WWTBAM Bored

I'm surprised none of the eagle eyed newshounds on this board have called this to our attention yet, but a Texas legislator has submitted a bill that would impose a $100 fine for male masturbation, along with several additional regulations on men's medical procedures.

I'm not sure if the second link will work for non-subscribers, but the first link should be good for everyone:
http://www.cnn.com/2017/03/13/health/ab ... aker-trnd/
http://www.mystatesman.com/news/local/t ... Iqpc6nIwK/

How exactly could the Texas government prove that guys are masturbating? It's not like their microwave ovens have secret cameras... right, Kellyanne?

Pastor Fireball wrote:How exactly could the Texas government prove that guys are masturbating? It's not like their microwave ovens have secret cameras... right, Kellyanne?

Bob Juch wrote:

Pastor Fireball wrote:How exactly could the Texas government prove that guys are masturbating? It's not like their microwave ovens have secret cameras... right, Kellyanne?

That's great, Bob, that they gave you a picture of the photographer along with your proofs.

TheConfessor wrote: a Texas legislator has submitted a bill that would impose a $100 fine for male masturbation,

If properly enforced, this law could eliminate the state deficit in about six months.

Bob Juch wrote:

Pastor Fireball wrote:How exactly could the Texas government prove that guys are masturbating? It's not like their microwave ovens have secret cameras... right, Kellyanne?

I'm afraid the government now knows how many Hot Pockets I eat.

Bob Juch wrote:

Pastor Fireball wrote:How exactly could the Texas government prove that guys are masturbating? It's not like their microwave ovens have secret cameras... right, Kellyanne?

Sheesh, when I retired I had no idea I'd become Agent 13....

Page 3, line 26:

emissions outside of a woman's vagina, or created outside of a health or medical facility, will be charged a $100 civil penalty for each emission and will be considered an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life


So does this mean no pulling out, no use of condoms...and how would they prosecute if the evidence is swallowed?

When you can't support your position with logic then go another way.

Another liberal freak (Wendy Davis, Ashley Judd, .....) nourishing the anti-Democrat vote. Too liberal to show common sense. And thus, we got Trump.

triviawayne wrote: So does this mean no pulling out, no use of condoms...and how would they prosecute if the evidence is swallowed?

How soon we forget.

In the famous 1965 case of Griswold v. Connecticut, the Supreme Court struck down a state ban on "any drug, medicinal article or instrument for the purpose of preventing conception." That was the first Supreme Court case to specifically recognize a right of privacy.

triviawayne wrote:Page 3, line 26:

emissions outside of a woman's vagina, or created outside of a health or medical facility, will be charged a $100 civil penalty for each emission and will be considered an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life


So does this mean no pulling out, no use of condoms...and how would they prosecute if the evidence is swallowed?

As much as I hated the nine hours of theology classes I had to take in college, I'll never forget the enlightenment I attained in a Christian Morality class (taught by a roly poly Jesuit preist who actually made the subject interesting) when the homunculus theory was explained to us. The ancient belief that a man's sperm contained a tiny human inside of it. Depositing sperm any place other than a human woman's vagina was effectively an act of murder, or at least a pretty egregious sin in the eye of the Church. The light bulb clicked for me even before the priest went on to list the consequences this ancient belief had on doctrine... it explained every single controversial Christian belief regarding sexuality.

It has to rank right up there with learning what all those 80's songs I liked as a kid were really about as far as personal epiphanies go...

lb13

littlebeast13 wrote:

triviawayne wrote:Page 3, line 26:

emissions outside of a woman's vagina, or created outside of a health or medical facility, will be charged a $100 civil penalty for each emission and will be considered an act against an unborn child, and failing to preserve the sanctity of life


So does this mean no pulling out, no use of condoms...and how would they prosecute if the evidence is swallowed?

As much as I hated the nine hours of theology classes I had to take in college, I'll never forget the enlightenment I attained in a Christian Morality class (taught by a roly poly Jesuit preist who actually made the subject interesting) when the homunculus theory was explained to us. The ancient belief that a man's sperm contained a tiny human inside of it. Depositing sperm any place other than a human woman's vagina was effectively an act of murder, or at least a pretty egregious sin in the eye of the Church. The light bulb clicked for me even before the priest went on to list the consequences this ancient belief had on doctrine... it explained every single controversial Christian belief regarding sexuality.

It has to rank right up there with learning what all those 80's songs I liked as a kid were really about as far as personal epiphanies go...

lb13

Bob Juch wrote:

littlebeast13 wrote:As much as I hated the nine hours of theology classes I had to take in college, I'll never forget the enlightenment I attained in a Christian Morality class (taught by a roly poly Jesuit preist who actually made the subject interesting) when the homunculus theory was explained to us. The ancient belief that a man's sperm contained a tiny human inside of it. Depositing sperm any place other than a human woman's vagina was effectively an act of murder, or at least a pretty egregious sin in the eye of the Church. The light bulb clicked for me even before the priest went on to list the consequences this ancient belief had on doctrine... it explained every single controversial Christian belief regarding sexuality.

It has to rank right up there with learning what all those 80's songs I liked as a kid were really about as far as personal epiphanies go...

lb13

I haven't seen that movie in over ten years, but I started singing the song as soon as I started reading Beast's comments. Now I probably won't be able to get that song out of my head for the rest of the day.