That happened to my friend 3 years ago...poor soul...now he is sporting a fo-hawk and wearing girls pants...poor poor soul...Worst I've gotten was eating at a Golden Coral that had a Salmanella posioning deal...that made my view on Mondays go from it just being Monday to it being "I wonder what stomach virus I'm going to get today"

HAHA...that is the Golden Corral right by my old house in Marietta.....there was like, 3 or 4 people in my neighborhood who got salmonella that week

1. Give away my last beer.
2. Kick a man when hes down.

-Sing karyoke in a public place..Sober, anyways
-Become my mother

Lol that was a joke post, I can't believe people on here would believe I have that state of mind!

I liked the pun, but maybe you should try a taste of your own, "medicine".

Fair enough! I agree, since you've put it in context.

You didn't say that. You added the "a lot of guys" part when you made your last post. That completely changes the context. Claiming to have typed one thing when you've in fact (whatever your initial intentions) typed something different might make your comments ridiculous. Having morals certainly doesn't make you ridiculous. Although again, 'morals' might seem a misnomer to other people if they involve saying that person A fits into category B because they do C when in fact there isn't any direct logical connection between items B and C.

In addition, I'm unaware of there being some special association between oral sex and prostitution. Certainly no greater connection than there is between prostitution and full sexual intercourse/condoms/money/women in general, in that prostitution tends to involve all of these factors. The factors themselves, however, taken individually, don't deserve to have some immediate association made with prostitution.

I'm sorry, it was implyed in the first statement, not explicitly written. I'm confused on your "logic" for the last part of that first paragraph as well.

It goes without saying that intercourse with multiple partners is slutty. Oral sex is given much less thought. I am merely pointing out that (in my mind) it is the same if not more so (slutty) than intercourse.

By this I was using:

A = a girl
B = slutty behaviour
C = oral sex in general

In which you were saying that a girl who performs oral sex a lot is slutty. What I was saying is that its not reasonable to call a girl slutty purely for performing oral sex, however often this may occur, as it depends entirely on the context. This description DOES encompass, for example, a married woman who gives her husband oral sex every day and never has an other kind of sexual contact with anybody else. Of course, you may still view this as slutty, in which case I'm afraid I will have to continue finding your opinion on this matter to be silly.

That was the statement as you'd ACTUALLY written it to begin with. The implied meaning, which you pointed out later and which isn't obvious in the original post (as implications rarely carry through on the internet) would fit my 'logic' as:

A = a girl
B = slutty behaviour
C = giving lots of oral sex to lots of different men

So now you were saying that a girl who gives lots of oral sex to lots of different men is slutty. I have to agree with this, although even then I'd say it depends partly on the context...

Word to all of that. I didn't state myself clearly enough. Context is important and implication does not carry through the internet.