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. See, what had happened was that this news circulated to the website that I like to post on. The title of the post was “boebert was giving a no-foolin for-reals handjob during the beetlejuice musical” This post got some of the most vile, vitriolic comments I’ve ever seen in all my posting.

>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 this @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 amogus 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.

  • CptKrkIsClmbngThMntn [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    65·
    1 year ago

    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.

  • EmotionalSupportLancet [undecided]@hexbear.netEnglish
    43·
    1 year ago

    Let’s make this more complicated and harder to agree on:

    Intent matters when considering an act. Was she simply teasing him, giving a quick squeeze of affirmation? Or was she due to the constraints of public decency laws rubbing over the pants with the intent of causing him to finish?

    The video is not clear, we can not know if it was a mere bit of fondling or in possession of the intent required to qualify as a job.

    Jetjob is a novel concept and I applaud the advances this discussion is leading to in jobology.

  • ChaosMaterialist [he/him]@hexbear.netEnglish
    36·
    1 year ago

    Certified marx 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.

    1. 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.

    1. 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.

    1. …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

  • Grownbravy [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
    34·
    1 year ago

    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…

  • Nationalgoatism [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
    24·
    1 year ago

    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 (expert-shapiro 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 phoenix-objection-1 phoenix-objection-2 , 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

    • President_Obama [they/them]@hexbear.netEnglish
      16·
      1 year ago

      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?

    • WhatDoYouMeanPodcast [comrade/them]@hexbear.netOPEnglish
      4·
      1 year ago

      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

      • regul [any]@hexbear.netEnglish
        7·
        1 year ago

        Condoms are specifically created to emulate, as near as possible, the sensation of skin contact. Jeans are decidedly not!