Kisses are magical, precious gifts from god that should be shared only between husband and wife… and reporters and cameras and all of America.

30 and 28.

And flipping the rock n roll horns and announcing that they are waiting a night before starting their honeymoon because:

“We got business to take care of tonight,” her husband said, doing a little dance in his white suit while his new bride giggled.

Y’know, for the people who most claim to believe that sex is sacred and private, why is it that the people who pride themselves on not getting it tend to shove it in people’s faces at inappropriate times? It’s your wedding night. Virgins or not, abstinence or not, most people are going to assume you’re going to go at it. I mean, good for them, really, but what, is this their prom night, or the day they tell their community that they are serious grownups as a couple?

Bleh.

My then-boyfriend and I had a lot of experience fooling around before we had sex the first time (I’m talking 2-3 years - long story), and it was still awkward and messy and painful and sort of embarrasing.

Our “first kiss” at the wedding was sweet and joyful, even though we hadn’t made a big show of “saving it for the wedding day”.

I find it fascinating that the couple has two different last names.  That is, that she kept her name.  They are willing to go whole hog with one aspect of the patriarchy while repudiating another, both very publicly.

From what I know about the sexual orientation of Catholic priests, I’d say there’s a 40% chance that “Claudaniel” is either asexual or on the down-low. (Or he could be one of Dan Savage’s Youth Pastors.) Being celibate is easy when you’re not sexually attracted to adult women.

freaks.

Look, I will defend to the death these people’s right to practice whatever kink works for them.  But I’m not going to suggest that this is good for most people, any more than I would suggest that any other kink “should be” everyone’s orientation.

Oh, you’re right Amanda, sorry.  Shows how many wedding announcements I read.  A closer look shows that she is, in fact, taking his last name.

And I thought I had found a new example of fascinating contradictory behaviour.

If they are, in fact, virgins (which I believe they are, though you said it’s possible they’re not), maybe they don’t know they’re lying to teenagers about sex.  I imagine they believe the hype.  They’re victims as well as perpetrators of the lies.

Anyone who marries someone they haven’t slept with is in for some nasty surprises!

These people are sexual deviants,

This is exactly right, and how abstinence should be described henceforth. (there is a difference between abstinence and having not had sex)

When I get home this weekend, I’m going to hug & kiss my parents for treating me like an adult when it came to this issue.

They told me that they’d like it if I waited, but if i didn’t, here’s how you use a condom. The first time I did have sex, I was the virgin, not my partner. It may have saved me from the embarassment that I’ve heard about when both people are virgins.

They’re victims as well as perpetrators of the lies.

This is true for a lot of religious leaders at the Sunday School teacher/Lay Pastor level.  That’s part of the reason that people who live a ‘life of sin’ and then have a conversion experience are so valued - they provide contact with the things that are forbidden but do so in a way that is ideologically non-threatening.

“because it raises unreal expectations for how important sex is going to be for a relationship”

I disagree just because each relationship has its own “importance” level of sex. For some couples, it’s not a big deal, for Gary and Melissa, who love to make love, going without would destroy the relationship.

These people are up there with the dude who named his daughter Sarah McCain Palin—complete attention hogging divas whose agenda and ideology far outweighs their capacity for intellect. But more than that, my bullshit detectors are going off a bit just because anyone who’s so obviously jockeying for their 15 minutes of fame shouldn’t be trusted with their reasoning when they ask that everyone pay! attention! to! them!

Generously, I would give it half a year. Wonder if they’ll invite the press to the divorce proceedings.

From the Salon article: “When they watched movies on the couch, they snuggled sitting straight up, never lying down.”

OMG. They dated. They snuggled. What a pair of outrageous filthy perverts. Surely real traditional values and true 100.00% purity means MEETING your spouse at the altar…

Creepy was exactly my reaction upon reading that story as well, but only because I have a similar one. I was a virgin until I got married at 20, and I would advise against it strongly for anyone considering it now, if only because it raises unreal expectations for how important sex is going to be for a relationship. It’s great and all, and I enjoy it immensely, but it’s not the end-all of the universe—but because I’d put such value on it (or more accurately, since my church had put such value on it, and I’d bought into the social pressure surrounding it), I found myself with an unhealthy view of sex for a long time.

Incertus, Nacho Daddy on 12/02 at 11:52 AM

I completely agree. There was so much that I could have learned and not have been as dissapointed as I was after finding myself married to someone who didn’t even *like* sex and made me feel dirty because I did. I think that arrangements like this bar healthy and open discussion about sex and sexual preferences.
But then I suppose that’s the thing about first marriages… /snark

Abstinence is A-OK if you’re abstaining because you want to. If you’re abstaining because you think it makes you oh-so-much better than those other filthy sluts whose tainted wedding kisses are a joyless charade, then you can fuck right off.

“Wouldn’t you do better to stay single and just have sex once every 6 months so it feels like brand new each time?”

Boy, does that bring back some awkward memories of a couple years in my mid 20s. 

Before that, my first serious girlfriend and I did lots of fun things except intercourse for the first six months or so.  I think that was great even though I wasn’t a virgin.  It was a fun, we learned what we liked, and I think it made me better at sex in general by really experiencing that sex is more than intercourse.  If I were running sex ed for that’s what I’d suggest.

Damn right, Mister Z. The papers should’ve got a quote from a devout Muslim couple, who married having only only spoken to each other from around the corner of an L-shaped room with both sets of perants in attendance, telling this pair off for their ungodly impure behaviour.

Wow. So they’ll have their big OHMYGOD wedding-night sex, then they’ll tell everyone about it, then they’ll have sex regularly for a few months and they’ll be just like everyone else and they’ll have to find some other reason to consider themselves superior. Which I’m sure they’ll try to get the press intersted in.

DANGER: Sharp Curve Ahead.

Seriously. I went to a uninversity (my first time around) that enforced abstinence as a school rule - you could literally be expelled for doing the nasty. My own anecdata shows that we ended up with a LOT of early-age marriages most of which failed for one of two reasons:

1. Thought it was ‘love’ when it was really just ‘lust’ and didn’t have a chance to satiate the lust to discover if there was love left over after.

2. Person A (usually the woman) loves sex but managed to be abstinate; expects gobs of post-wedding sex. Person B (usually the man) did NOT love sex and was able to stay abstinate because of it; expected post-wedding relationship to be almost exactly the same interactions (i.e., little to no sex).

Both sets usually divorced within a few years pf graduation. Set #2 was more neurotically damaged by the whole thing, though. Sex is important to may people and you NEED to know you are sexually compatible with your partner….

I’m sure picking some arbitrary date late in life to have sex for the first time does make the event seem momentous…in the same way that holding my breath for a year would make that fist inhalation really special. But I wouldn’t recommend it as healthy or wise.

I really don’t understand what’s so wrong with saying “don’t have sex until you, personally, are ready to have sex (and are with someone who feels the same way)”. After you’re married is a pretty stupid time to be figuring out if you’re sexually compatible with another person. It would be like not speaking to each other until after you’re married. What if they’re a lousy conversationalist? What if you don’t even speak the same language?

And honestly, what people do report that their first time having sex was great usually warmed up a little by fooling around a lot beforehand—-they didn’t go straight from first kiss to sex within a few hours.

Indeed. In order to make sure it wasn’t painful or uncomfortable for her, my girlfriend and I worked up to it and practiced for an entire summer. And even then, our “first time” was mostly an “ohmygod” moment when we realised we were fully connected, so to speak. Certainly, it was a very special, intimate moment, but as sex goes, we’re mind-blowingly better at it after another seventeen years together.

He found other ways to show LaLuz his passion—like by cleaning her car. And washing the dishes.

Meh.  Leave the gun.  Take the cannoli.

Yes, they’ve heard “test drive the car before you buy,” but LaLuz has her own analogy.

“You can’t take the car out of the parking lot until you pay for it,” she said.

Pussy = property is what I don’t like about this.  I could care less if they do/don’t knock boots, or lips, as it were.  The idea that this woman in her own mind is selling her virtue makes me ill. 

I engage in sex and sex play because I enjoy it.  I don’t feel like I’m getting the worse half of a bargain for it being done out of wedlock. 

For their sake, I hope they’re sexually compatible.  If he’s into something she hates, that’s gonna be a problem.  I can’t imagine they’re going to work the missionary position for the next forty years.

