Easy to fix, search for something entirely unrelated to either dinosaurs or erotica. Try something like performance electronic fuel injection controllers in the books section.
IllogicalBobcat
Or there’s a new Lego Y-Wing, that’s a good thing to search.
TPman
I like to convince advertisers I’m French. Just one or two off-language Youtube vids (played in the background while I do other things) is enough to confuse them.
Knuf Wons
Google is permanently convinced that I live in a Spanish-speaking country. I find this excellent and entertaining.
Okay, so I was going to answer “Because the internet” and decided to illustrate it with an appropriate image. Because surely there’s been some meme or image macro or demotivational poster or something at some point called that.
But it turns out that’s apparently the title of an album by Childish Gambino, because when I search for the phrase in google image search, I’m suddenly confronted with 500 identical images of a guy giving me a vaguely disapproving stare.
Somehow I actually feel that illustrates my point rather well.
What are you talking about? Chuck Tingle writes dinosaur erotica! That automatically elevates it to a literary level comparable to Wildean satire or Doylean seat-of-the-pants bullshit mysteries. (Seriously, I love Sherlock Holmes as much as the next guy but from a plotting perspective those stories make no sense, clues appear out of thin air having never been referenced — the antithesis of a fair-play whodunnit, although that term did not exist back then (sorry, my TV Tropes is showing (even though I’ve been off for months (help I’m trapped in a series of nested parentheses (no really there’s no non-awkward way to end this (I’ll just have to))))))
“Sir, I am required to inform you that I am an officer of the Grammar Police. It is my intention at this time to place you in custody for the offense of egregious overuse of parenthetic clauses. Please do not attempt to resist, escape, abscond, or conjugate.”
…does the Bible actually say anything about lesbian sex? Silly question, I know, but teeeeechnically if it’s completely silent on the subject, that means it can’t forbid it, riiiiiiiiiiight?
You would have thought that Romans would love the whole lesbian thing, after all they love the Greeks and Greeks love the man on boy action.
Emperor Daniel
Romans the book, not Romans the civilization.
Mmm . . . Civilization . . .
Smiling Cat
I’m not to sure about their opinions on homosexuality, but they seem to love dropping atomic bombs on me.
Emperor Daniel
Maybe they’re trying to nuke all the closets from orbit. 😛
deathjavu
If we’re talking civ 6, clearly the solution is to play as Rome because their abilities are ridiculous. Auto roads and auto monuments?
Then you just have to start conquering early with legionnaires and let the snowball effect of more cities take over.
3oranges
Besides, Romans the civilization were decidedly not like the Greeks on several points, this being one of them. Initially the moral conservatives didn’t even approve of Greek shaving, but that caught on anyway.
Well, even in Roman society having sex with another man wasn’t seen as a bad thing…so long as you were the dominant partner. It was looked down upon as wrong and womanly to be penetrated by another man’s penis, but incredibly manly to dominate another man by penetrate another man with one’s penis. Pasically, as long as one was having sex with a social inferior it was scene as a way of making sure they knew there place. Yeah, Romans were really rapey and perfectly ok with it so long as you weren’t raping a member of one of Rome’s elite patrician families.
Galdan
Actually, Romans were VERY lesbian-phobic. They were repulsed by any kind of sex that wasn’t a man inserting his penis into somebody’s body. And even then, the passive receiver was always despised, unless it was a woman being penetrated vaginally by her legal husband.
There were lesbians, of course, and there were people that did all kinds of kinky stuff, but mainstream morality despised/mocked/rejected those…
Galdan
Actually, Romans were VERY lesbian-phobic. They were repulsed by any kind of sex that wasn’t a man inserting his penis in somebody’s holes…
And even when a penis was involved, the receiver of it was always despised, unless it was a woman having vaginal sex with her legal husband.
Then, like now, oral sex was popular among lesbians (or so it was said), and that act was perceived as specially repulsive, because it implied putting your mouth in contact with somebody’s else’s genitals (which they saw as very gross) and there wasn’t even a penis involved (while the person performing a fellatio was despised, it was all right for the one receiving it).
