Woman to Woman

By Nikita

May 14, 2007 8:46 AM | Link to this

A few things, in no particular order:

By escorting his daughter, the average father is pledging to be involved in her life - not to “control” her, but simply to love her as a father should.

First, these events take place relatively late in a child’s childhood. So if the purpose is to boost fatherhood in general it should occur earlier.

Second, “love her as a father should” is creepy in this context.

I agree that any cultural message treating women as objects is wrong. But purity balls send the exact opposite message. They are a way for fathers to tell daughters that they are special, precious, adored — and will be supported in their difficult and counter-cultural choice to stay pure until marriage.

A) Wrong — Purity balls send a message that the daughter is property, and so is her sexuality. And formalize it. It sounds nice to “support” her and “provide accountability” — but what it actually means is that the family’s priority in keeping their daughters virginal is vested in the father and cemented through a public ceremony in which the father is charged with doing so. There is practically no choice in the daughter’s possession.

B) I am so incredibly tired of hearing about the poor, oppressed minority known as christians. Something like 80% of the population is religious — and most of the religions people ascribe to are heavily involved in regulating female sexuality. So there is nothing, nothing, nothing countercultural about obeying a sexual prohibition rooted in scripture.

By lovelyliz

May 14, 2007 9:53 AM | Link to this

Where are the purity balls for the Mother & Son?

Or is that just creepy?

By Rectilinear Propagation

May 14, 2007 10:14 AM | Link to this

I agree with Diane and lovelyliz: The fact that these things are father-daughter only show that it is about men controlling the sexuality of women. There are no dances to encourage men to remain chaste and it is the father, not the mother, who is supposed to keep the female children pure.

Perhaps what goes on at the event isn’t so bad but a father taking his daughter to a dance to announce that she’s staying a virgin and he’s going to help does sound creepy to me.

The pledge to be involved in her life should come on day one (if not before she’s born) and the lesson to value herself should be given everyday. Staying a virgin should be a promise a woman makes to herself: she doesn’t “owe” it to anyone else.

By Scalia

May 14, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Why are women’s virginities considered more important than boys? Why don’t they have a ball that shows girls/women as more than objects to counter all the body parts that music videos, ads, commercials, Maxim, and SpikeTV shoved down young boys throats?

By NetBanker

May 14, 2007 11:34 AM | Link to this

Sorry to completely regress here, but I had to follow up on Chuck’s comment from last Friday.

The difference between businesses and government NetB is that the Bible says specifically that governments are ordained by God and answerable for their actions. If you truly believe this we’re in serious trouble. During the time that the Bible was written the only form of government was a Monarchy. How exactly could a democratic republic be ‘ordained by God’ when the leaders are constantly changing due to elections? This mindset also sets us up for “My God is better than Your God” playground antics and I’ll tell you we certainly didn’t ‘turn the other cheek’ after the 9/11 attack.

Staying a virgin should be a promise a woman makes to herself: she doesn’t “owe” it to anyone else. Well said! I also think the concept is a tad creepy. Nikita makes an excellent point that stepping in to attend a ball when one is in their teens is rather late on the ‘be involved’ timeline.

Oddly enough I was thinking about the use of the term “lost virginity” over the weekend. How exactly does one lose their virginity? Something lost implies that it can be found. Once one’s virginity is either given away or taken away there is no getting it back.

By Mara

May 14, 2007 11:54 AM | Link to this

er…Net? There IS a “getting it back”, dear. One can restore one’s virginity with a hymenoplasty. Virginity that is “lost” when the hymen is torn asunder by an ardent lover can be restored by a half-way skilled plastic surgeon. LOL!!!

and by the way Diane. I find this father/daughter thing a bit creepy too. What teen-age girl, no matter how well adjusted, wants to discuss their sex-life with their father?! And how many of those would be honest about it?

By Outsource W2W to India

May 14, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

We have an Iraq war going on; a federal deficit; gas fast approaching $9.00/gallon; rampant racism/sexism in america; and THIS IS the only thing these “gals” could come up with to talk about???? Do they ever wonder why their “hits/comments” for this column is going down dramatically every week? Perhaps if they’d look into their absurd “subject” matter……

By SusieHomeMaker

May 14, 2007 1:11 PM | Link to this

Perhaps this is why W2W keeps all this spam on their site. The more spam the more it looks like they have real “hits” on their blog.

By NetBanker

May 14, 2007 1:25 PM | Link to this

There IS a “getting it back”, dear. One can restore one’s virginity with a hymenoplasty. If I wasn’t at work I’d google hymenoplasty because I’m honestly not sure if you made that up to yank my chain or if it’s real. I also heard that if you don’t have sex for 7 years you grow a new one. hehehehe. Either way all one is doing is restoring a hymen, not virginity

By Jack

May 14, 2007 1:35 PM | Link to this

It is a healthy way that won’t work. If they think it does I’ve got some ocean front property for sale in Montana they may want to buy.

By CobbCoian

May 14, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

Yes, this is creepy. Also seriously doubt this works. If these are held when the daugther is in her mid teens, I’d be willing to bet half of them have already lost their viginity. I am happily married in my mid 20’s, but if my Dad asked me, I would also say I’m still a virgin! I think they should have some type of Father - Son “ball” or event that encourages males to not treat women as property and truly respect them instead.

By 2D

May 14, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

I hear ther term “creepy” tossed about. I also hear that teenage girls wouldn’t want to talk with their fathers about sex, or if they did would probably lie. So, what is an appropriate relationship for a father to have with his teenage daughter? If the daughter is just going to fib anyway, could it be that a strong and trust filled relationship wasn’t built while the daughter was much younger?

I would hope that fathers and daughters would have a relationship where they could talk about anything. The more open and honest a relationship is between a parent and their children, the better off the children will be. Wouldn’t it be better for the daughter to have two parents to talk to about issues than just one?

I felt comfotable speaking with both of my parents about everything. While I do believe that mothers and fathers bring different skill sets to the table, I also believe that both bring valuable experience and insight into every issue. Well, maybe I would exclude a few specifics, but attitudes about sex would not be one of them.

By It's all Bull

May 14, 2007 1:53 PM | Link to this

Religion will be doom of all mankind. It divides and causes more pain suffering and wars than all the natural forces of nature put together. Reject religion in all forms and be truly free. Christian and Muslim religion is mostly about the rich upper class of educated men controlling the women and uneducated men, nothing more, nothing less. It’s also a very useful in getting other men to throw their lives away and mothers to feel good about sacrificing their sons in wars for something the educated religious leaders want. All religious beliefs are nothing but superstitions about things that were once not understood allowed to fester into putrid puss filled boils on the consciousness of mankind.

By 2D

May 14, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Just what we needed to ge the party started around here. The generic religion bomb will definitely bring folks out in full force.

By Mara

May 14, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

Net - Me? Yankin’ your chain? I wouldn’t do that to you!

“Hymenoplasty, a controversial medical procedure known mostly for its prevalence in the Middle East and Latin America, is becoming popular in the U.S….”Revirgination” (can) cost as little as $1,800…”It’s the ultimate gift for the man who has everything,” says a 40 year old medical assistant from San Antonio.”

as for the restoration of one’s chastity…well, that’s something else entirely :^)

By Mara

May 14, 2007 2:35 PM | Link to this

“I agree that any cultural message treating women as objects is wrong” says Shaunti. Except…a few sentences above that she says that “…our culture practically taunts teenage girls into giving themselves away…”

Shaunti, they may be giving up their sexual innocence but they certainly aren’t “giving themselves away”…unless, of course, their virginity is the sum and total of their being.

By Mara

May 14, 2007 2:39 PM | Link to this

oops. Net, I had planned on including the web address for the WSJ article (as printed by the post-gazette) with my post on hymenoplasy. Here ya go. Better late than never…

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05349/622923.stm

By chuck

May 14, 2007 3:00 PM | Link to this

NetB, It doesn’t matter what kind of government it is, It is authorized by God. The key text is found in Romans 13.

Romans 13 Submission to the Authorities 1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. 7Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor.

By Rectilinear Propagation

May 14, 2007 3:11 PM | Link to this

THIS IS the only thing these “gals” could come up with to talk about?

I thought they would talk about the radio jocks that joked about raping Ms. Rice but I guess they wouldn’t actually disagree that those guys should be fired.

By Grant

May 14, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

I think its creepy too. Its also just not reality. Does anyone know what happens to these girls who later decide to have sex? Are they ostrasized by their family, church, etc? Is something as private as her sex life now made public? My point is it just another way to control using guilt, disappointment and fear to control a young adults decisions.

And excellent point about not applying the same standard to boys.

By chuck

May 14, 2007 4:01 PM | Link to this

As for the subject of the day, I think that it’s a good thing for girls AND boys to commit to a chaste life until Marriage. I think this PARTICULAR idea is ABSURD. I cannot imagine taking my 15 year-old daughter to something like this. However, we have had a number of discussions about guys/sex as I have with my son who is 19.

By NetBanker

May 14, 2007 4:10 PM | Link to this

He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer Honestly, Chuck, I’ll never believe the way you do. Even the statement above seems to be the antithesis of my understanding of what it is to be a Christian and to attempt to live up to the ideals of Jesus. Where is the golden rule in that statement? Turn the other cheek? The spirit of love? God being the ultimate judge?

I suppose that deep down I’m more like our Founding Fathers who were Deists. I do believe there is more going on that that of which we are aware, but I just find it incredulous that God is a micromanager of our lives when He’s got an entire Universe to run. I don’t think God cares who wins the Friday night football game. I just don’t buy it that God takes sides in a war, but rather He deplores that there was a war and killing in the first place. (I can just picture God sitting there saying “I’ve given them one blessed rule to follow. ONE! I even called it the Golden Rule and they’re down there killing each other instead of doing unto others…Sheesh! Stupid humans!!) I really don’t think that God ordains the government regardless of what Romans says especially when the survival of the church and spreading it’s reach was directly tied to the fate of the expansion of the Roman Empire.