Am I missing something, or does it not say anywhere that either of them is necessarily a virgin? I’m reading that that was their first kiss *with each other* and they hadn’t had sex with *each other*, but I have yet to see (and please point it out if I’ve missed it) that they weren’t already OMG IMPURE from previous relationships. I’m reminded of the story posted here about previously married and divorced Mariah Carey saying she wasn’t going to have sex with Nick Cannon before they got married, and how this was oh so missing the point. If you live by the pure-soiled dichotomy, once you’re impure, you’re impure and you don’t get a reset because you enter a new relationship (which I thought you weren’t supposed to do anyway) and you just feel like it.

Another LYDIA educator, Vasti Cruz, said the group isn’t telling young people never to have sex—but just to wait and focus on their goals.

Strawman much? I don’t recall any critics of abstinence-only education saying that abstinence-only groups told kids never to have sex, just that they tell kids that pre-sex marriage = sinful and post-sex marriage = magically perfect and life-fixing.

These complete strangers make me so angry I feel like publishing an anecdote.

Also, deep6, have these people never heard of test drives? If you’re going to make an offensive sex = property transaction type equation, at least think it through first….

It feels like such a gift,” said Melody. “When you value a kiss, it becomes something of worth.

Statements like this are what bother me most. Sayings like that or what one of those Dugger people said once that “everytime you date someone, you give a piece of your heart away, and then when you find the person you want to marry you don’t have your whole heart to give” (Blech) are so condescending to the rest of the population.  Their (the abstinance folks) marriages are more supposedly more special and meaningful than other people’s. 

Interesting side note: I spent the Thanksgiving weekend with a couple of priests and an ex-priest (who has yet to enter into a sexual relationship).  The subject of the church’s objection to sex before marriage came up.  (It boils down to people having sex must always be open to procreation, of course)  My husband (nearly became a priest himself) had a good laugh at them saying, “It’s amusing to listen to a bunch of people who don’t have sex discuss what the rest of us should be doing.”

I love how these couples are so committed to abstaining that they have to have chaperons in every room with them so his tongue doesn’t accidentally fall and slip into her mouth. Its like, they don’t even trust themselves, how can they trust teenagers.

And god, my first time way back was with a nice guy, my first serious boyfriend, who was also a virgin. And yeah, did it suck. I was all, “that is what the big deal is about?” I even thought, thank god I didn’t wait till my wedding night, because that really would have been a letdown. Thankfully, (with practice!) things have improved since then.

And the other thing is, there is something to finding out if you are physically compatible, because partners are…different. I’m sure this could be done with some fooling around yet not having intercourse. But to not even kiss?

BTW, did anyone watch the Duggar family show and see the cringing, painful, awkwardness that was the oldest son proposing to a girl he had never been alone with? After she said yes, they gave each other the most awkward sideways half-hug I had ever seen.

I’m gonna agree with annejumps because deep 6 beat me to it but the car analogy, as her comeback for the “test drive” doesn’t make a bit of sense. Unless they actually DID test drive it and it’s the kind of “You poke it you own it” vehicle version that they are each others first “car” and because they test drove it now they HAVE to buy it. They didn’t look at or test drive anything else apparently, to, you know, compare to see if the first car was the right car for them. She should have stuck with the cow and milk.

I know when I got my new car I test drove about five different ones, and then the day I picked up the car I liked my parents were still like, “Test it before you decide to keep it. Make sure everything’s in working order, etc. etc.” I guess my parents encouraged me to be a slut;).

Abstinence is A-OK if you’re abstaining because you want to. If you’re abstaining because you think it makes you oh-so-much better than those other filthy sluts whose tainted wedding kisses are a joyless charade, then you can fuck right off.

BANG-O!

I had sex for the first time when I was 25, after I met the man who would become my husband. I wasn’t sure we would marry, but I saw him as ultimately trustworthy and I knew I wouldn’t regret sharing the experience with him even if we eventually parted company.

Like practically everything else that’s happened since we got together, he made sex not only passionate but fun: My first time was quite good, despite a few technical difficulties.

Before I met hubby, I’d never so much as kissed a man – or a boy, when I was younger. I’d never fooled around with anyone, though I was a world champeen masturbator. I had no illusions about waiting for marriage, but I was determined, in light of how sucky my friends said their “firsts” had been, to hold off until I found a guy I genuinely loved and respected.

That sort of guy is easier to discern for someone at, say, 20 than it is for the typical 15-year-old; and so, yes, I would recommend abstinence for teens. Certainly, they should also be taught about birth control, but I’d still try to convince them ‘waiting can be worth it.’

Sex is a natural good, and there should be a powerful air surrounding it. It’s not all there is to a relationship, so I’d hate to see someone treat it as the core issue, but it’s still important.

Looking closely at the act itself, there’s two people at their most vulnerable, naked (presumably), and sharing pleasure tips; exchanging fluids, making sounds and faces they’d never want the public to know about in a million years.

Good sex allows you the freedom to be yourself, with all your flaws and foibles just hanging out there, and your partner loves you anyway. I feel genuinely bad for people whose firsts (and seconds and thirds and so on) aren’t like that.

Waiting and picking carefully doesn’t guarantee a good relationship or a good sex life, I think, but it makes those things a helluva lot more likely.

(On the article: If my husband had pulled this guy’s stunt at our wedding, I’d have been embarrassed – and not in a good way, either.)

I think I got mixed up with a quip someone made on Jezebel about this story in response to a version that didn’t include her comeback to the test drive analogy, because I didn’t pay attention to what deep6 was actually quoting. But still, they really aren’t thinking this through, for the reasons UltraMagnus noted. It’s nonsensical. A better response would be to say “We’re not cars,” but no, that doesn’t seem to occur to them.

If he’s into something she hates, that’s gonna be a problem.

Dollars to donuts.

Abstinence is a sex obsession—and for what it’s worth, I feel like it’s a form of “reaction formation” (ie, like the homophobes who are trying to suppress their own homoerotic urges). Unlike people who are just asexual, abstinence folks are all about waving their hands in one direction so that you don’t look at the direction they look in. If you have a kink that’s difficult to get others signed onto (and I’ll leave the examples up to everyone’s pervy imaginations), then a way to avoid the awkward conversation with your partner is to put up a front in far the other direction.  Ultimately, you’re going to have to address the desire… it’s not just going to go away if you protest the opposite direction vehemently enough.

Everyone I’ve known who is or has dated an abstinence fundie is absolutely obsessed with the sex they’re not having. It’s not about not eating from the forbidden tree, it’s about standing as close as you can get to the forbidden tree, pointing out to other people that you’re not eating from the forbidden tree, asking other people what eating from the forbidden tree is like, describing endlessly how you ALMOST REACHED OUT FOR IT, asking your girlfriend if she’s eaten from the forbidden tree and shaming the hell out of her when she has while mining her for details… it’s pretty pathological.

Statements like this are what bother me most. Sayings like that or what one of those Dugger people said once that “everytime you date someone, you give a piece of your heart away, and then when you find the person you want to marry you don’t have your whole heart to give” (Blech) are so condescending to the rest of the population.  Their (the abstinance folks) marriages are more supposedly more special and meaningful than other people’s.

Abstinence only advocates are some of the most meanspirited assholes I’ve ever met.  What a horrible, horrible thing to teach a child; that love is finite and scarce.

I too am deeply annoyed by the abstinence crowd. I can’t be the only one who finds it deeply inappropriate to talk about your sex life as PART OF YOUR WEDDING CEREMONY!

I went to this wedding about a year ago for a couple of friends who had rather recently gone fundie. It was an hour and a half long ceremony that spent most of the time denigrating marriage in preference to Jesus (“Marriage is alright, but don’t think it will complete you. That’s what Jesus does” etc.), and as part of the ceremony the pastor talked about their sex life! He out right said that they had had sex before but hadn’t in the past year, because they wanted to make their wedding day special.

Sorry, but i didn’t need to know that.

I talked to a single friend who’s in their church, and she’s said she liked that part and plans on doing the same thing. Of course, she’s only a virgin by the slimmest of technicalities and has twice called me about (stupid) pregnancy scares. But she’s so much more moral than I am, who by no means waited before marriage.

“Statements like this are what bother me most. Sayings like that or what one of those Dugger people said once that “everytime you date someone, you give a piece of your heart away, and then when you find the person you want to marry you don’t have your whole heart to give” (Blech) are so condescending to the rest of the population.  Their (the abstinance folks) marriages are more supposedly more special and meaningful than other people’s. “

These ideas about love are so damn childish that it’s laughable. I’ve been very happily married for 2 years, and this was neither of ours first serious relationship. I love my husband very much, but shockingly I’m NOT consumed by my love for him. It’s a very comfortable, practical love that works for us and is fun. And seriously, I love my cat a lot. Does that mean I love my husband less? I can fall in love with a kitten in about .02 seconds (seriously, who can’t?); does that mean my love for my husband is inferior?

