Egyptian Muslims told they can’t be nude while having sex.

In an apparent attempt to win the coveted World Prude Championship Cup, Egyptian Muslim cleric Rashad Hassan Khalil has issued a fatwa declaring that being completely naked during sex is not only prohibited, but that it annuls your marriage:

The religious decree sparked a hot debate on the private satellite network Dream’s popular religious talk show and on the front page of Sunday’s Al-Masri Al-Yom, Egypt’s leading independent daily newspaper.

Suad Saleh, who heads the women’s department of Al-Azhar’s Islamic studies faculty, pleaded for “anything that can bring spouses closer to each other” and rejected the claim that nudity during intercourse could invalidate a union.

During the live televised debate, Islamic scholar Abdel Muti dismissed the fatwa: “Nothing is prohibited during marital sex, except of course sodomy.”

And here I thought Catholics were uptight about their sexuality. Sure they’re not supposed to enjoy the act of sex too much, but at least they can get naked while doing it without risking breaking up their marriage.

For his part, Al-Azhar’s fatwa committee chairman Abdullah Megawar argued that married couples could see each other naked but should not look at each other’s genitalia and suggested they cover up with a blanket during sex.

Interestingly enough there’s nothing said about how much enjoyment they can get from sex in this decree. That makes for an interesting contrast with the Catholic policy: Do you prefer to be able to be completely naked, but keep the fun to a minimum or would you prefer having to stay mostly clothed, but allowed to enjoy it as much as you want? Personally I’ll just stick with being a heathen, thanks.

66 thoughts on “Egyptian Muslims told they can’t be nude while having sex.

  1. Les: And here I thought Catholics were uptight about their sexuality.

    What on earth would make someone think that?  Catholics have some of the highest birth-rates in the world; where the heck do you think all those babies come from?

    Let’s see what the Catechism of the Catholic Church has to say on the matter:

    “The acts in marriage by which the intimate and chaste union of the spouses takes place are noble and honorable; the human performance of these acts fosters the self-giving they signify and enriches the spouses in joy and gratitude.”

    “The Creator himself . . . established that in the [generative] function, spouses should experience pleasure and enjoyment of body and spirit.  Therefore, the spouses do nothing evil in seeking this pleasure and enjoyment.”

    In what sense are Catholics uptight about sex?

  2. In what sense are Catholics uptight about sex?

    For the semantically-confused, people can have sex while at the same time feel uptight about doing so.  Especially when the people in question (i.e. Catholics) seem to view sex as a duty, not something to be enjoyed. Are you familiar with the old phrase “Lay still and think of England?” I know many Victorian Brits weren’t Catholic, but it’s the same principal.

    You quote the “Catechism of the Catholic Church” (though you quite tellingly provide no link); yet do you honestly believe that the “pleasure” described therein is refering to sex without the intention of procreating? You’re not fooling me.

    Why else would Catholic dogma prohibit birth control and other methods of reproductive choice (not to mention any alternative sexualities)? Oh, maybe it’s because the church views sex as purely about procreation, a view which I personally find to be quite deluded and misogynistic (not to mention outdated).

    As far as I can tell, overpopulating an already overpopulated planet is (by and large) a symptom of defining sexuality in binding, duty-laden terms that are usually inspired by religious dogma. And what institution in the Western world has more experience manufacturing religious dogma than the Catholic church?

    Although Islam has given Catholicism a run for its money…

    *And speaking of Islam (while returning to the topic at hand), I may be wrong, but don’t many Muslims consider certain garments to be sacrosanct? If so, wouldn’t semen and other bodily fluids exchanged while fucking “soil” such clothing were it not to be removed? On the other hand, maybe “non-sacred” clothing is worn for the purpose of intercourse.

  3. Actually, historically the Catholic church was anti-nudity.  During the middle-ages people didn’t bathe, not because they had no notion of bathing, it was that the church said it was sinful to be naked.  So while Catholics now can go full monty without fear for their souls, that wasn’t always the case.

    As for your choice, I would choose maintaining my heathenism as well.  In the words of the Dead Kennedys, kinky sex makes the world go ‘round.

  4. Of course some Muslims are uptight about sex.  The Ayatollah Khomeini himself (in “The Political, Social, Philosophical and Religious Principles of Ayatollah Khomeini.”), said that it was improper to eat a chicken you have had sex with, or to let your neighbor eat it.  The neighbor two doors down, however, may eat it with impunity.