By Kiandra

May 14, 2007 8:49 PM | Link to this

Good job, here and there!!! Keep it up, I like your guestbook!!! Please add your comments at my :)

By Bell

May 15, 2007 8:52 AM | Link to this

COOOOOOL!!!!!!!! Let’s be friends!!! Go to my site and post your info :)

By Coach

May 15, 2007 9:00 AM | Link to this

Wow. How about this scenario. The man marries the woman before she becomes pregnant. Takes the daughter to father daughter dances (often sponsored by the girl scouts) from the time she is in about the third grade and demonstrates how a man should treat a woman; stays married to the mother, provides a living for his family, displays a life of character and compassion, and (I will be stoned) takes his family to church. A marriage is a partnership “…they two shall become one flesh…” not an ownership and the man and woman no longer have complete control over their own bodies. The best way to raise a strong, confident, self-reliant daughter is to love her mother.

By chuck

May 15, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Amen Coach.

By Monica

May 15, 2007 9:37 AM | Link to this

Worked for me, Coach, except that I was in girl scouts before the days of daddy/daughter dances. We did campouts instead. Talk about great weekends.

Of course the absolute best was when I got tickets to the Braves games for making all A’s on a report card (anyone else remember when the Braves were no good and going to the game was affordable?), and Daddy took me to the games. Great memories. :)

By meme

May 15, 2007 10:04 AM | Link to this

Very creepy. Coach, I like your ideas.

By airline tickets

May 15, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

Hi. Great site.

By Elizabeth

May 15, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

Why don’t fathers hold purity balls for their SONS? Why the double standard? Somehow women’s sexuality is something to be controlled by fathers, whereas men’s sexuality is somehow considered “boys will be boys.”

By Jake

May 15, 2007 10:15 AM | Link to this

Fathers’ absorption with their daughter’s sexuality is just a step above pedophilia.

By Ellen

May 15, 2007 10:18 AM | Link to this

This purity ball mentality just teaches teens that sexuality is dangerous, bad, dirty—that it must be curtailed at all costs. What a horrible burden to place upon a young woman. Why don’t we teach teens that sex is normal, healthy, beautiful—an aspect of life that is best exercised responsibly.

By paulfromatlanta

May 15, 2007 10:20 AM | Link to this

When you look at the pictures used by these groups to promote “purity balls” its hard not to see a sexual element between the fathers and daughters - icky.

http://www.abcs-tucson.org/DSCN7125sm.jpg http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.bloggingbaby.com/media/2007/03/near01_purityballs.jpg

By Lynnie

May 15, 2007 10:32 AM | Link to this

I’ve yet to see anyone mention the fact that these purity balls have one sole purpose: To shove abstinence down girls’ throats. It has already been proven several times that teaching abstinence alone is not effective. I have no problem with people teaching their values as “save sex for marriage” HOWEVER young people need to know their options as well. Many teenage pregnancies could be prevented if the population were educated. Simply saying “Don’t have sex.” is not going to solve the problem. Teaching your values, but also teaching responsible sexual behavior will. Kids are going to have sex. No amount of dancing with daddy or signing a dozen contracts is going to change that. So rather than shoving abstinence down a teen’s throat, talk to them about safe sex as well. Doing so is not “promoting” premarital sex, it is ensuring that if the child is hell-bent on having premarital sex, they do so without ending up pregnant or with an STD. I would much rather my child have safe premarital sex than be only informed of abstinence and end up pregnant at sixteen or seventeen. These purity balls not only are creepy (and yes, having your father parade you around and forcing promises of remaining a virgin until you can serve it up to her husband on a silver platter IS creepy, talk about the ultimate dowry), but they only lull parents into a false sense of security that their daughter (again, sons seem to be able to have as much sex as they want, nobody seems to be too concerned about them) is going to remain chaste until marriage, meanwhile, the majority of parents only talk about saving SEX for marriage, and nowadays, oral and anal sex are rarely considered sex by teens.

Great job, guys. Way to keep everyone safe.

By fd

May 15, 2007 11:15 AM | Link to this

boy everyone here speak with so much hatred…………bottom line is……..what are yiou all doing for your daughters, i agree with the person that said that best way to teach our kids is loving our wifes…….so i can almost bet the mayority here are either divorse, no kids, or living a kife stile that is no good………

By Sarah

May 15, 2007 11:24 AM | Link to this

There is something fundamentally creepy about this, ewwww. Do they give out an award for the best preserved hymen? I question the abnormal interest these fathers display in their daughters sexuality; this just smacks of ….ewwww, creepy, disgusting, abnormal, invasive….perverted. Ewwwwwwwwwwww.

By fd

May 15, 2007 11:33 AM | Link to this

i bet most of you are democrats,hahahaha……….because you sure know how to twist thing around and give some good a bad meaning

By Lynnie

May 15, 2007 11:35 AM | Link to this

This just begs the further question of: What happens if a girl loses her hymen through no fault of her own? So many people and religions focus on that small part of a woman’s anatomy as being solely representative of her sexuality and virginity. Many women are born without a hymen. Others lose them through physical activities such as horseback riding and gymnastics. And of course, sexual assault can lead the the “loss” of one’s hymen. What many people do not know is that the hymen isn’t some impenetrable force, but a small bit of tissue which isn’t completely solid, but partially split on it’s own. (Of course some women have no hymen or a solid hymen, but this is not the norm) When a hymen is “broken” for any reason, it isn’t actually broken, but merely stretched.

So if a woman has no hymen for a reason other than voluntary sex, how does that play into these purity balls? Are we teaching young girls to value their body and soul or to value a small bit of tissue they have little to no control over?

By Jackson

May 15, 2007 11:50 AM | Link to this

Romans 13 Submission to the Authorities: Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God.

So, by that logic, a Christian living in the Middle East should, you know, submit himself to the Islamic authorities.

Does anyone else see the total BS here? I’ll bet dollars-to-donuts that if you posited this very scenario to a Christian, their head would explode and then deny this as the true spirit of the word. Otherwise, why would so many Christian groups back Middle East reform (much of it through organized rebellion against—you guessed it—the authorities)?

On the subject of these creepy purity balls, “oaths”, and the larger subject of 100% abstinence education: it doesn’t work. So many studies have been done on the subject, and in every single one it’s proven to not only be an abject failure, but in many cases it’s actually encouraged kids to start having sex. So, essentially, you’re just creating adolescents with a taste for deceiving their parents not only out of teenage rebellion, but out of the fear of retribution. (Did I mention that many of these same kids who take these “oaths” also end up having a higher level of unprotected sex than those with a rounded sex education curriculum? You’d be surprised. If only people actually took the time out of their day to actually do research rather than take what’s handed to them as “information” for granted.)

Give kids the full picture and an understanding of inherent risk involved in sexual activity, and perhaps they’ll take that to heart rather than simply shoving a narrow view down their throat.

By Your child is probably having sex

May 15, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

FD, I am willing to bet most of the fathers who attend(based on in depth studies)had premarital sex themselves. I have noticed that the more macho “conservative” guys talk about women like objects more than their progressive counterparts. Studies have also shown that conservative men are more likely to buy porn and go to strip clubs than their liberal counterparts. The bottom line is many conservative men see themselves as superior to women. They probably sought numerous sexual conquests and did lots of locker room talk about getting “p***”, but now they want their daughters to stay pure. FD, BTW I don’t live a bad life style. I am a good American and I as perfectly moral fellow. People like you narrowly define morals. Nobody tells their kid hey go have sex with as many people as you want and be sure to experiment with group sex, bondage, etc. FD, you probably think liberals tell that to their kids. Personal responsibility is the key not religous dogma or the fairy tale that “your kid” will wait until their married to have sex. Teaching your kid all or nothing when it comes to sex is irresponsible. Abstinence only sex education, Chastity Balls(super creepy) and various other right wing la la land initiatives are part of the problem not the solution. FD chances are your kids had plenty of sex before they got married.

By Monica

May 15, 2007 11:57 AM | Link to this

Lynnie, I believe that the purpose is more symbolic/spiritual in nature. Most advocates of the “true love waits” campaign (present company included) believe in saving onself for marriage before having sex, not the physical act of losing a hymen. Perhaps the better word for it is chastity, as Mara pointed out yesterday.

In all honesty, I don’t like the wearing of purity rings on the girl’s (or boy’s) wedding finger. I’m a huge advocate of abstinence until marriage, but I think that if one who wears a purity ring “makes a mistake” (keep in mind my viewpoint), then he or she is either thrown into the limelight by the sudden disappearance of the ring, or he or she feels the need to live a lie - wearing the ring even though one is no longer chaste.

By 2D

May 15, 2007 11:58 AM | Link to this

paulfromatlanta… I just took a look at the links you sent and quite frankly don’t see anything icky or creepy. In fact, if you didn’t say it was a “purity ball”, I would see similar pictures taken of fathers and daughters at other formal gatherings like a wedding. I think we hold fathers to a double standard or at least to a double edged sword. If they don’t get involved they are a dead beat. If they get too involved (at least a very subjective level) then they are creepy.

Are mother’s who get involved with the sons lives in the same way just as creepy?

I personally don’t think this is an effective way to promote chastity, purity or whatever you want to call it. I think they way my parents (and I mean my father and my mother) worked the issue is the best way to go: discuss the issue openly and make sure to discuss the positives and the potential negatives, keep an open line of communication and then let me make my own decisions. For many things like sex and alcohol, I ended up choosing not to until well into my college life and I believe I am much better off for it. For others, like smoking or drugs of any kind other than caffeine, I never done it, and I know I’m better off for it.

By lozen

May 15, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

Well, well fd. You sure know how to make friends and influence people don’t ya? Your first two posts on this blog and you have no hesitation to show your derision for everyone on here. You SEE hatred because you ARE hatred. Classic projection - check yourself out. Jeez.

By The Vital Point

May 15, 2007 12:24 PM | Link to this

Ultimately, the only promises which mean anything are the ones we make to ourselves. When we pressure others—or even ourselves—to make promises when the heart and spirit aren’t willing, we end up with—surprise—empty and broken promises.

How can we influence our children in a positive way, then? I’m no expert, but my guess would be through love, respect, and by setting a good example.