Heck, by that standard the Duggars love their kids less than I love my fetus (currently 13 weeks pregnant). All my love for my “children” is on this little wobbly critter in my belly, whereas they have to split theirs 19 different ways.

Ashley—that the Duggars don’t love their children isn’t news. They’re not raising children to love, they’re raising God’s army. Love just gets in the way of training soldiers. Mrs. Duggar admits that she only nurses her children for a few months before handing them over to her older daughters to do the actual raising so that she can start making the next soldier.

I once read a survey of women who’d been married at least 5 years and considered their marriage happy. It asked them to report when they’d first had sex with their now-husbands.

The curve was bi-modal. There was a hump between “got engaged” and “got married.” But there was another hump, at “before we were officially dating.”

Whatever floats yer boat, but nobody who’s really happy and secure with their own choices feels the need to impose those choices on others.

BTW, did anyone watch the Duggar family show and see the cringing, painful, awkwardness that was the oldest son proposing to a girl he had never been alone with? After she said yes, they gave each other the most awkward sideways half-hug I had ever seen.

I saw that, late night channel surfing.  It was so bizarre I couldn’t turn away. 

Abstinence only advocates are some of the most meanspirited assholes I’ve ever met.  What a horrible, horrible thing to teach a child; that love is finite and scarce.

Agreed.  Teaching kids that will only fuck them up later in life.

Ponygirl: that’s interesting.  I heard the Duggars are having a parenting “how to” book published soon.  I’m sure that will make for educational reading.  /snark.

as part of the ceremony the pastor talked about their sex life! He out right said that they had had sex before but hadn’t in the past year, because they wanted to make their wedding day special.

Oh, lord, this is why I can’t go to churches any more, for anything. I would have had to yelp out loud at that, and I’m not certain what happens after that.

Stoning, if I recall correctly.

Seriously, my fundie mom dragged me to a church function last Christmas. I had to be restrained (mentally) by my boyfriend at the time from leaving and/or rioting when they showed an altar call video presentation. In the video, each person held up a sign with a single word - the devastating, horrible, going-to-hell-sin that Jebus had saved them from.  Smoking, fine. Alcoholism, fine. Promiscuity, yawn. OH MY GOD, THEY DID NOT JUST SHOW AN ASIAN WOMAN HOLDING A SIGN THAT SAID ‘BUDDHISM’. Twenty-five degrees outside that night, and you could see the steam roling off of me. I will NOT go back again, even if I have to lie to my mother about the reason why. Sigh.

Who are these ‘Duggars’? They sound insane. Not ‘quiver-ful’ people are they? Those mfs are scary insane.

I know a couple who waited until their wedding to kiss. They’re not bad people, they’re just kind of odd.

Ellen,

Re: Duggars. ‘Fraid so. They are a family from Arkansas that have 17 children and one on the way. All of them have names that start with the letter J. They have a show on TLC(?) called 17 kids and counting.

I kind of am hooked a bit to the show. I watch it in screeching horror. Last night they had a day (ONE day) where they traded roles so the boys had to do the cooking and cleaning and the girls had to check the oil and change a tire. Then the mom said that she did not encourage her girls to be SAHM and marry and have lots of children, it was just in their hearts and what they want to do. (facepalm)

So they’ll have their big OHMYGOD wedding-night sex

How good could virgin sex be? I’m reminded of the well-scrubbed newlywed couple in Forgetting Sarah Marshall, where the groom is grossed out by the prospect of oral sex, especially by his bride’s enthusiasm.

Regarding the car analogy: everyone knows you should break in a new car slowly. Only after a thousand miles or so can you really jam on the accelerator.

Abstinence only education is pretty stupid and harmful, for sure. I remember being told cautionary tales in my sexed class which followed roughly the same plot line: two people meet and are the ONE TRUE LOVE for each other, but one had the sinful sinful sex before marriage, polluted the other one, gave them AIDS, and now they’re both dead, even though they wore condoms!!! That stuff totally freaked me out and I think it’s really unethical to fuck people’s heads up like that.

But abstinence as a personal choice?  I don’t really think there’s anything wrong with that.  Some people like delayed gratification.  Imagining crepes for ten days does make them taste better when you finally have them (of course not if you don’t know how to eat them).  Some people’s reasons are fucked up (HELL, etc.), but some people are just into waiting for things, or are just cautious about risk, or just, you know, go to school with pricks and want to “save” themselves—from the trouble of dating assholes.

I also think there can be some benefits to delaying penetrative anal or penis-in-vagina intercourse, mainly because of our culture.  We’re taught that’s the be-all-end-all of sex, so it can be helpful to spend some months not doing that, but doing lots of other sexual stuff, so you can learn how to be good at all the other stuff. 

While there’s no reason per se that people can’t learn to be good at foreplay, or oral sex, or expressing their kinks, etc., once they’re into the P-I-V, on average they have less incentive to do it, because society tells them they’re doing the thing they’re supposed to be doing…that’s it, they’ve reached the pinnacle of experience, now you can roll over and go to bed.

I definitely agree with the idea of sex as a thing that gets better with practice.  But people start with scales, then learn cheesy melodies like “sea foam,” and only after a lot of practice do they move up to Beethoven. Maybe we should be teaching kids that intercourse is something you work up to after you can makeout, give head, or cop a feel like a champ or something?

Last night they had a day (ONE day) where they traded roles so the boys had to do the cooking and cleaning and the girls had to check the oil and change a tire.

Gosh, now which set of tasks is something someone has to do every day and which is something you might have to do once in a while? Hmmmm!

The vast majority of people who don’t need a fancy gown and a crowd watching to make kissing okay don’t value kissing, don’t ever feel that magical joy it gives you.  Because we do it all the time, so it’s lost its value.

I had a girlfriend who thought this way. Emphasis on had.

Don’t make me go all Julian Jaynes on a motherfucker!

So he’s got a reason for thinking God speaks to him specially?

Lexia, ohdeargod not the blonde Arkansas family who recently had a baby in a (Walmart?) parking lot because they couldn’t get to the hospital in time? I saw that on the news and poked a lot of fun at my Arkansas boyfriend at the time. I had no idea they were insanly religious - I hoped they were just…very fond of children. Or devout Catholics. Or something. But not quiverful people. *weeps* Those poor kids.

I hate quiverful people. Have kids if you like kids, okay? But don’t have kids because god needs Christian soldiers / witnesses. That’s just messed up.

Who are these ‘Duggars’? They sound insane. Not ‘quiver-ful’ people are they? Those mfs are scary insane.

Less ‘quiver-ful’ and more ‘quiver spilling out all over the floor’.

I heard the Duggars are having a parenting “how to” book published soon.

I can sum it up in one sentence:  Force your older daughters to act as surrogate mothers to your younger children.

So they’ll have their big OHMYGOD wedding-night sex

How good could virgin sex be?

Oh, I know, Hector. But they’ve got WAY too much invested in this being the GRATEST SEX EVAR to ever admit that it wasn’t, so I’m conceding the point for the sake of argument.

As an asexual, I fucking hate Abstinence-Only pushers. Not only do their policies do incredible harm to people’s acceptance of sexual realities and physical harm to those who engage in unsafer sex because of them, but they also make it harder for asexuals and even people who are genuinely avoiding sex because they aren’t ready. We get all the sideways looks and assumptions for their hypocritical sex-phobic bullshit and we’re assumed to be as nutty as they are.

Seriously, fuck them.

Queen Victoria was a virgin on her wedding night and the next morning she wrote in her diary that the experience of that evening was “beyond belief”.  Of course, that may have something to do with the reports that Prince Albert chose to take a dump on her for some reason.  Still, another fine example of absinence.

shaming the hell out of her when she has while mining her for details… it’s pretty pathological.

That’s pretty much what happens in many Catholic confessionals…teens confessing sexual acts while the priest asks for details.

Apparently Melody shunned dating for 7 years and poor Claudaniel had to wait just to date her.

Seriously, I don’t care about their kinks.  I don’t want to hear about their sex lives.  I really don’t want their deviant sex lives all over my newspaper.  It’s not news that some people are sexual deviants and obsessed with not only their own sexual deprivations, but every detail of everyone else’s sex lives as well.  NOT NEWS, Sun-Times, so knock it off.

I hadn’t even had my coffee.

Before that, my first serious girlfriend and I did lots of fun things except intercourse for the first six months or so.

why would you stop doing the fun things other than intercourse after 6 months!? Me and my boyfriend do all sorts of fun things (including intercourse) and have continued for years. Men who just decide to STOP the fun stuff once they get oh so sacred intercourse confuse me… and I doubt their girlfriends appreciate it.