    I got this useful tidbit of information from Reading Lolita in Teheran, by Azar Nafisi.  Highly recommended.

  5. Just goes to show you that religion isn’t really about anyone’s soul – it is, and always has been – simply about social control.  Fundamental religion – of any stripe – is generally more concerned with keeping the faithful in line rather than keeping the faith. 

    I’m with Les – let us heathen monkeys get busy while those other kooky monkeys worry about what sheet to hide under before they fuck.

  6. Just goes to show you that religion isn’t really about anyone’s soul – it is, and always has been – simply about social control. 

    Right on. No wonder the Establishment loves organized religion so much. It loves anything that produces obedient little sheep.

    In the words of the Dead Kennedys, kinky sex makes the world go ‘round.

    That it does. cool smile

    I too am a proud heathen. At least it allows me to enjoy my life.

  7. Darling, a true lady takes off her dignity with her clothes and does her whorish best. At other times you can be as modest and dignified as your persona requires.

    Time Enough For Love
    by R.A. Heinlein

  8. Without wanting to wade into what will be very hypocritical ground for me, I enter for corrective purposes only:

    Sexy Sadie said: Oh, maybe it’s because the church views sex as purely about procreation, a view which I personally find to be quite deluded and misogynistic (not to mention outdated).

    The Church does not view sex as purely procreative.  Sex, according the Church has a dual purpose. It is viewed as unitive and procreative.  Unitive meaning the power of sexual intercourse to strenghten the bond of love between a man and a woman. 

    I do wonder how you arrived at this conclusion:

    Especially when the people in question (i.e. Catholics) seem to view sex as…not something to be enjoyed.

    What is the basis for this statement?

  9. Daryl Cantrell as always throwing out his little troll hook and seeing who he can reel in with his ridiculous misguided statements – 12% chance per year of pregnancy per year using condoms? – bullshit.Please supply your proof.Ive heard from many sources over many years that condoms prevent Vds,Aids and pregnancy,98% of the time.Its because of people like you that Aids has such a strangle hold on Africa
    And Zilch – LOL!..crack me up as always!

  10. It’s been proven repeatedly, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that condom use goes a long way in preventing AIDS. This fact is simply common sense. Anyone who argues against it clearly has their own delusional agenda.

    Time to get really personal: I have been on the Pill for many years, but whenever I fuck, I still have him use a condom. I know that John doesn’t have STDs, but I still want to be completely safe. This has worked great for me, since I don’t believe in abstinence and I’m never having children.

  11. Me: Especially when the people in question (i.e. Catholics) seem to view sex as…not something to be enjoyed.
    Consigliere:What is the basis for this statement?

    You cut out the basic thrust of my statement—that, as far as I can tell, religions such as Catholicism view procreation as a duty, one which obviously can only be attained via intercourse. I did not say that Catholics necessarily believe that intercourse should not be enjoyed; what I said was that it appears that they view intercourse for the purposes of procreation as a duty. Whether or not the act of intercourse is enjoyed would seem immaterial to such a dogma. 

    This conservative, uptight attitude regarding sexuality is one of the very many reasons why I do not subscribe to organized religion. And what really clinches it for me is the fact that many religious dogmas prohibit the use of birth control. To me, that necessarily implies an extremely narrow, arcane view of sex that has especially repressive implications for women.

    “Feel free to enjoy sex, but only if in the process you pop out children that you may or may not even want,” it seems to say. “Don’t fornicate,” it says. “Don’t enjoy sex simply for its own sake,” it seems to say.

    As a woman who is childless-by-choice and who greatly enjoys the carnality and pure physical pleasures of sex, I say “no thank you” to such guidelines.

  12. So Daryl- if we want to do something about aids and overpopulation in world, we just take away everyone’s condoms and convert them to catholicism!  Sounds like a plan.  Go for it.

    Frumpa- I’m glad you liked the chickens.  But hey- I take no credit.  That’s the Ayatollah’s work.

    Now that I think of it, maybe chickens are the answer to- nah.

  13. I did not say that Catholics necessarily believe that intercourse should not be enjoyed;

    What is this?

    Especially when the people in question (i.e. Catholics) seem to view sex as a duty, not something to be enjoyed.

