I was reading panthanatospost about this guy, who was busted in The States recently for having sex with one of those outdoor tables. Unfortunately for him, he was videoed by someone who turned him in. The fact that he chose a table close to a school where kids could have seen him in action, added to the indignation of all concerned and the guy was charged. If convicted, he would be guilty of a felony and could be sentenced to time in jail.

We’ve done posts on sex, bestiality and other stuff that is considered to be ‘deviant’, but never discussed the pros and cons of a furniture-fetish freak. As Java commented on Pan’s blog, who or what someone chooses to bonk really shouldn’t be anyone else’s business, except his/her immediate family members, and as long as the action is not objected to by the subject of the bonk. And in the case of an inanimate object, as long as no one else is involved – what the hell! Pan is a forensic psychology student. So I was awaiting some analytical assessment or theory that would, perhaps, shed some light on folk that like to get off on inanimate objects, but no such luck!

Then there was dogssup, who responded to our bestiality post and who makes no bones about his penchant for dogs. And fair enough, we conceded, as long as the dogs didn’t object and were not forced. Some of his views and observations are interesting and it was difficult to argue with, as we are not hung up on religious dogma or conventional mores (if they don’t make sense to us).

Our view is that with sex – anything goes – as long as there is no coercion and the act is mutually acceptable. This doesn’t mean that either Java or I are on any of these trips – it’s just our ‘live and let live – as long as no one else is hurt’ attitude to life.

As Java said: Heeyy dere folk, if y’all wants to get it on wit dat table, chair or dat heirloom anteek granfarder clock – go for it. Dat ol furnichure won care, so why shud anyone else?