CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You can share this debate in three different ways:
#1
#2
#3
Paste this URL into an email or IM:
Click here to send this debate via your default email application.
Click here to login and CreateDebate will send an email for you.
Sex and Sexuality
BlizzardBird voiced an interest in debating homosexuality recently, and it's a topic that has been alluded to by a few folk here with vastly different opinions. I figure it'd be suitable to present one location to discuss this.
This is a huge topic to discuss, so here are a few starting points/opinions. There are far more than two so I figure a perspective debate fits best. If posting an opinion please preface it with which of these you agree with (if any).
1. I believe lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and the extended queer community are unnatural and unacceptable lifestyles. 2. I believe lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and the extended queer community are natural and acceptable lifestyles. 3. I feel discomfort around members of the LGBTQ community, but feel no ill-will towards them 4. I am utterly and completely indifferent to the topic of sex and sexuality 5. I have a different abstract opinion that AdmiralBacon wasn't clever enough to think of here
Quick word of caution, I'm expecting trolling here, and will ban if you do not present coherent comments. The validity of these comments is immaterial, but if they simply do not make sense, it'll be ban-hammer time.
2. I believe lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and the extended queer community are natural and acceptable lifestyles.
My reasoning is pretty broad - I just truly do not understand why it should matter. Why would two peoples gender matter when discussing sex? I don't believe the religious or spiritual faith of one person should affect others, and it occurs in the natural kingdom too, so I don't get why it could be a problem. Then again, even if it didn't occur in naturet I still wouldn't care (I mean, we're the only species that cooks meat before we eat it, why not also be the only species who bones indiscriminate of gender?)
As for transgender people, I've known enough that I find the concept of being prejudicial against them personally offensive.
.
.
In the interest of full disclosure, I am a bisexual male. I am an atheist, and I am cis
Semen is made up of a small percentage of sperm cells. The rest is made up of various proteins and minerals, including a decent amount of fructose.
Orgasm is a verb or abstract noun. They aren't "made up" of anything. I suppose you could be asking what occurs during an orgasm, in which case it really depends on what genitals you have, and what kind of orgasm it is.
Did you know that when two random sperm cells or DNA packages hit each other if they are not from the same source, those DNA packages end up causing gigantic damage?
No, BlizzardBird, mixing sperm doesn't do anything. There's no reason to think so, and there's no evidence to support the idea. It simply is not true.
Furthermore, why the hell would that matter? First of all, sperm cells somehow causing genetic disorders in people when they're mixed would mean nothing to the lesbian community.
Secondly, it would simply mean the gay male community would have to start wearing condoms during any intercourse where two peoples semen might make contact
Thirdly, the risks involved in sex are already vast - this doesn't mean sex is a bad thing, merely a risky thing. We know the risks involved and take actions to minimise them. You've argued that gay sex between men is more dangerous than heterosexual sex (with utterly unfounded reasoning), but that doesn't actually argue against homosexuality itself.
Disclaimer: I have not studied biology in many years
No. "Good" bacteria is a hugely vague term, but is generally used to describe any single-celled organism that helps our body function. Often they help with things like digesting difficult foods. They can also be used in producing foods (such as some dairy products).
"Bad" bacteria is also used to describe single-celled organisms, but refers to any that your body is not finding helpful at the time. This could be for a host of reasons, but typically the "bad" bacteria cause some sort of disease or illness.
Now, while one kind of "good bacteria" could evolve over time to perform a more harmful task (which would categorise it as "bad bacteria"), this would take a great deal of time and be utterly outside our control.
Ultimately, think of bacteria as tiny tiny little living buddies in your body. They're not you, but they help you out. Some of them are little monsters though, and hurt you. They're also utterly and completely unrelated to sex and specifically semen, so I don't know what you're aiming for by bringing bacteria up.
The thing is, you need to consider that the albatrosses and the domestic sheep were both observed on isolated and hard to reach locations. They were on difficult places to observe.
What you also need to realise is that the scientists equipment that was used had to be small yet portable and had to be used for ages, which would have meant they were unsuitable to cope with or see effectively within the long-distance conditions of varied weather.
Yes, the scientists could have been observing the flamingos through potentially dirty and stained lens as well as worn out cameras that were used in a hurry in state of taking the time to use a more efficient and more recent camera.
