Re: Hook 'Em

1

The professors among you should now admire my restraint for not starting this post "UrbanDictionary defines 'hooking up' as...".


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:33 AM
horizontal rule
2

Obviously #3. Granted, these days, oral sex is the baseline of generation awesome, but I think maximal uncertainty is allowed.

I think "making out sloppily in the booth at the club between 12 and 1" counts, as does "having sex three times, and having breakfast together."

I like the concept- it allows me to share information with my friends without being vulgar.


Posted by: Counterfly | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
3

I thought it meant that they commented on each other's blogs.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:38 AM
horizontal rule
4

I think there's a book out about this called Hook-Ups and and Hooking Hookers Who Hook Them or something like that.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
5

Is that what they call it these days?


Posted by: Counterfly | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
6

I'm fine with commenting on your blog, ogged, but you commenting on mine would just be gross.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
7

Since the dawn of time, humankind has wondered what composes 'hooking up.'

---

My sense is that it varies regionally. (2) would be how I would use it. Interesting, though, when one person says 'hooked up' meaning (2) and someone else assumes (1).

(3) is a candyass compromise.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
8

5 to 4.


Posted by: Counterfly | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:40 AM
horizontal rule
9

God, I'm hung over.


Posted by: Counterfly | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:41 AM
horizontal rule
10

I take it to mean 3 with a strong probability of 1, but, as an old fogey, I object to the term altogether. "X and Y pitched some woo" was good enough in my day.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
11

"pitched some woo" s/b "got it on"


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:42 AM
horizontal rule
12

I returned from the wilds of China to hear everyone using this term, and was often confused. When I sought clarification, I generally got ambiguous answers. I think the definition I settled upon was that it meant something like "they ended up together at the end the night", which is closest to Becks' option (3).


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:43 AM
horizontal rule
13

M/M/, get back to those classifieds!


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:44 AM
horizontal rule
14

Yes, dear.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:45 AM
horizontal rule
15

Back in my day, when Eisenhower was president, (3) was how we used it, but I know people who mean (1), and I've been assuming that the trend is toward (1).

Note, Becks, that the ambiguity, like the participants, goes down, because there's imprecision in what it is to have sex, fool around, and so on.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:46 AM
horizontal rule
16

In the UK it generally has no sexual connotations at all. I could say to a friend "let's hook up next time we're in London" and there'd be no confusion.

Probably one of the US meanings will invade, soon.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:50 AM
horizontal rule
17

the ambiguity, like the participants, goes down, because there's imprecision in what it is to have sex

Actually, I think this is wrong. You don't call it "hooking up" because you just can't decide what to call it. You call it "hooking up" either because you don't know precisely what happened, or because you're trying to be ambiguous (unless you hold to meaning 1 or 2, in which case you're killing strategic ambiguity for the rest of us).


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
18

Agree with Labs about what it meant back then. Like Labs, I also assumed GA had slutted up the definition, which is all to the good.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:52 AM
horizontal rule
19

I could say to a friend "let's hook up next time we're in London" and there'd be no confusion.

Here too; depends on context.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:53 AM
horizontal rule
20

I wouldn't use "hook up" to mean "meet up" when talking with a female friend.


Posted by: Counterfly | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:59 AM
horizontal rule
21

17: See, I figure that if you meant to imply "we had sex" by the phrase "hooking up", you wouldn't want the phrase to be ambiguous between getting laid and fooling around. So it's either (1) or (2), but with (3) only showing up because no one's sure whether the other person means (1) or (2)

There's a philosophy of language problem lurking in here somewhere, I'm sure of it. Grice away!


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:01 AM
horizontal rule
22

But do people normally use "hook up" to describe what they've done, or what someone else has done; the latter, typically, no?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
23

To describe what they've done, ime.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
24

If you want the understanding of anyone entirely dependent on mass media for the definition, it means something like "A and B, who knew each other slightly, found 30 minutes in their busy day to have sex before they went on to more important things".


