It's recently come out that, on September 10th, Lauren Boebert was removed from the play Beetlejuice in Denver. This would be all fine and good, right? A politician is being an asshole. The sky is blue. Well, Hexbear, it is anything but fine. Anything but.
The plot thickens when it's revealed that, beyond the vaping and the being loud (which is it's own struggle session whether that's based), that part of her contribution to getting owned was that she was giving her partner an over the pants handjob. Now, this would have gone through the news cycle with a sensible chuckle for me, but, my fellow hexbearians, do I look like I'm having a sensible chuckle? NO! This is literally me right now.
>no-foolin for-reals handjob >over the pants rubbin Y'all that's not even a handy to a seventh grader. @regul@hexbear.net
unironically 
@WoofWoof91@hexbear.net
Let's get one thing straight here, hexbear. Over the pants is a handjob. This is my central thesis. Let's start with the most obvious positive case. If you have sex with a condom, do you call it over-the-condom sex? Of course not! Protected sex, maybe, but you wouldn't call it not sex. Would you call a blowjob with a condom not a blowjob? Of course not! If you did that'd be annoying and weird. Let's try not to be annoying and weird. skin-to-skin contact with the genitals isn't a requirement for something to be called a job. Repeat it once more for the people in the back getting a handjob rn: skin-to-skin contact with the genitals isn't a requirement for something to be called a job. If home runs are so unambiguous, why is third base so "ambiguous?" Because of a single fringe case. If it wasn't for the existence of this fringe case, then there's be no argument about how getting your genitals stimulated works.
Fairies, monsters, and others that go bump in the night, let me introduce you to the water jet/bubbling system of a hot tub. Wikipedia defines a hot tub as "a large tub full of water used for hydrotherapy, relaxation or pleasure." Let's explore that last word, pleasure. Whom 
hasn't used a hot tub as it was meant to be used. I think this is where the friction comes from, the jet stream in a hot tub. Dissenters will say (like sniveling cowards) "b-b-but WDYMP, the hot tub isn't sentient, it can't give you a job!" Let's get one thing straight, if you had your hands over the edge of a hot tub and your partner was pushing your crotch into a jet stream, that would be a type of job. The solution, my compromise for the haters and losers, is what I would like to call the jetjob. It would be a normal jetjob if they're pushing you via hands on the buttox into a water jet, and a reverse jetjob if they're using their feet. It would be a backwards jetjob if your back is facing the water jet. This also expands the capacity for a combo jobs because your crotch is facing your partner. This would be the exciting introduction of the triple job if they're using a hand, their mouth, and the water jet. I propose that, upon climax in such a fashion, one would exclaim "Tic tac toe, three in a row!"
With this, let's get one thing clear, over the pants is a type of handjob the same way that over the condom sex is a type of sex. If we can start using the term jetjob, then it will be easier to recognize when something is a job and when something is not. This would also be a step closer to communism. Thank you. I hope I haven't fractured our fragile community too deeply with this.
Why the fuck are you libs still using capitalist economic terminology to describe intimate, consensual acts between real human beings?
Fuck off with this "job" nonsense and learn to kill the boss in your head.
lawful good: against the chest
neutral good: hand to shaft
chaotic good: against the face
lawful neutral: latex glove
true neutral: with a condom
chaotic neutral: while smoking
lawful evil: ruined orgasm
neutral evil: flicking
chaotic evil: over the pants (with intent for climax)
lawful neutral chaotic good against the chest hand to shaft against the face neutral latex glove with a condom while smoking evil ruined orgasm flicking over the pants (with intent for climax)
It counts as negative theory. You owe us a chapter of State and Revolution
I'n watching speedrun history documentaries of the beetlejuice handjob nut% category and she's missing out on some huge skips
Of course, this job I've been bestowed is a labor of love
This is the correct take. Its certainly possible to give an OTPHJ. I don't think anyone disputes that, the matter in question is whether such a thing occured. While the congresswoman's removed is established and unquestioned its possible some hexbears could be utilizing this grey area to skirt their volcel pledge and reeducation may be necessary. I recommend we form a tribunal to further codify precisely what behavior is and is not within acceptable parameters.
🚔 🚓
- Show
The VOLCEL POLICE are on the scene! PLEASE KEEP YOUR VITAL ESSENCES TO YOURSELVES AT ALL TIMES.
نحن شرطة VolCel.بناءا على تعليمات الهيئة لترويج لألعاب الفيديو و النهي عن الجنس نرجوا الإبتعاد عن أي أفكار جنسية و الحفاظ على حيواناتكم المنويَّة حتى يوم الحساب. اتقوا الله، إنك لا تراه لكنه يراك.
If you think over the pants isn't a handjob, you aren't a leftist.
(I flipped a coin to figure out which side I was on)
If you think the dress was black and blue, you aren't a leftist
Any time one of these "is it rotating left or right" things comes up I stare at it like a weirdo until I can force my brain to switch.