Love to all.

By Jackson

May 15, 2007 12:46 PM | Link to this

Furthermore, The National Abstinence Clearinghouse is not secular: See here.

The National Abstinence Clearinghouse exists to bring families closer to each other and to our Creator. Our sites are based on a set of foundational Christian beliefs which you may want to review. We make no apologies for holding a Judeo-Christian perspective of marriage, family and the value of life and children. Thanks for your openness to respectfully consider our viewpoints.

How’s that for research?

By MeganT

May 15, 2007 12:49 PM | Link to this

The most spiritual place I go is Ala-Teen meetings where I (and everyone else) can say what’s really on our minds and be accepted for who we really are and where we really are coming from. When there is no judgement and no false front we have to hide behind, we can truly think about what we want/don’t want and the best ways to act. Is that not true christian love? In church there’s so much hypocrisy and people feel they have to keep up a front instead of being accepted for who they are. How can that be good? In church one person (usually a man)talks for 20 minutes telling you you are a bad person unless you do things exactly the way he has decided you should. In Ala-Teen people sit in a circle and there’s noone telling you what to do because we know our higher power comes thru all of us and not just one preacher. Parents and preachers set us up to fail their expectation; if you love us, why do you do that? Yes, 70% have sex before leaving high school and a purity dance isn’t going to stop that. I’m going to college and graduate school and probably get a phd. By that time I’ll be in my late 20’s, early 30’s. If anybody thinks people today are going to wait until we’re 30 years old to experience sex they’re totally crazy.

By Mara

May 15, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

okay, I gotta say it…”purity balls” just sounds funny…like Chef’s “Chocolate Salty Balls” only not as tasty :^)

lozen - did you notice fd’s impressive grasp of spelling and punctuation, too? Wow. Impressive. Must be a RedStater, or a Freeper…(/snark)

By kimberly

May 15, 2007 1:43 PM | Link to this

Mara, you forgot “Schwetty…” HAHAHA!

By Mara

May 15, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

RIP Jerry Falwell. I didn’t agree with him on ANY topic but I am sorry for his family’s loss. They have my sympathy.

However, I’m also glad he’s finally gonna have to stand up in front of his God and explain himself.

By Mara

May 15, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

kimberly - LOL @ “schwetty”!!!

By kimberly

May 15, 2007 1:56 PM | Link to this

Mara, you’re a better “Christian” than I. While I don’t take it upon myself to wish harm on others, even the likes of RevJF, I don’t think he made the world a better place. In fact, I think he drove people away from churches and religions with his judgment and hypocrisy. While making money by instilling the fear of hellfire in the simple masses is nothing new (I presume he never cashed in like the Vatican…) it disgusts me nonetheless. Christ walked around in sandals with dirty feet. These builders of financial empires and political power spread hate in his name, cherry picking their verses and their victims each day. Surely little Tinky Winky the purple Teletubbie will sleep easier tonight, free from the witch hunt against animated characters. Until tomorrow, that is, when James Dobson steps in to claim the righteous hand of condemnation for America.

By Mom2Boys

May 15, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

I have two sons…one approaching 20, the other 17. They have been taught safe sex practices FOREVER…they’ve also been told that it is more appropriate to wait until they are married, or at least until they are in a committed relationship when they are older.

I would be negligent to teach them abstinence without teaching safe sex practices. They KNOW we don’t approve, but I’d rather they be safe, than dying from AIDS.

Also, every single statistic out there on ‘Purity Pledges’ have shown that they are uneffective. The children who make these pledges are just as likely to have sex as those who haven’t. Indeed, a few studies even found that the ‘purity pledgers’ have higher rates of pregnancy and STDs..ignorance is the reason for that one…! They still have sex, but haven’t been taught how to protect themselves!

Purity Balls are grotesque. A father giving his daughter a ring as she pledges to stay pure?

And…several have begged the point..where’s the Mother-Son ball? Or does the double standard apply..you know, that boys should have experience, while girls are w******* for having had sex.

Idiotic knee-jerk response to an age-old problem. TYPICAL.

By Jeff

May 15, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

Mara:

I don’t know you, but I know our species and our relation to the Holy God. And let me tell you, without the blood of Yeshua ben Yoseph (aka Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth), NONE of our “explanations” are good enough.

Take your chances or know you’re safe. The choice is yours.

By The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways

May 15, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

I don’t think he made the world a better place. In fact, I think he drove people away from churches and religions with his judgment and hypocrisy.

Well, call me twisted, but I think he did the world a tremendous service by clearly exposing the hypocrisy that ALL churches embody with all the crazy rituals and suspect psychology. I’m just sayin’ ; > }

P.S. Y’all need to rent “Jonestown” ASAP if you didn’t catch it on PBS the first time around. Fascinating account of Jim Jones’s rise to power. The cameras were rolling right through “The Final Solution”.

By kimberly

May 15, 2007 2:19 PM | Link to this

The words and deeds (as written down via hearsay by a bunch of different men, and selectively translated many times by different men with a vested financial and political insterest in the content) of Jesus Christ hold in them nothing offensive.

Therefore, it is not the Word of the Lord that drives people away, it is the hypocrisy with which the “lord’s moneychangers” like RevJF CRAM those words with anger, fear, and condemnation, down the throats of other human beings. That is what drives people away. Your little, “Well, Gee, you just might go to heck if you don’t fall in line and march lock step,” attempt at getting them back is so BEYOND LAME it defies description. Try again when you actually have something, whydoncha?

By The Lord Works In Mysterious Ways

May 15, 2007 2:25 PM | Link to this

Try again when you actually have something, whydoncha?

C’mon, now. Where’s that beautiful smile today? ; > }

By Scalia

May 15, 2007 2:28 PM | Link to this

Or the alternative, as I have heard from Middle Eastern friends, is to simply take the “backdoor” approach which makes you a vaginal virgin for marriage. That way it is a win/win situation for every one.

By MeganT

May 15, 2007 2:47 PM | Link to this

No, it is not a win/win situation for every one. That’s all the boys in my school talk about now according to my brother. The girls do too, but they talk about how much it hurts them! They do it because they don’t want to lose their boyfriends to girls who will do it. The same reason most girls give in before they finish high school. It’s the boys who need a purity dance and a purity ring but it wouldn’t change anything. Whether it’s said straight out or under the table, most people do think “boys will be boys” and that’s okay.

By Mara

May 15, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

Jeff - I don’t know you, but I know our species and our relation to the Holy God…without the blood of Yeshua ben Yoseph…NONE of our “explanations” are good enough

uh-huh…sure…whatever. Which “Holy God” are you refering to, and just how does one go about procuring a vial of Yosephs blood? I mean, I wanna be safe and all…

kimberly - “empathic”, please, NOT “christian”. I’m far to non-judgemental of other people’s harmless fun to be any kind of “christian”. ;^)

Scalia - LOL! you naughty, naughty boy! Win/win indeed…LOL

By NetBanker

May 15, 2007 3:08 PM | Link to this

Mara and Kimberly…you are both soooo baaaaaaad! I ba-ha’d out LOUD!! But since you’ve broken the ice so to speak…”purity balls” sounds like a chasity belt for guys. If you want your Son to remain pure and chaste until marriage, just fit him with a set of ‘purity balls’ and you can be sure there will be no panky in his hanky.

By MeganT

May 15, 2007 3:56 PM | Link to this

Ah Mara I didn’t notice that…j ust skim the stuff enough to do my eye rolls and head shakings ya know ;- }

I don’t know you, but I know our species and our relation to the Holy God. And let me tell you, without the blood of Yeshua ben Yoseph (aka Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth), NONE of our “explanations” are good enough. Take your chances or know you’re safe. The choice is yours.

If a Muslim said to him “No! My god is the only true god and the phophet Mohammed the only true prophet and your only chance to heaven is to believe in Allah and Mohammed,” that Jeff guy would realize that statement was crazy. It’s always so fascinating that people can see the craziness in others’ religions but never in their own. Of course his only reason for believing seems to be fear that he will go to hell if he doesn’t believe… and laziness. So many are just too lazy to study and research all religions and their history until they understand it. Someone said the quickest way to turn a christian into an agnostic is by sending them to seminary!

By Mara

May 15, 2007 4:04 PM | Link to this

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! Net, you slay me! LOL…”fit him with purity balls”…HAHAHA!!! Thanks for ending my day with a hearty chuckle

By Too Old To Rock and Roll But Too Young To Die

May 15, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

Life Lesson #5: Never volunteer to be “Pan” at a Wiccan fertility ritual. Oh my achin’ _ _ _ _.

Just kidding, guys.

By kimberly

May 15, 2007 4:49 PM | Link to this

NetB, GOOD ONE! Hahaha! But seriously, you know, it does sound like good, clean fun. Personally, I love to get all dressed up for a good ball. HAHAHA!

By Too Old To Rock and Roll But Too Young To Die

May 15, 2007 4:52 PM | Link to this

You’re so baad, kimberly. You kill me. ; > }

By GOB

May 15, 2007 5:01 PM | Link to this

I don’t know you, but I know our species and our relation to the Holy God. And let me tell you, without the blood of Yeshua ben Yoseph (aka Jesus, son of Joseph of Nazareth), NONE of our “explanations” are good enough.

Yeah, because there is nothing like a good ghost story, and ritualized, symbolic cannibalism to give us solid explanations…

By NetBanker

May 15, 2007 5:15 PM | Link to this

Never volunteer to be “Pan” at a Wiccan fertility ritual. Weren’t you just at one of those over the weekend?

Personally, I love to get all dressed up for a good ball. Me too! Sometimes it’s nice to put on the tux…other times the harness and leather jock do the job…different types of ball usually.

By Linkoln

May 16, 2007 12:45 AM | Link to this

Hi!!! Excellent resource you’ve got here!!! Will definately be back!!!

