NationStates Jolt Archive

No, it's actually the height of irrelevancy.

Both?

That was Ron's description of the people in the audience.

Yeah, I'm guessing everyone got that much.

That was Ron's description of the people in the audience.

Tenuous and irrelevant connection.

By the way, have you blasted this practice yet as barbaric and backwards? Or do you only do that when the people involved are Muslim?

Tenuous and irrelevant connection.

By the way, have you blasted this practice yet as barbaric and backwards? Or do you only do that when the people involved are Muslim?

I guess you haven't read the thread.

I guess you haven't read the thread.

I must have missed your extreme condemnation then. I've seen you ridicule it, but not go on about it being a cultural flaw.

I must have missed your extreme condemnation then. I've seen you ridicule it, but not go on about it being a cultural flaw.

Maybe you need to read the whole thread.

I must have missed your extreme condemnation then. I've seen you ridicule it, but not go on about it being a cultural flaw.

It's only a cultural flaw when it's brown people.

It's only a cultural flaw when it's brown people.

Conclusion:
Only brown people have culture.

:eek:

It's only a cultural flaw when it's brown people.

I love how you pull that out.

Link to where I've stated that. While you're at it, read another post of mine:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12476603&postcount=281

Maybe you need to read the whole thread.

You made me comb through the thread for this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12476630&postcount=217) and this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12476630&postcount=217)? Your claim that it isn't actually a Christian practice per se? The same sort of argument you consitantly reject when used to point out that certain atrocities or barbarisms AREN'T an integral part of Islam?

Cop out.

You only refer to context when it suits you...and when we call you on your blatant attempt to remove context in order to show Muslims in a bad light, you cut and run. Your 'rape victim sentenced to 90 lashes' sort of twist, screaming 'religious law, religious law'.

You made me comb through the thread for this (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12476630&postcount=217)? Your claim that it isn't actually a Christian practice per se?
You obviously can't read English. That isn't what I said.

I'm saying that you shouldn't make a decision to do or not do something, and then claim your reason was your religion.

Which is exactly what I'm on about Islam - don't blow shit up and then say you did it because Allah told you to.

So your call out is the product of your inability to speak or comprehend English.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/lf_afp/afplifestyleussexchastity_070322082138



Personally, I think it's a pretty idiotic practice.

Your thoughts?

Good luck to em I say.

I was talking on a forum elsewhere, where an Atheist friend of mine is convinced that there is a Christian conspiricy to produce lots of babies, on an already overpopulated planet, in order to rule us all.

I'll put his mind at rest and point him to this link.:D

I love how you pull that out.

Link to where I've stated that.

It's the general impression you give off.

While you're at it, read another post of mine:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12476603&postcount=281

Great, but nowhere near as vitriolic, as blind, or as downright disgusting, as some of your attacks, under varying usernames, against Islam.

It's the general impression you give off.

Great, but nowhere near as vitriolic, as blind, or as downright disgusting, as some of your attacks, under varying usernames, against Islam.

Haven't had any other usernames.

You obviously can't read English. That isn't what I said.

I'm saying that you shouldn't make a decision to do or not do something, and then claim your reason was your religion.

Which is exactly what I'm on about Islam - don't blow shit up and then say you did it because Allah told you to.

So your call out is the product of your inability to speak or comprehend English.

Na, my call out is based on your MO. YOU are the one who points to stories and then caws, 'barbaric religion! barbaric culture! NOT an aberration, an inherent trait!'. You give Christians much wider berth, and your own culture absolute immunity.

So, very nice. In this case, someone makes a decision to do or not do something, and you say, 'don't claim your reason was your religion'. (which by the way is an absolutely reasonable approach) But on the flip side, someone makes a decision to do or not do something and you say, 'it's their religion/culture! ARGH!'

But if you really want to focus on my English, feel free. If you want, you can comment on my Spanish, French and Cree too if it really turns you on. It's not going to help you wiggle out of your biases though.

Haven't had any other usernames.

Of course you haven't.

So, very nice. In this case, someone makes a decision to do or not do something, and you say, 'don't claim religion was your religion'.

Stop.

The phrase is "don't claim your reason was your religion".

Makes all the difference.

Stop.

The phrase is "don't claim your reason was your religion".

Makes all the difference.

Thanks, edited.

Alright...ready to address the post now?

Thanks, edited.

Alright...ready to address the post now?

Don't be silly.

Thanks, edited.

Alright...ready to address the post now?

If someone does something I believe to be heinous, and then claims their religion drove them to do it, I examine the religion in question.

I do, unlike your accusation, narrow it down to the particular sect they happen to align with.

And I post about the things that most frequently appear in today's press - I can't help it if I can find four or five major stories about some militant Islamic person blowing something up every day.

If someone does something I believe to be heinous, and then claims their religion drove them to do it, I examine the religion in question.

I do, unlike your accusation, narrow it down to the particular sect they happen to align with.

And I post about the things that most frequently appear in today's press - I can't help it if I can find four or five major stories about some militant Islamic person blowing something up every day.

Oh, it's not the quantity I'm on about, it's the quality. Or lack thereof. Either:

a) your own reading skills are sub par, despite your accusation of same towards me or,
b) you deliberately ignore the facts and give creedence to the sensational headline twist (or create one of your own)

Neither are flattering. I am of course, referring to the threads where you spin the situation and ignore the facts. "Rape victims gets 90 lashes" being the one that really sticks out in my mind.

It's not your focus that is the problem...it's your ignorance or dishonesty. Not really sure which one, but again...neither is flattering.

Neither are flattering. I am of course, referring to the threads where you spin the situation and ignore the facts. "Rape victims gets 90 lashes" being the one that really sticks out in my mind.

It appears that the rape victim was lured out of her home by the threat of accusation by the very same men. An accusation that she was somehow alone with a man.

So she went out alone. Blackmailed.

You're saying you're OK with that?

Are you ignoring that fact, when you posted that she went out of her house?

It appears that the rape victim was lured out of her home by the threat of accusation by the very same men. An accusation that she was somehow alone with a man.

So she went out alone. Blackmailed.

You're saying you're OK with that?

Are you ignoring that fact, when you posted that she went out of her house?

Fact pattern:

Woman lured out of her home by a man who threatened to get her in trouble by saying she went out with him anyway.

We don't know if they were actually lovers or not. She was blackmailed into meeting him, in either case.

She, and the blackmailer were kidnapped by a group of men who then raped the woman. The blackmailer does not appear to have any ties to the rapists, and did not participate in the rape. The rape was unlinked to the blackmail. She was not lured out by the rapists as far as we know (not a single source even suggested that was a theory in this case).

The woman and her blackmailer were given a sentence of 90 lashes for being alone together. (clearly an outrageous punishment in our eyes, and her appeal is based on the fact that she was basically forced into that position)

The rapists were given other sentences.

So, again when you claimed 'rape victim sentenced to 90 lashes' you deliberately made it seem as though she was being punished for being raped, when her punishment was totally unrelated to that crime.

Which means:
a) your reading skills are subpar or,
b) you deliberately misrepresented the situation

Which was it?

Which was it?

Neither. I find it ludicrous that someone who committed the "crime" of being alone with someone after being blackmailed into it can receive a greater punishment than someone who raped her.

Got it?

Neither. I find it ludicrous that someone who committed the "crime" of being alone with someone after being blackmailed into it can receive a greater punishment than someone who raped her.

Got it?

No, you don't 'got it'.

And I suppose that means it's option 'a'.

Her rapists received much greater punishments than she did for being alone with a man who was not her rapist.

But that is immaterial to the fact that the two crimes in question were unrelated.

1) she was alone with a man - apparently a crime. Both she and the man were sentenced for it.
2) she was raped. Her rapists were punished.

Not sure what you're not understanding here...but once again, through either ignorance or deliberate misrepresentation you continued to claim a woman was punished for being raped. Sorry, false.

No, you don't 'got it'.

And I suppose that means it's option 'a'.

Her rapists received much greater punishments than she did for being alone with a man who was not her rapist.

