Actually, any attempt at thought exceeds your capabilities, but that’s not my fault.
What the OP claims is at odds with what she writes, as I quoted above. I am sorry that grasping what someone actually says when it is in conflict with what they say they are saying is beyond your limited abilities, but whatever, it takes all kinds to make a world. The fact that you have the cognitive ability of cheese doesn’t concern me.
Well, even she got pregnant before being married.
Well she has good techniques down to fight those sexual urges.
It might make sense for to form an abstinence club of some sort to find like-minded people in an environment where most people are acting quite the opposite. This, though, is just thinly-veiled religious sanctimonious bullshit.
The main interviewee definitely has some issues and is clearly unhealthy.
Given that no-one else seems to agree with you on this, possibly the faulty reasoning is yours?
Go on, do me - what are my mental abilities equivalent to?
Dude, Nelson Mandela is hot.
And yeah, I have no objection to people abstaining from sex. I also have no objection to those people banding together. They may as well, after all. I don’t even object to them evangelizing. I don’t *like * it, but they have a right.
My only objection is to the blatant misinformation they use to do it. It’s okay to say “Sex is complicated, and potentially dangerous, and certainly distracting, and the decision to abstain could be a very positive one for you.” In fact, it seems to me that there are enough *good * reasons to abstain that they *should * be able to skip the blatant misinformation.
Given how well rewarded I am for my abilities, I can’t say I am bothered by this. My cognitive abilities must be La Tur or better yet, Epoisses. Whatever I am doing, I must be doing it right.
Good reasons to abstain? Surely you must be … mistaken.
They do come up occasionally. When you slip in your own vomit or your potential partner’s, that’s usually a good reason to abstain. (I mean, unless that’s your kick.)
I don’t see any generalized “outrage” against abstinence in this thread. I do see a generalized outrage against a group of people who actively promote the notion that because abstinence is a good choice for them, it’s the best choice for everyone. I also see a generalized outrage against the use of poor logic, and against inaccuracies presented as “fact,” to support the notion that TOTAL sexual abstinence is the ONLY appropriate choice for ALL unmarried people.
I dunno. If you want an insult, you have to start. My posts in this thread, and generally in all threads, simply lay out the point I’m trying to make, unless someone insults me first.
The part with him was the funniest. I know I’m going to hell, but this horny, frustrated, overly religious guy whose father was put in jail for child molestation wanting to be a priest made me laugh.
So did her boyfriend who goes to Georgetown not wanting to be interviewed. Uh huh.
I stopped reading the OP when Essay admitted to being a slut. I don’t want to taint my brain with your evil, slutty ways.
… I can hook you up with my sister. She’s got no sense of humor either.
(Virginity doesn’t bother me, but it’s not, y’know, WOOO! like some crazy people think either) (But you know that)
You thought that was funny? I thought hte part where it mentioned his father being in jail for molestation very sad–and it made me wonder if something had happened to the guy when he was younger to make him so odd about sex. I feel bad for the guy. I get the sense that maybe he, and definitely the girl, Fredell, could benefit from some therapy.
Erm… you need other people *to have sex with * (in the absence of picnic tables). What, exactly, do you need other people *to not have sex with * for?
To form mutually agreeable sexless relationships, or to find comraderie amongst people who feel similarly to you on an unpopular issue.
Ah. #1 makes a lot of sense, actually.
Well, I did hate myself for laughing, and I agree with you about the therapy. For him, anyway. She seems not to be particularly interested in sex. Her pushing abstinence seems to come from her religious bent more than anything. He, on the other hand, does seem very interested, and wants to repress it. How many priests got into trouble because they felt they had to repress their sexuality, and couldn’t, and it spilled out in an inappropriate way. Even as un- and anti- religious as I am, I don’t think anyone became a priest in order to do evil things.
Awesome rant,** Essay**; you’re right on the mark. I’m glad to see that the thread has been mostly, if not entirely, in agreement with you, despite some misunderstandings. It’s a pretty awesome board, so please stick around and write some more cool stuff.
Anyway, I just wanted to chime in that my favorite pet peeve about feminism is when some feminists forget what it’s all about. Feminism is about CHOICE. Enough said. I consider myself a feminist, and I say those three words whenever I get razzed for changing my last name when I got married, wanting to be a soccer mom someday, talking about babies all the time, et cetera. Oh, and on a side note, I don’t believe in virginity. I wrote a long post on it once, including lots of gory details of my own relationship, and it made me feel really good to get it off my chest. I had sex before I was married, and I didn’t lose a goddamn thing. I’m still whole, I’m still a good person, I’m still worth all the respect that the man in my life and all of the men and women who love me–get this–actually GIVE me. Who’d have thunk it? I had sex before marriage and my husband still respects me. Imagine that.
Lastly, count me in for feeling sorry for the young man and woman in the NYT article. I think they probably both have issues that go back to childhood. It sounds like she’s happy with her coping mechanisms, but it sure doesn’t sound like he is. Pity, for such intelligent people.
If all they were doing was supporting each other, that’d be fine. But they are sending out mass mailings (at first just to women, until they were called on it) strongly implying that women who didn’t abstain were worth less than those who do. The idea that people who practice oral sex are engaging in something disgusting and degrading is very judgmental language, don’t you think? From the context of the statement, Fredell seemed to be stating that oral sex is wrong even for married people. That’s just a bit much.
They also promulgate incorrect factual information to bolster their position. Not to mention the worst part to me, wherein they stated that since gay people cannot marry, they should remain celibate for life, and that this position should be seen as humorous somehow.
If they could refrain from such tactics, I don’t think the OP would feel the need to rant about them. Thus, it’s not the abstinence that’s drawing her and other posters’ ire, it’s the way the organization is promoting its views.