    It’s not parsed at all. You said “not something to be enjoyed, which is modifying “sex.”  I see no other way to read it. 

    Your new point has triggered a bastardized version of some lyrics running through my head that seems to sum up what you are conveying.  I had to share it with you:

    Fuck, Fuck, wherever you may be;
    I am the Queen of Fucking, said she,
    And I’ll lead you all, wherever you may be,
    And I’ll lead you all in the fucking said she.

  14. oh, and double-dip, Daryl, my ex put pressure on me, not the other way around. Women have sex typically because they want to – that’s not so unbelievable. Sex is a natural desire, after all. Hell, I have less appetite than most of the women I know. Yes, it IS mysogynistic to say that it’s all about men using women. It grossly undervalues the role that “empowered” women play in having sex for their own personal pleasure, and sets them in the position of a man’s subservient, which they’re not.

  15. Oh my. Why, Consi! red face

    Just one teensy suggested emendation, if you want your ditty to scan nicely to the tune “Lord of the Dance”:

    Fuck, Fuck, wherever you may be;
    For I am the Queen of the Fuck, said she,
    And I’ll lead you all, wherever you may be,
    And I’ll lead you all in the Fuck, said she.

  16. sex with clothing mandatory?! sounds like victoria’s
    secret needs to open up in egypt and start sellin some crotchless panties to the locals. linger-ee in these heer parts. haha damn, thats almost as good as pepsi and coca-cola selling water in india after they bought it out from under them!

    endless opportnites await you in egypt! is this a tourism ploy?

  17. Birth control will inevitably lead to unplanned pregnancies and venereal diseases.

    WHAT THE FUCK???? Are you serious with this statement? It is birth CONTROL, stupid. There are other methods of birth CONTROL than condoms.

    The appalling, dangerous ignorance and utter stupidity of the wrongly-called “conservatives” in this country is beginning to make me despair.  Again I ask, when did STUPID get to be something to strive for?

  18. In actual use, a sexually active woman relying on male condoms will have about a 12% chance of getting pregnant every year.  That means she has about 50-50 odds of being pregnant after just four years of sexual activity.

    Oh man – I hope you didn’t get that kind of math at Catholic School. If so, sorry about the years of ruler whacks you must have endured. In the public schools, they teach that probabilities aren’t additive.  Rather, you calculate independent probablities using multiplication, so that a 12% chance over 4 years is = (.12* .12 * .12 *.12) = 0.00020736, or .002%.

    Further proof that this claim is false – women tend to not rely on men for anything, other than killing the occasional spider, and maybe moving heavy objects.  So, what percentage of real women do you think would entrust men with their birth control?  I’m thinking that’s somewhere around zero.

    If a woman demands a lifelong commitment from a man before bearing children, liberals call that “uptight

  19. Cindi, I wouldn’t pay any attention to anything Darrell says. He is clearly a delusional asshole. He makes extremely spurious claims with absoutely nothing to back them up. He is also clearly too cowardly to come back and support anything he has to say (undoubtedly because he knows he can’t. I don’t care if he is a friend of Les’; this behavior is clearly troll-like). I don’t take anything he says seriously, and I would advise every thinking person here not to, either.

    We liberals do, however, take issue with the cultural conservative desire to bring back the “good old days

  20. Oh man – I hope you didn’t get that kind of math at Catholic School. If so, sorry about the years of ruler whacks you must have endured. In the public schools, they teach that probabilities aren’t additive.  Rather, you calculate independent probablities using multiplication, so that a 12% chance over 4 years is = (.12* .12 * .12 *.12) = 0.00020736, or .002%.

    *cough*cough*

    The independent event is not getting pregnant. Assuming a failure rate of 12% per year), the probability of not getting pregnant four years running is (1.00-0.12)**4, roughly 60%. For five years fucking, you’re at roughly 50%.

    It gets more interesting when multiple contraceptives are used in combination. Assuming the contraceptives do not interfere with other, the failure rates are independent events whose probabilities are multiplied. For the sake of argument, let’s assume condoms have a yearly failure rate of 12% and the pill has a yearly failure rate of 0.2%, with a combined failure rate of 0.024%. For five years of combined use, this amounts to a probability of not getting knocked up of (1.00-0.00024)**5, roughly 99.88%. The more effective contraceptive, the pill, would yield a five-year success rate of 99.0% when used by itself.