There were lesbians, of course, and they got into relationships, and there were many kinds of people doing all kind of stuff that wasn’t penetrative sex, but mainstream morality still despised/mocked/rejected those…
Leorale
Romans were pretty much the height of patriarchal imperialism, those jerkfaces. Nice roads, cool aquaducts, terrible for everything else.
The Old Testament says absolutely nothing about ladies doin’ ladies. Traditional interpretations of Romans 1:24-27 view it as prohibiting lesbian sex, but Joyce and Becky subscribe to other interpretations.
Joyce at least; Becky probably is one of those Christians who holds the teachings of Jesus (specifically in regards to the whole “love your neighbor” thing) in great import and sees the rest of the Bible as a footnote at best.
It’s been quite a while since I read most of the Bible, but a quick Google search points me toward Romans 1:26 through 1:28 as the only place lesbianism is specifically mentioned and at least one of the sites discussing this reading of that part of the text interprets it to imply that lesbianism is a worse sin than male homosexual relations.
Of the very many things that amuse me about religion, in the “Hah, some people actually believe this shit!” way, the ranking of sins is right up there. “worse sin,” “venial sin,” whatever, this sin ranking system is just absolutely hilarious.
I mean, somewhere someone must actually have a list. I can see it now:
“Ok, you wore a suit that mixed linen and wool, that’s a 17 on the sin scale. But then you said your wife’s dress didn’t make her ass look fat, and you know she weighs 215 lbs, that’s a 43. Oh, and then there was that guy you straight up murdered, and that’s a 215.”
Leorale
I mean, we do have a ranking about which secular laws are the worst to break. Why wouldn’t people rank their holy laws, too?
Because (at least under most protestant interpretations) the outcome is binary – you either make it to heaven or you don’t. Either you are a sinner or you are forgiven. It doesn’t matter how bad the thing you did is, because all that matters is whether you prayed for forgiveness. Ranking some sins as worse than others is a pointless exercise.
This was one of the main sticking points that didn’t make sense to me, and is part of why I don’t believe in it.
Leorale
That’s odd to me, as I’m Jewish, so we basically don’t focus on the afterlife. There’s no Hell or Judgment and so on, but there are a helluvalotta commandments, which we follow in order to be good people, or ’cause it improves the world, or ’cause God said so, or cause it’s Tradition, or it brings us closer to God, or it makes us feel spiritually fulfilled, or it connects us to our ancestors, or it gives us the opportunity to follow even more commandments (yes, really), or tons of other potential reasons from which anyone can pick.
Even if it doesn’t impact your acceptance into heaven, Protestants can still totally care about those other things!
Leorale
Like, murder is still fundamentally worse than jaywalking, even if you will never get caught or punished for it.
If you take the prohibition in Leviticus as a unisex prohibition, then all it says is don’t diddle a man like you would diddle a woman. So… keep track on which position you use with which gender?
So…two men are limited to non-penetrative sex and two women limited to penetrative sex in that form of translation? I mean that is technically a completely literal translation of Leviticus *cough*Israelite tribal law *cough*for a small *cough*semi-nomadic *cough*society *cough*circa 1200BC *cough*.
Leorale
My favourite theory is that it gets at “don’t assimilate with the Greeks. They eat shellfish and do dudesex, like, all the time, so don’t do that stuff, so that you can’t hang out together.” It could be that ‘Lamb in its Mother’s Milk’ was a Hittite delicacy or something. We’ll never know what was going on in that crazy desert.