Remember, the telescopic camera operators were obviously in a rush do to the experiment being rushed in because of the head scientist wanting to rush in his theory, as well as the fact that if they had waited for better equipment it would have took them ages to prepare themselves to set up observational posts on such a remote and hard to observe island.
However, the fact that the cameras were ineffective would have been the cause of the camera-men not being able to see what the domestic sheep or flamingos were doing, so they mistook what the animals were doing and didn't know that the animals were not really mating homosexually. They thought they were, because they couldn't see the flamingos properly because of the camera lenses.
Not only that, but it is also found in nature to see two females egging around each other and passing the other female to another mate that the female happens to not be attracted to anymore. For example, if a female flamingo has finished mating with a male flamingo and no longer desires to mate, she will dance around a bit in a sexual way as a sexual rite with the other female flamingo and then pass that other female flamingo to the male flamingo that she has finished mating with as to prevent the mating bond that the male has over the female flamingo.
This is helpful to the male flamingo as well, as instead of the male flamingo having to keep making babies to the same female, he is able to spread his genes further afield and spread his dominance over to over flamingos, so both the male and female flamingo are benefitted. Often all animals within nature benefit from each other like an equilibrium, so this theory of the female go with female pass down to male theory is actually quite in line and rather fitting, as it is in line wit the equilibrium in each both the male and female benefit.
The observers who were skilled camera-men, although not trained naturists or scientists, would have easily mistook this behaviour for female flamingos mating with each other.
Are you trying to say that the evidence supporting homosexuality in nature is flawed? If so, rather than just telling a cool story about it, why not (altogether now) POST SOME SOURCES
It is even harder when you happen to be in the right.
First, how would you ever know? You have never been right. Second, it isn't. It is much easier to find sources that back you up when you are right and harder when you are wrong.
You can't just uncover a deep truth and then claim you can site sources for it.
You haven't uncovered anything.
The proposition that I represent is really onto something.
Go provide a source explaining to me how the equation for gravity and how it relates to molecules reconstructing themselves from fusion within liquids.
It is a common occurrence.
It is a very in depth topic, you can't possibly find a simple source to explain it all, even though it is well founded in science.
He didn't prove anything since I am not yet convinced, but that is our problem and we are both fully capable of solving our differences, we don't need you to tell us.
I'm not going to list the DNA sequences of any potentially harmful bacteria and compare that to the DNA of positive bacteria. How about you just state how you think that "gay intercourse" affects "good bacteria".
Quotation marks because I really don't think you know what those words mean at this point.
Basal body - this anchors the base of the flagellum, allowing it to rotate.
Capsule - a layer on the outside of the cell wall. Some bacteria don't have a capsule.
Cell wall - a thin layer (membrane) outside the plasma membrane, and within the capsule.
DNA (Deoxyribonucleic acid) - contains all the genetic instructions used in the development and functioning of the bacterium. It is inside the cytoplasm.
Cytoplasm - a gelatinous substance inside the plasma membrane. Genetic material and ribosomes lie inside.
Flagellum - this is used for movement; to propel the cell. Some bacterial cells have more than one.
Pili (singular: pilus) - these spikes allow the cell to stick to surfaces and transfer genetic material to other cells. A study revealed that pili are involved in causing traveler's diarrhea.
Plasma membrane - it generates energy and transports chemicals. Substances can pass through the membrane (permeable). It is located within the cell wall.
Ribosomes - this is where protein is made (synthesized). Ribosomes are small organelles made up of RNA-rich granules.
How do bad germs damage the body? How does it work?
I'm not going to teach you high school biology and chemistry.
Are viruses harmful because they eat the bodies cells, or is there more to it than that?
I'm not going to teach you high school biology and chemistry
How does bad bacteria cause damage to the human body? How does it work?
I'm not going to teach you high school biology and chemistry
Make your point as it relates to sex and sexuality in your next post, or you'll be banned. I'm sorry to threaten that, but you've literally not done anything on this thread so far but ask asinine questions about biology without presenting a reason. We aren't your schoolteachers kid; just fucking google it.
I feel like there's a joke I can make here about putting our "time" into things other than other peoples sex, but I'm not sure exactly what it would be, because I am an Innocent Young Man who would never think of such dirty gutter comedy.
I have to pick number 5. If I were a girl, I would be a lesbian, too, but since I'm a guy, I would like to be in between the two lesbians so I can double my pleasure and double my fun.
I do not understand why lesbian, gay, and bisexual people have to come out. I am straight and many others are like me. I don't see them coming out. Watch the video, it is inspirational.
