After all, if a post-homosexualist conservative can’t discuss bum-play (scroll down the comments to find the reference, or go to the link, press Ctrl-F and search for “G-Spot for all males”) when he feels the urge without people snickering things are worse than we thought. I ask you, how can anyone consider the following an odd tangent in a post about a Ruth Gledhill article:
“The prostate works as a G-Spot for all males, regardless of the sex of the person they’re having sex with. It’s not a proof of the validity of homosexual activity in and of itself. Plenty of wives have discovered how to access said prostate and husbands up and down the land are truly grateful.... and just because he says a few comments later
I think that’s about as far as I’ll go on that one.”
“The things my wife and I enjoy doing are probably not the same things that other married couples enjoy doing…”is certainly no reason to engage in speculation about why he feels this necessary to share. Nor can it be in any way considered inappropriate to the context of Ruth’s original topic. Can it? (Stop laughing, my Dearly Beloved Sinners!)
One of the many things I love about little Peter Ould is his refusal to recognize stereotypes. While some Conservatives are obsessed with 'curing' homosexuality, little Petie never swings the subject in that direction more frequently than 4 out of every five posts. (Alright – perhaps the real figure is 9 out of 10, but I’m a Conservative, so I’m allowed to exaggerate to make a point.) While like to be thought of as considering threats of litigation unacceptable for Christians (irrespective of what they actually do), little Peter takes pride in making vexatious threats.
Nor, surprisingly given his background, does he seem to have heard of Barbra Streisand. Or, to be more precise, The Streisand Effect. Which as a result of having done this is something that’s going to change.
I’m Father Christian and I teach the Bible.