By chuck

May 16, 2007 10:08 AM | Link to this

Kimmie, Kimmie, Kimmie:

While I don’t take it upon myself to wish harm on others, even the likes of RevJF, I don’t think he made the world a better place. In fact, I think he drove people away from churches and religions with his judgment and hypocrisy. While making money by instilling the fear of hellfire in the simple masses is nothing new (I presume he never cashed in like the Vatican…) it disgusts me nonetheless. Christ walked around in sandals with dirty feet. These builders of financial empires and political power spread hate in his name, cherry picking their verses and their victims each day.

If what you say is TRUE, how do you explain 20 years of explosive church growth, that “coincidentally” began at the same time Falwell came on the scene in a major role? How do you explain the ellection of 3 straight Republican Presidents and the Republican takeover of the House and Senate. The fact that Falwell has slowed down in recent years has “coincidentally” coincided with the LOSS of the House and Senate.

Falwell was one of the most honest, respectful men of God that I have ever had the pleasure to meet. As far as “cherry picking” scripture, that comes from the LEFT not the right. What we really need now is another man of God to stand like Falwell did for RIGHT and stand against evil.

By chuck

May 16, 2007 10:13 AM | Link to this

OOPS, election.

By Scalia

May 16, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

So Chuck, it was okay for Falwell to blame the tragedy of 9/11 on gays, liberals, and feminists?

By kimberly

May 16, 2007 10:29 AM | Link to this

Chuckie, you’re entitled to your opinion. Millions of Americans watch reality shows too, and more people vote for American Idol, a stupid kareoke contest, than for the President. What’s your point?

I don’t think the “moral majority” was either, and I don’t think lesbians and feminists had anything to do with 9-11 (neither did Iraq for that matter, but untold multitudes of churchies believe THAT nonsense too! D’OH!). And I don’t believe Christ ran around telling people to persecute homosexuals, trying to make everyone, including themselves, hate them. So send your little darlings to Liberty University, then, if you want, or maybe Pat Robertson’s law school. Snicker! They’ll still lose any debate based on facts or logic, just like their Dad. But that’s just my opinion.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 10:49 AM | Link to this

If I recall correctly, Jerry Falwell did soften his stance on homosexuality in more recent years. Maybe not to a Christ-like level, but he did show some humility in trying to change.

One of my biggest differences of opinion with him was over his willingness to politic from the pulpit. Seems to me like a very unholy alliance and a bad precedent.

By chuck

May 16, 2007 10:54 AM | Link to this

First Kimmie and Scalia, I didn’t say that Falwell was correct 100% of the time. I would bet that I heard Falwell speak more than you have and I NEVER heard him say one thing that anyone could construe as telling people to persecute homosexuals, trying to make everyone, including themselves, hate them.

Second, Kimmie, the real debate is the one that takes place in your own mind every day as you spew forth this hate rhetoric against Christians. I think you know, deep down inside that it’s wrong, but you seem to lose that debate every day.

By chuck

May 16, 2007 10:59 AM | Link to this

So BDM,

One of my biggest differences of opinion with him was over his willingness to politic from the pulpit. Seems to me like a very unholy alliance and a bad precedent.

Are you willing to apply that standard to Dr. Martin Luther King, The Reverend Al Sharpton, The Reverend Jesse Jackson, Bishp Sheen?

By lozen

May 16, 2007 11:03 AM | Link to this

I guess we all have different ideas about what constitutes “right” and “evil”. I see Falwell as an anachronism who could not accept the world and the ppl in it as they are, but wanted them to act as his book of ancient myths and folklore said they should. I see him as evil because he wanted to force all of us to live by his rules and regs even if we disagreed with him. I see him as an egotistical maniac who thought he was right/holy and anyone who disagreed was wrong/evil. He believed in a personal god who punishes ppl, is freaked by who we have sex with, is always judging. Some think he stood for RIGHT; I think he stood for Totalitarianism.

By Scalia

May 16, 2007 12:19 PM | Link to this

Oh how I love when you back track, Chuck. Here are some more of Falwell’s “words of wisdom”:

“AIDS is the wrath of a just God against homosexuals.”

“I listen to feminists and all these radical gals. … These women just need a man in the house. That’s all they need. Most of the feminists need a man to tell them what time of day it is and to lead them home. And they blew it and they’re mad at all men. Feminists hate men. They’re sexist. They hate men; that’s their problem.”

By Archie

May 16, 2007 12:22 PM | Link to this

Even the Rev Billy Graham did not always agree with Jerry Falwell. Falwell said some irresponsible things in blaming America’s security problems on homosexuality. I don’t think he was evil because as far as I know he didn’t kill or rape anybody, but I do disagree with his view of christianity and the way he expressed himself at times. I did not get happy because he died simply because we disagreed. As a christian I think some things are wrong but I don’t want to control them. I have a major problem with some x-rated stars earning millions but the minute a grown a.. woman engages in an activity for money outside of the organized porn industry she is thrown in jail. Anyway I wish the Falwell well in their time of grief.

By MrRogers

May 16, 2007 12:23 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood at 10:49.

By Mara

May 16, 2007 12:36 PM | Link to this

Two words will forever define the Reverand Falwell…Tinky Winky. ‘nuff said.

By 2D

May 16, 2007 12:48 PM | Link to this

Looks like my last post didn’t go through. If it does then this will be a paraphrased duplicate and I apologize for the duplication.

While we may disagree with the specific stances Falwell took, at least we know where he stood. He was unwavering and to the best of my knowledge lived by the words he preached. I respect that more than politicians and pundits who craft their words based on the latest poll numbers or criticism from our media. I don’t know what that person is truly about and therefore I don’t know how to deal with them. With Falwell, his message was clear, constant and you could then make your decisions about him accordingly.

Scalia asks if it was OK to blame 9-11 on gays, lesbians and feminists. Quite frankly, it’s OK for him to say whatever he wants. The First Ammendment still stands as far as I know. But just because he said it, doesn’t mean it’s true. At that time I believe he saw it as true, and that’s why he said it. I don’t believe it was true but if he thinks so, then so be it.

Before folks go blathering on about that, keep in mind the prism through which I suspect he saw 9-11. He viewed the Bible as literal truth. So, when he reads stories like the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah and the repentance of Ninevah, he very well may have seen parallels between the punishment threatened or delivered by God due to the immoral societies in those cities. In his mind, gay and lesbian lifestyles and to a varying degree, feminism is perverting our society. To him, 9-11 may have simply been a wake-up call sent by God to the United States. I disagree with that position. I see the Bible as a mixture of allegory and fact, so I don’t view the world through the same prism as Falwell and subsequently don’t have the same view of 9-11. My feelings on 9-11 can be discussed at another time.

The unfortunate result in all of this debate is the good that Falwell and his ministries brought. Countless alcholic men were treated and counseled through his outreach ministry. Unwed mothers were also given care and assistance through the same outreach ministries. OVerlooked, but true none the less.

Here’s a few new comments. Politicing from the pulpit is not what men of God should be doing. But if you’re going to get on Falwell, get on Jackson, Farrakhan, Sharpton and other religious leaders who do the same thing.

One other thing, I want to make sure that folks here understand there is a difference between believing a particluar action is wrong or immoral and wanting to make that same action illegal. This is one of my biggest grievences with him and his movement. While I agree with many of his positions on right and wrong, I do not believe that we in the United States should be legislating it. If God can give us the free will to make those choices with our lives then our government should be able to as well.

By Mara

May 16, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

While I agree with many of his positions on right and wrong, I do not believe that we in the United States should be legislating it. If God can give us the free will to make those choices with our lives then our government should be able to as well

well said. Though I would have had “I disagree…” instead of “agree”…still, the sentiment is well taken.

By chuck

May 16, 2007 1:10 PM | Link to this

I am not “back tracking” at all Scalia. While I don’t believe that 9/11 was caused liberals and lesbians etc., I can’t really know that for sure one way or another. It wouldn’t be the first time that God judged a nation because of its willingness to look the other way when it comes to sin. I don’t think Falwell knew the answer to that either.

As for your quotes,I don’t think you would deny that AIDS disproportionally affects gays and promiscuous people in general. Call it God’s wrath or the natural consequences of promiscuity, but the facts are there.

The feminist quote was a little on the crude side, but there are certainly SOME feminists who fall into that category. If you don’t think so look at Whiley’s posts.

By JokesOn

May 16, 2007 1:12 PM | Link to this

Politicing from the pulpit is not what men of God should be doing. But if you’re going to get on Falwell, get on Jackson, Farrakhan, Sharpton and other religious leaders who do the same thing.

I do not recall any of them trying to make their religious views policy. As far as I know, they pushed for human rights from the pulpit. Significant difference.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Hey, JokesOn!

For me, the Bible is a source of inspiring stories, not so much a modern-day moral book to live by. Too many ancient customs/beliefs interwoven to be able to follow it word-for-word in the modern world.

My personal favorites: Esther (a story of true courage), Ruth ( a story of true compassion), and Ecclesiastes (a story of what life is like without God).

Lately I’m trying to master the lesson of Lot/Sodom and Gomorrah—i.e. Don’t look back, keep your eyes on the future, not the past.

By chuck

May 16, 2007 1:30 PM | Link to this

Politics is politics jokeson.

By Scalia

May 16, 2007 1:36 PM | Link to this

That is where we differ. God is a benevolent God, and don’t think that he would bring such wrath upon his people. He says that man will be judged in the afterlife, not while here on Earth. What would be the point in torturing a soul before they die, and then sending them to h-e-l-l? That doesn’t seem like God’s style.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 1:37 PM | Link to this

Sorry about that, Mr Rogers. Didn’t plan on being on the computer today, but I sprained my ankle while running last night and can’t walk this AM. My fault, of course, shouldn’t have been trying to flirt while running. Talk about “instant karma”, huh?

By kimberly

May 16, 2007 1:38 PM | Link to this

Implying that all fundamentalist “Christians” pervert the message of Christ to further their own financial and political interests is a little on the crude side, but there are certainly SOME fundies who fall into that category. If you don’t think so, just read some quotes (and financial statements) of the good Reverends Falwell and Robertson, or perhaps the up & coming, SpongeBob-persecuting James Dobson.