You’re all being mean to those of us who have abstinence thrust upon us.

Yup, the ab-only people sure do love to brag about their married sex. They can’t keep their mouths shut about their private covenant with God and the joy it brings them in bed. At least for the first six months or so.

Seriously. I went to a uninversity (my first time around) that enforced abstinence as a school rule - you could literally be expelled for doing the nasty. My own anecdata shows that we ended up with a LOT of early-age marriages most of which failed for one of two reasons:

1. Thought it was ‘love’ when it was really just ‘lust’ and didn’t have a chance to satiate the lust to discover if there was love left over after.

2. Person A (usually the woman) loves sex but managed to be abstinate; expects gobs of post-wedding sex. Person B (usually the man) did NOT love sex and was able to stay abstinate because of it; expected post-wedding relationship to be almost exactly the same interactions (i.e., little to no sex).

You just described my parents (who met in Bible college and were virgins when they married), only they stayed married, and they haven’t had sex in upwards of ten years (my mom actually talks to me).  They love each other - don’t get me wrong - but they are very incompatible in that area, and I am very grateful that I found someone with whom I am compatible, having inherited my mom’s expectations of physical intimacy.  The difference is that I had loads of experience before finding him, and I’m also aware of the fact that there are other people in the world - but we choose to be together, because we love each other, not because we have to be together.

Those Duggars are pathological.  It seems obvious to me that there is a point at which having more and more children becomes inherently neglectful to said children.  I don’t care how energetic you are or how much support you have, nobody can properly parent 19 kids. 

Not that you couldn’t live them all.  Of course you could.  What you couldn’t do is keep all their names and birthdays straight or ever spend individual time with each of them and develop a real parent-child relationship.  How different is the Duggar house from an orphanage, in terms of how it is run and how much emotional support and attention each kid gets?  I just don’t see anything to praise about parents who put their kids through that on purpose.

I’ll just add to the chorus of people saying, “What the heck, we don’t need to know about your sex life, especially not during the wedding!” I’d be weirded out less by it if everyone knew them beforehand as a couple who were openly affectionate, and were joking about it at the wedding the same way they always did—although that might still seem a bit TMI to me. But this whole “Watch me as I deflower my nervous giggling bride”—oh, for fuck’s sake. *facepalm*

My parents kissed for the first time a couple of days before their wedding. They’ve now been married for 30 years this coming January. But I know the first few years of married life were really hard on my mom, even though they were very *intellectually* compatible and my dad tried to be a good guy, within the patriarchy they subscribed to. I think they must have figured something out, or maybe they were one of those lucky couples who clicked sexually even though they practiced abstinence, because all my childhood I would come home after school to find them kissing in the kitchen. (Nothing NSFW, just hugging and cuddling.) They were the most affectionate couple I knew.

None of their kids have “waited for marriage,” though. A couple of us turned out not straight, too. I don’t see that my brother’s marriage or my sister’s engagement are any less fulfilling than my parents’ except that they will probably get even cooler as time goes on.

Yep, he dramatically sprayed breath freshener in his mouth before he defiled his blushing bride’s lips.

Maybe he had stank breath. Was this their first kiss? Yeah? How considerate of him.

“Now, both the bride and the groom are abstinence-only teachers, so they spend most of their day telling kids that sex is disgusting and dirty, so I’m sure they thought that was just hilarious, and were completely unaware what the non-nutty population would think. “

Why do you think that abstinence only teaches that sex is disgusting and dirty? It teaches the opposite in fact. That sex is great, but that herpes and heartbreak are disgusting and dirty.

And perhaps that don’t give a shit what the libertines think particularly.

“I know as a feminist that my job is to say that abstinence is A-OK, and it’s your choice and choice choice choice, end of story.  But seriously, I fear that abstinence embitters people towards the rest of us who aren’t creating artificial barriers for ourselves,”

So, condoms and birth control pills aren’t artificial boundaries?

“and so they lash out and imply that the not-so-frustrated population are soulless monsters who wouldn’t know real joy if it bit us on the ass.”

Project much?

Why do you think that abstinence only teaches that sex is disgusting and dirty? It teaches the opposite in fact. That sex is great, but that herpes and heartbreak are disgusting and dirty.

by teaching that sex results in dirty and disgusting results, you are teaching that sex is dirty and disgusting. not to mention you’re just lying. Sex doesn’t cause herpes OR heartbreak, but you claim it does? the worst heartbreak i’ve had was from my first relationship, and we never had sex. heartbreak is about LOVE, not sex. herpes is caused by a VIRUS, not sex, and can be prevented with a condom.

So, condoms and birth control pills aren’t artificial boundaries?

Well, it’s a boundary for SPERM or EGGS, but not really to sex or love.

Is it tasteless to gamble on how long they’ll last?

Yes. But put me down for a $5 apiece trifecta of 3, 6, and 9 months.

Anyhow, folks have mentioned the Duggars. I fucking hate them. Hate them with a passion. I feel it’s the duty of all good people to watch for Duggar tendencies in people and stamp it out by any means necessary. And no, I’m not joking - they’re traitors building a militia.  I say we treat them as such, no matter how many people stupidly believe they’re “good Kwischunz ‘cuz they’re got all those kids but aren’t on welfare” (the implication there: “not on welfare like those brown people”).

Oh and beans?  Would you kindly go fall in a well?

“everytime you date someone, you give a piece of your heart away, and then when you find the person you want to marry you don’t have your whole heart to give”

As far as I can tell, they’re not talking about love; that would be indefensible, as love is not finite and actually grows the more you practice it - and no Good Christian will repudiate Love, as in a parent’s love for children or anyone’s love for their fellow person, a la Christ. (Leaving aside the expressions of that love when it comes to sinners…) But they’ll tell you that it’s not the same as that sort of love - which is code for lust. Which “cheapens” and diminishes the more you do it - I suppose they expect people to have their kids and then stop having sex… whatever…

  Abstinence is A-OK if you’re abstaining because you want to. If you’re abstaining because you think it makes you oh-so-much better than those other filthy sluts whose tainted wedding kisses are a joyless charade, then you can fuck right off.

BANG-O!

I second that. There are many reasons to be abstinent, as outlined above by others. Self-righteousness - no matter how good it feels - is wrong.

“by teaching that sex results in dirty and disgusting results, you are teaching that sex is dirty and disgusting. not to mention you’re just lying. Sex doesn’t cause herpes OR heartbreak, but you claim it does? the worst heartbreak i’ve had was from my first relationship, and we never had sex. heartbreak is about LOVE, not sex. herpes is caused by a VIRUS, not sex, and can be prevented with a condom.”

Casey:
Bad logic begets awful retorts.

Should teaching that sex necessarily results in pregnancy, and then either parenthood or abortion, i.e., responsibility, be banned, because it’s too heavy? Because it’ll make sex scary?

Are you an imbecile?

There is no form of “protection” that 100% guarantees safe sex. And no one here, no matter how pro-choice, will tell me that having an abortion is at the very least scary.

Blue Field Damian:

Yes, I will go die for you, since having a different opinion is, apparently, and offense punishable by death in your book. You fundamentalist freak.

“Oh beans, you hurt my feelings.  Then I remembered that I don’t need to cover up for my sexual issues by pretending that I “choose” to opt out, and I feel a lot better.”

Say what now?

Is this supposed to be a jab at me?

Can someone translate into something approximating English?

Again, project much?

Oh, man. Beans got owned so bad he doesn’t even know it, yet. It’s like those guillotine victims whose heads stayed alive for another minute. He’s still trolling, probably from reflex, long after he should have fled in shame.

Beans. Beans beans beans.

Because I love to play the good guy, I will run you through this.

Should teaching that sex necessarily results in pregnancy, and then either parenthood or abortion, i.e., responsibility, be banned, because it’s too heavy? Because it’ll make sex scary?
Are you an imbecile?
There is no form of “protection” that 100% guarantees safe sex. And no one here, no matter how pro-choice, will tell me that having an abortion is at the very least scary.

Dude. Do some math. Condoms are high 90s effectiveness, ditto for the pill. Double up and then get your bone on—10,000 times. That’s once a day for thirty years. You’ll get Mrs. Beans pregnant ONCE. If you can count the number of couples who actually had that much sex before deciding to procreate, good for you. So your idea that contracepted fucking will necessarily lead to abortion is simply wrong.