Most of the dietary stuff is for health reasons, but most of the laws exist in order to keep the Israelite people from assimilating with the native Canaanite tribes (their ethnic and linguistic cousins technically) or to provide some form of security for poor Hebrews. For example, if you buy a Hebrew slave you have to free them after 7 years (unless you treat them so well they decide to permanently become your slave), you have to leave a certain portion of your crops in your field instead of harvesting them for the poor to get some food from so they don’t starve, every 7 years you have to let your fields lay fallow (probably to be used as extra grazing land in order to both cut down on farmer-herder hostilities and provide fertilizer for the fields with the added side effect of preventing overfarming rendering land barren) and every 49 years land has to be given back to the nearest of kin that it was purchased from (most likely to break up large estates and to keep tribal nobility from becoming to powerful). I always took the “don’t wear an article of clothing made of multiple fabrics” to mean the Israelites were just shit at weaving anything besides woolen cloth. From the dietary perspective, shellfish wasn’t particularly safe at this time because it was toxic when unprepared correctly, the middle eastern style of cooking pork wasn’t very good at killing tape worms or other parasites because they couldn’t cook it at a high enough temperature or for long enough, mixing dairy and meat is actually pretty hard on the digestive system, camels were weird novelties that had just started arriving and were much more useful for travel than for eating (especially as the common early ways of eating camel involve drinking it’s blood as well, which is a big no no already), bats were weird flying cave rats who lived were they shit, etc. etc. Although, now I’m wondering if there is a provision against eating other people in Leviticus. And getting rid of the foreskin actually makes contracting, and thus spreading, STDs more difficult surprisingly. Plus, if that area gets infected you have to cut it off anyway, so the Hebrews just thought it would be easier in the long term to just not get the infections in the first place by cutting it off while still young. Of course then there are all those stoning laws, and the setting up of sanctuary cities under Leviite rule, since the Leviites didn’t get their own tribal territory but both of Joseph’s sons got one. Either that or Moses, Aaron, and the tribal elders all had a lot of specific allergies for the dietary laws.
Commodore Jeep-Eep
Actually, there’s evidence that suggests the pork prohibition was a political game – pigs were something that anyone could raise, as they’ll eat anything from grain to human shite and that gave independence to poor folks in the city – the bigwigs didn’t like that, so they ruled against it so as to maintain control.
thejeff
My best guess is that all the Biblical sex hangups are rooted in keeping the Israelites out of all the Canaanite fertility cults. Ritual sex, temple prostitutes, etc.
If you’re trying to keep your own followers away from such things, strict rules around sex itself are a useful tool. Then, in that way that religions do, the rules wind up being preserved and even strengthened even long after the original reasons no longer matter.
Leorale
We definitely can’t eat people. That would count as mutilating the human body.
(Plus we don’t have cloven hooves and chew our cud, so even the littlest monkey would be right out.)
192 thoughts on “Sooner”
Ana Chronistic
“If we were to perform a sex first, would that take the edge off?”
*BECKY A SPLODE*
Doctor_Who
Maybe Dina has some horrible bedtime habit that will ruin the romance. Like she snores loudly, or clips her toenails or eats crackers in bed.
…I meant saltine crackers, get your minds out of the gutter.
Stephen Bierce
I’m reminded of that Eddie Murphy skit about the Ritz cracker.
Sporky
Nah, her habit is after she wakes up, She clears her sinuses in the shower, remember?
Reltzik
…… This is Becky. I don’t think any of those habits would ruin the romance.
Pablo360
That made me think of this.
butts
New on Slipshine: Becky and Dina Perform a Sex
*slipshine website crashes forever*
Pablo360
That’s not a very sustainable business model.
deathjavu
Shortly followed by “JOYCE A SPLODE”
Aeron
ANARCHY!
Needfuldoer
JOYCE HEAD A SPLODE
Doctor_Who
Becky: “She’s a Dina! And all Dinas is poison! They’re full of wicked wiles!”
Walky: “What are wicked wiles?”
Becky: “I don’t know, but I’m agin’ ’em.”
Emperor Daniel
Hey, dinosaurs are apparently pretty sexy to some people.
Seriously, look up “dinosaur erotica” on Amazon. Or rather, don’t and save your sanity.
Danni
i was better off thinking dinosaur erotica didnt exist…. THANKS
Rei
My life is forever changed with what I have witnessed with that search.
Durandal_1707
And now that you’ve done that search, so have the contents of all the banner ads you’ll encounter!
Opus the Poet
Easy to fix, search for something entirely unrelated to either dinosaurs or erotica. Try something like performance electronic fuel injection controllers in the books section.
IllogicalBobcat
Or there’s a new Lego Y-Wing, that’s a good thing to search.
TPman
I like to convince advertisers I’m French. Just one or two off-language Youtube vids (played in the background while I do other things) is enough to confuse them.