But that is immaterial to the fact that the two crimes in question were unrelated.

1) she was alone with a man - apparently a crime. Both she and the man were sentenced for it.
2) she was raped. Her rapists were punished.

Not sure what you're not understanding here.

Not sure why you don't think that being alone with a man should NEVER be a crime...

Which means:
a) your reading skills are subpar or,
b) you deliberately misrepresented the situation

Which was it?

Neither. I find it ludicrous that someone who committed the "crime" of being alone with someone after being blackmailed into it can receive a greater punishment than someone who raped her.

Got it?

I think that was a b) deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.

I think you think that I think she was punished solely for being raped.

She was punished for leaving her home without a male relative, and for being alone with a man who was neither a relative or a husband.

So, she was not punished for being raped, although one may imply they thought that if she had not broken the law, she would not have been raped.

And 90 lashes is worse than what the rapists got for a punishment.

Hell, in certain other Islamic countries (Iran, for example), they hang the raped woman for "enticing innocent Islamic men" into wrongdoing.

Not sure why you don't think that being alone with a man should NEVER be a crime...

I know it's confusing for you, but I actually did say I think that's outrageous. Many times.

But that, my dear, is irrelevant. She was not punished for being raped. Do you understand this now? Or must I spell it out for you again?

I think that was a b) deliberate misrepresentation of the situation.

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him plead subpar reading skills.

But that, my dear, is irrelevant. She was not punished for being raped. Do you understand this now? Or must I spell it out for you again?

Read here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12477406&postcount=278

She was not punished for being raped. Why do you keep saying that I think that?

I'd like to give him the benefit of the doubt and let him plead subpar reading skills.

I don't. His grammar skills imply that he has a certian command of sentence structure. If he does, then his reading comprehension skills must be similar. Consequently, I would assume that his apparent inability to critically read things that are inconvenient to his worldview is simply a ruse used for debating.

But you could be right. He could just be plain ol' stupid.

I think you think that I think she was punished solely for being raped. I don't actually care what you think, I care about how you represent the situation. In this case, falsely.

She was punished for leaving her home without a male relative, and for being alone with a man who was neither a relative or a husband. Yes, and the thread would have been a great place to discuss that had you not confused the issue by making it seem as though a woman was punished for being raped. Blame yourself for that.

So, she was not punished for being raped, although one may imply they thought that if she had not broken the law, she would not have been raped. I doubt anyone but Soviestan would make that sort of implication. And no one listens to his frothing idiocy anyway.

But my god...do we finally have a confession here? Are you admitting that you misrepresented the situation? FINALLY!

And 90 lashes is worse than what the rapists got for a punishment. They got, I believe, a hundred lashes and a number of years in prison. One of her rapists (the one who filmed it with his camera phone) was still being investigated. Tut tut, failing to read again. Could it be 'a' AND 'b'?

Hell, in certain other Islamic countries (Iran, for example), they hang the raped woman for "enticing innocent Islamic men" into wrongdoing.
Then wouldn't it have been better to link to a story in one of those countries instead of trying to make THIS story into something it wasn't?

Try that next time, m'kay?

Read here:

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12477406&postcount=278

She was not punished for being raped. Why do you keep saying that I think that?

Admitting to your error in this thread does nothing to mitigate the fact of your misrepresentation in the other thread. I'm glad you are now clear on the same facts I outlined for you in THAT thread, and I hope you are able, in the future, to stop your bullshittery when it matters...BEFORE you post another stupid, false thread.

By the way...you're doing a fantastic job on this persona. Seriously, hats off to you! Lots of fun:)

Admitting to your error in this thread does nothing to mitigate the fact of your misrepresentation in the other thread. I'm glad you are now clear on the same facts I outlined for you in THAT thread, and I hope you are able, in the future, to stop your bullshittery when it matters...BEFORE you post another stupid, false thread.

So, you're saying it's bullshit that a woman got 90 lashes for something she should never have been punished for?

But you could be right. He could just be plain ol' stupid.
As much as I want to give him the benefit of the doubt, stupid is not really something I think accurately describes EO.

If someone does something I believe to be heinous, and then claims their religion drove them to do it, I examine the religion in question.

I do, unlike your accusation, narrow it down to the particular sect they happen to align with.

And I post about the things that most frequently appear in today's press - I can't help it if I can find four or five major stories about some militant Islamic person blowing something up every day.

Oh, really? Amusing. So it's not that you're looking for them, but that they are the most frequent stories. Here's http://www.cnn.com/ - let's look, shall we? Well, one story out of twelve about a car bomb exploding as part of a rebellion in a foreign-occupied country and 5 about the dumb things going on as a result of the US and allies' presence in the Persian Gulf. It seems like the majority of your news stories would be about the US presence there and the results of imperialism. Yeah, pretend like you're not searching them out. That's honesty.

So, you're saying it's bullshit that a woman got 90 lashes for something she should never have been punished for?

:D
I'm saying it's bullshit that you made a story about something that deserves criticism (a lashing for being alone with a man or woman not related to you) into a lie (a woman being punished for being raped).

The first issue would have been a fantastic topic to discuss, and would have supported your position on Islam and Middle Eastern culture much better. By screwing up and making it seem like it was about something totally different, you made yourself look foolish and/or deliberately malicious.

The fact that you keep trying to defend your actions by making it about the first issue after the fact, is either:

a) an inability to grasp the difference or,
b) deliberate obfuscation

Not falling for it.

Why not just admit, 'yes, okay, I messed up, I got it wrong, I represented it falsely'. THEN you can go on about the first issue legitimately.

It's okay, EO...really. We'll think better of you if you can bring yourself to admit your mistake. You can even use that admission to give yourself an air of intellectual honesty for a while, which might even help you twist other stories in the meantime and claim innocence! I'm offering you a fantastic opportunity here...

Oh, really? Amusing. So it's not that you're looking for them, but that they are the most frequent stories. Here's http://www.cnn.com/ - let's look, shall we? Well, one story out of twelve about a car bomb exploding as part of a rebellion in a foreign-occupied country and 5 about the dumb things going on as a result of the US and allies' presence in the Persian Gulf. It seems like the majority of your news stories would be about the US presence there and the results of imperialism. Yeah, pretend like you're not searching them out. That's honesty.

I don't have a problem with traditional imperialism.

I don't have a problem with traditional imperialism.

While this is certainly a valid point, it sidesteps the issue. Which is your claim that stories about radical Muslims perpetrating violence are in the majority of news stories overall. Jocabia has pointed out that this is in fact, false. So don't claim that you choose them because there are more of them.

State instead what you have. You focus on those particular stories, because you don't have a problem with traditional imperialism, but rather an interest in extremism and violence perpetrated in the name of religion. Which you are correct, means looking at Islamic extremism as opposed to other forms which are less prevalent at the moment.

See? One argument makes you look like a lying jackass. The other isn't really refutable on anything but ideological grounds, which are ancillary to the argument itself.

Then again, your tactics are more fun.

Ewwwwwwww. But no, the boys probably just get ben-gay rubbed on their hands when caught masturbating.





What the devil is ben-gay?

What the devil is ben-gay?

Bengay (http://www.pfizer.ca/english/our%20products/consumer%20healthcare/muscle%20and%20joint%20pain%20relief/bengay/default.asp?s=1)

Now imagine, "Alright boy! Let me see you rub your dirty parts now! RUB IT I SAID!"

You're not going to take my offer, EO?

Shame that. Ah well.

I don't have a problem with traditional imperialism.

Ah, so now we've gotten to the point. You have a problem with Islam so your stories are about Islam. Violence by white countries (traditional Imperialism) is acceptable. Violence by brown people, barbaric. Thanks for clearing that up.

Now, let's see if you said she was punished for being raped -

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12402308&postcount=252
The barbaric thing here is that essentially, this woman is being punished for being raped.

When your folly is pointed out to you (like it was many others including myself), instead of addressing your mistake you suggest that she was punished for being in the company of the rapists.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12402490&postcount=263
Some guys break in to your house where you're alone. They rape you.