  21. people do not agree on the concept of morality

    And here I thought it was that everyone just disagreed with me smile. Not that I haven’t been willing to shoulder the weight of my amorality anyway.

  22. The 1950s were a dark and dismal time, to be sure, which is largely why conservatives seem to love them so much. But even the era of the McCarthy witch-hunts and women being cramped up in the home did not happen exactly as the conservatives wish they did.

    Yep, Sadie.  Not that I’m nostalgic for the 50’s; but if Eisenhower were around today, he would bitchslap Bush for giving conservatives a bad name.

    People simply do not agree on what makes something “moral.

  23. Mr. Peacock:

    Your math skills likely would have benefitted from having your knuckles wrapped with a ruler. 

    As an aside, and completely off topic, the young ladies and young gentlemen who attend Catholic school routinely whip pub kids’ butt when SAT and ACT scores are compared. This has been the case for years. 

    Elwed:

    I’m not one to question your math.  The skill differences between us is deeper and wider than the Grand Canyon.  I’m pretty sure that the rithmatic for failure rates at 4 years yields a result that is lower than it is at 5 years. Not vicey versey.

    Course, I’m but a dumb ol’ country boy suggesting you may have, could have, might have, maybe ya did and maybe ya didn’t, transpose a number or two here or there.

  24. OK, this is as racy as any of my comments will ever get, but my nonmathematical analysis of condom reliability is as follows:

    Picture a five-gallon bucket, full of new condoms in their wrappers.  That’s about how many I have used in my lifetime.  I have never had one break.  That’s a hell of a lot of condoms.

    Granted, anecdote is not data, but I have heard people (including a young relative once, explaining her unplanned pregnancy) say “the condom broke”.  OK, fine; whatever you say.

    Condoms are extremely well made.  They are electronicaly tested at the factory.  A typical condom can hold a gallon of water.  The supposed 12% failure rate of condoms sounds to me like people don’t want to admit they used them improperly or forgot to use them… as they might if their sex education were shot through with ‘conservative’ edits.

    Of course the anti-sex people parade the figure around as if it were rocket science – it’s more like sociology.

  25. Consi, sometimes even country boys get things wrong.

    I’m pretty sure that the rithmatic for failure rates at 4 years yields a result that is lower than it is at 5 years. Not vicey versey.

    The success rate (not getting preggers) drops from 60% to 50%, which implies that the failure rate (getting knocked up once or more within that time frame) rises from 40% to 50%.

    The trick with probability calculations is when to apply which formula wink

    DOF’s point is well taken, too. Pragmatically, any statement of success or failure rates must necessarily be qualified with “when used correctly”…

    I’ve asked this before elsewhere, but here’s a math puzzle. Who knows, somebody might actually put it to practical use:

    You have two condoms; how can you have sex with three women without risk of anybody catching an STD from anybody else? Negative points for “none at all”.

  26. Having worked my way through my own 5 gallon bucket [tips hat to DoF—‘well done ‘ol chap’] I call bullshit on the 12% failure rate.

    What a crock of shit.  I’ve -never- had a condom fail on me.

    No, condoms do not work correctly if you tie them around your balls.  Nor if you put it in your mouth and chew it like bubblegum, nor if you just balance it on the tip of your penis like a little stocking cap.  I suppose if she clamped it tightly between her knees, and made sure she never dropped it, that THAT might be an effective alternative use of condoms but, in general, condoms don’t ‘fail.’  As they call it in the IT industry, it’s usually an ‘end user’ error.

    It comes with fucking instructions.  [well, actually it comes with instructions for how it should be applied—the fucking instructions usually come from friends, books, movies, etc.]  There’s nothing wrong with condoms as birth control, except for the fact that so many people are illiterate.  RTFM ferchrissake!

    http://www.csindy.com/csindy/2001-08-16/cover2.html

    [whew.  I feel so much better.  A day without a rant is like a day without coffee].

  27. Consi, sometimes even country boys get things wrong.

      I’m pretty sure that the rithmatic for failure rates at 4 years yields a result that is lower than it is at 5 years. Not vicey versey.

    The success rate (not getting preggers) drops from 60% to 50%, which implies that the failure rate (getting knocked up once or more within that time frame) rises from 40% to 50%.