To repeat, explicitly: abstinence only education relies heavily on techniques designed to instill visceral disgust regarding sex, which is actually pretty alright and not disgusting at all. One of those techniques is to harp on STIs, which, though they exist, can be more effectively prevented (there are studies that can show this) with condoms than promises of abstinence.

How different is the Duggar house from an orphanage, in terms of how it is run and how much emotional support and attention each kid gets?

That’s (at least) one thing that pisses me off about Fundamentalist LDS polygamists.  The women are expected to have lots of children, which means any individual man could father dozens to over a hundred children.  Those kids will never have an opportunity to know their father.  Their mothers are effectively single moms, charged with taking care of several children, typically while living in desperate poverty.

Yep, he dramatically sprayed breath freshener in his mouth before he defiled his blushing bride’s lips.
Maybe he had stank breath. Was this their first kiss? Yeah? How considerate of him.

Perhaps Claudaniel just has lousy attitudes toward hygiene and appropriate behavior, but I’m guessing that most people would brush their teeth before participating in one of the most important events of their lives, whether kissing is expected or not.  Besides, he only really needed breath freshener if he was planning on cramming his tongue down his bride’s throat.  Hardly appropriate behavior, especially for supposed cultural conservatives.  Did they get married in a church?  As I said, highly inappropriate.

Be nice to beans, maybe s/he’s sincere?

Anyway, snark-free, I’ll answer your questions:

Yep, he dramatically sprayed breath freshener in his mouth before he defiled his blushing bride’s lips.

Maybe he had stank breath. Was this their first kiss? Yeah? How considerate of him.

If it was consideration, a stick of gum or a tic-tack would have sufficed.  No, the part being objected to here is the “dramatically”: he did this to call attention to the fact that he was going to kiss HIS wife.  It was a “everybody look at what I’m about to do” moment, and that’s not considerate.

“Now, both the bride and the groom are abstinence-only teachers, so they spend most of their day telling kids that sex is disgusting and dirty, so I’m sure they thought that was just hilarious, and were completely unaware what the non-nutty population would think. “

Why do you think that abstinence only teaches that sex is disgusting and dirty? It teaches the opposite in fact. That sex is great, but that herpes and heartbreak are disgusting and dirty.

And perhaps that don’t give a shit what the libertines think particularly.

Well, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s because in abstinence only they routinely have analogies that talk about how dirty and disgusting sex is.  As a former “abstinent only” survivor, what else are you supposed to gain from lessons that inquire “would you lick a used lollipop” or “would you want to eat this donut after the icing was licked off of it” or my favorite “would you want this already chewed gum”?  All these things liken dirty, disgusting things to sex, and then we’re NOT supposed to get the idea that sex is dirty?  And what people have already said about herpes and heartbreak.

As a sidenote, I don’t think that dry information about sex and contraception are particularly “libertine”.  I’m fairly certain that our sex lives are a lot more vanilla then you seem to believe. 

“I know as a feminist that my job is to say that abstinence is A-OK, and it’s your choice and choice choice choice, end of story.  But seriously, I fear that abstinence embitters people towards the rest of us who aren’t creating artificial barriers for ourselves,”

So, condoms and birth control pills aren’t artificial boundaries?

Like was said before, not for love and lust.  In fact, they’re downright handy for those emotions.

“and so they lash out and imply that the not-so-frustrated population are soulless monsters who wouldn’t know real joy if it bit us on the ass.”

Project much?

Not really.  We never called people who don’t have sex “soulless monsters who wouldn’t know real joy”.  In fact, I can’t find a single person in this thread saying that’s impossible for some people to enjoy delayed gratification as their own personal kinks.  We’re a pretty open group when it comes to people doing whatever (consensual) kinky thing they want.

Should teaching that sex necessarily results in pregnancy, and then either parenthood or abortion, i.e., responsibility, be banned, because it’s too heavy? Because it’ll make sex scary?

Nope.

It should be banned because it’s not true, and in most cases (most. see: abstinence-only ed, creationism) we like to teach the truth in schools.

“Dude. Do some math. Condoms are high 90s effectiveness, ditto for the pill. Double up and then get your bone on—10,000 times. That’s once a day for thirty years. You’ll get Mrs. Beans pregnant ONCE. If you can count the number of couples who actually had that much sex before deciding to procreate, good for you. So your idea that contracepted fucking will necessarily lead to abortion is simply wrong.
To repeat, explicitly: abstinence only education relies heavily on techniques designed to instill visceral disgust regarding sex, which is actually pretty alright and not disgusting at all. One of those techniques is to harp on STIs, which, though they exist, can be more effectively prevented (there are studies that can show this) with condoms than promises of abstinence.
Erl”

Oh gee whiz thanks buddy for playing the good guy. I’m mad lost here with the big fishes of sexual permissiveness LOL.

Yeah. Just double up!

Should I do that before or after I fill the condom with water to see if there are any holes in it?

http://www.guttmacher.org/pubs/fb_induced_abortion.html

Scroll down ‘bout half way.

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

Let’s see here.

So 54% of women who had abortions used contraception at some point during the month they became pregnant. Discounting the 76% and 49% who admit to fucking up, we have 13% of pill users and 14% of condom jockies who didn’t fuck up, or at least don’t think they did.

Oh Shit!

But that was just human error right?

Contraceptives in an of themselves, and infallible, like little rubber popes.

But peoples, you see, make mistakes, and end up large with child.

Therefore, and in conclusion, admit your idiotic mistake.

“Perhaps Claudaniel just has lousy attitudes toward hygiene and appropriate behavior, but I’m guessing that most people would brush their teeth before participating in one of the most important events of their lives, whether kissing is expected or not.  Besides, he only really needed breath freshener if he was planning on cramming his tongue down his bride’s throat.  Hardly appropriate behavior, especially for supposed cultural conservatives.  Did they get married in a church?  As I said, highly inappropriate.”

Yo yo awesome. Fuck as much as you like BUT DON’T YOU GODDAM DARE USE BIANCA BREATH SPRAY YOU FILTHY FUCK!!!!!!

beansie, I know you’re a monumental misogynist assdouche, and so does everyone else here, but for your own sake, I’d suggest you just sit down, shut up, and stop humiliating yourself before you end up as yet another entry in the long, LONG ban list around here.

Okay, I revoke it.  No way is beans being sincere.  S/he is being an idiot.

So 54% of women who had abortions used contraception at some point during the month they became pregnant. Discounting the 76% and 49% who admit to fucking up, we have 13% of pill users and 14% of condom jockies who didn’t fuck up, or at least don’t think they did.

And this is less effective than an abstinence pledge…how? (Note “abstinence pledge.”)

“If it was consideration, a stick of gum or a tic-tack would have sufficed.  No, the part being objected to here is the “dramatically”: he did this to call attention to the fact that he was going to kiss HIS wife.  It was a “everybody look at what I’m about to do” moment, and that’s not considerate.”

BUDDHA ZENO MOHAMMED! Have any of you every been to a wedding before?

“Well, I’m going to go out on a limb and say that’s because in abstinence only they routinely have analogies that talk about how dirty and disgusting sex is.  As a former “abstinent only” survivor, what else are you supposed to gain from lessons that inquire “would you lick a used lollipop” or “would you want to eat this donut after the icing was licked off of it” or my favorite “would you want this already chewed gum”?  All these things liken dirty, disgusting things to sex, and then we’re NOT supposed to get the idea that sex is dirty?  And what people have already said about herpes and heartbreak.
As a sidenote, I don’t think that dry information about sex and contraception are particularly “libertine”.  I’m fairly certain that our sex lives are a lot more vanilla then you seem to believe”

Ok maybes in fundy land they talk all about dirty lollipop licking. As a Catholic, they didn’t talk about any of those things at all. I’ll go dutch and give you the crazy fundies if you like.

I am fully convinced that, as a whole, I would rather not know anything about the Pandagonistas sex lives. Please keep your lollipop-to-ass-to-mouth stories out of my headspace RSVP

“Like was said before, not for love and lust.  In fact, they’re downright handy for those emotions.

That’s certainly debatable. I’m not a materialist atheismist, and so therefore I believe firmly in the somethingness of sexiness.

“Not really.  We never called people who don’t have sex “soulless monsters who wouldn’t know real joy”.  In fact, I can’t find a single person in this thread saying that’s impossible for some people to enjoy delayed gratification as their own personal kinks.  We’re a pretty open group when it comes to people doing whatever (consensual) kinky thing they want”

One dude told me jump off a cliff, into a deep well with a poison spike in it, unprovoked by any “soulless monster” talk on my part. So I’d have to disagree with you there, pops.