Posted by: John Emerson | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
25

Indiscreet bastards.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
26

It's sort of discreet, to the extent that hooking up pretty much covers everything short of intercourse.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:09 AM
horizontal rule
27

If Bob told me that he hooked up with Josie last night, I might later tell Jane that I had heard Bob and Josie hooked up, but might speculate as to whether that involved PIV or just some sloppy tongue. But that's just with Jane. With Judy I'd leave it totally ambiguous and let her wrestle with the uncertainty, because she (I think) hooked up with Bob last week but he was total cad about it and I don't want her to dwell. Actually probably shouldn't have told Judy but, spilt milk.


Posted by: Counterfly | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:11 AM
horizontal rule
28

It's even more discreet when it includes intercourse.


Posted by: Counterfly | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:13 AM
horizontal rule
29

Huh. If someone else told me that they had hooked up, I would take it as (3), because I know that there's a good deal of uncertainty w/r/t what "hooking up" entails. However! I would only use it myself for (2); I'm a big fan of telling stories that go on and on for a while, and finish with "and then we had sex."


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
30

17: actually, old shoe, I suspect you're right, but I couldn't think of a way to combine noting the ambiguity of all the disambiguations of "hooking up"-- the "it's x all the way down" point-- with an allusion to oral sex.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
31

Also, I think we need to clarify option (2), because "fooled around" is ambiguous. I do not think that "hooking up" can be used to describe, say, a couple minutes of kissing or something. There has to be at least what the old fogeys would refer to as "heavy petting."


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:16 AM
horizontal rule
32

Labs, I just emailed you, and could use a response.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:18 AM
horizontal rule
33

old fogeys would refer to as "heavy petting."

Awesome. Questions about heavy petting were SOP in worthiness interviews when I was a Mormon lad.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:20 AM
horizontal rule
34

What's a worthiness interview?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
35

I was so confused in middle school as to what, exactly, was meant by heavy petting. It sounded so exotic, until someone was like "yo, third base, dude."


Posted by: Counterfly | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
36

What's a worthiness interview?

There's different levels of the priesthood you get ordained to beginning when you're 12

12- Deacon
14- Teacher
16 -Priest

And so on and so forth. Each time involves an interview with your bishop to make sure you're worthy. He asks you all kinds of fun questions like "do you masturbate", "have you been engaging in heavy petting", etc.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:26 AM
horizontal rule
37

Ogged, you persian slipper, I replied.


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
38

Thanks, gaylord.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:36 AM
horizontal rule
39

Will masturbating keep you from being a deacon?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
40

I have tended to take it to mean (1), but I understand that it is ambiguous.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:52 AM
horizontal rule
41

"being" s/b "boning"


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
42

3! but amongst most of my friends i seem to be one of the few who holds this opinion - most seem to agree with the first.


Posted by: catherine | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
43

To generate more confusion, somebody should invent a really bizarre and memorable sexual act and call it "hooking up."


Posted by: Neil the Ethical Werewolf | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
44

Something involving knitting.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
45

Wait, are we using sex to mean the mommy and daddy dance, or the "in for a penny, in for a pound" BitchPhD definition?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
46

You're in the clear as long as you don't get spunk on B.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
47

Will masturbating keep you from being a deacon?

You know, I'm not sure. I've never known anyone to do anything but lie. Which is bizarre, because surely the bishop knows we were all lying.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
48

Does the bishop know when you are sleeping? When you're awake? Does he know if you've been bad or good?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
49

So keep your hands off your monkey for goodness sake.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:09 PM
horizontal rule
50

The wife's reaction to "I'm hooked up with [female friend] yesterday" suggests that whatever it means, I shouldn't be doing it.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
51

How many languages did she use to threaten to castrate you, SEK?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:29 PM
horizontal rule
52

The universal language, love withheld.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
53

Seventeen. Sixteen for the (hypothetical) offense, one for my stellar grammar.


