We’ve all been there. First week at a new job or a new college, (or most likely high school) and we’ve found ourselves a truly magical new group of friends that we’re just dying to impress! For most of us, we got highlights in our hair, a belly button piercing or pretended to be into Bob Dylan (so deep).

But none of this was enough to please David Cameron’s chums at the prestigious Oxford University, as reports are emerging that he… well he er… The Prime Minister of the United Kingdom porked a pig…

Viral Video Of Man Having Sex With Snake Proves World Can Be Truly Vile Place

That is to say, Mr Cameron (allegedly) unzipped his pants, whipped out his penis and plopped it straight into the mouth of an unsuspecting dead pig. He then (in my imagination) proceeded to wiggle it around as his mates whooped and cheered, threw their top hats in the air and burnt some money.

#Hameron

Of course the allegations come from a rather dubious source, an unofficial and scathing biography of David Cameron written by his ex BFF and former Conservative Lord Ashcroft. In Call Me Dave, Ashcroft admits some personal ‘beef’ towards his old pal, since Dave failed to give him an important role after winning the 2010 election.

Florida Teen Took Selfies While Having Ruff Sex With Her Pit Bull

Well we bet poor old Dave is feeling the wrath now, as extracts of the book appeared in that beacon of truth The Daily Mail this morning. Amongst several claims of debauchery in his youth, the weirdest has to be that the British Prime Minister entered ‘a private part of his anatomy’ into a dead pig’s mouth as part of an initiation ritual to a private dining club. Apparently at these dinners, the food eats you!

The dining club, named Piers Gaveston (after the lover of King Edward II) was known for it’s excessive displays of vulgarity as well as bizarre initiation rituals by the posh members.

Man Accidentally Sends Girlfriend Video Of Him Having Sex With Their Dog!

As of yet, Mr Hameron has refused to comment on the embarrassing story. Other Conservative representatives have dismissed it as ‘total crap’.

Just another day in the world of politics!

#piggate

In a truly sickening terror attack Wednesday, three masked gunmen shot dead 12 people, and critically wounded 4, at the Paris office of French satirical magazine, Charlie Hebdo.

The suspected militant Islamists struck in broad daylight, opening fire with assault rifles—murdering ten staffers, including four of the magazine’s renown cartoonists and its editor, in addition to two police officers who had been guarding the offices, before fleeing by car.

According to the BBC, witnesses report hearing the gunmen shouting, ”We have avenged the Prophet Muhammad" and "God is Great" in Arabic ("Allahu Akbar”).

Charlie Hebdo has come under attack by Islamists in the past over its irreverent satirical humor, which pokes fun at high level politicians, religion, current affairs and news —the office was previously firebombed back in 2011 after the magazine ran a caricature of the Prophet Mohammed.

Editor, Stephane Charbonnier, was living under police protection at the time of his murder, after having received numerous death threats in the past—French media named the other slain cartoonists as, Cabu, Tignous and Wolinski, in addition to French economist, Bernard Maris.

President Hollande branded the attackers “cowardly” telling the media, "We are threatened because we are a country of liberty.”

President Barack Obama lent his voice, condemning the "horrific shooting" and vowing to offer any assistance needed in order "to help bring these terrorists to justice".

British Prime Minister David Cameron called the murders “sickening” and tweeted his support, “We stand with the French people in the fight against terror and defending the freedom of the press."

"It was a horrendous, unjustifiable and cold-blooded crime. It was also a direct assault on a cornerstone of democracy, on the media and on freedom of expression,” UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon told press.

Leading Muslims also released statements condemning the attacks:

"Arab League chief Nabil al-Arabi strongly condemns the terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo newspaper in Paris," the organization said, whilst, Al-Azhar spokesman, Abbas Shoman, said the institution "does not approve of using violence even if it was in response to an offense committed against sacred Muslim sentiments".

Meanwhile, Charlie Hebdo’s website was back online again shortly after the attack, showing the single image of "Je suis Charlie" ("I am Charlie) on a black banner—in reference to the hashtag trending on Twitter.

After the British Parliament laid down strict regulations banning certain sex acts from online pornography, sex workers and enthusiasts decided to do something about it.

And their protest took the form of a giant facesitting demonstration. Because how else is that message supposed to be delivered?

As Popdust previously reported, it all started on December 2, 2014, when the British Board of Film Censors (BBFC) decided to amend the 2003 Communications Act. The move meant that video-on-demand online porn has to adhere to the same guidelines laid down for DVD “sex shop-type porn.”

The Department for Culture, Media & Sport insisted that the move was a “tried and tested” method for protecting children. The BBFC also ruled that acts such as facesitting, squirting, spanking , strangulation and fisting were “life-threatening” and should not be shown on video.

However, it appears that the men in suits underestimated how many Brits are members of the porn community. Or, just how many Brits were staunch supporters of the industry. Because just over a week after the ruling was made, the demonstrations started.

On December 12, a hoard of people gathered in front of the Houses of Parliament in central London. They laid down rugs, played the music of Monty Python and handed out hot tea. And in keeping with true British fashion, they also decided to sit on each other’s faces. It was, all in all, a pretty classy affair.

Though the protestors were hoping the demonstration would result in a world-record event, The Guinness Book of World Records refused to sanction it, and no official count was made. But those present estimate that there were about 60 facesitters present, give or take a few.

And credit must be paid for the clever collection of slogans around. One banner directed at the British Prime Minister, David Cameron, read, “Can’t Make His Wife Squirt. Bans It in Porn.” Another remarked, “Vulvas Don’t Kill People, Revolvers Do.”

Organizer Charlotte Rose called the restrictions “ludicrous” and told The Mirror, “These activities were added to the list without the public being made aware.”

She added, “There are activities on that list that may be deemed sexist, but it’s not just about sexism, it’s about censorship. What the Government is doing is taking our personal liberties away without our permissions.”

But for many people, the perceived sexism is what really pushed them over the edge. Ally Jones, 25, told The Daily Beast, “Why is it perfectly fine for me to choke on a penis or be covered in semen but not OK for me to ejaculate on someone?”

And she’s right. The restrictions were predominately placed on what is deemed as physical expressions of female pleasure.

The Daily Beast reports:

The targeting of female pleasure is only heightened by the fact that male ejaculation is not on the list of banned acts. Of course, banning the sight of jizz in pornography would be like banning explosions in a Michael Bay movie: pretty much impossible and wholly disappointing to male viewers. In fact, the money shot is the one of the most consistent hallmarks of free and widely accessible pornography.

Is it that the British Parliament feels all that threatened by the female orgasm? Is it that they underestimated how many women participate in and enjoy watching pornography? Did they fail to take into account that male feminists exist, and that many men get off on seeing a woman climax?

Maybe none of the above, maybe all of the above. But one point remains clear—the Parliament’s justification in banning these acts is bogus. It implies that women should be submissive, compliant partners, focusing on getting their guys off before themselves, because hey, we don’t want to be selfish, right?

As the Daily Beast puts it so succinctly, “It may be just a squirt but it stands for a whole lot.”