“beansie, I know you’re a monumental misogynist assdouche, and so does everyone else here, but for your own sake, I’d suggest you just sit down, shut up, and stop humiliating yourself before you end up as yet another entry in the long, LONG ban list around here.”

Oh jumping shiva’s ghost!

Thanks for the warning Blue Douchian.

“Actually, I believe it’s the abstinence-only people who are trying to withhold information (i.e., about condoms and birth control), not those of us who believe in comprehensive sex-ed.
Of course kids should know that sex has potential negative consequences.  They should also know that condoms are effective (though not perfect) at preventing STIs, and that birth control (used properly) is far more likely to prevent pregnancy than no birth control.
Give the kids accurate information.  It’s not rocket science.
Captain Bathrobe”

That’s awesome Captain Bathrobe.

However, I didn’t ask for your opinion as such.

What I asked was, in response to this bit of genius from Casey:

““by teaching that sex results in dirty and disgusting results, you are teaching that sex is dirty and disgusting. not to mention you’re just lying. Sex doesn’t cause herpes OR heartbreak, but you claim it does? the worst heartbreak i’ve had was from my first relationship, and we never had sex. heartbreak is about LOVE, not sex. herpes is caused by a VIRUS, not sex, and can be prevented with a condom.”

So, s(h)e is proposing that teaching about some of the negative grody favs of the abstinentionistas is paramount to “teaching that sex is dirty and disgusting.”

To which I replied by providing some pretty dire statistics regarding unwanted abortion rates amongst those even PROPERLY using contro-ception, and asked, simply, should we not teach about those because they might sex seem scary?

So, without expressing an opinion I’m not interested in on some unrelated tangent, do you agree? Yes or no?

“And this is less effective than an abstinence pledge…how? (Note “abstinence pledge.”)
Rebecca”

Try to stay on topic here. I know it’s hard in our multi-screen, hyperlinked world, but you can do it if you put your mind to it.

Ol’ Eri claimed that I could bone TEN THOUSAND TIMES without knocking up Mrs. Beans if I double bagged it.

I responded with statistics invalidating that claim.

Respond to those statistics if you like, but otherwise you’re not really adding much to the discourse, right?

/r/ SRB: beans.

BUDDHA ZENO MOHAMMED! Have any of you every been to a wedding before?

Actually, I was married last September, thank you for inquiring.  Mind you, it wasn’t a 3 hour Catholic ceremony, but I’m pretty sure that between brushing your teeth and a stick of gum before hand should be quite enough to keep your mouth at a comfortable level.  Furthermore, the main objection was still the “drawing big attention to it”.

Ok maybes in fundy land they talk all about dirty lollipop licking. As a Catholic, they didn’t talk about any of those things at all. I’ll go dutch and give you the crazy fundies if you like.

I am fully convinced that, as a whole, I would rather not know anything about the Pandagonistas sex lives. Please keep your lollipop-to-ass-to-mouth stories out of my headspace RSVP

This was New Mexico, which to my memory has a fair number of Catholics in it.  But, I’m willing to believe your experience was different, as different areas of the country have different education.  But if you were not a product of abstinence-only education, why did you come in and contradict people who actually lived through it?  And no one on this thread told you any sex stories: all of them are in your fevered imagination.  The small “lollilpop to ass” comment was about the lollipop-licking analogy in abstinence-only.  Perhaps reading comprehension and context are not in your skill set? (and why is RSVP in there at all? Why must I respond?)  Oh, and I think “Pandagonians” in the commonly accept nomenclature (back me up anyone?), though maybe we should adopt Panda-nistas because it sounds cooler.

That’s certainly debatable. I’m not a materialist atheismist, and so therefore I believe firmly in the somethingness of sexiness.

Neither am I (I don’t even know what a “materialist atheismist” IS).  I also believe in the occasional transcendent nature of sex, if that’s what you’re getting at with the “somethingness of sexiness”.  Of course, being able to focus on the transcendent nature is only because birth control means I get to ignore the very “materialist” concerns of STIs and pregnancy.

One dude told me jump off a cliff, into a deep well with a poison spike in it, unprovoked by any “soulless monster” talk on my part. So I’d have to disagree with you there, pops.

Beans, this isn’t your blog.  What you have done is the equivalent of barging into somebody’s house, screaming that they’re all libertine sluts, and knocking over the bookshelf.  To claim that you were “unprovoked” is a shameless lie. 

Additionally, I’m not a “pop” of any kind (does no one read their Ancient Greek any more?)

Additionally, is beans a Rugged in Montana satire?  The only other option is this really racist, sexist ass I know from primary school.  Is that you, Micheal Jelleberg?

“Actually, I was married last September, thank you for inquiring.  Mind you, it wasn’t a 3 hour Catholic ceremony, but I’m pretty sure that between brushing your teeth and a stick of gum before hand should be quite enough to keep your mouth at a comfortable level.  Furthermore, the main objection was still the “drawing big attention to it”.”

ZOUNDS. If anything it was self-effacing on his part. Or perhaps a public visual acknowledgment of something approximating “it’s been a long time coming. Here at last!”

To try and dissect this absolutely innocent act into something degrading is so mindblowingly bizzaro…

“This was New Mexico, which to my memory has a fair number of Catholics in it.  But, I’m willing to believe your experience was different, as different areas of the country have different education.”

Look, you obviously don’t have any idea what you are speaking of here. A catholic education isn’t going to intersect with a fundy one at any substantial point. Fundies hate Catholics, and Catholics aren’t particularly hardcore about abstinence education.

“But if you were not a product of abstinence-only education, why did you come in and contradict people who actually lived through it?  And no one on this thread told you any sex stories: all of them are in your fevered imagination.  The small “lollilpop to ass” comment was about the lollipop-licking analogy in abstinence-only.  Perhaps reading comprehension and context are not in your skill set? (and why is RSVP in there at all? Why must I respond?)”

1. Amanda herself made some sort of ass to lollipop remark, which certainly was her own invention and not taken from any of the course literature for a fundy abstinence only course. She invented it. I joked about it. Get over it.
2. RSVP is there because I was too lazy to remove the R, and also because leaving the R pleasantly changed the cadence of the sentence.

“Oh, and I think “Pandagonians” in the commonly accept nomenclature (back me up anyone?), though maybe we should adopt Panda-nistas because it sounds cooler.”

Pandagonistas is obviously my gentle way of belittling you all as loser sex guerillas.

“Neither am I (I don’t even know what a “materialist atheismist” IS).  I also believe in the occasional transcendent nature of sex, if that’s what you’re getting at with the “somethingness of sexiness”.  Of course, being able to focus on the transcendent nature is only because birth control means I get to ignore the very “materialist” concerns of STIs and pregnancy. “

Or, contraception creates an artificial metaphysical boundary between ladies and gentlemen, resulting in psychic distress. That’s Catholic teaching, anyhoo. You may say “hogwash,” but that’s the teaching. Not that sex gives you cooties.

“Beans, this isn’t your blog.  What you have done is the equivalent of barging into somebody’s house, screaming that they’re all libertine sluts, and knocking over the bookshelf.  To claim that you were “unprovoked” is a shameless lie.”

I’m not blogging here, I’m leaving somewhat boisterous, beat-poetry statistic filled smackdowns.

“Additionally, I’m not a “pop” of any kind (does no one read their Ancient Greek any more?)”

Yeah, isn’t she that bitch that lynched her kids in that Lars Von Trier movie?

“Beans:
I was going to respond, but then I decided that I’m not really interested in what your response would be.”
Captain Cumrag

You know captain, when I get trounced, I always have the good manners to admit my mistake.

You, on the other hand, decide to attempt to recover a modicum of self-respect via a flaccid, prep-school playground worthy bronx-cheer.

Salute. May you find a spine some day.

(Preferable not one grown from stem cells harvested from dead babies.)

“Thanks for stinking up a perfectly good thread, Beans!
Read this Onion article and go away—http://www.theonion.com/content/node/39100”

Don’t worry Cat Ion.

The Echo Chamber shall continue ringing unsullied by the textual stylings of one Stimpson J Beans for an infinity after you upload your indelible wit into the Mother come singularity. You can spend countless eons fretting over the war on your vagina via nefarious (and nebulous) fanny fascists, both domestic, and, a broad (Ann Coulter can be gholaed forever in Pandagon Singularity node!)

Pax robata
Beans

I’m throwing my vote in for a banning.  This joker actually thinks he’s contributing something, or “winning” some sort of insult war.  I vote for banning this no-nothing, illogical, jackastic, dumbass who can’t even bother to do five minutes of google.