Certified
analysis. Proof:"b-b-but WDYMP, the hot tub isn't sentient, it can't give you a job!" Let's get one thing straight, if you had your hands over the edge of a hot tub and your partner was pushing your crotch into a jet stream, that would be a type of job. The solution, my compromise for the haters and losers, is what I would like to call the jetjob.
- Marx would agree, for are machines not mimicking the motions of the masters?
The machine proper is therefore a mechanism that, after being set in motion, performs with its tools the same operations that were formerly done by the workman with similar tools. Whether the motive power is derived from man, or from some other machine, makes no difference in this respect. From the moment that the tool proper is taken from man, and fitted into a mechanism, a machine takes the place of a mere implement.
To continue your line of thinking...
It would be a normal jetjob if they're pushing you via hands on the buttox into a water jet, and a reverse jetjob if they're using their feet. It would be a backwards jetjob if your back is facing the water jet. This also expands the capacity for a combo jobs because your crotch is facing your partner.
- Once again, Marx notes how the human body has limited number of hands, arms, etc...
The difference strikes one at once, even in those cases where man himself continues to be the prime mover. The number of implements that he himself can use simultaneously, is limited by the number of his own natural instruments of production, by the number of his bodily organs. In Germany, they tried at first to make one spinner work two spinning-wheels, that is, to work simultaneously with both hands and both feet. This was too difficult. Later, a treddle spinning-wheel with two spindles was invented, but adepts in spinning, who could spin two threads at once, were almost as scarce as two-headed men.
...But indeed if we could use machines...
This would be the exciting introduction of the triple job if they're using a hand, their mouth, and the water jet.
- ...Marx states we could transcend such limits!
The Jenny, on the other hand, even at its very birth, spun with 12-18 spindles, and the stocking-loom knits with many thousand needles at once. The number of tools that a machine can bring into play simultaneously, is from the very first emancipated from the organic limits that hedge in the tools of a handicraftsman.
As such, as you state, QED:
I propose that, upon climax in such a fashion, one would exclaim "Tic tac toe, three in a row!"
Source: Das Kapital Chapter 15 section 1
Upon realization of such a device under capitalism, patriarchy would be like "fellas, is it gay to get an infini-job?"
A blowjob is when one or more partners perform oral sex on a partner with a penis. A handjob is manual manipulation of a partner’s penis done by one or more partners.
Curiously the performance of oral sex on a partner along the labia and vaginal opening is not considered a job of any kind. Similarly, digital manipulation of those same locations are not called a job either.
Even more puzzling is the oral stimulation of another’s anus is in fact called a rimjob.
In this video essay I’ll…
Patriarchy in action, even in sex cis men can take all the 'jobs while others are barred from accessing them. 😔
I wonder if it has something to do with how this is a common practice among sex workers, while labial or vaginal stimulation is not as common.
It's recently come out that, on September 10th,
Fuck, just one day away from being so much funnier…
I'd like to thank the haters and losers for this handjob on this very special day, 9/11
Improperly definining a hand job was a primary cause of the Sino-Soviet split. Thank you for bringing this to the community's attention.
When she was talking about "creating jobs", I didn't realize this is what she meant.
Trump be like "I give out loads of jobs! I'm the biggest job creator in the US! I love jobs, folks."
our posters are highly educated. they know posting. they know the best posts. there's no better post than our posts
So where is the line on what is a hand job/sex in general? Is any touching of the general genital area a hand job? Seems overly broad. What if, hypothetically (
the hand is held a quarter inch over the genital area, with the intent of causing arousal, is that a hand job?That being said
, whether or not an over the pants counts doesn't change the fact that what Lauren Boebert did was just a casual feel. The kind of thing you were doing in seventh grade. Ladies and gentlemen and envies get a sense of perspective. That's not a hand job. That's a tease which will cause partial arousal at most.Tldr, you are so wrong and I'm the one true leftist
That's not a hand job. That's a tease which will cause partial arousal at most.
What if he prematurely ejaculated in his pants? Does that make it count as one?
1st postulate: one must assume that contact must be made between that which is physically touching the genitals and the touchers hand. As previously argued a condom would not preclude the jobness of a blowjob ergo cum loudly handjob as well.
Off of this alone, one can differentiate a handjob from a quarter inch over which is more commonly referred to as a qi-job. DEMOLISHED by facts and logic
Condoms are specifically created to emulate, as near as possible, the sensation of skin contact. Jeans are decidedly not!
An OTPHJ is a handjob, but I think it should always be qualified as such. If someone says "handjob" unqualified I'm going to assume there's no (or very minimal) intervening fabric, which is the issue with the original post's title
Especially if you say “a no-foolin for-reals handjob”
Now that the dust has settled. This is incredibly fair and probably what I would have settled on if I actually thought about it. The point that I wanted to make about a jetjob flowed a little better disagreeing with this. I also want to express that I quoted exactly both people who thought it wasn't a hojo and it's not exactly a strong dissent. One of the users also posted "No it aint!" once and that was comprehensively the whole dissent. The opinion was formed based off of the jokes I wanted to tell.
in the hot tub please