I feel that one's sexual preference(s) is a personal matter and all ''deviant'' orientations should be tolerated by heterosexuals. Whilst there should be absolutely no discrimination against those engaging in irregular sexual activities, they are nevertheless, abnormal. A quick glance at the anatomy of the male and female form of almost all species and one will immediately observe that nature has designed them in a manner conducive to reproduction, thus, in our case, ensuring the survival of the human race. The divergent sexual practices of homosexuals and lesbians cannot produce off spring as nature/god intended so, by definition, those belonging to the aforementioned sexual classifications are abnormal deviants.
It doesn't matter at all, but it is a fact which should firstly be recognized and then unequivocally accepted by everyone. Unnecessary resentment can be generated against this condition by the growing number of sexual deviants who try, all too often aggressively, to present themselves as normal. They are what they are by an accident of nature and should make no apology to anyone, but they are not normal.
But if it doesn't matter, why do you seem to give that fact so much significance?
Endless numbers of things are not normal within a statistical sense. Why should that lead anyone to resent? And from a non-statistical sense of normality, homosexuality is decreasingly stigmatized which has the effect of "normalizing" it (again, in a non-statistical sense), and what is wrong with that?
I just don't for the life of me understand why people get so angry about this topic. It doesn't have any effect on anyone except the participants.
I think the differing opinion here stems from different definitions on "normal", which TrumpsHair has succinctly defined as "statistical or non-statistical".
Winkle, I can't argue the "God intended" point with you, but I'd certainly question your point that lesbian/gay sex is against what "nature intended". Nature didn't intend anything, it is simply the dynamic evolution of organic life. In fact, if you're going to phrase it that way, I'd suggest we instead say that nature "intended" some people to engage in non-heterosexual acts. Do they deviate from the (as TrumpsHair phrased it) statistical norms? Absolutely. Does this mean you could describe them as "sexual deviants"? Well, grammatically yes, but then if that's the case then I can describe everyone who doesn't engage in sex for purely reproductive reasons as a "deviant".
Please understand I'm not trying to bash on your opinions, Winkle, I'm just trying to clarify your choice of words. TrumpsHair and I discussed that with each other briefly on another page, and Trump raised the point that being empirically correct is important against my point that choosing a softer or nicer phrase is preferable.
Ultimately all this semantical arguing is meaningless; we all agree that sex and sexuality are personal topics for each individual, and nobody should feel any discrimination as a result of them, but I'm interested to hear your response anyway.
The one who is giving disproportionate and heightened significance to the issue is you. The thread was posted and I replied. You expanded on my reply by introducing statistics as a feature into the argument. Statistics play no part in the condition of deviant sexual orientation which some ornithologists/sexologists consider to be a condition which is determined in the womb. Even if 99.9% of the global population were of deviant sexual orientation their state would, nevertheless be biologically unnatural. There is a danger in such an emotive topic that participants with opposing views try to become experts which clouds the basic facts. The indisputable underlying truth is that ''deviant'' sexuality, regardless of how it manifests itself is an unnatural ''deviation'' from the norm. Another cause for resentment towards gays is when people such as you who see a threat or a challenge to their ''condition' in every statement made on the issue and pounce on and confront harmless remarks in an unnecessarily defensive manner. Too many gays are looking for insults and when none are forthcoming they, in their state of exuberant enthusiasm to be offended interpret harmless comments as an attack on their deviant sexuality. In addition to the aforementioned, what can add to the feelings of mild irritation is the constant demonstrations, marches festivals and whatever, such as gay rights, gay pride gay marriage and so forth. Quite rightly, gays have the same rights as heterosexuals so why all the hullabaloo? That was a rhetorical question, please don't answer as I've tired of this topic and will not be participating further in what is an open and shut case.
This rebuttal is chiefly for the purposes of anyone reading the thread. If Winkle isn't reading it anymore, ah well. First of all, to copy/paste something I put in the wrong spot earlier...
Winkle, I can't argue the "God intended" point with you, but I'd certainly question your point that lesbian/gay sex is against what "nature intended". Nature didn't intend anything, it is simply the dynamic evolution of organic life. In fact, if you're going to phrase it that way, I'd suggest we instead say that nature "intended" some people to engage in non-heterosexual acts. Do they deviate from the (as TrumpsHair phrased it) statistical norms? Absolutely. Does this mean you could describe them as "sexual deviants"? Well, grammatically yes, but then if that's the case then I can describe everyone who doesn't engage in sex for purely reproductive reasons as a "deviant".