Beans, if you’re parody, you’re a bad, non-funny one.  If you’re real, I hope that I never meet you in the fleshy world.

http://classics.mit.edu/Sophocles/antigone.html

“You, on the other hand, decide to attempt to recover a modicum of self-respect via a flaccid, prep-school playground worthy bronx-cheer.
This, coming from a guy who uses “cumrag” as an insult?
Captain Bathrobe”

To be quite honest, I’d have to say that anything (including future human beings created from or infected with) your ejaculate horrify me on a Lovecraftian level.

And you just put around blowing farts.

I pity you, El Capitan.

Beans. Yes, some people fuck up and don’t admit it. Hell, the cover-my-ass slice of the population is only 14%? That’s pretty low. The problem with contraceptives is nearly all human error. They aren’t infallible, of course. But, hell. Take any mass-manufactured product. Seriously. Go to Costco and look at one of those giant size boxes of bags of chex mix. How many have holes?

Now, how many of those bags will I try to open poorly and hit myself in the eye with chex? A lot more than in category one. So, yeah, no shit the problem is human error.

I’m starting to think that, after a certain number of comments, there are people who sit and wait in the wings to throw in a troll bit at just the right time so that they can inflate the thread to two hundred, minimum.  That’s my theory, lately, because there has been an abnormal amount of trolling lately, unless I am mistaken.

Oh shit, I was thinking of Medea.

OH SHIT I CAUGHT A LIE! BEANS: here we go. You’ve failed elementary statistics, by working backwards. In other words, it’s not that 14% of the population using condoms gets abortions. It’s that 14% of the abortion population was using condoms. BUT THAT POPULATION IS SELF SELECTED. If 1% of accurate condom users (ignoring fudgefactors considered above) get pregnant, NEARLY ALL OF THEM WILL GET ABORTIONS, and the comparison to other types of people who get abortions is meaningless in the extreme. You’re comparing apples to octopi. Thanks, come again.

Beans, you know the feeling that you have since you messed up on your mythology?

Dude, you should have had that feeling a long time ago about everything else you posted.  Being an NT does not make you right - and I’d wager you are one, but damn, you’re a shame to the kind.

“Beans. Yes, some people fuck up and don’t admit it. Hell, the cover-my-ass slice of the population is only 14%? That’s pretty low. The problem with contraceptives is nearly all human error. They aren’t infallible, of course. But, hell. Take any mass-manufactured product. Seriously. Go to Costco and look at one of those giant size boxes of bags of chex mix. How many have holes?
Now, how many of those bags will I try to open poorly and hit myself in the eye with chex? A lot more than in category one. So, yeah, no shit the problem is human error.”

So back to my original point, which you ignored.

We’re talking about 14% failure rate of people who are consistently contracepting (correctly or incorrectly, doesn’t matter.)

(YES) (NO)

That’s a shit tonne of abortions, right?

(YES) (NO)

So, as I said to Casey, who claimed, to paraphrase:

“Teaching that sex has dirty results is the same as teaching that sex is dirty and this type of teaching is bad and should be banned.”

ACTUAL QUOTE:
“By teaching that sex results in dirty and disgusting results, you are teaching that sex is dirty and disgusting. not to mention you’re just lying”

And disregarding ejaculate-filled vaginas, yeast infections, various variety of stank, ETC…

My simple point, MADE TO CASEY:

Was…

That…

Aren’t pregnancy and abortion even heavier than stank and the clap?

And…

Therefore…

Should we ban talk of those too for the sake of everyone’s sexual-psychic well-being?

Of course this is just a bit of sophistry, but so was Casey’s original pointless.

OH SHIT I CAUGHT A LIE! BEANS: here we go. You’ve failed elementary statistics, by working backwards. In other words, it’s not that 14% of the population using condoms gets abortions. It’s that 14% of the abortion population was using condoms. BUT THAT POPULATION IS SELF SELECTED. If 1% of accurate condom users (ignoring fudgefactors considered above) get pregnant, NEARLY ALL OF THEM WILL GET ABORTIONS, and the comparison to other types of people who get abortions is meaningless in the extreme. You’re comparing apples to octopi. Thanks, come again.
Erl on 12/02 at 08:11 PM

You didn’t catch jack shit.

They’re not my statistics.

• Fifty-four percent of women who have abortions had used a contraceptive method (usually the condom or the pill) during the month they became pregnant. Among those women, 76% of pill users and 49% of condom users report having used their method inconsistently, while 13% of pill users and 14% of condom users report correct use.[9]

So, among the 54% of women who had abortions, 13% of consistent pill users and 14% of condom users reported using them correctly. What we don’t know is how many other types of “contraceptive” users there are, but I’ll safely guess that we’re talking about a 90-95% group here.

I never claimed that:
“In other words, it’s not that 14% of the population using condoms gets abortions.”

And I linked nicely to the site for all to see. Sorry, buddy, try again.

All I’m talking about is the failure rate of contraception vis a vis your idiotic contention that “double bagging it will allow you to bone 10000 time and never knock up mrs. beans.”

So, kindly fuck off.

Bad logic begets awful retorts.

Are you accusing me of bad logic?!

Should teaching that sex necessarily results in pregnancy, and then either parenthood or abortion, i.e., responsibility, be banned, because it’s too heavy? Because it’ll make sex scary?

Are you an imbecile?

haha, you think I’M the imbecile? this coming from someone who thinks sex necessarily results in pregnancy.

i don’t think it should be banned because it makes sex scary, i think it should be banned because i believe lying is immoral.

my grandparents on both sides have been together for 60+ years with only planned, wanted children, 2 to one set and 3 to another. both suffered miscarriages and SIDS, but no abortions.

my parents have been together for 30+ years, with only two wanted, planned children, and no abortions, and both have had previous partners before that, with no children, and no abortions.

i have been having sex regularly for 10 years and have had no abortions and no children.

what is this MIRACLE you ask?! why, condoms, the pill, and depo vera! hallelujah, the secret to having sex with no babies!

There is no form of “protection” that 100% guarantees safe sex.

True, but it depends on your definition of “safe sex”. For me, with a partner I know to have no STDs, safe sex means “no babies” and the method I use has a 99.99% effective rate. That’s not 100%, but it’s close enough for me!

but for my roomie who only has sex w/ other women, well for her safe sex means something different. (lucky her, no having to worry about abortions OR pregnancy though!)

I fail to see how “abstinence until marriage” changes this fact, anyway (that no sex is 100% guaranteed to have no negative consequences.)  I believe everyone has a right to accurate information regarding reproductive biology to make their own decisions about their sex life. if you use protecting correctly, you are pretty safe, more safe than NOT using protection, which is what i guess you are proposing? (a diamond ring offers 0% protection against any unwanted consequences, you know..)

And no one here, no matter how pro-choice, will tell me that having an abortion is at the very least scary.

Uh, ok, not sure what this has to do with anything really, but I’m not really scared of it, well, not more so then any other invasive things doctors do… i would prefer to avoid it for sure. i also get nervous every time i get a pap smear or my blood drawn.  i find giving birth even more scary…

“Beans, you know the feeling that you have since you messed up on your mythology?”

You mean utter indifference?

“Dude, you should have had that feeling a long time ago about everything else you posted.”

Wow! You’re right! I absolutely don’t care!

“Being an NT does not make you right - and I’d wager you are one, but damn, you’re a shame to the kind.”

I don’t know what an NT is. Urban Dictionary says it means “an ugly girl.”

Aren’t pregnancy and abortion even heavier than stank and the clap?

A pregnancy, carried to term, is certainly heavier than a venereal disease. However, it is arguably less gross and definitely less contagious.

Casey

Here’s what I’ve learned about brick walls.

The only way to pass through them is to drive at them 200kmh whilst drunk.

Cheers

Beans, GO AWAY.  If you hold us in such contempt, do not grace us with your odious presence.

“Beans, you know the feeling that you have since you messed up on your mythology?”

You mean utter indifference?

No, the, “Oh, shit,” you said.  That doesn’t sound like utter indifference to me, but, then, I actually have some comprehension of the English language.  I know that, when it comes from me because I’ve fucked up, it usually implies at least mild embarrassment, but, on your part, frankly, it should be abject humiliation at being that incredibly wrong.

“Dude, you should have had that feeling a long time ago about everything else you posted.”

Wow! You’re right! I absolutely don’t care!

Your eighteen posts (at the time of this reply) definitely demonstrate apathy.  In Beansland.

I don’t know what an NT is. Urban Dictionary says it means “an ugly girl.”

Perhaps it would help if you added “J” to the end of the “NT.”

I feel it’s the duty of all good people to watch for Duggar tendencies in people and stamp it out by any means necessary. And no, I’m not joking - they’re traitors building a militia.