Knuf Wons
Google is permanently convinced that I live in a Spanish-speaking country. I find this excellent and entertaining.
Keulan
I looked. Why is this a thing?
Doctor_Who
Okay, so I was going to answer “Because the internet” and decided to illustrate it with an appropriate image. Because surely there’s been some meme or image macro or demotivational poster or something at some point called that.
But it turns out that’s apparently the title of an album by Childish Gambino, because when I search for the phrase in google image search, I’m suddenly confronted with 500 identical images of a guy giving me a vaguely disapproving stare.
Somehow I actually feel that illustrates my point rather well.
Pablo360
Well, I guess I’ve decided on my next Gravatar.
Doctor_Who
Happy I could help you come to this momentous decision. I’m sure Mr. Gambino is very pleased as well.
Pablo360
I just learned who he is. Apparently he’s going to be Lando in the Star Wars Han Solo movie to come out in between Episodes VIII & IX.
Passchendaele
I have already seen enough on wikipedia’s list of weird articles to satisfy me on that topic, thanks. 😛
Reltzik
….. since avians are technically dinosaurs and Big Bird is supposed to be an avian, I think I already knew that.
Pablo360
What are you talking about? Chuck Tingle writes dinosaur erotica! That automatically elevates it to a literary level comparable to Wildean satire or Doylean seat-of-the-pants bullshit mysteries. (Seriously, I love Sherlock Holmes as much as the next guy but from a plotting perspective those stories make no sense, clues appear out of thin air having never been referenced — the antithesis of a fair-play whodunnit, although that term did not exist back then (sorry, my TV Tropes is showing (even though I’ve been off for months (help I’m trapped in a series of nested parentheses (no really there’s no non-awkward way to end this (I’ll just have to))))))
StClair
“Sir, I am required to inform you that I am an officer of the Grammar Police. It is my intention at this time to place you in custody for the offense of egregious overuse of parenthetic clauses. Please do not attempt to resist, escape, abscond, or conjugate.”
Pablo360
Yule never not takes I living!
Clif
Um.
dethtoll
Reminds me of a scene from Warren Ellis’ “Crooked Little Vein” actually…
Yossarianduck
Coming soon from Dr Chuck Tingle: “Pounded In The Butt By My Dinosaur Girlfriend’s Chaste Yet Intoxicating Aura”
Kelly
Hm, I wonder if Chuck reads DoA? It doesn’t seem beyond possibility
Tenn
Pfft, that’s old news. The only thing that surprises me is that Wikipedia has a page on it.
Roborat
I was disappointed with that wiki page, there were no pictures.
shadowcell
“i don’t want to rush into our first time! we should wait until Wednesday, which is like a year from now”
Passchendaele
On the other hand, it could be heavy physical contact on Wednesday and the next step on that distant eternity that is Thursday.
Ash_Ketchup
Sympathy via light physical contact game on point.
Leorale
I opened the comments this evening specifically to make sure that somebody said that. I love that she implements that useful new skill.
John
Yep. Maybe someday she’ll learn a second social gesture, but for now, by god, she’s gonna do the best she can with the one she’s got!
… I didn’t intend to make an IW! reference there and now I’ve made myself sad.
Emperor Daniel
It was the best you could do.
Shiro
…does the Bible actually say anything about lesbian sex? Silly question, I know, but teeeeechnically if it’s completely silent on the subject, that means it can’t forbid it, riiiiiiiiiiight?
Pablo360
My understanding is that it does, somewhere, probably in Deuteronomy or one of the epistles.
BBCC
I believe their church taught that Romans said it was a no-no.
Plasma Mongoose
You would have thought that Romans would love the whole lesbian thing, after all they love the Greeks and Greeks love the man on boy action.
Emperor Daniel
Romans the book, not Romans the civilization.
Mmm . . . Civilization . . .
Smiling Cat
I’m not to sure about their opinions on homosexuality, but they seem to love dropping atomic bombs on me.
Emperor Daniel
Maybe they’re trying to nuke all the closets from orbit. 😛
deathjavu
If we’re talking civ 6, clearly the solution is to play as Rome because their abilities are ridiculous. Auto roads and auto monuments?