Please understand I'm not trying to bash on your opinions, Winkle, I'm just trying to clarify your choice of words. TrumpsHair and I discussed that with each other briefly on another page, and Trump raised the point that being empirically correct is important against my point that choosing a softer or nicer phrase is preferable.
Ultimately all this semantical arguing is meaningless; we all agree that sex and sexuality are personal topics for each individual, and nobody should feel any discrimination as a result of them, but I'm interested to hear your response anyway.
additional points
"is the constant demonstrations, marches festivals and whatever"
Yeah, getting constant, daily reminders that other sexualities exist would be frustrating. Good thing the LGBTQ community doesn't need to experience that. I mean it's not like heterosexuality isn't presented in most forms of media on a regular basis.
gays have the same rights as heterosexuals
No they don't; gay marriage is still illegal here in Australia and my understanding is that it's illegal in various states in the USA too (though I could be wrong).
when every statement made on the issue is pounced upon and confronted in an unnecessarily defensive manner
Do you think perhaps this has less to do with the LGBTQ community being overly aggressive and more to do with your choice of words? You can't deny that saying to someone "You are gay, and so are a sexual deviant" is going to come across as a deliberately inflammatory comment, when you could say it in so many other, less abrasive ways. If I met someone with downs syndrom I'm not going to say "Hey, disabled kid", because that's just rude. It's true, but it's rude.
The one who is giving disproportionate and heightened significance to the issue is you. The thread was posted and I replied. You expanded on my reply by introducing statistics as a feature into the argument. Statistics play no part in the condition of deviant sexual orientation which some ornithologists/sexologists consider to be a condition which is determined in the womb.
I'm really not, as I do not care what others do with their private lives so long as it does not hurt others. I do not look to those who partake in behavior that differs from norms and call them "deviants" or "unnatural". Additionally, statistics do play a part in determining what is a deviation from a norm. It's pretty much the means of determining such.
Even if 99.9% of the global population were of deviant sexual orientation their state would, nevertheless be biologically unnatural.
Not only would that run counter to the deviation of deviant, it is also still, in my opinion, a misuse of the word "unnatural" for the reasons that have been previously stated.
There is a danger in such an emotive topic that participants with opposing views try to become experts which clouds the basic facts. The indisputable underlying truth is that ''deviant'' sexuality, regardless of how it manifests itself is an unnatural ''deviation'' from the norm.
And yet that truth really is pointless and irrelevant. It has no power over anything. It truly is unnecessarily stated.
Another cause for resentment towards gays is when people such as you who see a threat or a challenge to their ''condition' in every statement made on the issue and pounce on and confront harmless remarks in an unnecessarily defensive manner.
First off, we are on a debate website, and you said something I disagreed with. If you do not want people to "pounce" on what you say, then you should seek a different website.
Second, the remarks are not harmless. As I'm sure you know, "deviant", for ridiculous reasons, has a negative connotation. The continuous negative and demonizing rhetoric against sexual minorities has had a serious prejudicial effect against the populations of said minorities which has very often led to violence.
Too many gays are looking for insults and when none are forthcoming they, in their state of exuberant enthusiasm to be offended interpret harmless comments as an attack on their deviant sexuality
Well seeing as how I am not gay, I can assure you I am doing nothing of the sort. That said, when one insists on contentiously pointing out the "unnatural" and "deviant" state of something, when both terms have a consistent historical negative connotation to them (regardless of whether they should or not), I think it is fair for them to take it as an insult. You previously said you had started to take a comment I made to you as an insult, despite the fact that it was just a statement of facts. Perhaps you should be a bit more empathetic, considering?
In addition to the aforementioned, what can add to the feelings of mild irritation is the constant demonstrations, marches festivals and whatever, such as gay rights, gay pride gay marriage and so forth. Quite rightly, gays have the same rights as heterosexuals so why all the hullabaloo?
When a group is forced into the shadows for thousands of years, who can blame them for reveling in the ability to be open and free? If you do not like it, don't watch. I'm not a fan of any parades; that doesn't mean I start resenting those who are throwing them (well, unless they mess with traffic, of course). When Christians throw Christmas parades, I don't start asking "Why do they need to shove it in my face" or any of that nonsense, because honestly, who cares? Why should anyone really care?