By Mara

May 16, 2007 1:41 PM | Link to this

more wacky Falwell quotes (w/my commentary) -

Billy Graham is the chief servant of Satan in America - (Graham once said, “I fully adhere to the fundamental tenets of the Christian faith for myself… but as an American, I respect other paths to God.” - And he’s a Democrat, too. Obviously an agent of “da debbil”!)

Christians, like slaves and soldiers, ask no questions - (uh…words fail me…)

If you’re not a born-again Christian, you’re a failure as a human being - (take that Mahatma Ghandi, Mother Theresa, and Tenzin Gyatso!)

Textbooks are Soviet propaganda - (LIES! All LIES! “Give me liberty or give me death”? Propaganda. Splitting the atom? More propaganda. “I” before “E” except after “C”? Don’t be fooled, it’s a communist trick to get you to spell correctly, like some godless intellectual!)

The idea that religion and politics don’t mix was invented by the Devil to keep Christians from running their own country. - (as you all know, Christians are absolutely powerless in every country on the globe. But one day…ONE DAY…!)

There’s been a concerted effort to steal Christmas. -

(And the more the Grinch thought of the Who-Christmas-Sing

The more the Grinch thought, “I must stop this whole thing!

“Why for fifty-three years I’ve put up with it now!

I MUST stop Christmas from coming!…But HOW?”

Then he got an idea!

An awful idea!

THE GRINCH GOT A WONDERFUL, AWFUL IDEA…)

By JokesOn

May 16, 2007 1:42 PM | Link to this

Politics is politics jokeson.

I believe in a binary mind like your it is, but there is a significant difference to those of us that can see the world in true color.

Pushing policy based on religion is quite the opposite from pushing equal rights.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

I think chuck is strictly a Leviticus/Deuteronomy type of guy. What say you all?

As for Jerry Falwell, I don’t fault him for his views. None of us truly walks with the Lord, so I’m not going to pile on about whether he was a true representative of Christ or not. My biggest concern was his thirst for power in the secular world, and his willingness to mask his greedy ambitions with Biblical quotes.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 1:54 PM | Link to this

That is where we differ. God is a benevolent God, and don’t think that he would bring such wrath upon his people. He says that man will be judged in the afterlife, not while here on Earth. What would be the point in torturing a soul before they die, and then sending them to h-e-l-l? That doesn’t seem like God’s style.

The Biblical research I’ve done suggests that the Judaic vision of God and God’s benevolence/wrath changed with each of the Biblical authors. In the earliest books of the Old Testament, God is presented as a benevolent force (Elohim). Later, the idea of an omnipotent/omnipresent God is reinterpreted to include wrath as a Godly characteristic as well.

Very fascinating is the fact the the serpent is NOT the same as Satan in the second Creation story which begins with Genesis 2. This is a later reinterpretation.

By Billy

May 16, 2007 1:57 PM | Link to this

They do it because they don’t want to lose their boyfriends to girls who will do it.

I’m not defending their boyfriends in these situations, but that’s because they don’t value themselves highly enough to see that their boyfriends don’t deserve them. Anyone who tells you “Sex or I’m gone” isn’t worth having sex with. That’s what these fathers should be imparting to their daughters instead of idolizing their sexuality at these balls. To cite The 40 Year-old Virgin, “putting the p*ssy on a pedestal” isn’t a good thing for the guy OR the girl to do.

By kimberly

May 16, 2007 2:00 PM | Link to this

HAHAHA! Mara, YOU ROCK! Hahahahahaha!

Dang, y’all, this is too much fun, but I have a deadline. {:-<

By 2D

May 16, 2007 2:08 PM | Link to this

JokesOn… You are correct that pushing policy based on religion and pushing equal rights are necessarily different. Some people push equal rights (I would be one of them) because of their religion.

My problem with Falwell and others, is the way that people are blocked and encouraged to vote in a particular fashion. I do not believe that is the role our religious leaders should be playing.

While I do believe it naive to think that religion would not alter how someone votes or governs, the pulpit should not be used to further a political party, candidate, etc. I had a Jewish friend tell me his Rabbi instructed the congregation to vote Gore/Lieberman in 2000 because of the Jewish connection.

That is an example of what I meant by politicing from the pulpit.

By Archie

May 16, 2007 2:09 PM | Link to this

Chuck, christians on the right and left cherry pick scripture.

By chuck

May 16, 2007 2:16 PM | Link to this

Jokeson, Farankan, sharpton and jackson all RAN FOR PRESIDENT FOR PETE’S SAKE. How is that JUST promotin equal rights?

By BDM

May 16, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

Yes, the Hershey Highway can get a bit messy, eh Billy?

J/K all. I mean, I think I heard a rumor that some people like that kind of stuff, but never met anyone personally that did, of course. ; > }

Not a good visual when thinking about teens, though. I think you have to be a little more experienced to appreciate “other avenues” like that. In fact, the best argument I can think of to oppose teen sex is that it’s generally lousy sex—a bunch of fumbling around and the guy lasts about 3 seconds. Personally, I didn’t hit my real peak until my 30s.

By JokesOn

May 16, 2007 2:27 PM | Link to this

How is that JUST promotin equal rights?

People can be of any group yet separate their group doctrine from their political beliefs. There are MANY that exhibit this already.

Geeze. How about you finally try to use that brain god gave you and discover some truth/reality on your own for once. I think it is time to cut the umbilical cord with you and let you sink or swim.

By Monica

May 16, 2007 2:32 PM | Link to this

That is where we differ. God is a benevolent God, and don’t think that he would bring such wrath upon his people. He says that man will be judged in the afterlife, not while here on Earth. What would be the point in torturing a soul before they die, and then sending them to h-e-l-l? That doesn’t seem like God’s style.

Scalia, I believe the Bible as truth, and in the Old Testament, God did destroy cities because of their corruption. However, the scriptures indicate that all of the people in those cities were corrupt (however, I don’t know about any children who were in those cities). I don’t see 9-11 as the wrath of God. Rather, it was the result of free will.

I believe in free will, which means free will for all. Terrorists choose to take certain actions. The unfortunate downside to free will is that innocent people must suffer for the actions of others. Innocent people are killed daily by drunk drivers; they and their families must suffer from the actions of the drunk driver. This is how I see the 9-11 attack.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 2:40 PM | Link to this

HAHAHA! Mara, YOU ROCK! Hahahahahaha!

Where did that tiara go? There used to be one around here….

Oh well, Mara definitely deserves the tiara today. For her outstanding effort and good humor, I hereby nominate her for Queen of the W2W for May 16, 2007!

(That and $2.34 will get you an over-roasted cup of java at Starbucks). ; > }

By Scalia

May 16, 2007 2:43 PM | Link to this

BDM:It only gets messy if you don’t clean up before hand.

And it seems like quite a few people enjoy that “avenue”. Get a bunch of drunk, overtestosterone laden straight boys together, and they will tell you ALL about it.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 2:48 PM | Link to this

Monica, do you accept the “truth” of the Bible as an evolving truth? It seems clear to me that the Judaic vision of God changed fairly dramatically from Genesis through Revelation. The New Testament, in particular, presents a whole new way of thinking with the New Covenant tha the Old Testament fails to address for the most part.

Personally, my problem with many Jewish people isn’t so much their non-acceptance of Jesus as the final Messiah, but their rejection of His message that the “Spirit of the Law” should supercede the “Letter of the Law”.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 2:54 PM | Link to this

BDM:It only gets messy if you don’t clean up before hand.

Well, there still may be an occasional “surprise”. I’m just basing this on rumors I have heard, of course……..

By BDM

May 16, 2007 3:03 PM | Link to this

Hey Scalia—One very “poignant” moment from the PBS documentary I saw recently about Jim Jones (“Jonestown”) was when one of the men in the group called for a resolution during one of their planning meetings that all the guys should have an enema first before Jones screwed them in the a*. Personally, I thought that was very considerate of them. If you haven’t seen it yet, it’s an eye-popping documentary.

Or, as one b*** told me once, “If you’re going to screw me in the a*, at least pull my hair.”

By Scalia

May 16, 2007 3:18 PM | Link to this

BDM:OMG…that is a lot. I think that I actually blushed.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 3:21 PM | Link to this

Of course, one of my biggest pleasure in the business world was when all the churchies would praise me as one of their own…… Once in a great while I would flash them some ink, just to rock their worlds a little.

Gotta run. Talk to you all later.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 3:26 PM | Link to this

BDM:OMG…that is a lot. I think that I actually blushed.

Just remember: All Virgos aren’t prudes. We just pretend to be to keep up the appearances. ; > }

By BDM

May 16, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

Note Bene: All my comments here apply to loving relationships only. No sex with strangers.

Parting question today: Any of you here ever hang out at The Chamber over on Chesire Bridge Road? More of a tease than the real thing, but a good intro to the world of S/M. They closed a few years ago.

Now, I’ve heard rumors of some more hard-core places, but I’m sure they are just rumors…….

By Monica

May 16, 2007 3:32 PM | Link to this

BDM, in a sense,I guess so. The birth of Christ changed everything. The New Testament focuses more on a relationship with Christ instead of abiding by God’s law, though both are necessary.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 3:41 PM | Link to this

The New Testament focuses more on a relationship with Christ instead of abiding by God’s law, though both are necessary.

I wouldn’t use the word “instead” in your statement above, Monica. 10 points off for poor word usage. How about “in addition to”? After all, Jesus emphasized that he was not sent to do away with the Law, but to fulfill it. He wasn’t the moral relativist that many modern liberal thinkers try to make Him out to be. Certainly forgiveness is the cornerstone of Jesus’s ministry, but changing your ways is the true essence of forgiveness, not just getting a free pass for past sins.

By 2D

May 16, 2007 3:42 PM | Link to this

BDM… The journey from Genesis to Revelation does not contain an evolving “truth”. God may indeed interract with us humans differently, but I do not see that as an evolving truth. That is God trying to get through to humanity in different ways.