Then you just have to start conquering early with legionnaires and let the snowball effect of more cities take over.
3oranges
Besides, Romans the civilization were decidedly not like the Greeks on several points, this being one of them. Initially the moral conservatives didn’t even approve of Greek shaving, but that caught on anyway.
Rukduk
Well, even in Roman society having sex with another man wasn’t seen as a bad thing…so long as you were the dominant partner. It was looked down upon as wrong and womanly to be penetrated by another man’s penis, but incredibly manly to dominate another man by penetrate another man with one’s penis. Pasically, as long as one was having sex with a social inferior it was scene as a way of making sure they knew there place. Yeah, Romans were really rapey and perfectly ok with it so long as you weren’t raping a member of one of Rome’s elite patrician families.
Galdan
Actually, Romans were VERY lesbian-phobic. They were repulsed by any kind of sex that wasn’t a man inserting his penis into somebody’s body. And even then, the passive receiver was always despised, unless it was a woman being penetrated vaginally by her legal husband.
There were lesbians, of course, and there were people that did all kinds of kinky stuff, but mainstream morality despised/mocked/rejected those…
Galdan
Actually, Romans were VERY lesbian-phobic. They were repulsed by any kind of sex that wasn’t a man inserting his penis in somebody’s holes…
And even when a penis was involved, the receiver of it was always despised, unless it was a woman having vaginal sex with her legal husband.
Then, like now, oral sex was popular among lesbians (or so it was said), and that act was perceived as specially repulsive, because it implied putting your mouth in contact with somebody’s else’s genitals (which they saw as very gross) and there wasn’t even a penis involved (while the person performing a fellatio was despised, it was all right for the one receiving it).
There were lesbians, of course, and they got into relationships, and there were many kinds of people doing all kind of stuff that wasn’t penetrative sex, but mainstream morality still despised/mocked/rejected those…
Leorale
Romans were pretty much the height of patriarchal imperialism, those jerkfaces. Nice roads, cool aquaducts, terrible for everything else.
Oberon
The Greeks also loved the girl on girl action.
Jackson
The Old Testament says absolutely nothing about ladies doin’ ladies. Traditional interpretations of Romans 1:24-27 view it as prohibiting lesbian sex, but Joyce and Becky subscribe to other interpretations.
Pablo360
Joyce at least; Becky probably is one of those Christians who holds the teachings of Jesus (specifically in regards to the whole “love your neighbor” thing) in great import and sees the rest of the Bible as a footnote at best.
vlademir1
It’s been quite a while since I read most of the Bible, but a quick Google search points me toward Romans 1:26 through 1:28 as the only place lesbianism is specifically mentioned and at least one of the sites discussing this reading of that part of the text interprets it to imply that lesbianism is a worse sin than male homosexual relations.
Oberon
Of the very many things that amuse me about religion, in the “Hah, some people actually believe this shit!” way, the ranking of sins is right up there. “worse sin,” “venial sin,” whatever, this sin ranking system is just absolutely hilarious.
I mean, somewhere someone must actually have a list. I can see it now:
“Ok, you wore a suit that mixed linen and wool, that’s a 17 on the sin scale. But then you said your wife’s dress didn’t make her ass look fat, and you know she weighs 215 lbs, that’s a 43. Oh, and then there was that guy you straight up murdered, and that’s a 215.”
Leorale
I mean, we do have a ranking about which secular laws are the worst to break. Why wouldn’t people rank their holy laws, too?
qman
Because (at least under most protestant interpretations) the outcome is binary – you either make it to heaven or you don’t. Either you are a sinner or you are forgiven. It doesn’t matter how bad the thing you did is, because all that matters is whether you prayed for forgiveness. Ranking some sins as worse than others is a pointless exercise.
This was one of the main sticking points that didn’t make sense to me, and is part of why I don’t believe in it.
Leorale
That’s odd to me, as I’m Jewish, so we basically don’t focus on the afterlife. There’s no Hell or Judgment and so on, but there are a helluvalotta commandments, which we follow in order to be good people, or ’cause it improves the world, or ’cause God said so, or cause it’s Tradition, or it brings us closer to God, or it makes us feel spiritually fulfilled, or it connects us to our ancestors, or it gives us the opportunity to follow even more commandments (yes, really), or tons of other potential reasons from which anyone can pick.