Ah, you were alone with some guys who were not your relatives. 90 lashes for you.

It's pointed out to you that your analogy is not related to the actual situation and your response just as in this thread is to claim "well, it happens other places sometimes, so there... nyah"
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12402513&postcount=267
That's happened in other cases. And you know that's what they would do.

"You know that's what they would do." That's comedy gold. You might as well say "I'm wrong, but if you wait long enough I'll probably be right".

This is all followed by a series of posts where rather than just admit you got it wrong, you try to change the subject. And with each change get proven wrong again and just dancing and dancing.

So tell us again how you're weren't just ridiculously wrong. It's fun to hear this nonsense.

Na, this is the portion of the thread where EO uses his ultimate tactic...

Complete silence.

And when we bring it up again, he'll whip out the silence ray once more, and disappear in a big purple cloud of *poof*.

Because nothing is worse than getting caught.

I can't believe you searched out those posts. You're so anal about that!

Na, this is the portion of the thread where EO uses his ultimate tactic...

Complete silence.

And when we bring it up again, he'll whip out the silence ray once more, and disappear in a big purple cloud of *poof*.

Because nothing is worse than getting caught.

I can't believe you searched out those posts. You're so anal about that!

Well, actually, I started because it sounded like you and he were both saying it was his thread and I didn't remember it that way. Then once I was in there, I figured what the hey. I think it's odd that he didn't point out that it wasn't his thread that we were talking about. If I were one these guys looking for any reason to accuse people of being puppets, I would jump all over that one.

Well, actually, I started because it sounded like you and he were both saying it was his thread and I didn't remember it that way. Then once I was in there, I figured what the hey. I think it's odd that he didn't point out that it wasn't his thread that we were talking about. If I were one these guys looking for any reason to accuse people of being puppets, I would jump all over that one.

Oh.....

Now THAT is interesting! You know, it did occur to me that he might not have been the OP, but I was too lazy to check, and he seemed to be fine with me implying he was. I DO remember his argument in that thread though, so that was consistent...

But I shall definitely keep an eye on Allegheny County 2 from now on.

Oh.....

Now THAT is interesting! You know, it did occur to me that he might not have been the OP, but I was too lazy to check, and he seemed to be fine with me implying he was. I DO remember his argument in that thread though, so that was consistent...

But I shall definitely keep an eye on Allegheny County 2 from now on.

You are aware that AC2 is Corneliu, right?

Oh.....

Now THAT is interesting! You know, it did occur to me that he might not have been the OP, but I was too lazy to check, and he seemed to be fine with me implying he was. I DO remember his argument in that thread though, so that was consistent...

But I shall definitely keep an eye on Allegheny County 2 from now on.

Isn't that Corneliu's puppet? I think someone said it in that October3 thread in moderation.

You are aware that AC2 is Corneliu, right?

My goodness, all the puppeteering going on around here! Yeah, I just read some of AC2's posts and he sounds like Corny. But that still begs the question of why EO didn't slam me for blaming him for starting that thread.

Then again, he can't wiggle out of the stance he took on the issue, so no big deal.

My goodness, all the puppeteering going on around here! Yeah, I just read some of AC2's posts and he sounds like Corny. But that still begs the question of why EO didn't slam me for blaming him for starting that thread.

Then again, he can't wiggle out of the stance he took on the issue, so no big deal.

You can't swing a cat without getting it tangled in someone's puppet strings. :(

You can't swing a cat without getting it tangled in someone's puppet strings. :(

So do you think EO is Corny's puppet, or visa versa?

*head explodes*

So do you think EO is Corny's puppet, or visa versa?

*head explodes*

Well Corny's been around longer, but where does Deep Kimchi fit into this puppet triangle?

Well Corny's been around longer, but where does Deep Kimchi fit into this puppet triangle?

Well that's the thing, I'm firm in my belief that EO is DK (and WL and Sierra before that etc etc). And they precede Corny. So? Then again, who has enough time to maintain that many puppets? I have to assume Corny is in fact a separate entity than EO....


Then again, they both abandon ship when their argument starts sinking, and then claim later that they were busy or some such other bs.

You can't swing a cat without getting it tangled in someone's puppet strings. :(

You put down that cat this instance young man!! :eek:

I'm already tangled in some strings :(

Well that's the thing, I'm firm in my belief that EO is DK (and WL and Sierra before that etc etc). And they precede Corny. So? Then again, who has enough time to maintain that many puppets? I have to assume Corny is in fact a separate entity than EO....


Then again, they both abandon ship when their argument starts sinking, and then claim later that they were busy or some such other bs.

My point was that if EO=Corny that would make EO the puppet, as Corny's been around longer. But if EO=Corny=DK=All those other people, then who was the original poster?

My point was that if EO=Corny that would make EO the puppet, as Corny's been around longer. But if EO=Corny=DK=All those other people, then who was the original poster?

Well, I'd think in that case that the original poster would be God.

Or Darwin. No wait, I'm confused...a monkey?

Definitely Beethoven.

You put down that cat this instance young man!! :eek:

I'm already tangled in some strings :(

But.....but......but......the big boy did it!

Well, I'd think in that case that the original poster would be God.

Or Darwin. No wait, I'm confused...a monkey?

Definitely Beethoven.



you're smoking crack

God is just a puppet of DK's too.

Topic integrity down to 12%.

Redirecting....

It's the Apocalypse of the thread! (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=revelations;&version=9;)

>_>
<_<
;)

()()
( .. )
(( ))
(,,)(,,)

*Looks around* Wow, people are still posting here? And we're completely off topic?


So...is there anyone who...agrees with the Purity Balls? That we might..you know...get back on topic and debate...or something?

*Looks around* Wow, people are still posting here? And we're completely off topic?


So...is there anyone who...agrees with the Purity Balls? That we might..you know...get back on topic and debate...or something?

Nah, nobody agrees with them.


Some of us want to lick them, but that's it really.

Nah, nobody agrees with them.


Some of us want to lick them, but that's it really.

Ah well. This was my third thread created and it hit 20+ pages. I consider that an accomplishment.

You can't swing a cat without getting it tangled in someone's puppet strings. :(

None o' mine...I ain't got no puppets. Don't need 'em. My views are sufficiently psychotic, neurotic and evil that I'm the only one who will ever express them anyways.

Hey guys! They do have a purity ball for guys! But for some reasons, the catholics are the only people who do it, and the boy pledges his virginity to a priest!


*Cue hysterical laughter*

Bengay (http://www.pfizer.ca/english/our%20products/consumer%20healthcare/muscle%20and%20joint%20pain%20relief/bengay/default.asp?s=1)

Now imagine, "Alright boy! Let me see you rub your dirty parts now! RUB IT I SAID!"

So...it...numbs...the...

Holy. Fucking. Shit. If anyone actually does that, child services should get involved.

My point was that if EO=Corny that would make EO the puppet, as Corny's been around longer. But if EO=Corny=DK=All those other people, then who was the original poster?

they're all Myrth! :eek:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/lf_afp/afplifestyleussexchastity_070322082138



Personally, I think it's a pretty idiotic practice.

Your thoughts?

I think they should have picked a name other than "purity balls."

Haven't had any other usernames.

That's right, Deep Eve Online Kimchi has never posted as anyone else. Just like I haven't.

I doubt anyone but Soviestan would make that sort of implication. And no one listens to his frothing idiocy anyway.


I listen to it. If I don't how will I know when to point and laugh?

So...it...numbs...the...

Holy. Fucking. Shit. If anyone actually does that, child services should get involved.

I used to have a babysitter that would put hot pepper sauce on my sisters' thumbs to prevent them from sucking them. I don't know. I guess the bengay wouldn't be that suprising. I've heard of all sorts of things like this to control the behavior of children. Unsurprisingly, it's not all that effective.

Castor oil. Soap. Etc. Pain without a reasonable explanation simply doesn't work.

I listen to it. If I don't how will I know when to point and laugh?

So whose puppet are you?

I actually have no puppets nor ever have. I have been accused of being GnI's puppet several times. That means that Gravey has like 30K posts.