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
54

Another connotation, IME, of the phrase "hook up" is that the people involved are not dating or otherwise romantically involved, but they do, of course, have the option to lease.

(Also: I say #3 for all its attendant ambiguity wonderfulness.)


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:36 PM
horizontal rule
55

47.-- Wait, you people just lied?!?


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:46 PM
horizontal rule
56

55: Because she is a woman of principle and integrity, JM renounced her faith rather than stop masturbating.


Posted by: æpostropher | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 12:58 PM
horizontal rule
57

45 demonstrates why the only possible correct answer is #3.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:00 PM
horizontal rule
58

I'd go for (3). And then harangue them for talking like an American.

The "in for a penny, in for a pound" link was a good sex thread, what I read of it. The phrase "non-penetrative sex" exists for a reason, surely? Reminded me of a recent conversation I had about whether, if having to make a choice for the rest of one's life, one would choose PIV sex (or PIA would have to be included too I think) but nothing else, OR everything else.


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:02 PM
horizontal rule
59

The universal language, love withheld.

Your mom knows that language. She only speaks it to you, of course.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:03 PM
horizontal rule
60

How old are X and Y? The older they are, the more likely #1 is meant. The younger, the more likely #2 is meant. College or just after, #3.


Posted by: jim | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
61

There was a time where "hooking up" meant absolutely doing the deed. I recall times where one might "nearly hook up" in fact. However, since about 1995 (in the mid-Atlantic region anyway) the definition of "hooking up" began expanding to include almost all ancillary sexual activity. So, I'd say you are definitely 100% right in your contention, with nearly a decade of going tradition backing you up.

Those who contend otherwise are simply nostalgic for the phantoms of lost lexicons.


Posted by: DCeiver | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:12 PM
horizontal rule
62

Anyway, hasn't ogged already chided me for re-bringing this subject up?


Posted by: SEK | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:14 PM
horizontal rule
63

I don't really understand ogged's complaint in the post linked in the comment to which you've linked. Surely, per Yglesias, it's determinative that all the social statistics indicate that kids are less at risk today for any number of ills than they were when we were growing up.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:20 PM
horizontal rule
64

I vote for (3).


Posted by: arthegall | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:29 PM
horizontal rule
65

56.--Exactly!


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
66

Here's a good argument for (3): it maximizes our chances to assert truly claims such as "wow, there were a lot of hookups that weekend."


Posted by: FL | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
67

(3), definitely. That definition allows people to talk about the event without have to get into sometimes-awkward detail about who put what where.


Posted by: Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 1:59 PM
horizontal rule
68

I use it to mean even less than (3) -- becoming a couple (transiently or not) without any implication of physical activities at all. That is, they could be involved, but the term doesn't specify.


Posted by: Minivet | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 2:28 PM
horizontal rule
69

"X and Y hooked up", what do you take that to mean?
Me, well to me it might mean:
X=B
and
Y>I


Posted by: Anon | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
70

It's so not fair to post that anonymously.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 2:51 PM
horizontal rule
71

Definitely #3. We need a term that encompasses ambiguity, otherwise we can't gossip about our friends without knowing all of the details.


Posted by: mrh | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 3:03 PM
horizontal rule
72

I agree with 70. 69 should have been posted by "Grover Cleveland".


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
73

Actually, I'm lying/joking. Dead Presidents are only for revealing information about oneself. 69 should have been post under someone's real handle, or not at all.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
74

Also:

does "Y>I" mean that Y is someone better than Anon, or that Y is a group of people including Anon?


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 3:49 PM
horizontal rule
75

Does "Anon" really stand for anonymous? I think I've seen that pseud here a few times previously, and I had always assumed it was the same person.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
76

75: I'm not sure, but I think it's pronounced A-En-Oh-En.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 4:07 PM
horizontal rule
77

74: At the rate I'm going, probably the latter.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 4:51 PM
horizontal rule
78

What is your going rate, B?


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 4:54 PM
horizontal rule
79

without have to get into sometimes-awkward detail about who put what where

Or without the person you're talking to having to picture the who put what where.


