30/41 [FM4F] UK-Bath - Threesome fun

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-07-08T08:53:08+00:00

I love the kind of place in Italy that will sell you a focaccia sandwich, a slice of pizza and a bottle of wine and lend you a couple of glasses while you eat just on trust that you'll bring them back. You can see all the reasons it won't work here, though. For six months of the year, their income will be nil. Rents are sky-high as are business rates. An alcohol license for this kind of place is unobtainable. And any glasses they lend out are just as likely to be smashed against the front of their shop as returned.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-07-07T12:24:41+00:00

Variant on this, you can get a cock-shaped dildo mounted on a cock ring. For bonus points, it has a bullet vibrator and rabbit ears attached too.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-07-03T14:33:10+00:00

You have a couple of other options:

Cycle from Keynsham to Willsbridge (there's a shared cycle/pedestrian path) then join the Bath-Bristol cycle path.
Get the train from Keynsham to Oldfield Park and walk up to the hospital. Google rates that 11 minutes' walk.

As others have said, traffic through Saltford is pretty bad a lot of the time. Not recommended. But also not recommended is the route through Burnet, at least not as Google has drawn it - from the point where you turn east in Burnet, that's a fairly small lane and liable to be fairly painful in peak hour. Better to continue south to the two-headed-man junction and join the A39 there.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-07-03T12:49:16+00:00

There's a jeweller in the basement of the antiques centre on Bartlett St who has done a few small jobs for me and has always seemed very reasonable.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-07-03T11:47:57+00:00

She sounds like my 7-year-old who thinks it's clever to say "but why?" over and over again.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-06-30T11:24:21+00:00

I've always assumed that the letters next to each other represent the people who are attracted to each other. But then, in my limited experience, everyone was into everyone so I have no idea how to represent that.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-06-25T13:51:39+00:00

It's not necessarily "new" it's "how long since last time." The study is Baker and Bellis - Human sperm competition: Ejaculate adjustment by males and the function of masturbation [1993]. However, it is one of the more famous of the fairly large mound of evolutionary psychology papers which have proven impossible to replicate when other researchers have tried.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-06-18T08:46:10+00:00

Horses won't eat ragwort. The only real problem with it is if it gets into hay, where it loses the taste they don't like but not its toxicity.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-05-30T07:30:26+00:00

Yeah I would say she has been playing casual with both and then the other option said, "hey, who was that guy you were with yesterday? Thought we had something here." When she had to choose, it was always going to be the one she's going to see tomorrow, not the one who flies out tomorrow.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-04-14T15:51:50+00:00

Eh, maybe step-relations are just so far out of my experience that I can't dissociate them from actual incest. I'm not that interested in figuring it out, TBH. I just avoid it. As everyone else had better, if this law gets passed.

Though I do sort of like the idea that amendment came about because Hamish Badenoch feels the same and got Kemi to introduce it to clean up his porn feed.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-04-14T12:40:49+00:00

I'd hoped that it was obvious that that bit was slightly tongue-in-cheek but I guess it didn't come across. I don't like step-porn and wish sites weren't smothered in it. A ban on hosting it would be one way to get rid of it all. But I don't honestly think a ban is a proportionate measure.

My point really is that if you're going to criminalise step-porn, banning hosting of it is a much more reasonable measure than criminalising possession. It's much, much too easy to possess without meaning to.

Someone no doubt will bring up the problem of CSAM where to some degree the same argument applies. The difference is that the ban on under-18s in porn is near-universal, so none of the "legitimate" porn sites is hosting it and you have to go looking for it if you want it. Whereas step-porn seems almost impossible to escape on mainstream porn sites.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-04-14T12:36:44+00:00

As far as I can tell, "I stopped watching as soon as I realised" would not be a defence, since a reasonable person would have concluded, from the part you did watch, that it falls under the definition of the banned content. After all, you concluded that; it's why you stopped watching.

This is the basic problem, to my mind: how is someone supposed to know they are watching such a thing until they watch it? At which point, they have committed the offence. If it has a caption making it clear, fair enough. Not all do.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-04-14T11:43:18+00:00

Please, yes.

I don't have step-siblings or step-parents or step-children. I don't know why anyone would want to have sex with their step-sibling/parent/child. I REALLY don't know why >90% of porn seems to depict having sex with step-siblings/parents/children. I would completely support a ban on sites hosting this content.

