It's recently come out that, on September 10th, Lauren Boebert was removed from the play Beetlejuice in Denver. This would be all fine and good, right? A politician is being an asshole. The sky is blue. Well, Hexbear, it is anything but fine. Anything but.
The plot thickens when it's revealed that, beyond the vaping and the being loud (which is it's own struggle session whether that's based), that part of her contribution to getting owned was that she was giving her partner an over the pants handjob. Now, this would have gone through the news cycle with a sensible chuckle for me, but, my fellow hexbearians, do I look like I'm having a sensible chuckle? NO! This is literally me right now.
See, what had happened was that this news circulated to the website that I like to post on. The title of the post was "boebert was giving a no-foolin for-reals handjob during the beetlejuice musical" This post got some of the most vile, vitriolic comments I've ever seen in all my posting.
>no-foolin for-reals handjob >over the pants rubbin Y'all that's not even a handy to a seventh grader. @regul@hexbear.net
unironically 
@WoofWoof91@hexbear.net
Let's get one thing straight here, hexbear. Over the pants is a handjob. This is my central thesis. Let's start with the most obvious positive case. If you have sex with a condom, do you call it over-the-condom sex? Of course not! Protected sex, maybe, but you wouldn't call it not sex. Would you call a blowjob with a condom not a blowjob? Of course not! If you did that'd be annoying and weird. Let's try not to be annoying and weird. skin-to-skin contact with the genitals isn't a requirement for something to be called a job. Repeat it once more for the people in the back getting a handjob rn: skin-to-skin contact with the genitals isn't a requirement for something to be called a job. If home runs are so unambiguous, why is third base so "ambiguous?" Because of a single fringe case. If it wasn't for the existence of this fringe case, then there's be no argument about how getting your genitals stimulated works.
Fairies, monsters, and others that go bump in the night, let me introduce you to the water jet/bubbling system of a hot tub. Wikipedia defines a hot tub as "a large tub full of water used for hydrotherapy, relaxation or pleasure." Let's explore that last word, pleasure. Whom 
hasn't used a hot tub as it was meant to be used. I think this is where the friction comes from, the jet stream in a hot tub. Dissenters will say (like sniveling cowards) "b-b-but WDYMP, the hot tub isn't sentient, it can't give you a job!" Let's get one thing straight, if you had your hands over the edge of a hot tub and your partner was pushing your crotch into a jet stream, that would be a type of job. The solution, my compromise for the haters and losers, is what I would like to call the jetjob. It would be a normal jetjob if they're pushing you via hands on the buttox into a water jet, and a reverse jetjob if they're using their feet. It would be a backwards jetjob if your back is facing the water jet. This also expands the capacity for a combo jobs because your crotch is facing your partner. This would be the exciting introduction of the triple job if they're using a hand, their mouth, and the water jet. I propose that, upon climax in such a fashion, one would exclaim "Tic tac toe, three in a row!"
With this, let's get one thing clear, over the pants is a type of handjob the same way that over the condom sex is a type of sex. If we can start using the term jetjob, then it will be easier to recognize when something is a job and when something is not. This would also be a step closer to communism. Thank you. I hope I haven't fractured our fragile community too deeply with this.
So where is the line on what is a hand job/sex in general? Is any touching of the general genital area a hand job? Seems overly broad. What if, hypothetically (
the hand is held a quarter inch over the genital area, with the intent of causing arousal, is that a hand job?
That being said
, whether or not an over the pants counts doesn't change the fact that what Lauren Boebert did was just a casual feel. The kind of thing you were doing in seventh grade. Ladies and gentlemen and envies get a sense of perspective. That's not a hand job. That's a tease which will cause partial arousal at most.
Tldr, you are so wrong and I'm the one true leftist
What if he prematurely ejaculated in his pants? Does that make it count as one?
Bold of you to assume I got any action as a teenager.
1st postulate: one must assume that contact must be made between that which is physically touching the genitals and the touchers hand. As previously argued a condom would not preclude the jobness of a blowjob ergo cum loudly handjob as well.
Off of this alone, one can differentiate a handjob from a quarter inch over which is more commonly referred to as a qi-job. DEMOLISHED by facts and logic
Condoms are specifically created to emulate, as near as possible, the sensation of skin contact. Jeans are decidedly not!