you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]LyingSpirit472 3 insightful - 6 fun3 insightful - 5 fun4 insightful - 6 fun -  (5 children)

What about if you both had your socks on or your balls didn't touch?

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 5 insightful - 5 fun5 insightful - 4 fun6 insightful - 5 fun -  (4 children)

That only applies during threeseomes with a woman. Direct dude-on-dude always needs the "no homo" clause invoked ASAP.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

While the "balls don't touch" rule applies to threesomes with a woman, the "both had socks on" can also happen for dude-on-dude.

There's also questions of level- like, if it's with a sibling does "no chromo" or "no homo" trump it. What if it's a underage sibling, and you have to add "no chomo" to the mix as well?

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I believe that, in the case of siblings, the "Roll Tide" rule supersedes everything else. And once that rule in invoked, you never go back to a lesser rule.

[–]LyingSpirit472 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

And for the last part...you're at the glory hole. You've got your dick inside. You don't KNOW it's a man on the other end, and all you feel is the mouth or the ass. You could be fucking a woman's ass, a woman's mouth, or sucking a ladydick there. That's clearly not a "no homo" situation, correct?

[–]LordoftheFliesAmeri-kin 2.0. Pronouns: MegaWhite/SuperStraight/UltraPatriarchy 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Glory holes are well beyond the scope of "no homo" coverage, which is meant primarily to be applied to cases of casual or incidental dude-on-dude activity.