 18 and 30, but I can't find that stat. Still looking.

btw, that really has nothing to do with Huckabee, I realize that. Sorry.

However, the total number of people living in the USA with HIV/AIDS is thought to be between 1,039,000 and 1,185,0005.

Thank you. I was looking for the number of US deaths though. I will look later. My break's about over.

The number of deaths among people with AIDS has remained relatively stable since 1999; there were an estimated 17,011 deaths in 2005. Since the beginning of the epidemic, an estimated 550,394 people with AIDS have died in the USA.

Thanks.

Which is pretty apalling if you think that worldwide close to 3 million died and of those 17,011 were in the US alone. For a progressive, civilized, first world country, those numbers are alarming.

That doesn't mean that other diseases are any less important, but obviously AIDS/HIV can't be seen as just a "homosexual" disease.

[mawilson 2,133]

This is interesting...

The Oneida Community

Founded by John Noyes in 1948, the Oneida colony in upstate New York cultivated a form of group marriage called "complex marriage" in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. The community also practiced "scientific breeding" in which potential parents were matched by committee for physical and mental health. The picture shows this special breed of children playing in front of their proud parents.

It's a bit extreme (too many people involved), but basically a version of what I suggested earlier.

Personally, I think a 2-man-2-woman union is a great idea, if all 4 people love each other

(as friends or otherwise.)

[one...two...tree 2,762]

This is interesting...

The Oneida Community

Founded by John Noyes in 1948, the Oneida colony in upstate New York cultivated a form of group marriage called "complex marriage" in which theoretically every woman was married to every man. The community also practiced "scientific breeding" in which potential parents were matched by committee for physical and mental health. The picture shows this special breed of children playing in front of their proud parents.

It's a bit extreme (too many people involved), but basically a version of what I suggested earlier.

Personally, I think a 2-man-2-woman union is a great idea, if all 4 people love each other

(as friends or otherwise.)

Why would you need law to recognize such a union? I think it's reasonably for civil law to limit legal unions to one to one ratios.

[LaL 418]

I would have thought the fluids can get caught up underneath it.

Still, I don't think you can "withdraw" any fluids. Not fully release them, maybe.

I guess I need to spell it out. When a man is fully erect, there is no foreskin so when he ejaculates his foreskin is pulled back - hence, no plunger effect to be had. Not to mention ejaculation is a forcible explosion that foreskin cannot restrain. If it could, the rest of the world's population would have died out eons ago, under the 'plunger' theory.

VJ SHEESH.

I think you missed the part where I said animals - not specifically/necessarily humans. The point is, some can be withdrawn and replaced with the new suitor's. I drew a parrallel from another post. VJ sheesh indeed.

Caladan and Charles got what I was getting at.

[mawilson 2,133]

Why would you need law to recognize such a union? I think it's reasonably for civil law to limit legal unions to one to one ratios.

If Mr A is officially married to Ms B and Mr C is married to Ms D, then any children

born to A&D or B&C will be regarded as having been born "out of wedlock".

Mr A will have problems adding Mr C and Ms D to his health insurance policy at work.

etc

[no name 1]

I would have thought the fluids can get caught up underneath it.

Still, I don't think you can "withdraw" any fluids. Not fully release them, maybe.

I guess I need to spell it out. When a man is fully erect, there is no foreskin so when he ejaculates his foreskin is pulled back - hence, no plunger effect to be had. Not to mention ejaculation is a forcible explosion that foreskin cannot restrain. If it could, the rest of the world's population would have died out eons ago, under the 'plunger' theory.

VJ SHEESH.

I think you missed the part where I said animals - not specifically/necessarily humans. The point is, some can be withdrawn and replaced with the new suitor's. I drew a parrallel from another post. VJ sheesh indeed.

Caladan and Charles got what I was getting at.

and I doubt either has an uncircumcised for reference, seeing as the men are (N.) Americans.

Anyhoo, I wasn't the only one who didn't 'get it', plenty of men (foreigners) didn't either. I'm pretty sure for most - the only point of reference with circumcision is human, not animal. I still fail to see the point of that topic in this thread.

Edited December 10, 2007 by devilette

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Why would you need law to recognize such a union? I think it's reasonably for civil law to limit legal unions to one to one ratios.

If Mr A is officially married to Ms B and Mr C is married to Ms D, then any children

born to A&D or B&C will be regarded as having been born "out of wedlock".

Mr A will have problems adding Mr C and Ms D to his health insurance policy at work.

etc

Can you imagine the complicated legal mess that would create in terms of custody and division of property?