So...it...numbs...the...

You've never gotten any on your dick have you? It doesn't NUMB, numbing would be WONDERFUL. It burns like the fires of hell.

So whose puppet are you?

I actually have no puppets nor ever have. I have been accused of being GnI's puppet several times. That means that Gravey has like 30K posts.

I am my own puppet, no one holds my strings but me. I've had a few nations that went bye bye because I stopped posting for a while . . .

Chastity ceremony. Please. I'm a Catholic, and I do agree with the concept, but a ceremony. This is just ridiculous.

So whose puppet are you?

I actually have no puppets nor ever have. I have been accused of being GnI's puppet several times. That means that Gravey has like 30K posts.

I borrowed a puppet...

I used to have a babysitter that would put hot pepper sauce on my sisters' thumbs to prevent them from sucking them.

A lot of the time, that's at the parent's suggestion. Don't you think if your sister said a babysitter put hot pepper sauce on her fingers she would be so fired otherwise?

A lot of the time, that's at the parent's suggestion. Don't you think if your sister said a babysitter put hot pepper sauce on her fingers she would be so fired otherwise?

It wasn't at my parents' suggestion. It was a family we used to stay with that was tres wierd. I mean strange.

However, I don't think my family would have minded that it was being done. It was the only place where it was done, never at home or at other babysitters' places. Now there was that one that used to molest me but I'm positive my parents did not okay that one.

I am my own puppet, no one holds my strings but me. I've had a few nations that went bye bye because I stopped posting for a while . . .

Okay, who are your former incarnations? Anybody we don't care about?

Hey guys! They do have a purity ball for guys! But for some reasons, the catholics are the only people who do it, and the boy pledges his virginity to a priest!


*Cue hysterical laughter*

Okay, that was actually worth a snigger :D

Okay, who are your former incarnations? Anybody we don't care about?

I think the name I was using was eris rising, possibly eris ascendant I don't recall which was mine and which belonged to my wife . . .

I think the name I was using was eris rising, possibly eris ascendant I don't recall which was mine and which belonged to my wife . . .

Ah, I remember that. Don't remember much else but the name, but hey, welcome back. Did I hate you? ;)

Ah, I remember that. Don't remember much else but the name, but hey, welcome back. Did I hate you? ;)

You probably said 'Amusing' and then proceeded to tear him a new asshole via reposting his quotes and then belligerently requiring him to justify himself, or risk your interpretation being 'true'. So no, he probably hated you. /bitterness

I felt that this joke seemed appropriate for this thread:

I was a very happy person. My wonderful girlfriend and I had been dating for over a year, and so we decided to get married. There was only one little thing bothering me. It was her beautiful younger sister. My prospective sister-in-law was twenty-two, wore very tight miniskirts, and generally was bra-less. She would regularly bend down when she was near me, and I always got more than a pleasant view of her private parts. It had to be deliberate. She never did it when she was near anyone else.

One day her "little" sister called and asked me to come over to check the wedding invitations. She was alone when I arrived, and she whispered to me that she had feelings and desires for me that she couldn't overcome. She told me that she wanted to make love to me just once before I got married and committed my life to her sister.

Well, I was in total shock, and couldn't say a word. She said, "I'm going up stairs to my bedroom, and if you want one last wild fling, just come up and get me." I was stunned and frozen in shock as I watched her go up the stairs. When she reached the top she pulled off her panties and threw them down the stairs at me.

I stood there for a moment, then turned and made a beeline straight to the front door. I opened the door, and headed straight towards my car. Lo and behold, my entire future family was standing outside, all clapping! With tears in his eye, my future father-in-law hugged me and said, "We are happy that you have passed our little test. We couldn't ask for a better man for our daughter. Welcome to the family."


And the moral of this story is: Always keep your condoms in your car.

You probably said 'Amusing' and then proceeded to tear him a new asshole via reposting his quotes and then belligerently requiring him to justify himself, or risk your interpretation being 'true'. So no, he probably hated you. /bitterness

Did I mention what a nice nipplering that is?

EDIT: I'm trying to bring back the old Jocabia. Look at some of the recent threads, and I got two arguments that were getting increasingly personal (through my fault and the fault of the individual I was talking to) back on track to discussing the issue instead of the people. The old Jocabia applauds your nipplering.

I think the name I was using was eris rising, possibly eris ascendant I don't recall which was mine and which belonged to my wife . . .

I was eris ascendent, you were eris rising. Hail Eris and all that...

I felt that this joke seemed appropriate for this thread:

I was a very happy person. My wonderful girlfriend and I had been dating for over a year, and so we decided to get married. There was only one little thing bothering me. It was her beautiful younger sister. My prospective sister-in-law was twenty-two, wore very tight miniskirts, and generally was bra-less. She would regularly bend down when she was near me, and I always got more than a pleasant view of her private parts. It had to be deliberate. She never did it when she was near anyone else.

One day her "little" sister called and asked me to come over to check the wedding invitations. She was alone when I arrived, and she whispered to me that she had feelings and desires for me that she couldn't overcome. She told me that she wanted to make love to me just once before I got married and committed my life to her sister.

Well, I was in total shock, and couldn't say a word. She said, "I'm going up stairs to my bedroom, and if you want one last wild fling, just come up and get me." I was stunned and frozen in shock as I watched her go up the stairs. When she reached the top she pulled off her panties and threw them down the stairs at me.

I stood there for a moment, then turned and made a beeline straight to the front door. I opened the door, and headed straight towards my car. Lo and behold, my entire future family was standing outside, all clapping! With tears in his eye, my future father-in-law hugged me and said, "We are happy that you have passed our little test. We couldn't ask for a better man for our daughter. Welcome to the family."


And the moral of this story is: Always keep your condoms in your car.

Saw it coming and still nearly spit on my screen.

I felt that this joke seemed appropriate for this thread:

I was a very happy person. My wonderful girlfriend and I had been dating for over a year, and so we decided to get married. There was only one little thing bothering me. It was her beautiful younger sister. My prospective sister-in-law was twenty-two, wore very tight miniskirts, and generally was bra-less. She would regularly bend down when she was near me, and I always got more than a pleasant view of her private parts. It had to be deliberate. She never did it when she was near anyone else.

One day her "little" sister called and asked me to come over to check the wedding invitations. She was alone when I arrived, and she whispered to me that she had feelings and desires for me that she couldn't overcome. She told me that she wanted to make love to me just once before I got married and committed my life to her sister.

Well, I was in total shock, and couldn't say a word. She said, "I'm going up stairs to my bedroom, and if you want one last wild fling, just come up and get me." I was stunned and frozen in shock as I watched her go up the stairs. When she reached the top she pulled off her panties and threw them down the stairs at me.

I stood there for a moment, then turned and made a beeline straight to the front door. I opened the door, and headed straight towards my car. Lo and behold, my entire future family was standing outside, all clapping! With tears in his eye, my future father-in-law hugged me and said, "We are happy that you have passed our little test. We couldn't ask for a better man for our daughter. Welcome to the family."


And the moral of this story is: Always keep your condoms in your car.

Cool story.

Saw it coming and still nearly spit on my screen.

What was coming and what got spit on the screen?

I was eris ascendent, you were eris rising. Hail Eris and all that...

So you are the wife in question?

thank you - thank you


one more:

A cop was patrolling late at night in a well-known spot.

He sees a couple in a car, with the interior light brightly glowing. The cop carefully approaches the car to get a closer look.

Then he sees a young man behind the wheel, reading a computer magazine He immediately notices a young woman in the rear seat, knitting. Puzzled by this surprising situation, the cop walks to the car and gently raps on the driver's window.

The young man lowers his window . "Uh, yes, officer?"

The cop says: "What are you doing?"

The young man says: "Well, Officer, I'm reading a magazine."

Pointing towards the young woman in the back seat the cop says:

"And her, what is she doing?"

The young man shrugs: "Sir, I believe she's knitting a pullover sweater."

Now, the cop is totally confused. A young couple. Alone, in a car, at night in a Lover's lane....and nothing obscene is happening!