Posted by: Becks | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 5:33 PM
horizontal rule
80

No, no, picturing it is most of the fun of this kind of conversation.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 5:35 PM
horizontal rule
81

I once lobbied for a strict adherence to definition #1, precisely because I had hooked up with a woman with whom I nonetheless did not want it to be thought that I had sex. This is known as sophistry. Clearly it's an inherently ambiguous term -- though I would ideally like to preserve it for #2, using the more direct (though still subtle) "I totally fucked her" for #1.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 6:24 PM
horizontal rule
82

But what about third- or second-personal reports, Adam? Do you want to be constrained to "he/she/you totally fucked him/her/you"?


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 6:26 PM
horizontal rule
83

I assume "they/we totally fucked" would be fine.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 6:33 PM
horizontal rule
84

Like you mean coming from the lips of a neocon surveying the wreckage that is Iraq, the scales falling from his eyes as he murmers, "Oh man, we totally fucked up..."


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 6:56 PM
horizontal rule
85

Or coming from the lips of the rest of us, "Oh man, we're totally fucked..."


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 7:22 PM
horizontal rule
86

"to fuck up" is a separate verb from "to fuck." Also, the difference between active and passive voice is clear and decisive.


Posted by: Adam Kotsko | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 7:32 PM
horizontal rule
87

True.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 7:44 PM
horizontal rule
88

78: More than the last time.


Posted by: bitchphd | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 8:12 PM
horizontal rule
89

What of "I'll hook you up..."


Posted by: Clownæsthesiologist | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:18 PM
horizontal rule
90

And hookers! What about them?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:44 PM
horizontal rule
91

84 "we totally fucked up" s/b "it's the biggest cock-up ever and we're all completely fucked."

At least, in a perfect world.


Posted by: arthegall | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 10:58 PM
horizontal rule
92

"to fuck up" is a separate verb from "to fuck."

Relevant.


Posted by: Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:02 PM
horizontal rule
93

And hookers! What about them?

Teo's getting desperate.


Posted by: Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:03 PM
horizontal rule
94

It happens. I figure if I keep commenting like this the English Courtesan will show up again.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-13-07 11:08 PM
horizontal rule
95

Um, you're not really making much progress on that "keep commenting like this" plan, teo.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
96

I decided I didn't actually want her to show up again.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 2:29 PM
horizontal rule
97

I prefer details. Language like "hooking up" can't be used in my presence without me badgering for descriptive narrations of the event. Two people closing a door behind them at a party could mean anything from crying about a sad memory to ravenous against-the-wall fucking. I'd rather know which it is.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
98

What if the person you're talking to knows nothing more than that the two people closed a door behind them?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 2:56 PM
horizontal rule
99

Then they are obliged to confabulate.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:05 PM
horizontal rule
100

3 is usage-correct. The trouble is that there needs to be a lower-limit on what constitutes a hookup -- as in a set of minimal requirements to seperate a hookup from a makeout. I propose the difference is oral sex. In a hookup there's oral sex; a makeout is up-to-oral-sex.


Posted by: Spackerman | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:22 PM
horizontal rule
101

What about making out with through-the-clothes groping? I would not consider that hooking up unless it was behind closed doors, and that sort of thing tends to go on in the open. Maybe hooking up must include a) a closed door and b) something involving clothing removal/circumvention.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:28 PM
horizontal rule
102

I think it's inarguable that any encounter where someone has an orgasm constitutes a hookup, oral sex or no, so maybe the minimum requirement for hookup is either orgasm or oral sex (with or without orgasm).


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:29 PM
horizontal rule
103

"Through-the-clothes groping" is immaterial.


Posted by: arthegall | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:33 PM
horizontal rule
104

that sort of thing tends to go on in the open

I must not be going to the right parties.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:37 PM
horizontal rule
105

Leblanc, you're right. Oral sex-slash-organism is a clear-cut hookup. We agree. But should some furtive sex act -- the uncompleted genital stroke, for instance; or the sloppy tit-grab -- beneath that level count as a hookup? I say no: that's a makeout.