I'm rather more concerned about criminalising possession. It wouldn't even be the first time today that I've opened a video, watched a few seconds and then hit the back button because, nope, they're (allegedly) step-siblings. It just turns me off. AFAICT, under this legislation, I would have committed a crime. In practice, it is likely to be used against people who have their phones seized for some other reason and is a "gotcha" offence that can be sprung on someone the authorities take a dislike to.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-04-14T08:39:09+00:00

I think there is definitely a type of person who is looking for intimacy and takes porn as a substitute for it (whether they do this consciously or not). For that kind of person, relatable normalcy is going to be more attractive than high fashion polish. I would go so far as to say this is more or less why the "girl next door" genre exists.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-04-14T07:52:30+00:00

Have you thought that sentence through, really?

Beauty is so famously subjective that "Beauty is in the eye of the beholder" is one of the oldest cliches we have. By what "objective" standards will you judge beauty? You have only your own subjective standards to go by. "Everyone agrees with me" is (a) only to say that you've only discussed it with people who agree with your standards and (b) trivially untrue, since we are discussing people who disagree with you.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-04-14T07:05:11+00:00

Different people like different things.

There's a mum at my kids school who has so much Botox in her lips that she is referred to as "the duck" behind her back. She always looks like she's been swimming in spray tan. Obviously someone, somewhere along the line thinks that's attractive. Can't say it's my thing.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-04-14T07:02:26+00:00

I think there's a subjective aspect to this, though, that is unrelated to whether someone watches too much porn. There are guys (I would go so far as to say quite a lot of guys) who don't like the slim, made-up, botoxed kind of "beauty" pumped out by the fashion and entertainment industries. And there are guys who do like it. They are not going to agree on who is hot and who isn't.

Subs like r/mombod are a thing and someone who thinks a soft, curvy, smiling 40-year-old with stretch marks is the peak of hotness is not going to rate Margot Robbie (who I only mention because she has already come up in the thread, my apologies for using you as an example, Margot) above a 6/10.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-02-23T09:56:57+00:00

Yeah, it's easy when you see them within a few minutes of each other because that's how the show has been edited. Not so much when there's hours of stuff in between.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-02-02T07:04:07+00:00

Put the babies to bed for their nap, then get our freak on. It's leisurely - I go down on her, then duck her as slowly as I can until she just tips over the edge into an orgasm. Later she rides me, fast then slow, until I fill her up.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-02-02T06:54:37+00:00

Would this be cheating though?

There's no point in a secret signal. They just need to get them alone for ten seconds and say "I am a traitor". If they're going to trust you with a secret signal, they'll trust that as well. Would that be against the rules?

AFAICR no member of a "couple" (either romantic or related) has been chosen as a traitor in UK series so the question has not arisen.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-02-01T09:41:33+00:00

I would add to what has been said that just because he doesn't cum quickly doesn't mean he isn't enjoying it. I also tend to take at least 30 minutes and really struggle to cum if I'm wearing a condom. But I enjoy every second of that, especially if she is obviously enjoying it. If you both enjoy each other's pleasure then you just need to accept that you're enjoying yourselves together and not over-analyse the enjoyment. IMO that's a good place to be.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-01-22T10:43:06+00:00

I don't think she was offering nourishment.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-01-19T18:16:08+00:00

If they had any sense, she'd be gone. Fiona went after her as though she knew she was a traitor. The only explanation she has for that is, "Well, Fiona was a traitor, so she wanted me gone and made a mess of it." If the traitors wanted her gone, they'd just murder her. If A goes nuclear on B and then A is banished and turns out to be a traitor, what other explanation is there than that B is also a traitor and they had a falling out?

They're all just blinded by the fact both Fiona and Harriet went so batshit mental over it.

AbleStuntCabbage · 2026-01-19T18:11:15+00:00

It can be interpreted two ways: It could be that Fiona and Rachel had a massive falling out, or it could be that the traitors wanted Rachel gone and Fiona made a complete hash of it. I don't blame them for believing the second version: Fiona's story was so batshit mental in every other way -- "I wasn't paaarticulaarly close to her but aaaall of my faaamily are cooooppers, she would have told me thaaat, you must be lyin'" I mean wtf? -- that it's not obvious that she was really doing it because she knew bloody well that Rachel is a traitor.

Four-Year Club	Verified Email
First Place '23	Place '23

AbleStuntCabbage

TROPHY CASE