    I thought you were saying the failure rate, went from 60-50 at 4 and 5 respectively.  Instead you were giving us the success rates at 4 and 5 respectively.  My bad.

  28. regardless of the event that causes failure of birth
    control (agreed mis/non-use is probably the majority.)
    this still leaves a stated percentage. a percenteage
    that remains unchanged regardless of the number of sexual encounters. dude says its 12%. this sounds
    like total bullshit but having worked with bullshit
    people that dont know their ass from a hole in the
    ground before, we can work with it:

    Suzie is one horny girl and she rolls the dice and gets laid a thousand
    times a year. man can she fuck. with a 12 percent
    failure rate miss suzie ends up with 120 piles of jizz shot in her. (assuming collected data was correct for her chosen method of birth control, lets say rubbers.. of course this would be more of a guarantee, wich it isn’t)
    so : 1000:120 = 12%

    The next year miss suzie decides to give the ol cooch a break and only gets laid 100 times. with a 12% failure rate she catches another 12 loads of jizz.
    so: 100:12 = 12%

    although the percentages change she still only
    manages about a gallon of jizz over 2 years.
    (if somebody contests the gallon figure i’ll shit.
    it is inert and a guess but is far better math im certain than the originally spewed forth ‘12%’ figure)

    elwed tackles probablility nicely. kind of like
    pro rating your parking tickets over time.

    Lets say I get a parking ticket for parking illegally at work and it costs me a hundred bucks.
    (whoa thats alot of cash for a ticket, but stay with me)
    lets say legal parking is a 30 minute difference in hike from parking illegally in the junior partner or handicapped spaces and i make 50$ anhour. well if i got busted parking illegally this wouldnt be profitable. but i dont so now we
    factor in time. I can make 50$ extra in the time it takes me to walk. and since i get a ticket about every 100 working days only costs me
    (50$ – .50$) to park per day. so at the end
    of 100 working days I get PAYED to park illegally
    to the tune of 49.50$ a day.. or 4950$ every hundred. why would i park anywhere else?

    probability goes down over time. events can alter probability. if an event occurs today and it doesnt
    occur for the next five, the overall probablilty of the event occuring again will actually go down
    regardlesss of previously collected data the event is unique. as I feel the ‘12%’ figure is unique to Mr. Cantrell.

    Some may call my experiences ‘lucky’ I call them planned exploits. granted there is chance for the adverse in any activity one may partake in. you could choke on a piece of food today or tomorrow and that might end it all.

    Even though I think Cantrell comes off like a total idiot and has spouted some total bullshit math. I kind of gathered that the moral of the story was that if you make the circumstances
    of any event ideal you can decrease a chance of failure. His plan for marriage isnt perfect.
    If a couple has a child and the husband chokes on her
    piss-poor cooking and dies, well there ya have it:
    single motherhood.

    sorry for the rushed, non format entry.. its dinner time smile

  29. haha talk about bad math..

    i just re-read my parking ticket scenario (above post)

    If you agreed with it it would have been based on a
    ticket that cost 50$ vice the 100$ stated.

    the correct still makes a point by being payed
    4900$ (a buck a day) over 100 work days. still no
    small potatoes.

  30. I have no idea how many condoms I’ve made use of over the years, but it’s been a hellalot and I can say that I have had exactly two that actually broke even though I was using them in the proper manner (as far as I know – I never took a class in condom use).

    Fortunately nothing, if you’ll pardon the pun, came from it.

  31. even though I was using them in the proper manner (as far as I know – I never took a class in condom use).

    It’s just like swords – the pointy end goes in the other guy.

    (grin, duck, and run)

  32. Uh-oh, I had it all wrong.  If I’ve never had a condom fail, and Nowiser has never had a condom fail, but Les (apparently of Kryptonian ancestry) has had two fail, then CONDOMS FAIL TWO OUT OF THREE TIMES!!!  Call James Dobson; he should know about this!

    And people think liberals are bad at math…

  33. Can I have 5 gallon bucket status if I’ve made lots of condom water balloons?

    Real men rip condoms to shreds anyway and that’s just during the 4-play. Yes, I said four-play!

    Elwed, I’m stumped….well, not “stumped”. If that were the case, I couldn’t make decent use a condom anyway.

  34. Real men rip condoms to shreds anyway and that’s just during the 4-play. Yes, I said four-play!

    Brock, I am in awe.  I’ve never done 4-play.  It’s always just been 2-play; me and one other person.