The cop asks: "What's your age, young man?"

The young man says :"I'm 22, sir."

The cop asks: "And her ... what's her age?"

The young man looks at his watch and replies:

"She'll be 18 in 11 minutes."

So you are the wife in question?

Yep. Happily, for six years this May. We'll celebrate our seventh anniversary (from our first date) in June.

So did you hate Jocabia too? hehehehehehe

Eh... no. He was a lot more active in hid previous incarnation than I was.

Well that's the thing, I'm firm in my belief that EO is DK (and WL and Sierra before that etc etc). And they precede Corny. So? Then again, who has enough time to maintain that many puppets? I have to assume Corny is in fact a separate entity than EO....


Then again, they both abandon ship when their argument starts sinking, and then claim later that they were busy or some such other bs.

Well, WL came first (of the line of incarnations).

Then Sierra

Then DK

Now EO


No?

After bannings (unless I imagined them), and giving up accounts because of either inactivity or boredom with having no credibility. Seems about right.

Since it would never occur to me to *** out "sex," as it isnt a bad word, I keep reading this title as "No Shit til I'm Married I promise."

Since it would never occur to me to *** out "sex," as it isnt a bad word, I keep reading this title as "No Shit til I'm Married I promise."

So did at least 5 other people. :(

From now on I'm just going to make my titles. The mods can moderate them as they see fit and send me a warning TG if need be.

I'm tired of my threads being misinterpreted.

Ah, I remember that. Don't remember much else but the name, but hey, welcome back. Did I hate you? ;)

I don't think so. I spent a lot of time poking Deep Kimchi and the like.

I don't think so. I spent a lot of time poking Deep Kimchi and the like.

DK ever send you any samples of his 'candid' photography?

DK ever send you any samples of his 'candid' photography?

Yeah, I wish EO would drop the act and send me a link to his blog again.

Yeah, I wish EO would drop the act and send me a link to his blog again.

*Doesn't want to know*

:D

*Doesn't want to know*

:D

I'd say you're fishing for info, except you reported me in Moderation so I'm actually not talking to you:eek:

I'd say you're fishing for info

I'm one of those weird people who when I say I don't want to know, I mean I don't want to know.

And the reason I reported you in moderation was because you were waaaaaaayyy offtopic and it got annoying. A page or two of threadjacking is amusing, but once it hits 3 pages it gets irritating.

What was coming and what got spit on the screen?

It was a joke not your rings.

And as far as the topic, that's what happens when you post a topic that there is no debate about. The specific topic died some time ago.

DK ever send you any samples of his 'candid' photography?

Thankfully not. :eek:

Marriage should be outlawed.

Monogamy in general sucks.

Good luck to em I say.

I was talking on a forum elsewhere, where an Atheist friend of mine is convinced that there is a Christian conspiricy to produce lots of babies, on an already overpopulated planet, in order to rule us all.

I'll put his mind at rest and point him to this link.:D
You are, of course, aware that the "abstinence-only" movement is doing a super job of producing MORE babies, right?

Seeing as how these kids are actually just as likely to have sex, it's just that they are less likely to use contraception when they do have sex, and they're much less likely to have abortions when they end up pregnant.

But I disagree with your friend about there being some "conspiracy" to produce more Christian babies. To me, "conspiracy" implies that it is somehow secret. Every radical Christian sect I'm aware of is quite open and honest about their efforts to control fertility and pump out lots and lots of good Christian babies.

Monogamy in general sucks.

Not at all! Look:
http://www.acc.umu.se/~zqad/cats/1168702253-1167577489584.gif

It's cute :)

Purity balls have come up in another thread, and therefore I thought it might be worthwhile to resurrect this thread.

Purity balls have come up in another thread, and therefore I thought it might be worthwhile to resurrect this thread.

You were wrong.

Purity balls have come up in another thread, and therefore I thought it might be worthwhile to resurrect this thread.

There is, unfortunately, still no debate on how stupid a concept they are.

Also, could you link to the other thread in question?

There is, unfortunately, still no debate on how stupid a concept they are.

Also, could you link to the other thread in question?

It's LG's Perfect Balls thread.

It's LG's Perfect Balls thread.

Ah, I wondered what that was about. Many thanks.

Ah, I wondered what that was about. Many thanks.

It's not actually about purity balls. They just came up.

I remember hearing on Studio 60 (hey- Sorkin usually got his shit right on West Wing) that teenage pregnancy rates among girls who took these pledges were higher than those who didn't.

I completely agree. You seem like a wise fellow, why was your account deleted? Obviously I don't expect an answer.

Seriously, is there anything more to discuss?

Lol, they'll never keep at it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/lf_afp/afplifestyleussexchastity_070322082138



Personally, I think it's a pretty idiotic practice.

Your thoughts?

It prevents STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

It prevents STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

Its a creepy pratice that like absenance only classes has the opposite effect.

It prevents STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

Until it doesn't, which is like, most of the time.

Besides, there's something really creepy about fathers and daughters going out on dates, not to mention the whole "key to my vagin..I mean heart" thing with the locket and key. Some families take their daughter to dinner, and have a place set for the future husband--when the daughter is like 12--thus reinforcing the whole idea that the pussy belongs to daddy until he hands it over to the husband. It's infantilizing in the extreme.

It prevents STDs and unwanted pregnancy.

Except that they don't.

Virginity pledges also have an unintended effect that should be of concern to researchers and policymakers alike: They actually place some teenagers at higher risk of unintended pregnancy and sexually transmitted disease (STD), because teens who break their pledge are one-third less likely than non-pledgers to use contraceptives once they do become sexually active.
...

According to a study released March 9, 2004 at the National STD Prevention Conference, 88% of 12,000 teenagers who had pledged to remain abstinent until marriage reported having had sexual intercourse before they married. "Pledgers" also had STD infection rates comparable to their peers who did not take virginity pledges. Although they delayed intercourse for up to 18 months, when they became sexually active, teenagers who had signed pledges were less likely to use condoms and less likely to seek medical help for STD infections than their peers.


source (http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/virginitypledge.html#teens)

See what we told you about learning about your topic BEFORE you speak?

Fail.

Besides, there's something really creepy about fathers and daughters going out on dates, not to mention the whole "key to my vagin..I mean heart" thing with the locket and key. Some families take their daughter to dinner, and have a place set for the future husband--when the daughter is like 12--thus reinforcing the whole idea that the pussy belongs to daddy until he hands it over to the husband. It's infantilizing in the extreme.

The whole process is really, really disturbing. I have no problem with people choosing to abstain until marriage. I think it's stupid, but I can respect it.

This practice is...damaging, it enforces a disgusting moral patriarchy that has no place in this century.

stilll dumb from all the other times i heard of it

The whole process is really, really disturbing. I have no problem with people choosing to abstain until marriage. I think it's stupid, but I can respect it.

This practice is...damaging, it enforces a disgusting moral patriarchy that has no place in this century.

I can speak from my experience, because I waited until I was married to have sex--religious pressures did it--and for me, it was a mistake. I built sex up to be the end all of existence, and while sex is great, and can be mind-shattering, in the end, it's still just sex, and that disconnect caused some problems in my marriage. We wound up working those problems out eventually and were successful in that arena--until she figured out that part of the problem was that she'd been a lesbian all along. That's a whole other story, and certainly not typical of the experience most people who wait have, I'd imagine.

But I still don't recommend it. I have a far healthier attitude toward it now.

Except that they don't.



source (http://www.menstuff.org/issues/byissue/virginitypledge.html#teens)

See what we told you about learning about your topic BEFORE you speak?

Fail.

If they swore not to have sex until they were married the woman would be able to select a healthy male thus preventing STDs and since she isn't on the job for most of her teen life won't get pregnant until she's married and ready to have a family.

If they swore not to have sex until they were married the woman would be able to select a healthy male thus preventing STDs and since she isn't on the job for most of her teen life won't get pregnant until she's married and ready to have a family.

Except that appears to not work in reality

Except that appears to not work in reality

Well, if she swore not to have sex and lived up to it...