I personally see several themes that remain consistent throughout the cannon; God created us and the world, God loves us, God wants us to love him, God wants us to love each other, God has given us free will to do right or wrong, there are reqards for doing right and there are consequences for doing wrong.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 3:44 PM | Link to this

Also, Monica, please overlook my nasty comments today. I don’t think of you that way. Your hubby is a lucky man to have a beautiful lady like you to make a future with. More power to you!

By Monica

May 16, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

Please forgive my weakened prose, BDM. Killer allergy/sinus migranes have invaded my head today. Where, oh where, is the rain??

2D, you said what I meant, except “gooder” than I did. :)

By BDM

May 16, 2007 3:50 PM | Link to this

2D—quick clarification for you. God is not “evolving” so much as our understanding of God is evolving. In Biblical terms, “God is not the Author of confusion”, but, as humans, “For now, we see through the glass, darkly”.

Those are the consistent themes I see in the Bible.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 3:53 PM | Link to this

Please forgive my weakened prose, BDM. Killer allergy/sinus migranes have invaded my head today. Where, oh where, is the rain??

Hmmmm—my HS English Lit teacher wouldn’t accept that as an excuse. ; > } BTW, it rained pretty hard today up here in Lilburn.

By BDM

May 16, 2007 4:13 PM | Link to this

Love to all, especially to……….Princess Yasmini. xoxox

By NotBibleCrapAgain

May 16, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

Why aren’t bible debates brought up when male sexuality is brought up? Come to think of it, has there ever been a topic on male sexuality & how we need to keep boys virgins till marriage? Seems to me it’s the boys that need the talking to.

The bible is very disfunctional full of disfuctional people. I wouldn’t advise using it as a life guide unless you want to become a paranoid, depressed, sexually void adult lol.

By Monica

May 16, 2007 4:57 PM | Link to this

The bible is very disfunctional full of disfuctional people. I wouldn’t advise using it as a life guide unless you want to become a paranoid, depressed, sexually void adult lol.

Well, the Bible is full of dysfunctional people because the World is full of dysfunctional people! That certainly hasn’t changed since the biblical days. And I can’t speak for everyone, but I use the Bible as a life guide and am not paranoid, depressed, or sexually void (neither is my husband, for that matter). Many of the people I know who use the Bible as a life guide may be one of the above, but I don’t necessarily think it’s because of following the Bible.

By Stowers

May 17, 2007 12:54 AM | Link to this

Gruezi, Super Site betreibt Ihr hier!!! Das kann sich wirklich sehen lassen…

By teena

May 17, 2007 2:42 AM | Link to this

This site is a lot of fun very well designed. notem671

By calvin

May 17, 2007 2:44 AM | Link to this

I am here to say hello and you have a great site! notem671

By Monica

May 17, 2007 8:18 AM | Link to this

Okay, let me clarify what I said: Many of the people I know who use the Bible as a life guide may be one of the above, but I don’t necessarily think it’s because of following the Bible.

What I should have written was that many people don’t have any of the above ailments listed, and some may have one of the above. My apologies.

By chuck

May 17, 2007 9:38 AM | Link to this

Hey Monica, maybe you should have said it THIS way:

People who follow the Bible and more importantly the God of the Bible, live happy, fulfilled lives. Even when trouble comes into their lives, they don’t lose hope. Instead, they derive strength and peace and the power to overcome life’s adventures by trusting in Christ and they gain comfort from His Word.

By 2D

May 17, 2007 9:49 AM | Link to this

Like Monica said, it makes sense that the Bible would be full of dysfunctional people. The world is full of dysfunctional and the Bible simply reflects that.

Keep in mind, noone has indicated they emulated the lives of people in the Bible. Perhaps model specific attitudes or actions, but not totally emulate.

However, stories about dysfunctional and flawed people can and do provide excellent guidelines for your life. Those stories illustrate what can often happen if/when we make the same mistakes they make. Why not learn from those mistakes rather than make them ourselves. Our parents do essentially the same thing. As children we see and hear stories about their mistakes, the consequences associated with them and can then not make them in our own lives.

By Billy

May 17, 2007 10:06 AM | Link to this

I’m sure that many who follow the Bible are comforted when trouble comes into their lives. Much the same way a family who follows the Koran is comforted when a child in said family blows himself up, taking a few Jews along with him. It’s that belief in a supernatural being who will make everything better eventually.

There are also plenty of atheists, agnostics, and even animists who are perfectly happy with their lives apart from having other people’s religions foisted upon them.

By Billy

May 17, 2007 10:16 AM | Link to this

I’ve gotta go, but maybe I’ll be back later to see all the rabid spewing of hatred that inspires…

By Scalia

May 17, 2007 10:44 AM | Link to this

I agree with you Chuck, 2D, and Monica. The bible is comforting in times of trouble, and it makes you realize that you are not alone. There were people that went through the same problems.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 11:19 AM | Link to this

Question for the Christians: Is the Bible the only spiritual guide that can speak to us in troubled times? Cannot God speak through another person (an angel)? Or through another sacred text?

Also, I think it is worth re-emphasizing that the vision of God as presented by the ancient Hebrew writers changes fairly dramatically from book to book in the Bible. In the earliest parts of Genesis, God is presented as one of many potential Gods that a person could worship in keeping with the polytheistic traditions of the Near East. At other times, the word God is used in a plural sense, such as Genesis 1:26: “Then God said ‘Let us make man in our image, in our likeness’.” It is not until much later in the Bible that God is presented as an omnipotent, omnipresent Creator.

If anyone is interested, I can provide plenty of examples to show how man’s understanding of God changes from Biblical author to Biblical author.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

A particularly funky image of God comes from the story of Noah. Genesis 6:1-4 says “When man began to increase in number on the earth, and daughters were born to them, the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose….The Nephilim were on the earth in those days—and also afterward—when the sons of God went to the daughters of men and had children by them”.

In the original ancient Hebrew, it says directly that the Gods came to earth and had sex with earthly women, although later English translations like my NIV try to sanitize it a little. This is a common story in the polytheistic traditions of the Near Eastern religions, which is repeated in the Bible as being a wicked practice.

By Scrappy

May 17, 2007 11:28 AM | Link to this

Scalia, Chuck, 2D, Monica —— isn’t this supposed to be a debate about “purity balls”?

I am so sick of people like you (although I think one of you mentioned not imposing your beliefs on others, which is good). The bible was written by who knows who, manipulated by men hungry for power over hundreds of years. If you believe it to be the literal word of God, great, good for you. I will see you in La la land soon, along with the people that think abstinence and purity balls actually work.

By Monica

May 17, 2007 11:30 AM | Link to this

BDM, that verse has always intrigued me. Remember that Christians belive in a trinity - God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit. That’s what I believe the plural pronoun reference to be.

The Bible acknowledges that there are other gods to worship; it does not say that the other gods are the divine ordinace of God. On the contrary, those who worshipped other gods (Baal) waged war against those who professed a belief in God Almighty.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 11:43 AM | Link to this

BDM, that verse has always intrigued me. Remember that Christians belive in a trinity - God the father, God the son, and God the Holy Spirit. That’s what I believe the plural pronoun reference to be.

Monica, the idea of a “trinity” is non-Biblical. I can give you a boatload of material to prove that. The greater point, however, is that the idea of a Trinity didn’t evolve until the time of the New Testament writers anyway, which makes it invalid to apply back to the Old Testament retroactively. As an English teacher, surely you understand that the superimposition of more modern values onto ancient texts is invalid.

In the end, many Christians like to fall back on the idea that the Bible is a unified work, planned out to be that way from its “genesis”. History says otherwise. The books which are included in the various Bibles were all voted in by committees of men. Maybe you could say that these committees were inspired by God, but that’s a stretch, wouldn’t you say?

By BDM

May 17, 2007 11:51 AM | Link to this

If you consider the Old Testament as a stand-alone document, it is fair to conclude that the ancient Israelites viewd “God” as a being who could physically walk among them and directly speak to them. As for the gender of God, the Hebrew language uses gender-specific pronouns and adjectives just like the Romance languages of today (French, Spanish, Italian). In almost all cases, God is referred to by using the masculine pronouns and adjectives, although in several instances, God is referred to using the feminine pronouns and adjectives.

One more piece of evidence that the plurality of God is NOT a reference to the Trinity is found in the passage “The gods walked among us”.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 12:00 PM | Link to this

I will see you in La la land soon, along with the people that think abstinence and purity balls actually work.

Scrappy, I think the consensus earlier this week was that “purity balls” were likely a good idea gone wrong. I give brownie points to the conservative folks you slammed in yuor blog for at least recognizing that abstinence is a good goal for young people. My disdain for Libs like you comes from the fact that you are too willing to snipe from the sidelines, yet offer no reasonable alternatives to discouraging teen sex. Check back in when you actually have something to say, will you?

By MrRogers

May 17, 2007 12:10 PM | Link to this

There goes the neighborhood.

By Monica

May 17, 2007 12:13 PM | Link to this

Just because the idea of a trinity may not have evloved until the New Testament does not mean that a trinity did not exist beforehand. How can you definitively say that the plural reference in Gen 1:26 does not mean the trinity?

I’m not familiar with the phrase, “The gods walked among us” from the Bible. Where is it exactly?

By BDM

May 17, 2007 12:14 PM | Link to this

Gotta run for a while.

To the “Christians” here today I say you owe it to your faith to do more research on the Bible and find out what it actually says. It would be nice to be able to just trust what your minister or priest tells you, but, in my experience, most of them have wacky ideas that are completely non-Biblical. Plus, to me, what is actually contained in the Bible is far more wondrous than any 2-bit preacher can ever tell you.

The biggest question that folks turn to religion to answer is “What happens to us when we die?”. Contrary to popular belief, the Bible never clearly answers that question. In the Old Testament, no afterlife is mentioned at all. In the New Testament, the word “heaven” is never clearly defined.