  35. Can I have 5 gallon bucket status if I’ve made lots of condom water balloons?

    The important thing, Brock, is how many broke while you were in the process of filling, and how many broke post-launch.  Because that’ll give us a much better sense of the actual ‘failure rate.’

    4-play?  Shit, I have trouble watching a movie and eating popcorn at the same time.

  36. I guess when we all get up there to DOF’s age we’ll be more focused on four minutes than four play.

    According to the Georgia Tech Wellness Center, condoms have a failure rate of 12%.  This number takes into account people that do not employ the device correctly or reuse it.  Condoms are successful at preventing 98% of STD’s.  Don’t be an over achiever.

    Also, if there is a leak in more than 4 per 1,000 condoms, the entire lot (approximately 5,000) is discarded.

    Remember, your next batch may have had only 3 leaks.

  37. GAAAAHH!!!  I can’t take it anymore!  The guilt, the shame, the uncertainty!  I used a quantifiable expression as a vague rhetorical device!  “5-gallon bucket”, indeed.  Gad, that’s something creationists do.

    I was able to set 12 condoms flat in the bottom of a 5-gallon bucket.  The sides of the bucket angle outward from the bottom: in a circle drawn from the top of the same bucket, I could set 13 condoms flat.  Without getting into a stacking problem that is waaaaay beyond my mathematical background, I’ve found that when things are jumbled or tilted, you get fewer of them in a given space so flat seemed the way to go (that being the resting orientation of condoms on a horizontal space such as a tabletop). 

    A packaged condom measures 7/32” thick. The bucket is 14” deep.  Here’s the question: at what height could you make the transition from 12 to 13 condoms?  Sheer lazyness forces me to guess it’s at about two-thirds of the way up – lower would hold more condoms, higher would hold fewer – but the error would only total a couple percent overall.

    You could fit 42 layers (at 12 per layer = 504 condoms) in the bottom two-thirds, and 21 layers (at 13 condoms per layer = 273 condoms) for a total of 777 condoms.  This will vary somewhat depending on how carefully the layers are formed, brand, smooth or ribbed, etc.

    This figure is slightly below the range I had figured based on mental imagery.  In any case it is likely that almost everyone here is in the 5-gallon-bucket club.  Some are probably working on their second, third, hell – fifth buckets.  There could be a wheelbarrow class out there, I don’t know.  But Wheelbarrows are pretty irregular shapes so I leave that problem to someone else.

    Next time I’m just going to say ‘hella lot of’ as Les did.

  38. And as if to join our discussion, here’s a little pearl of wisdom from James Dobson in this morning’s paper:

    …Planned Parenthood’s own data show that the No. 1 reason teenagers engage in intercourse is peer pressure! Therefore, anything we do to imply that “everybody is doing it

  39. Uhm.  In the interests of full and honest disclosure, I’d like to revise my bucket down to 2 1/2 gallons. 

    (goes and quietly weeps in a corner).

  40. I’ve never had a break, but a friend of mine has had two kids from breaks (he got snipped after the second).  I know of another where the condom slipped off during the act.  I’ve had a couple of times where , and I was pushing at the end of the condom.  I could understand how someone may break one that way if they’re really into it and won’t stop to lube. 

    After decorating a car with Lifestyles condoms, I would never use them for sex.  The damn things kept breaking.

  41. Umm that shoulda been “I’ve had a couple of times where things got a little dry, and I was pushing at the end of the condom.”

  42. Hey Ragman, here’s a tip from an old broad:

    If things get THAT dry, no matter how “into it” the condom-wearer might be, he’d be wise (and considerate!) to stop & lube up, because his partner is definitely not enjoying that much friction (unless s/he’s into painful sex anyway). wink

  43. OB, I noticed when it happened and did so, and the wife’s not shy about telling me so, but sometimes if the guy’s sliding inside the condom, the partner may not really notice. 

    I have a preference for durex(the old Sheiks “Thank you Mr Sheik!”), which I’ve never torn.  The lifestyles incident, it seemed half of them tore way too easily when we stuck them on the wipers, antenna, etc.  If I’m not mistaken, they’re also the cheapest condoms on the shelf.

    I wonder how much the ol’ condom sitting in the wallet for 3 years contributes to the failure rate?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.