SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Pastimes : Let's Talk About Our Feelings!!! -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Michael M who wrote (47947)7/30/1999 6:50:00 PM
From: Ilaine  Respond to of 108807
 
If I recall correctly, we were discussing the topic of human-sheep relations. One person, who knows who she is, was fascinated by the topic, and the rest of us sort of said everything witty, witless and unwitting that we could think of on the topic.



To: Michael M who wrote (47947)7/30/1999 7:24:00 PM
From: jbe  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
Okay, Michael, here we go: Sheep Sex!

techstocks.com

The above search brought up some irrelevant posts (i.e., sheep but no sex), while omitting some key ones. But if you click on the "view answers to this post," you should get a complete picture. Hahahaha.

Actually, Christine first brought the topic up in an April 18 post (before my time here). I presume it had something to do with an inflatable sheep sex doll you can buy on the net (actually, it's a spoof). She then reintroduced the subject on July 2. As penni points out, Christine has a real gift for producing "thread-stoppers." Her use of the term "sexual relationship" in this context cracked me up....and it was all downhill from there. Or uphill, depending on your point of view. :-)



To: Michael M who wrote (47947)7/30/1999 7:56:00 PM
From: E  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 108807
 
<<<I wasn't here for "sheep sex." Did it involve a minimum number of sheep - say, two? >>>

Michael, this is very narrow-minded of you. I'm sure there are sheep who have freely chosen solitary sex, and who are you, I ask, to declare that "one" is a number below the "minimum," thus implying that their self-pleasuring is a less noble form of love-making than the forms freely chosen by any other group of ruminants?