By Scrappy

May 17, 2007 12:17 PM | Link to this

The point of my last post was not offering alternatives… if you would like some, here they are: 1 - Education 2 - Education 3 - Education I don’t really think you are going to prevent teen sex, but you can educate children as about the negatives such as STDs and pregnancy. Heck, just have them watch an Episode of The Maury Show - “I’m 15 and don’t know who my baby daddy is” - should be enough to educate them about the ills of non-protected sex.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 12:28 PM | Link to this

Monica, wish I could hang longer and trade ideas, but I gotta go. Here’s a website I just found which seems to present a reasonable view of how our understanding of God has evolved through time.

http://www.religioustolerance.org/god_inte.htm

Please, please do more research on the falsity of the Trinity and why the true Sabbath is Saturday, not Sunday.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 12:35 PM | Link to this

but you can educate children as about the negatives such as STDs and pregnancy. Heck, just have them watch an Episode of The Maury Show - “I’m 15 and don’t know who my baby daddy is” - should be enough to educate them about the ills of non-protected sex.

Scrappy, your “alternatives” are crap. No amount of factual information is going to prevent teen sex because the decision for young girls to “give it up” is made strictly from an emotional standpoint, not a factual one. When you figure out how to motivate young girls in an emotional way to not want to rush the inevitable, then I will respect you.

Again, the ideas presented by the conservative may not be 100% effective, but I give them much more credit than I give to you and your Lib brethren and sistren here for at least trying to address the problem in the realm from which it emanates.

By Scalia

May 17, 2007 12:44 PM | Link to this

This blog has not changed in three years. Religion is constantly recycled.

Amd Scrappy, unless I came over to your house and forced you to join my religion at gunpoint, then I am not shoving my religion down your throat.

So get a grip.

By Scrappy

May 17, 2007 12:53 PM | Link to this

BDM - I clearly stated that I didn’t think anything could prevent teen sex. And by the way, I am a woman, out of my “teens” by only a few years. Yes, presenting factual information does work, it worked for me, it worked on my girlfriends. Saying that it is purely emotional for girls is just crap. We women are a lot stronger now than we were back “in the day” and knowing that college and a better life would be unattainable with a newborn is definately a motivator. Nothing is going to be 100% effective, but I give my liberal brothers and sisters a lot more credit for trying to elimate disease and teen pregnancy than I give your conservative friends who think all you have to do is “emotionally” affect a women(girl) into not having sex at all.

By Scrappy

May 17, 2007 12:59 PM | Link to this

Scalia - I never said you were shoving your religion down my throat. I said I was sick of people like you - and perhaps I should have been more clear. I am sick of people with your beliefs (aka Bush admin) being the ones that handle the funds that rules how we teach kids. Example: Bush’s plans that only fund abstinence programs - which have been proven to not work and be no more effective at preventing teen pregnancy.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 1:06 PM | Link to this

but I give my liberal brothers and sisters a lot more credit for trying to elimate disease and teen pregnancy

Interesting thought, Scrappy, since teen pregnancy and STDs have skyrocketed ever since the Lib mantra of “facts only” was adopted as the backbone of sex ed in the 1970s.

If you will reread your own post, you will see that you are, in fact, admitting that self-esteem plays the biggest part in delaying teen sex for girls with your statement “knowing that college and a better life would be unattainable with a newborn is definately a motivator.” My point is, as a Scientist, not a conservative or liberal, that the ultimate motivation for our behavior choices in life comes from our emotions, not our intellect.

By Monica

May 17, 2007 1:20 PM | Link to this

BDM, I have never claimed that the Sabbath is Sunday. Sunday is the first day of the week, the day that the early Christians traditionally met to worship. That’s why most churches hold services on Sunday.

By lozen

May 17, 2007 1:39 PM | Link to this

“…those who worshipped other gods (Baal) waged war against those who professed a belief in God Almighty.” I don’t remember who made this statement but me thinks it might have been the other way around! The Israelites attacked group after group because they needed their land. They killed all the males and older women and made slaves of the young women. Read the bible ya’ll. And BDM: the decision for young girls to “give it up” is made strictly from an emotional standpoint,!!!! See never any mention of why young boys make their decision to “give it up” because it’s just expected. It takes two to have sex ya know (except for masturbation of course). Any teaching about abstinence has to start with the boys. When we start teaching boys that keeping their virginity is the most important thing in the world maybe then we’ll see a lower teen pregnancy rate.

By lozen

May 17, 2007 1:44 PM | Link to this

So BDM your ideas are crap! (Don’t dish it unless you can take it!) It should go this way: When you figure out how to motivate males in “any kind of way” to not want to rush the inevitable, then I will respect you.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 1:47 PM | Link to this

Monica—sorry to be a little grouchy today. I’m in the middle of a nasty eviction with one of my tenants—always a joy—, plus my foot is swollen to twice its normal size today. I’ll try to be sweeter.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 1:55 PM | Link to this

So BDM your ideas are crap! (Don’t dish it unless you can take it!) It should go this way: When you figure out how to motivate males in “any kind of way” to not want to rush the inevitable, then I will respect you.

lozen, you know I love you. Smooches to you.

(1) The topic of the week is purity balls for girls, not boys.

(2) The dynamics of male sexuality (yang) are very different from the dynamics of female sexuality (yin). The male force is the positive, aggressive force, the female force is the negative, receptive force. I understand that you never completely grasped this concept in your own relationships and ended up gay as a result.

(3) Males will “wait” when they have true respect for their partners, at any age. However, such respect is possible only when the female respects herself. Thus, we are back to the female.

By Monica

May 17, 2007 2:01 PM | Link to this

lozen, it was I who stated that. I was referring to Jezebel and her persecution of prophets, particularly Elijah. Story from I Kings.

BDM - your next moniker should be “Oedipus.”

By BDM

May 17, 2007 2:03 PM | Link to this

For me, Monica, a light went on as a teen when I read about the ideas of Plato vs. Aristotle. Plato, if you recall, believed in the concept of “forms”. That is to say, he believed that the essence of every object, its form, existed independently of the object itself. For example, Plato would say that a chalk triangle drawn on a blackboard is not a “real” triangle because the chalk lines can never be perfectly straight, etc. To Plato, it is a triangle only because the perfect model of a triangle exists in “heaven” and the chalk triangle is nothing more than a cheap imitation of a “real” triangle.

Aristotle, on the other hand, argued that such a separation is artificial, that the “essence”, or “spirit”, of an object cannot exist independently of the object itself, however “imperfect” that object may be. In Aristotle’s worldview, the essence of an object was reflected by its purpose, not by how “perfect” it was.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

In applying these two divergent views to religion, I have made the following observations:

Most “Christians” take a very “Platonic” view of the world in which God, the “Creator”, is somehow a separate entity from the actual “Creations”. As such, God only exists in heaven, in a state of perfection which is unattainable by Man.

If a person accepts the “Aristotelian” view of the world, “God” cannot be separated from matter. There really isn’t a convenient label to refer to all groups who believe this way, although most are referred to as “Deists”.

By Monica

May 17, 2007 2:10 PM | Link to this

Aristotle, on the other hand, argued that such a separation is artificial, that the “essence”, or “spirit”, of an object cannot exist independently of the object itself, however “imperfect” that object may be.

Could that not be an argument in favor of the trinity?

By JokesOn

May 17, 2007 2:13 PM | Link to this

Perhaps some answers as to why this discussion revolves around females more than males:

Lets agree that the responsibilities are equal, up to intercourse, between a man/woman regarding this debate on virginity.

Do you still find it even that, in chronological order, one person has something put inside them? (remember that this increases the chance of STDs for one but not the other)

Do you find it even that one person will either have to carry the baby to term or have a very invasive procedure?

And finally, do you find it even that if carried to term that , if kept by the mother, the father will simply have to pay child support for 18 years?

Pretty simple as to why this question of virginity revolves around women. You just have to use a little gray matter.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 2:17 PM | Link to this

And while this distinction may seem arcane, or philosophical, IMO it has everything to do with how a person behaves in this world. The “heaven” crowd, represented by the likes of chuckie, believe that Man is essentially wicked and imperfect. As such, we should feel badly about ourselves while here on earth because we constantly fall short of the Glory of God, who is a perfect being who lives in heaven.

The “Deists” among us believe that God is here and now, warts and all, and that heaven is a state of mind, not an actual place. Deists, which include Wiccans, don’t think we should feel badly about our imperfections, though they strive to be good people the same as the Christians.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 2:22 PM | Link to this

Monica, not sure what to make of your “Oedipus” label, but I will say this about you. I respect you because you respect yourself. I wish there were a thousand of you to teach the young ladies of today how to conduct themselves. You are a lady, through and through.

While such respect for yourself comes from both parents, I think the father is mostly responsible for instilling such self-pride in their daughters. Not through icky purity dances, but through his own example of self-respect and good treatment of the mother of the children.

By lozen

May 17, 2007 2:23 PM | Link to this

(1) The topic of the week is purity balls for girls, not boys.

Yes I know but it should be purity balls for boys!

(2) The dynamics of male sexuality (yang) are very different from the dynamics of female sexuality (yin). The male force is the positive, aggressive force, the female force is the negative, receptive force. I understand that you never completely grasped this concept in your own relationships and ended up gay as a result.

I never grasped this concept because IMO it’s a bunch of crap. Female force is positive, aggressive (unless it’s been tamed out of us of course), negative and actively receptive. Male force is all the same things too. And if you want to think I’m gay, that’s fine with me. Who cares except men like you?

(3) Males will “wait” when they have true respect for their partners, at any age. However, such respect is possible only when the female respects herself. Thus, we are back to the female.

Yes, it always comes back to the female in the minds of males like you who have so much invested in that way of thinking. It sure lets you off the hook, doesn’t it? You don’t have to ever take any responsibility, do you? You can pretend to be Johnny Appleseed and leave fatherless kids all over the place and never worry your pretty little head about it, cause if she hadn’t let you, you wouldn’t have done it!!!!

By BDM

May 17, 2007 2:26 PM | Link to this

My personal view of the Trinity, Monica, is that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirits are, in fact, simply three aspects of the same infinite-dimensional God. Where you and I diverge, is that I also think that every object in the world is similarly a manifestation of God. I don’t limit the concept to just three things.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 2:29 PM | Link to this

You can pretend to be Johnny Appleseed and leave fatherless kids all over the place and never worry your pretty little head about it, cause if she hadn’t let you, you wouldn’t have done it!!!!