Posted by: Spackerman | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
106

organism s/b orgasm. obviously.


Posted by: Spackerman | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:40 PM
horizontal rule
107

But what of the artful tit-grab?


Posted by: Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:42 PM
horizontal rule
108

105: I guess it depends on what you mean by "uncompleted." If the stroke itself is incomplete, then yes, that is makeout territory. However, if by uncompleted you merely mean "not resulting in orgasm," then, depending on the extent of the stroking, it could reside in hookup territory. I say one minute of genital contact is the hookup floor function.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:44 PM
horizontal rule
109

I don't know. I think if we're talking non-penetrative genital contact that doesn't result in orgasm, you've made out and not hooked up.


Posted by: Spackerman | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
110

Only killer tomatoes are more feared than the sex-slash-organism.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:52 PM
horizontal rule
111

Then we disagree. I revise my earlier stance; and I think, like many standards we might wish to establish, an intent model is a good one. I say that genital contact that a reasonable person would believe to be directed toward producing orgasm is a hookup rather than a makeout.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:53 PM
horizontal rule
112

So a hookup is a matter of intent, rather than results? If that's the case, then I've fucked like a million girls.


Posted by: Spackerman | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:54 PM
horizontal rule
113

You people, and particularly Spac, are all sluts.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 3:55 PM
horizontal rule
114

Even me?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
115

Mutual intent, spack. Fantasies don't count.


Posted by: Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:00 PM
horizontal rule
116

114: If Spack is reading leblanc's intent formulation correctly, especially you.


Posted by: SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
117

I don't think he is, though. See 115.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:07 PM
horizontal rule
118

No, no, objective reading of intent, not subjective intent. That's what that "reasonable person" bit is all about, y'all.

And "mutual intent," well, if reciprocity of intent is required to make a thing come in being, no one's ever getting anywhere.


Posted by: m. leblanc | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:09 PM
horizontal rule
119

if reciprocity of intent is required to make a thing come in being, no one's ever getting anywhere

You really think so?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:20 PM
horizontal rule
120

Reciprocity of intent doesn't need to be initially present, but it does need to develop at some point, I'd say.


Posted by: Matt F | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:22 PM
horizontal rule
121

Reciprocity of intent leads to consent leads to sex, right? At least, that's the way I rumble.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:31 PM
horizontal rule
122

That was my impression. I don't know quite what leblanc means, though.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:33 PM
horizontal rule
123

Leblanc is a rapist!


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:51 PM
horizontal rule
124

"a" s/b "the"


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:52 PM
horizontal rule
125

or, "teh"


Posted by: Clownaesthesiologist | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 4:52 PM
horizontal rule
126

"Through-the-clothes groping" is immaterial.

On the contrary, it could be any number of materials.


Posted by: ben w-lfs-n | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 5:00 PM
horizontal rule
127

Silk, cotton-poly, teflon...


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 5:13 PM
horizontal rule
128

...an iridescent film shot through with spider webs of mucoid stuff in a curious shade of magenta...


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 5:41 PM
horizontal rule
129

I've fucked like a million girls

I'd heard that you throw like a girl, Spackerman, but you also fuck like a girl? Interesting.


Posted by: M/tch M/lls | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 9:38 PM
horizontal rule
130

Does he also cum like a girl?


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 01-14-07 9:50 PM
horizontal rule
131

Spackerman clearly needs a t-shirt. (Scroll down.)


Posted by: Hamilton Lovecraft | Link to this comment | 01-15-07 1:15 AM
horizontal rule
132

(3), definitely. Pissed me the hell off because of the imprecision, but I've grown accustomed to it by now. Mind, "having a conversation with" is apparently a euphemism for oral sex in some circles, so who the fuck knows?


Posted by: Anarch | Link to this comment | 01-15-07 11:19 PM
horizontal rule