AJC.com > Opinion > Woman to Woman > Archives > 2007 > May > 09 > Entry
Are father-daughter purity balls a healthy way to discourage premarital sex?
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Diane Glass, a left-leaning columnist, writes the commentary this week and Shaunti Feldhahn, a right-leaning columnist, responds.
Commentary
Among the Christian evangelical set, purity balls are surfacing as a legitimate way to curb pre-marital sex. During these balls, young girls are asked to sign a contract promising to remain chaste until they offer up their virginity like a wedding present to their husbands. As the spiritual head of the household, their fathers vow to protect their virtue.
After the ball, initiated girls can buy merchandise. There are virginity survival kits that include lipstick and nail polish, or purity rings, some of which that have two stones symbolizing the watchful eyes of daddy.
Am I the only one who feels like taking a bath now? Yuck. This isn’t father-daughter bonding. This is disturbing.
I’m not against father-daughter bonding. I’m not against promoting abstinence. I am against the troubling message at the core of purity balls, a chastity belt ceremony dressed up as a prom date with daddy. No amount of rationalization about father-daughter bonding can change the historical undercurrent at play in these creepy ceremonies.
Today’s more secular marriage ceremonies are reminiscent of how women were regarded. A father offers a bride up to her husband in an exchange before God. White wedding dresses signify purity. The derivation of the word “virgin” solely refers to female purity, which is why you never hear about mother-son purity balls.
In other countries female sexuality is under even tighter lock and key. Women are sometimes stoned to death for being the victims of rape. Brides are burned to death in the Indian ceremonies over dowry squabbles. Jihadists are promised 72 virgins in heaven if they die for the cause. And women cover themselves from head to toe in Islamic countries to avoid disgracing their husbands with immodest displays.
Purity balls perpetuate the message that girls are property, that their sexuality isn’t their own, that their desires must be contained. But a girl’s sexuality is a personal journey, not one that should be governed by contract and celebrated at a party where daddy is your date. We can’t keep sending the cultural message that women are alive to obey and please men.
Rebuttal
I am saddened that anyone could label such a beautiful movement as “creepy” and “disturbing.” The reason purity balls are springing up all over the world is that fathers are realizing a deep need to be involved in their daughters’ lives, to help them see that they are valued and valuable — that their virtue is a precious gift.
Purity balls originated in 1998 with Randy Wilson, co-founder of the group Generations of Light (www.generationsoflight.com); hundreds now take place every year. In an interview, Wilson shared that although most teenage girls love attending a black-tie event with Dad, the background focus is even more on the father than the daughter. 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. Wilson emphasized that “we are telling fathers that you are important in her life, so do things to help her succeed in healthy relationships. When you teach your children what healthy relationships look like, you help them decide what is right and wrong, and give them the tools to protect themselves.”
Although Wilson’s purity balls do not include a public pledge of premarital abstinence, those of other groups do - such as those promoted by the secular National Abstinence Clearinghouse (www.abstinence.net). In an era when our culture practically taunts teenage girls into giving themselves away -and studies are finding just how emotionally damaging that can be — vows made in front of family and friends add much-needed accountability and support. I hope all fathers would care enough about their kids to help them resist the damaging temptations that they face every day.
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.
I hope those who oppose this movement will actually look in on a purity ball someday. Because if they do, I believe they will come away realizing that any movement promoting healthy, strong, caring woman who value and respect themselves is something to applaud.
Comments
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