Well, if she swore not to have sex and lived up to it...

Which happens only 1/10 of the time, at least in America.

Well, if she swore not to have sex and lived up to it...

Like I said in reality ...

Its great to have high hopes but when pushing a misogynistic creepy outdated ceremony on someone when it has NO effect ... in fact that and abstinence only "education" actually has the OPPOSITE intended effect ...

Seems to be the time to ditch the creepy unnecessary hocus pocus

Like I said in reality ...

Its great to have high hopes but when pushing a misogynistic creepy outdated ceremony on someone when it has NO effect ... in fact that and abstinence only "education" actually has the OPPOSITE intended effect ...

Seems to be the time to ditch the creepy unnecessary hocus pocus

So choice is only good when people choose what you believe is right?

So choice is only good when people choose what you believe is right?

Not what I said at all

But not all decisions are created equal and in the end the data appears to be in that making the choice of not educating your child completely appears to be the wrong one

I am not saying abstinence is a bad thing but depriving your child of education is .

I signed a pledge to abstain from sexual relations at least for the duration of high school.

At my school, as I believe at many others, to attend, you have to sign a pledge not to do drugs, drink alcohol, among other things. My school, being Jewish, the pledge included abstinence.

I kept it, by the way. As far as I know, so has everyone else. There are a few boyfriend-girlfriend couples, but I am pretty certain that we have 100% (or at least 99%) compliance. I intend to remain abstinent until marriage myself.

The reason is the culture - it is religious, and not just one imposed by the parents and rabbis. Students actually believe it, out of their own free will. And before you accuse us of being brainwashed, we're the top school in the state.

Of course, there has to be an outlet for all this. One feature of Orthodox Jewish culture is abstinence until marriage. Another feature is marriage as soon as possible - often before graduating from college. And once you are married, the prohibition on sex becomes a commandment to have sex.

I'd try and make my tangent relevant, but it's late. So I'm dumping the job on the rest of you.

I signed a pledge to abstain from sexual relations at least for the duration of high school.

At my school, as I believe at many others, to attend, you have to sign a pledge not to do drugs, drink alcohol, among other things. My school, being Jewish, the pledge included abstinence.

I kept it, by the way. As far as I know, so has everyone else. There are a few boyfriend-girlfriend couples, but I am pretty certain that we have 100% (or at least 99%) compliance. I intend to remain abstinent until marriage myself.
snip
The stats seem to not bear your claim of 100 to 99 percent compliant ... I call BS on that

I would not doubt maybe a few percent above average if they did a good job but no way what you claim

The stats seem to not bear your claim of 100 to 99 percent compliant ... I call BS on that

I would not doubt maybe a few percent above average if they did a good job but no way what you claim

Why not? Did you go to his particular school? No? :)

Not having sex until you married!?! That's so not natural.

What could possibly make people not want to have sex anyway ? It's not natural. It's weird. They're a bunch of weirdos O_o

Horror! People doing different things with their bodies then what we consider natural!

We must do something! Like... ban them from getting married or something!

What could possibly make people not want to have sex anyway ? It's not natural. It's weird. They're a bunch of weirdos O_o

The stats seem to not bear your claim of 100 to 99 percent compliant ... I call BS on that

I would not doubt maybe a few percent above average if they did a good job but no way what you claim

He probably just hangs out with uncool people.

Horror! People doing different things with their bodies then what we consider natural!

We must do something! Like... ban them from getting married or something!

Agreed. People who do not want to have sex before their marriage should be banned from getting married.

That'll teach 'em.

I read this as "No shit until til I'm married, I promise"

Now that would be dedication.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-7921296175110207189&q=Family+Guy+Chris+bathroom&total=16&start=0&num=10&so=0&type=search&plindex=0

The lack of education and "don't do it" approach, quite simply, do not work for the vast majority of people. While it might be working for your group of friends (your choice, I suppose, and it's your right to make it) it doesn't work when applied to broad groups, as been stated several times. If I might quote Scott Adams (Dilbert creator), who put it quite succinctly:


Immutable Laws of Human Nature

Stupidity
Selfishness
Horniness

The lack of education and "don't do it" approach, quite simply, do not work for the vast majority of people. While it might be working for your group of friends (your choice, I suppose, and it's your right to make it) it doesn't work when applied to broad groups, as been stated several times. If I might quote Scott Adams (Dilbert creator), who put it quite succinctly:
It's almost impossible to prioritize those, but i'd have to say the order you gave works for me.

I signed a pledge to abstain from sexual relations at least for the duration of high school.

At my school, as I believe at many others, to attend, you have to sign a pledge not to do drugs, drink alcohol, among other things. My school, being Jewish, the pledge included abstinence.

I kept it, by the way. As far as I know, so has everyone else. There are a few boyfriend-girlfriend couples, but I am pretty certain that we have 100% (or at least 99%) compliance. I intend to remain abstinent until marriage myself.

The reason is the culture - it is religious, and not just one imposed by the parents and rabbis. Students actually believe it, out of their own free will. And before you accuse us of being brainwashed, we're the top school in the state.

Of course, there has to be an outlet for all this. One feature of Orthodox Jewish culture is abstinence until marriage. Another feature is marriage as soon as possible - often before graduating from college. And once you are married, the prohibition on sex becomes a commandment to have sex.

I'd try and make my tangent relevant, but it's late. So I'm dumping the job on the rest of you.
Just a couple of things to note. First of all, I'd be willing to bet that your compliance rate is not as high as you think it is. I'm not saying you're lying--just saying that the odds are you just haven't seen it.

As to the brainwashing thing--you can test well in individual subjects adn still be brainwashed as far as a dogma is concerned. I'm not saying you are--I don't know you or your school--I'm just saying that the two are not mutually exclusive.

Meh, I think this is just another excuse to have a celebration or party.

He probably just hangs out with uncool people.

You just made my death list. We ARE cool.

Actually, the reason is that my school is an Orthodox Jewish school, and the students take the values we are taught to heart. For example, a good percentage of the student body are 'shomer negia', which means that they do not have physical contact with members of the opposite sex outside their families. Many more students (including myself) keep some of the spirit, but not the letter. I will shake hands with a woman, and I will hug a female friend (after asking).

Here is an example of how the culture plays out. Many Orthodox Jewish organizations have retreats over the Sabbath. We then turn the Havdala ceremony, which ends the Sabbath, into a dance, complete with band.

Now, there are a few differences between this dance and other dances. The first thing you might notice is that the music is in Hebrew. In fact, it is religious music (though a non-Hebrew speaker wouldn't be able to tell).

Another difference is the style of dress - very modest. The girls are wearing dresses or long skirts, and long sleeves. Most of the guys are at least wearing collared shirts, and their pants seem to be in good repair.

But the biggest difference, and the one I wish to draw attention to, is the fact that the room seems to have been divided along an invisble line, with men off to one side, and women to the other. There is no boy-girl dancing whatsoever. No rope or barrier has been erected - people are self-segregating.

Before you leave this cesspit of prudishness, wait about an hour. Some time after the actual Havdalah ceremony (which I will not bother to describe here), almost all the guys begin to form a big circle. Those guys that do not participate are either adults or scrawny (but there are certainly adults in the circle). The music begans to build up slowly. One guy runs around the inside of the circle, revving everyone up.

Next thing you know, a full-blown mosh pit has begun.

The lack of education and "don't do it" approach, quite simply, do not work for the vast majority of people.

what do you mean when you say "the lack of deucation"

Just a couple of things to note. First of all, I'd be willing to bet that your compliance rate is not as high as you think it is. I'm not saying you're lying--just saying that the odds are you just haven't seen it.

As to the brainwashing thing--you can test well in individual subjects adn still be brainwashed as far as a dogma is concerned. I'm not saying you are--I don't know you or your school--I'm just saying that the two are not mutually exclusive.

To the first point, I have thought about that. It could be that a handful of students do violate the pledge, and I simply do not know about it.

However, in a school of under 120, any more than a handful of students becomes a significant portion of the student body. By that point, I'd hear about it.