Even if it doesn’t impact your acceptance into heaven, Protestants can still totally care about those other things!
Leorale
Like, murder is still fundamentally worse than jaywalking, even if you will never get caught or punished for it.
Smiling Cat
If you take the prohibition in Leviticus as a unisex prohibition, then all it says is don’t diddle a man like you would diddle a woman. So… keep track on which position you use with which gender?
Leorale
Joyce’s google-search for strap-ons will surely go to waste.
Rukduk
So…two men are limited to non-penetrative sex and two women limited to penetrative sex in that form of translation? I mean that is technically a completely literal translation of Leviticus *cough*Israelite tribal law *cough*for a small *cough*semi-nomadic *cough*society *cough*circa 1200BC *cough*.
Leorale
My favourite theory is that it gets at “don’t assimilate with the Greeks. They eat shellfish and do dudesex, like, all the time, so don’t do that stuff, so that you can’t hang out together.” It could be that ‘Lamb in its Mother’s Milk’ was a Hittite delicacy or something. We’ll never know what was going on in that crazy desert.
Rukduk
Most of the dietary stuff is for health reasons, but most of the laws exist in order to keep the Israelite people from assimilating with the native Canaanite tribes (their ethnic and linguistic cousins technically) or to provide some form of security for poor Hebrews. For example, if you buy a Hebrew slave you have to free them after 7 years (unless you treat them so well they decide to permanently become your slave), you have to leave a certain portion of your crops in your field instead of harvesting them for the poor to get some food from so they don’t starve, every 7 years you have to let your fields lay fallow (probably to be used as extra grazing land in order to both cut down on farmer-herder hostilities and provide fertilizer for the fields with the added side effect of preventing overfarming rendering land barren) and every 49 years land has to be given back to the nearest of kin that it was purchased from (most likely to break up large estates and to keep tribal nobility from becoming to powerful). I always took the “don’t wear an article of clothing made of multiple fabrics” to mean the Israelites were just shit at weaving anything besides woolen cloth. From the dietary perspective, shellfish wasn’t particularly safe at this time because it was toxic when unprepared correctly, the middle eastern style of cooking pork wasn’t very good at killing tape worms or other parasites because they couldn’t cook it at a high enough temperature or for long enough, mixing dairy and meat is actually pretty hard on the digestive system, camels were weird novelties that had just started arriving and were much more useful for travel than for eating (especially as the common early ways of eating camel involve drinking it’s blood as well, which is a big no no already), bats were weird flying cave rats who lived were they shit, etc. etc. Although, now I’m wondering if there is a provision against eating other people in Leviticus. And getting rid of the foreskin actually makes contracting, and thus spreading, STDs more difficult surprisingly. Plus, if that area gets infected you have to cut it off anyway, so the Hebrews just thought it would be easier in the long term to just not get the infections in the first place by cutting it off while still young. Of course then there are all those stoning laws, and the setting up of sanctuary cities under Leviite rule, since the Leviites didn’t get their own tribal territory but both of Joseph’s sons got one. Either that or Moses, Aaron, and the tribal elders all had a lot of specific allergies for the dietary laws.
Commodore Jeep-Eep
Actually, there’s evidence that suggests the pork prohibition was a political game – pigs were something that anyone could raise, as they’ll eat anything from grain to human shite and that gave independence to poor folks in the city – the bigwigs didn’t like that, so they ruled against it so as to maintain control.
thejeff
My best guess is that all the Biblical sex hangups are rooted in keeping the Israelites out of all the Canaanite fertility cults. Ritual sex, temple prostitutes, etc.
If you’re trying to keep your own followers away from such things, strict rules around sex itself are a useful tool. Then, in that way that religions do, the rules wind up being preserved and even strengthened even long after the original reasons no longer matter.
Leorale
We definitely can’t eat people. That would count as mutilating the human body.
(Plus we don’t have cloven hooves and chew our cud, so even the littlest monkey would be right out.)