Um…freedom for thee but not for me? They have a right to do what they’re doing, and unless they break the law, you really don’t have cause.

Beans, your math, it is bad.

14% * 54% of those who have abortions in a month report Pill failure; that doesn’t mean 14% of sex-havers are reporting Pill failure, because ‘those who have abortions’ are a tiny fraction of ‘those who have sex’.

Gotta say, I don’t get what the big deal is with the Binaca bit. It’s kinda hack but it sounds like a genuine attempt at cuteness. It’s certainly not worse then the “hook ‘em horns” thing (and what was that about wiping his mouth? Please tell me you accidentally left out the part about the bride kneeing him in the groin immediately afterward).

And if this Beans character gets laid more than me I call a fucking Mulligan on life. Not mine, everybody’s.

Amanda: I know as a feminist that my job is to say that abstinence is A-OK, and it’s your choice and choice choice choice, end of story.  But seriously, I fear that abstinence embitters people towards the rest of us who aren’t creating artificial barriers for ourselves, and so they lash out

There’s two choices here. First one is not to have sex. Second is being a self-righteous asshole. They might not be independent, but really, there is a lot of things you can do or leave and then be a self-righteous asshole about it. (Dieting comes to mind…)

Beans. I apologize for the arrogant tone of the previous post: it was unnecessary. However, and this is where I do not back down, you’ve proven nothing about the failure rate of condoms. Let’s say that 1400 people use condoms correctly. Of them, 14 will get pregnant, and 14 will get an abortion. And let’s say 100 people get abortions. So 14% of abortions are despite correct condom use, and 1% of condoms fail. Do you see how your stats are totally irrelevant? They have no bearing on each other. Hell, 100% of abortions could be from broken condoms and only .0001% of condoms break. Your stats have shown nothing.

Thanks for playing, and for cursing me out. :D

In other words, ditto clew. Gracias clew. It’s always good to know I’m not completely nuts.

My husband (nearly became a priest himself) had a good laugh at them saying, “It’s amusing to listen to a bunch of people who don’t have sex discuss what the rest of us should be doing.”

To quote Father Guido Sarduci from Saturday Night Live in the 70’s “You no playa the game, you no maka the rules”

Says beans:

I never claimed that:
“In other words, it’s not that 14% of the population using condoms gets abortions.”

Says beans earlier:

So 54% of women who had abortions used contraception at some point during the month they became pregnant. Discounting the 76% and 49% who admit to fucking up, we have 13% of pill users and 14% of condom jockies who didn’t fuck up, or at least don’t think they did.

But we don’t have 14% of condom users or 13 % of pill users.  We have (assuming the survey is accurate) 14 % of women who had abortions who used condoms and 13 % percent of women who had abotrions who used pill contraceptives.

Which is probably why beans edited zirself later to say:

So, among the 54% of women who had abortions, 13% of consistent pill users and 14% of condom users reported using them correctly.

But, as has been said already, regardless of what percentage of women who have abortions used contraceptives and what portion of them used contraceptives regularly, and what percentage of them used condoms or pills, these numbers tell us nothing about what percentage of women who use contraceptives regularly get pregnant.

Planned Parenthood puts condom pregnancy rate at 2% and 15% for perfect and typical use, respectively.  For oral contraceptive pills, that drops to 1% and 8%

http://www.plannedparenthood.org/health-topics/birth-control//birth-control-effectiveness-chart-22710.htm

The pregnancy rate can be further reduced by using oral contraceptive pills and condoms, as well as by keeping emergency contraceptives on hand.

That’s my theory, lately, because there has been an abnormal amount of trolling lately, unless I am mistaken.

We’re just going to see more, I’m afraid. The prospect of an Obama Presidency is extremely upsetting to the Know-Nothings, and they’ll lash out in all sorts of ways, both on the blogs and in meatspace.

I find some entertainment value in watching guys like beans flail and crash and burn as members of the reality-based community (quite rightly) call him on his BS using facts and logic and math, but I understand how it can get tiresome for others. The policy here seems to find a balance between letting us observe the spectacle of a moron engaging in the intellectual equivalent of auto-erotic asphyxiation, and banning his pathetic arse once he gets boring.

Gotta say, I don’t get what the big deal is with the Binaca bit.

It’s moronic showboating by the groom, who’s probably secretly jealous that he’s not the one wearing the white dress and getting all the attention. I’ve seen a lot of wonderfully tasteless behaviour at wedding receptions, but most grooms at least have the good sense to at least stand by during the ceremony and let the bride have her day.

Those same grooms usually show some respect for the ceremony itself—especially if they’re religious. This gesture also reeks of the smug and narcissistic religious fantasist’s victory lap: “Lookame, I’m the bestest Christian in the church ‘cuz I waited! And here’s a preview of my reward. I win! I win!” If a cooler of Gatorade had been next to the altar, this goober probably would have dumped it over the priest’s head.

The good news is, this couple will learn over the next year that, when it comes to promoting good and healthy sex in wedlock, abstinence-only education leaves a lot to be desired.

I think the goober would have dumped the Gatorade over his own head.

Olivia: I heard the Duggars are having a parenting “how to” book published soon.

How to make a cottage industry out of a pregnancy fetish?

Beans: So 54% of women who had abortions used contraception at some point during the month they became pregnant.

(I know I shouldn’t, I just failed my saving throw). In other news 70% of people killed in car accidents were wearing seatbelts.

Antigone: I don’t even know what a “materialist atheismist” IS

Someone who cannot spell. And probably cannot read. And is not afraid to admit it.

This gesture also reeks of the smug and narcissistic religious fantasist’s victory lap: “Lookame, I’m the bestest Christian in the church ‘cuz I waited! And here’s a preview of my reward. I win! I win!”

No, it doesn’t reek of that at all, actually. It reeks of being a big doofus, which, not to be mean, is pretty much what you’d expect of a guy who’s never kissed his fiance. I’m with you on the part about how the groom ought to just stay the fuck out of the limelight, but I’m guessing the rules are a little different in the weird weird world of intentional abstention.

I dunno, maybe I’m doing this whole judgment thing wrong. For me, pity vs. hate is an either/or proposition.

I’m with you on the part about how the groom ought to just stay the fuck out of the limelight, but I’m guessing the rules are a little different in the weird weird world of intentional abstention.

Well, we are looking at this from the outside. If one lives next to a sulfur processing factory, one gets used to the stench—doesn’t mean it’s a healthy lifestyle, or that we outsiders shouldn’t point it out.

His Xtian fantasist worldview informs his being a big doofus, and his choice of that worldview is likely in large part a result of his inherently being a big doofus. Which came first I don’t know, but once you put a big doofus and Xtian fantasism together, it tends to become a self re-enforcing and vicious feedback cycle.

I dunno, maybe I’m doing this whole judgment thing wrong. For me, pity vs. hate is an either/or proposition.

It is for me, too, until these pitiful people insist that the rest of the public accept their views to the exclusion of all others or accept those views when they’re risky and dangerous—I hate that.

why would you stop doing the fun things other than intercourse after 6 months!? Me and my boyfriend do all sorts of fun things (including intercourse) and have continued for years. Men who just decide to STOP the fun stuff once they get oh so sacred intercourse confuse me… and I doubt their girlfriends appreciate it.

Casey - We didn’t and I’m not sure how you got that negative impression unless you are confusing me with someone else.  Notice I also said “I think it made me better at sex in general by really experiencing that sex is more than intercourse.”

I could see the Binaca thing as being done as a joke for the people in attendance.  I’m sure it would get laughs and is just one of those goofy things people do at their weddings to be remembered.  What I really don’t get here is the notion of having your first kiss in front of an audience.  To me, the first kisses in my life whether it would be with my wife or a previous long-term girlfriend are special moments of intimacy.  Intimacy is a private experience not to be turned into a performance for others.  Just weird.

Would you buy a car you hadn’t driven first? Of course not!

As others have pointed out, major statistics fail. Looking at the figures on abortion patients to draw conclusions about contraception and abstinence is like looking at the bottom of a lake to determine how popular concrete shoes are. Your conclusions will have precisely no relevance to the population at large.

I guess Beans got banned, then. Shame, I was kinda hoping he/she would translate this into English:

Or, contraception creates an artificial metaphysical boundary between ladies and gentlemen, resulting in psychic distress.

Because, seriously, what?

Or, contraception creates an artificial metaphysical boundary between ladies and gentlemen, resulting in psychic distress.

Because, seriously, what?

“It just doesn’t feel the same with a condom on, philosophically speaking”.