Nice try, lozen. I have fathered no children and have never passed an STD to a partner. For men, the “respect” training comes primarily from the woman. My mother respected herself, so I developed a great respect for all women as a result.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 2:33 PM | Link to this

JokesOn—careful with that logic stuff. You know how stating obvious facts really p** lozen off.

Any thoughts on how the Platonic and Aristotelian views of the world still persist today, buddy?

See you Tuesday. Section 101, Row K. We’re not going to bring any Doobage since were only 10 rows from the stage. I sure miss the good old days when you could light up anywhere.

By Monica

May 17, 2007 2:34 PM | Link to this

Sorry, BDM! The name Oedipus literally means “swollen foot.” According to the classic drama, when the oracle at Delphi told King Laius that his newborn son would one day kill him, he had the child’s feet bound together (some translations indicate that they were pierced together) and ordered a servant to take him into the mountains and leave him to die. The servant took compassion on the baby and gave him to an older, childless couple, who could not get over his swollen feet. Hence, they called him Oedipus.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 2:41 PM | Link to this

Oedipus = swollen foot? Wow, I learned something today. Thank you, Monica!! You’re an awesome chick, even if you won’t get a little lion tattoo for your Leo hubby.

Quick point about Greek tragedies: Oedipus didnt’ know he was killing his father and screwing his mother. They took a more fatalistic view of life than we do in which free will is less important than the “Fickle Finger of Fate”. (You might be too young to remember the show Laugh-In. They used to give out an FFF award to whomever deserved it. Take a guess which finger was prominently displayed on the statuette?).

Love to all, especially kimberly.

By NetBanker

May 17, 2007 2:45 PM | Link to this

It wouldn’t be the first time that God judged a nation because of its willingness to look the other way when it comes to sin. So why hasn’t God judged and punished the nation for all the other sins beyond the ones of homosexuality, feminism, etc? What about all those adulterous affairs by the leaders of both political parties and religious leaders? How about the graft and greed of our leaders?

What I’d like to know is why the Bible has stopped progressing? It was written over thousands of years by numerous authors. It’s been centuries since it’s last update. Why? How come God has stopped speaking to man in such a way that the lessons are recorded so others can learn from them too? Certainly God has had something important enough to say to man since the Councel of Trent that it belongs in the Bible!

By Scalia

May 17, 2007 3:02 PM | Link to this

You got a point there, Net. What would pastors, preachers, bishops, the pope, etc. say if somebody wanted to add a book to the bible?

By NetBanker

May 17, 2007 3:04 PM | Link to this

Yes I know but it should be purity balls for boys! Lozen…didn’t you see my earlier comment about what the term purity balls makes me think of? Maybe we should make and market some of those male chastity belts and sell them to conservative churches.

By Marketer

May 17, 2007 3:31 PM | Link to this

market some of those male chastity belts

I think they exist already, called seven gates of h3ll or something like that.

By lozen

May 17, 2007 3:49 PM | Link to this

My mother respected herself, so I developed a great respect for all women as a result. ROTFLMAO!!!!! Give me a f—king break. Your comments about “skanks” and other obnoxious remarks about women in general certainly do not show respect toward all women, Dog!

By Billy

May 17, 2007 3:52 PM | Link to this

Education and abstinence aren’t mutually exclusive. We can promote abstinence as the safest choice, but also provide education on how to protect yourself. And teach that no one other than you can know when the time is right for you to become sexually active. Not your preacher, not your friends, not your teachers, not even your parents, though in most cases you’d be wise to heed their advice, and certainly not your boyfriend. And if that boyfriend tells you that you’d have sex if you really loved him, tell him that if he really loved you he wouldn’t even think that, much less say it. If he says he’ll break up with you if you don’t sleep with him, then tell him it’s over, because anyone who tells you that doesn’t respect you anyway.

By lozen

May 17, 2007 3:54 PM | Link to this

Hey Net. No, I hadn’t seen your remarks so I went back to find them. You are a comedian.

By NetBanker

May 17, 2007 4:15 PM | Link to this

I think they exist already, called seven gates of h3ll or something like that. Well as a marketer then you’d understand that a good, conservative christian would rather put “purity balls” on their kid than something called the ‘seven gates of h3ll’ that is sold on dirty porn infested web sites as a sex AID for masochists. It doesn’t matter that they’re the same thing…it’s all in the product marketing and packaging.

By students loan

May 17, 2007 4:36 PM | Link to this

Great site.

By students loan

May 17, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

Great site.

By students loan

May 17, 2007 4:37 PM | Link to this

Great site.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 4:46 PM | Link to this

Your comments about “skanks” and other obnoxious remarks about women in general certainly do not show respect toward all women, Dog!

I respect skanks, lozen. I just don’t like sleeping with them.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 4:50 PM | Link to this

NetB: I’m still curious if you’ve passed the 1000 partner “benchmark”. I think I finally passed the 100 mark last weekend. ; > }

But still, nothing beats being with someone you truly love. Then you can be yourself, and don’t need any leather, rubber, or plastic vibrating props.

By BDM

May 17, 2007 4:55 PM | Link to this

One last clue for you, lozen. In “real” life, I don’t like dogs. I went with the name “Dog” on the blog to represent the parts of me that I didn’t like.

Big wet doggy kiss on your……..

By BDM

May 17, 2007 4:58 PM | Link to this

All my love for you, kimberly.

By JokesOn

May 17, 2007 4:59 PM | Link to this

I respect skanks, lozen. I just don’t like sleeping with them.

Funny! All things/people serve a purpose, just not necessarily my purpose;)

Sorry about not being able to respond to you question earlier, but only have short spurts of time on the road.

JokesOn—careful with that logic stuff. You know how stating obvious facts really p* lozen off.*

Yeah. No one responded. Tends to be the way when confronted by truth they would rather deny.

By Britney

May 18, 2007 12:54 AM | Link to this

I just wanted to say WOW!!! goose bumps and e-motions, the design of your web page really got me!!! Check my sites ;)

By NetBanker

May 18, 2007 9:06 AM | Link to this

NetB: I’m still curious if you’ve passed the 1000 partner “benchmark”. I’m not sure why you’re so interested in my partner count, but I can assure you that I’m no where near the 1000 mark.

Not a joke, but a contribution for Friday:

Only great minds can read this

This is weird, but interesting!

fi yuo cna raed tihs, yuo hvae a sgtrane mnid too

Cna yuo raed tihs? Olny 55 plepoe out of 100 can.

i cdnuolt blveiee taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid, aoccdrnig to a rscheearch at Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it dseno’t mtaetr in waht oerdr the ltteres in a wrod are, the olny iproamtnt tihng is taht the frsit and lsat ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a taotl mses and you can sitll raed it whotuit a pboerlm. Tihs is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Azanmig huh? yaeh and I awlyas tghuhot slpeling was ipmorantt! if you can raed tihs forwrad it

By Scalia

May 18, 2007 9:15 AM | Link to this

Why can only 55 people out of 100 read that? Are they slow?

By Toasted_on_Friday

May 18, 2007 9:35 AM | Link to this

NetB: I’m still curious if you’ve passed the 1000 partner “benchmark”. I’m not sure why you’re so interested in my partner count, but I can assure you that I’m no where near the 1000 mark

Dog needs to know if he beat you or not. He needs to win, win, win. As if it will make up for his general insecurities, but…

Tries to flirt with some female runner, and she probaby goes Oh, another New Jersey male skank.

By Jack

May 18, 2007 10:05 AM | Link to this

OLD people have problems that you haven’t even considered yet!

An 85-year-old man was requested by his doctor for a sperm count as

part of his physical exam.

The doctor gave the man a jar and said, “Take this jar home and

bring back a semen sample tomorrow.”

The next day the 85-year-old man reappeared at the doctor’s office

and gave him the jar, which was as clean and empty as on the

previous day.

The doctor asked wh at happened and the man explained, “Well, doc,

it’s like this - first I tried with my right hand, but nothing.

Then I tried with my left hand, but still nothing.

Then I asked my wife for help. She tried with her right hand, then

with her left, still nothing. She tried with her mouth, first with

the teeth in, then with her teeth out, still nothing.

We even called up Arleen, the lady next door and she tried too,

first with both hands, then an armpit, and she even tried squeezin’

it between her knees, but still nothing.

The doctor was shocked! “You asked your neighbor?”

The old man replied, “Yep, none of us could get the jar open.”

By Jack

May 18, 2007 10:07 AM | Link to this

One for Chuck:

Two nuns, Sister Catherine and Sister Helen, are traveling through Europe in their car. They get to Transylvania and are stopped at a traffic light. Suddenly, out of nowhere, a tiny little Dracula jumps onto the hood of the car and hisses through the windshield.

“Quick, quick!” shouts Sister Catherine. “What shall we do?”

“Turn the windshield wipers on. That will get rid of the abomination,” says Sister Helen.

Sister Catherine switches them on, knocking Dracula about, but he clings on and continues hissing at the nuns.

“What shall I do now?” she shouts.

“Switch on the windshield washer. I filled it up with Holy Water at the Vatican,” says Sister Helen.

Sister Catherine turns on the windshield washer. Dracula screams as the water burns his skin, but he clings on and continues hissing at the nuns.

“Now what?” shouts Sister Catherine.

“Show him your cross,” says Sister Helen.

“Now you’re talking,” says Sister Catherine.

She opens the window and shouts, “Get the f—k off the car”

By BDM

May 18, 2007 10:38 AM | Link to this

Tries to flirt with some female runner, and she probably goes Oh, another New Jersey male skank.

Are you sure you’re not jealous that I don’t want to flirt with you?

P.S. Did you really believe that 100 number?

By BDM

May 18, 2007 10:43 AM | Link to this

But don’t worry—I learned my lesson again yesterday. No more Mr. Nice Guy.

FFF: Find’em, F***’em, and Forget’em.

B***, every single one of you.

By BDM

May 18, 2007 10:53 AM | Link to this

But go ahead and have a good laugh at my expense today. You earned it.

Catch you on the rebound.