And no, the case is not open and shut simply because you have made up your mind. A mindset like that will not do you well on a debate website. Seeing as how you have been banned, if you feel like responding, feel free to do so on any of the other debates you find me on and I will reply accordingly.
You know, the whole homosexual sex doesn't make babies thing is the most juvenile stance and people still ride that silly argument. At this point in human history, the population is absolutely off the rails. Sex is so detached from procreation. Find a better argument
You, dear oaf, don't have an argument, so it's important that you realize that your head is full of mad dog's shit and go ''gaily'' about your merry way. As a result of recent scientific breakthroughs mankind doesn't require sexual intercourse between male and female to propagate, but this development sure to hell takes the pleasure out of having a family. What about the millions of other species? Do we launch a worldwide programme of artificial insemination to ensure the survival of every species on earth? You really are a ridiculous fool. However, regardless of that, clutching at straws to promote your unnatural''condition'' with your meaningless rhetoric is embarrassingly stupid and utterly futile as even a shithead like you must understand that nature designed the male, female anatomy for sexual interaction. A shortsighted dimwit on a galloping horse could see this fact from a mile off, but not you!
Careful Winkle, I don't want to banhammer you. You're not rabid like some of the other folk on this site, but telling someone their head is full of dogs shit is deliberately obscene and not how debating works. That being said, the real thing that'd get a banning here is your comment on starting a "worldwide programme of artificial insemination". I just do not follow how you got there whatsoever. Feel free to explain if if I've misundrestood somehow.
Now, to retort to your argument, you're absolutely right in saying that male and female anatomies have evolved to procreate. That being said, as SlaveDevice (what a screen name btw) pointed out, sex and procreation are very different topics in modern society. That is in part due to the point you raised, that artificial insemination is a thing that exists.
Well, I did say that I had tired of this thread, but I must comment that if you do not recognize the reason why a worldwide programme of artificial insemination would be necessary if all of earth's species, including mankind, developed an exclusive passion for deviant sexual practices then you're an even bigger idiot than Slavedevice. You are a naive broken down pompous fool who takes himself too seriously, ''Careful Winkle''......, do you honestly think in your wildest dreams that I could give a tinker's damn whether or not a ''SHITHEAD'' like you banned me from a totally unoriginal and the most over subscribed topic on all debate sites? For God's sake, if not for your own sake, grow up and get a life. Are you, or were you a parking warden? Roars of laughter from the back stalls.
Disappointing, I really didn't want to ban anyone here. As a heads up to anyone else reading this, here are a few great things to not do on debates:
- Randomly introduce an idea like "suddenly, every person and every animal is gay, and no heterosexual sex is had" with no set-up or justification
- Make disparaging comments against other members of the community
- Use deliberately inflammatory phrasing
- Threaten to just leave the debate when things don't go your way
- Criticise the creation of a topic that had been alluded to in several other threads but was, at current, not already being discussed in an active thread
Here's another example of what not to do, because while I try to be a good man, sometimes moments of weakness strike all of us:
You stay out'a MY bedroom and I'll stay out'a yours! I'm "straight", and as long as others don't force their type of sex onto ME or anyone else, I really don't give a damn how they "do it". Sex isn't a religious matter except as a cult believes it is. Do what you want within your cult and leave others do the same!
What in the shit shilling balls billing taint-bulge are you saying, and why did i t necessitate replying to an ancient thread and reminding me of this shitty website.
*edit: soz I was cranky when I posted this, you seem like an alright peraon, I'd just forgotten how thick-headed and braindead a lot of the community here was until I saw the notification e-mail for your comment
So my stance is number 1. What lgbt have done and are still doing are unnatural. Lgbt have not brought any equality nor freedom to everybody else but themselves. They have constantly pushed for inclusion on tv and in schools. They want to indoctrinate and are indoctrinating kids into this stuff. It is absolutely unacceptable. Homosexuality is not helpful nor healthy. I understand people may think it's harmless but it's not. I'll tell you why. Scientific research has already determined that AIDs/HIV are the result of uncontrolled sex and guess what? The butt is not for sex. Kids are not produced from homosexual activity nor bisexual activity. There have been recent events where homosexuals and lesbians have actually committed murder. Two lesbians from Brazil castrated and murder a young boy upon him not understanding that he's a boy but he wanted to be a girl. So the lesbos murdered him in cold blood. Next, another two lesbians killed a man for his inheritance. After some deep researching, I found out that historically, there have been serial killers who were homosexual or bisexual. There have been 4 gay serial killers who recently got away with murder. I have the sources down here:
They have been crying that they have been oppressed, yet there is evidence right here presented that they can kill too. Their primary target is to get the youth to join them and it's immoral of them to do so. Lgbt are hypocritical snowflakes and very self destructive in compromising their own stance by going against facts, using opinions and screaming to get what they want. Lgbt should be illegalized and put in correctional facilities away from society. They do not belong in society until they have either been re educated, rehabilitated or as a last resort, punished for their violent acts against innocent victims. Abuse within lgbt and racism within lgbt is also a thing. They claim that normies are "white supremacists", yet they are racist towards people of color and did align themselves with BLM who are not for black people. BLM kills black people and I cannot say I will support BLM because I have friends who are black and white from Church.