Schrandtopia;12786928']what do you mean when you say "the lack of deucation"
If you have to ask .... :p

The lack of education and "don't do it" approach, quite simply, do not work for the vast majority of people. While it might be working for your group of friends (your choice, I suppose, and it's your right to make it) it doesn't work when applied to broad groups, as been stated several times. If I might quote Scott Adams (Dilbert creator), who put it quite succinctly:

You will do well here.

If you have to ask .... :p

seriously though, how much sex education can you give a person?

it would seem to me most of the shit that goes down is due to a lack of self-control, not education

Schrandtopia;12786971']seriously though, how much sex education can you give a person?Argh, i CAN'T take that question seriously! :p
It's good to try though. There's a few people on here who are utterly convinced that their lovers never seem to learn how to do anything right.

Schrandtopia;12786971']
it would seem to me most of the shit that goes down is due to a lack of self-control, not educationPretty much - but education gives faculty, gives options, gives avenues of control.

You will do well here.
Thanks :D
Also, sex ed is something you should be learning in high school, really. It's unrealistic to expect someone to go half their lives without sex, and the important basics aren't really that hard to grasp. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

I remember hearing on Studio 60 (hey- Sorkin usually got his shit right on West Wing) that teenage pregnancy rates among girls who took these pledges were higher than those who didn't.

Italian very vulgar saying about this:

"Le figlie di Maria / son le prime / a darla via"

literal translation: Mary's daughters / are the first ones / to give "it" away .

Meaning that "Mary's daughters" (girls claiming to have the Virgin Mary as example) are the first ones to have random sex (giving "it" away, "it" referring to the... ehm... female sexual organ...).

Vox populi, vox Dei.

I went to a girl's quincinera. She took a vow of Purity, basically saying the same thing as these girls: my legs are clamped shut until I get a ring.

From what I've heard, this pledge lasted less than 24 hours. (I don't know personally. I don't require virgin sacrifices, but I do have standards)

It's the parents making these things happen. Half the time, the ones making pledges and whatnot are the ones with protective dads that don't realize she's already given it away...in his bed, probably. Perhaps even while he was home.

Heck, I made pledges all the time (Catholic schools require some strange things) that I'd stop having impure thoughts and/or masturbating, but I've killed enough kittens to feed China for a month (wow, that joke was terrible. I'm sorry).

why?

isn't it their choice?

would you say the same if it's people pledging to not smoke or drink alcohol or to donate money or volunteer to help a charity/organization?

now as long as they are still taught Safe sex, or at least given the option to attend Safe Sex classes...

No option. Safe sex is something that everybody HAS to know about. If they choose to then apply the knowledge or not. Anything else is just ridiculously dangerous.

Oh god noez not the choices.

I regard it very similar to being taught traffic rules. You can always choose to stay at home and never cross a street, but chances are high that you will cross one one day. So you better know where and when to cross safely.

No option. Safe sex is something that everybody HAS to know about. If they choose to then apply the knowledge or not. Anything else is just ridiculously dangerous.

Oh god noez not the choices.

Breaking News: Less than 0.00057% of American Christians have engaged in a stupid excuse for an expensive party which also happens to promote a false sense of hope for naive fathers, wait why is this news?:confused:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/lf_afp/afplifestyleussexchastity_070322082138



Personally, I think it's a pretty idiotic practice.

Your thoughts?

Mah, it's a bit of a nothing really. They will or they won't what does it matter.

Well that's pretty fucking stupid.

But as long as they're free to break that pledge whenever they want, I can't say I give two shits.

"Purity balls"... Sounds like a kind of sex toy.

Personally, I think it's a pretty idiotic practice.

Your thoughts?
I'm with you.

I'm creeped out by people who fixate so much on sex, and who feel that it's appropriate to give away your love and your life before it's appropriate to fuck. That's just ass-backwards, if you'll pardon that mental image.

Add in the Elecktra complex crap going on at those "purity balls," and you've got yourself some shit that's too kinky even for me.

Breaking News: Less than 0.00057% of American Christians have engaged in a stupid excuse for an expensive party which also happens to promote a false sense of hope for naive fathers, wait why is this news?:confused:

Because this is General.

Had you wandered over, to, say, CreepRepublic, you'd see thousands of threads about some obscure thing an obscure extremist Californian liberal did in a small town in CA, spun by the Freeps/Creeps to show that liberal eat foetuses. Or something.

So choice is only good when people choose what you believe is right?

Abstinence only education is not a choice. It's having two-thousand year old hocus-pocus rammed down your throat.

The reason is the culture - it is religious, and not just one imposed by the parents and rabbis. Students actually believe it, out of their own free will. And before you accuse us of being brainwashed, we're the top school in the state.


Last time I checked, you can be brainwashed and still be good at school.

Why not? Did you go to his particular school? No? :)

I don't have to, to notice that they don't match up with any other data collected that I have ever seen on sexual relations at that age.

Thanks :D
Also, sex ed is something you should be learning in high school, really. It's unrealistic to expect someone to go half their lives without sex, and the important basics aren't really that hard to grasp. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.
Are you kidding?

Sex ed should be taught BEFORE kids hit puberty.

Remember, plenty of sex ed isn't about actual intercourse, it's about our bodies and our reproductive systems and how they work. For most of us, our reproductive systems kick into gear a while before we actually start having sex. It's important for kids to get information about their bodies so they can be prepared for the changes they will be experiencing.

I tell this story a lot, but my maternal grandmother was never told anything about her body or sex, and when she got her first period she thought she was dying. Imagine being a young girl who suddenly finds herself bleeding from a place she's not supposed to talk about, and having absolutely no idea that it's supposed to happen and it's normal.

Abstinence only education is not a choice. It's having two-thousand year old hocus-pocus rammed down your throat.
The abstinence-only crowd love to lie about this "choice" bullshit.

Comprehensive sex ed INCLUDES teaching that abstaining is a great idea. Comprehensive sex ed does not in any way require that kids have sex, nor does it in any way take away their freedom of choice.

Now, denying kids accurate information about sex (i.e. abstinence-only "education") DOES remove choice from the situation. They can no longer choose to make an informed decision, because the adults in their life have decided that they should be ignorant instead of educated.

You just made my death list.

We ARE cool.


And so civilized, too!

Actually, the reason is that my school is an Orthodox Jewish school, and the students take the values we are taught to heart.

So what? It doesn't matter if you take the values to heart. All that matters is that they're good values.

For example, a good percentage of the student body are 'shomer negia', which means that they do not have physical contact with members of the opposite sex outside their families.

*Insert joke about the south here*

Many more students (including myself) keep some of the spirit, but not the letter. I will shake hands with a woman, and I will hug a female friend (after asking).

Oh wow! You'll shake hands and hug! Why, next thing you know, you might even do a decidedly nonsensual dance with them! How about the foxtrot!

Here is an example of how the culture plays out. Many Orthodox Jewish organizations have retreats over the Sabbath. We then turn the Havdala ceremony, which ends the Sabbath, into a dance, complete with band.

So...how do you dance, if you're not supposed to touch members of the opposite sex outside your family? Do you dance with family members? Because last time I checked, orthodox Judaism is homophobic.

Now, there are a few differences between this dance and other dances. The first thing you might notice is that the music is in Hebrew. In fact, it is religious music (though a non-Hebrew speaker wouldn't be able to tell).

Another difference is the style of dress - very modest. The girls are wearing dresses or long skirts, and long sleeves. Most of the guys are at least wearing collared shirts, and their pants seem to be in good repair.

Boooooooorrrrrrriiiiiiiiiiinnnnnnngggggg.

But the biggest difference, and the one I wish to draw attention to, is the fact that the room seems to have been divided along an invisble line, with men off to one side, and women to the other. There is no boy-girl dancing whatsoever. No rope or barrier has been erected - people are self-segregating.

I'm sorry, you said you AREN'T brainwashed?

Before you leave this cesspit of prudishness, wait about an hour. Some time after the actual Havdalah ceremony (which I will not bother to describe here), almost all the guys begin to form a big circle. Those guys that do not participate are either adults or scrawny (but there are certainly adults in the circle). The music begans to build up slowly. One guy runs around the inside of the circle, revving everyone up.