They claim that they are born gay but they are not as science goes against that. They go against biological facts of there being only 2 genders and that the 2 genders are connected to the 2 biological sexes. Biological sex determines your genitalia aka your reproductive organ. For men, it's obviously the penis and the testicles. For women, it's the breasts and vagina. Under no circumstance can you ever change your gender because it disrupts your biological structure and it makes the individual uglier. Men are men. Women are women. Boys are boys. Girls are girls. There is no in-between and to support such insanity that there are more than 2 genders, it's pure mental illness. Gender dysphoria should never be treated by giving "gender reassignment". Those people who suffer from such issues need to be put in mental institutions where they can heal up and get re educated about what it means to be a man or a woman. Ellen Page is a woman still. not a man. Bruce Jenner is still a man, not a woman. That is just pure fact. There is no "Transphobia" because I am not irrationally scared to speak the truth. Rather, there is tons of heterophobia, Christophobia and truthphobia from lgbt itself. Their hypocrisy is the pinnacle plus their hubris, pride, lust and vanity. The fact of marriage and true love still remains between a man and a woman. Without the male sperm, the female's egg cannot be fertilized. What determines an individual's gender? Biological chromosomes. Humans are certainly not asexual. Why? Because asexuality is defined as "creatures who can reproduce without a partner". Now, what caused frogs to become gay? Well that was an environmental occurrence but some people thought that just because that happened to frogs, that it's happening to humans too. Except, humans are choosing to be gay not being born with it. Some are being influenced into it. Near the end, heterosexuality is still the way to make babies. Sperm donations just don't make sense to me and I do not believe lgbt should adopt because all they will do is influence the adopted children to turn away from the norm of being straight and instead allow themselves to either be "transgendered" aka mutilated physically or to turn gay or bisexual etc. It's essentially sexualizing kids and yes it's happening and no it's wrong to allow that to occur. Do you want AIDs/HIV to affect you? Seems some people just don't care but we do care about youth here and yes, youth aka children are precious to us, especially to the heterosexual married couples consisting of one man aka dad and one woman aka mom who just want to live a normal life.
Explore a world of pleasure and self-discovery with Secrets Shop, your trusted online store for adult products. 😊 Discover our key principles that prioritize your well-being: 100% original certified intimate health safe products, complete confidentiality during ordering and delivery, and free live chat consultations. 🌟
Why choose Secrets Shop? 🤔 Our commitment to quality sets us apart. We work solely with official manufacturers, ensuring the best goods for your pleasure. Experience convenience with an individual approach to serving each client. With just a few clicks, order from the comfort of your home and enjoy various online payment options. 💻🛍️
Worried about delivery time? Fear not! Secrets Shop offers the fastest delivery throughout the UK, thanks to our trusted logistics partners. Your package can arrive as soon as the next working day after placing the order! 🚚
Your satisfaction matters. We maintain quality control at all stages, allowing you to track your order's status from registration to receipt. Rest assured, all personal data, orders, and payments are 100% safe and discreet. 🤐📦 Embrace a worry-free exploration of your desires with our 100% quality assurance. All our products are certified safe for your health, with necessary quality certificates. 🏆 Unlock your intimate potential with Secrets Shop! Visit us at https://secrets-shop.co.uk/sex-toys/female-sex-toys/dildos/anal-dildos-for-her/ and experience a new level of pleasure, empowerment, and self-discovery. 🌈✨
Supporting Evidence:
Toy Shop
(secrets-shop.co.uk)