Next thing you know, a full-blown mosh pit has begun.

Oh, an all guy mosh pit? Again, I thought orthodox judaism condemned homosexuality.

The abstinence-only crowd love to lie about this "choice" bullshit.

Comprehensive sex ed INCLUDES teaching that abstaining is a great idea. Comprehensive sex ed does not in any way require that kids have sex, nor does it in any way take away their freedom of choice.

Now, denying kids accurate information about sex (i.e. abstinence-only "education") DOES remove choice from the situation. They can no longer choose to make an informed decision, because the adults in their life have decided that they should be ignorant instead of educated.

Thank you for your somewhat more eloquent explanation of my point.

To the first point, I have thought about that. It could be that a handful of students do violate the pledge, and I simply do not know about it.

However, in a school of under 120, any more than a handful of students becomes a significant portion of the student body. By that point, I'd hear about it.

What makes you think you would know about it? You've explained exactly why it would be important to everyone involved to keep it secret.

I tell this story a lot, but my maternal grandmother was never told anything about her body or sex, and when she got her first period she thought she was dying. Imagine being a young girl who suddenly finds herself bleeding from a place she's not supposed to talk about, and having absolutely no idea that it's supposed to happen and it's normal.

that same thing happened to my mom and apparently my husband's mom, they both thought they were dying and were too scared to talk to their parents about it.

Add in the Elecktra complex crap going on at those "purity balls," and you've got yourself some shit that's too kinky even for me.

Pardon my ignorance, but what's an Elecktra complex?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electra_complex

Well, I basically saw what it was coming, basically due to the context.

Pardon my ignorance, but what's an Elecktra complex?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electra_complex

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070322/lf_afp/afplifestyleussexchastity_070322082138



Personally, I think it's a pretty idiotic practice.

Your thoughts?


When I was nine I told my parents smoking was a filthy habit and that I would never ever smoke.

I smoke 2 packs a day.

When I was nine I told my parents smoking was a filthy habit and that I would never ever smoke.

I smoke 2 packs a day.
Related story:

Throughout elementary school and middle school, my classmates and I were subjected to an anti-drug campaign that basically revolved around the message that drugs aren't cool, and therefore we shouldn't do drugs.

There was just one problem with this.

We got the message a little too well. "Oh, drugs are uncool, and uncool = bad. Being drug free is cool, and we all want to be cool, so let's not do drugs!"

But then we got to an age where drugs were cool. And since they taught us the importance of being cool, many of us concluded that it was a good idea to do drugs now that it was cool.

My 8th grade class actually made state-wide news because of an "epidemic" of coke abuse in our school. I'm surprised I wasn't party to it, frankly, because I found out later that you could get an 8-ball for the price of a hot lunch. I don't know how the hell they were making profit, but apparently my fellow middle schoolers knew how to drive a bargain.

So, to tie this in to the OP, it's pretty freaking stupid to use the purity ball approach to try to get girls to abstain, because your message will actually achieve the opposite. See, you're teaching girls that their bodies (their "purity") does not belong to them. It belongs to other people. This is not going to help them stand up for themselves and say "no" to sex. Instead, you've been pushing the message that their "purity" belongs to men. How could a Good Girl(tm) refuse to be appropriately submissive and accommodating of male desires?

I remember seeing something about this on TV a few months back.

I also remember desperately needing to shower after watching it. It was that creepy.

Idiotic messages and psuedo-paedophilic practices aside, study after study has proven that this just doesn't work.

Your thoughts?

Pedophilia for puritan Christians.

Pedophilia for puritan Christians.

Quoted for truth. Hell, there was a study earlier this year showing that abstinence-only education produces no statistical difference in average age of first sexual encounter, number of partners, teen pregnancy, or any other measure - compared to no education at all. Compared to a true sex ed program, where students were instructed on proper contraceptive use, STDs, etc., the abstinence program fared much worse.

And so civilized, too!

That was a joke.

What makes you think you would know about it? You've explained exactly why it would be important to everyone involved to keep it secret.

Point taken.

OK, I can see that you have doubts about the Jewish culture I am a part of. Fair enough.

That was a joke.



Point taken.

OK, I can see that you have doubts about the Jewish culture I am a part of. Fair enough.

Nope. No doubts at all. I am SURE they are human. As such, I suspect that they COULD act like humans sometimes do. You may be right about the level of adherence, but your claim that you would know is not one that can be supported.

OK, I can see that you have doubts about the Jewish culture I am a part of. Fair enough.

I'm jewish too. You know what I learned about us jews?

we're human beings, as equally capable of fault as anyone else. To believe that highschools keep a 99%-100% purity rate, even if they're orthodox, is ludicrus.

we're human beings, as equally capable of fault as anyone else. To believe that highschools keep a 99%-100% purity rate, even if they're orthodox, is ludicrus.
Yeah, all what would happen is that orthodox theists hide their transgressions better. People are people!

Yeah, all what would happen is that orthodox theists hide their transgressions better. People are people!

You can control when you have to fuck. You're still gonna have to fuck sometime anyway.

You can control when you have to fuck. You're still gonna have to fuck sometime anyway.

Wise words. Very wise words indeed. :)

"Here's the key to my chastity belt Daddy. Want to make sure it's on right again?"

"Yes, let's go back to the hotel room >.> <.<"

Wise words. Very wise words indeed. :)

Thanks! :fluffle:

"Here's the key to my chastity belt Daddy. Want to make sure it's on right again?"

"Yes, let's go back to the hotel room >.> <.<"

Lolz. (snickers)

You're still gonna have to fuck sometime anyway.
you don't have to, you choose to.

*looks for Bottle*


BULL. SHIT.

"Biological imperative" is an excuse favored by people who know they're doing something stupid, and choose to do it anyway.

"I know I cannot support a child right now, but I WANT A BAY-BEE! And it's, um, biologically essential or something! So I'm having a baby and nobody can say boo about it!"

"I know that girl over there has turned me down, but I WANT TO HAVE SEX WITH HER!! And it's, um, biologically essential for me to stick my penis in things! So I'm going to force myself on her and nobody can say boo about it!"

"I know I should control my temper, but I FEEL MAD!!!! And it's, um, biological essential for me to be raging and out of control, because of, um, hormones or something! So I'm going to be a flaming asshole and nobody can say boo about it!"

Fail. Millions of gallons of fail.

If you decided to make a baby when you knew you couldn't support it, then you made a bad choice. This doesn't have to be the end of the world. You can recover from bad choices. You can find healthy, solid ways to deal with the aftermath of a bad choice. Not all bad choices need to ruin anybody's life.

But they're still bad choices. Don't blame "biology" for the bad choices YOU have made.

"Here's the key to my chastity belt Daddy. Want to make sure it's on right again?"

"Yes, let's go back to the hotel room >.> <.<"

That'd be funny if it wasn't so close to accurate...

you don't have to, you choose to.

*looks for Bottle*

You've been sitting on that for what, about a week now? :p

you don't have to, you choose to.

*looks for Bottle*

I understand that, you choose when you want to have sex. But, eventually, you're still going to do it. You can choose when you do it, but eventually, you'll still do it.

I'm jewish too. You know what I learned about us jews?

we're human beings, as equally capable of fault as anyone else. To believe that highschools keep a 99%-100% purity rate, even if they're orthodox, is ludicrus.

Agreed that was my point

Hell enough threats MAYBE (giving them the benefit of the doubt) Maybe a few percent over the general population but no fucking way had only one (maybe two) people (which would be roughly 99 percent out of the 120 people in his claimed school)

No fucking way they are lying through there teeth

I understand that, you choose when you want to have sex. But, eventually, you're still going to do it. You can choose when you do it, but eventually, you'll still do it.

I think what you mean is that you choose no to do it but no-one chooses never to do it................although there are people who have

I think what you mean is that you choose no to do it but no-one chooses never to do it................although there are people who have

That's what I meant.