i would have sex with all this white girls

Hallelujuah! It's rainin' men!

hey hey!

wind

Xtian girls generally are, dagnamit.
-- Hi There! Dear Johnney B (john.barlo...), November 6th, 2006 8:24 PM. (stigoftdump)

That's racist!

No they really are though. I think I have a purity/innocence fetish. I had a big crush on an evangelical girl freshman year - her look was somewhat similar to yellow-jacketed girl, although I dare say she was prettier.

that girl in the front has gorgeous hair.

I think the question on most guys' minds is more whether they have nookie.

I'm attracted to a couple girls I know to be fairly devout Christians, and I suspect that one of them reciprocates. I'm not "scared" to approach them, though -- to be blunt -- I'm not inclined to invest a lot of time and energy in someone who may not be comfortable having premarital sex without hangups.

Yes, but the marriage covenant seems like a pretty obvious hang-up, w/r/t pre-marital sex.

Who said anything about "shortly"? I'm talking about "before marriage". If that's your definition of "shortly" then you're taking the real long view, eh?

Oh, really? I wasn't aware there were people who didn't have any sexual hang-ups. At all. But I'm sure you're right and they're much better in bed than people with pasts and feelings.

Yes, it would be much better if I made like a Catherine Breillat character and manipulated and cajoled some innocent girl into having premarital sex when they didn't want to, eh?

Because I couldn't possibly be talking about the idea that, as I know I don't want to marry someone before having sex with them, it might be better for me to avoid those who feel differently, since going down that path is likely to lead to tears, ruin, and unhappiness?

Now, if you're done with the sanctimonious grandstanding?

(Perhaps it was a bit pat of me to call "no sex before marriage" a hang-up. Then again, I think it's a silly idea, and is a very easy way to sign a woman up for a life of total sexual dissatisfaction...so I think I'm comfortable calling it a hang-up, at that.)

xpost

Oh yeah, totally, but if that's what Lurky meant, he could have "may not be comfortable having premarital sex" and left it at that.

Massive issues of guilt, shame, etc. being pretty much the definition of "hang-ups", no?

XP EXACTLY. Retraction retracted.

I think if I fell in love with a devoutly Christian girl, and she with me, we might well end up having sex before we were married. Not because I'd manipulate her into it, just because That Stuff Happens, as you well know.

But the odds that it'd mess her up, that she'd feel guilty and ashamed and like she'd betrayed her faith? Pretty high, I think. And maybe it's flippant to call that a "hang-up", but since it's a value I don't share, it's pretty hard for me to relate (not to the pain, but to the reason for it).

Wait, so what exactly is your problem then?

massive xpost! fair enough.

Well, I think "assurance" is a very, very loaded word to use here. Something more like "shared values", oddly enough: one of which, in my case, is the idea that it's not just OK, but wise to be physically intimate with someone before you get married. Some people are just plain physically incompatible; why should either person be condemned to a life of sexual dissatisfaction, or inevitable divorce?

but it also implies that you just aren't that interested.

In truth, in this particular case, I'm not.

I love this person's intelligence and wit, and she's very gifted in her field...but I'm not feeling the romantic attraction. The Christianity thing isn't the main reason, but it tips the balance -- I'm less inclined to "give things a try" if someone's values are so different from mine (and I do have some insight into her beliefs, in fact).

Also, I kind of think you're not giving the hypothetical Christians enough credit for making their own decisions, not to mention that total chastity is hardly everyone's choice of lifestyle, even in small sample sizes like one church or congregation.

It's a broad brush, but -- unlike other generalizations -- I do think that it has to do with something specific to Christianity, especially the evangelical branches. In other words, I don't think it's unfair to say that devout evangelicals are particularly prone to this stuff.

Plus, does anyone not have have ANY guilt/shame/modesty/boundary issues w/r/t sex?? Non-Christians are hardly exempt.

No, but again, I think that Christian theology and pedagogy tends to induce a certain set of issues that are particularly troublesome. I mean, I've dated former Catholics, people who were no longer religious, but still felt a sense of guilt and shame about sexuality that was traceable directly to their Catholic upbringing. Surely it's not unwise to be all the more cautious about someone who's in the midst of that stuff?

Also, I kind of think you're not giving the hypothetical Christians enough credit for making their own decisions, not to mention that total chastity is hardly everyone's choice of lifestyle, even in small sample sizes like one church or congregation.

True, but I want to be with someone who can openly embrace the idea that Sex is Good in and of itself. I don't much like the thought of someone who espouses one set of values in worship, and another in private.

That being said, if I met someone and were passionately into them in every way, I would certainly at the very least ask them what their beliefs were, talk to them about it.

It's unwise to take generalizations as if they're meant to describe you personally. Not good for the blood pressure, you know?

"But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars-- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur."

Or:

"Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.")

color me disappointed.

In my own case, I was all into the church thing at 16-17 but boy howdy I can assure you I still wanted to jump most of the guys I met like a normal person. And I didnt feel conflicted at all about it. I think some people I knew might have - I might not be a good sample here. But there were loads of goths and indie kids in the church and frankly, a lot of them were only paying it rock n roll church lip service and still clubbing and fucking on weekends.

Touché! (Sort of, anyway)

I don't know about Australia, but there is no such word as "irregardless" in America. The word is regardless.

Trayce, did the denomination you kicked it with (with whom you kicked it?) emphasize the "no pre-marital sex" stuff heavily? I can't imagine American-style evangelicals not feeling conflicted about it, given the rhetoric. On the other hand, Catholics seem pretty good at compartmentalizing that stuff.

I don't know, I have to admit it all seems a little hypocritical to me. Especially since I've dealt with Christian churches that took a more relaxed and accepting attitude -- basically saying that the key thing that can make sexuality a form of praise to God is doing it with love, tenderness, and mutual respect.

If people in the evangelical churches don't accept the party line, but aren't speaking up...well, it's easy enough to see the mess we're in. Everyone doing one thing and saying another, a la our meth-using friend.

(Obviously anyone who's in constrained circumstances -- i.e. forced by their parents, for instance -- gets a free pass w/ this stuff.)

irreXpost

It says lots of stuff: that a woman should not dress as a man, that we should all be covering our heads when we pray, and etc etc lots of literal examples. But lo, most of this thread is about uncovered hair in a place of worship!

Okay, seriously, I have to go. I'm meeting a bunch of people for the purpose of drinking booze and smoking, and while there probably won't be any fornication I wouldn't rule it out.

choose only two.

Yes, but the difference between the things you just mentioned and "no sex before marriage" is that, while the bits you mentioned are mostly either ignored or very peripheral, the latter is a central tenet of ALMOST EVERY EVANGELICAL CHRISTIAN SECT IN THE WORLD TODAY. Control of "illicit" sex is, like, the central preoccupation of these folks (or at least one of their two or three biggest bugbears). It's deeply disingenuous to pretend otherwise!

I dated a really ace Catholic guy about 6 yrs ago and then after some weeks/months the subject of sex came up (at the obvious moment) and he said no, he couldn't before marriage. After some thought I ended things, I just had to be realistic about it. He wasn't all guilt wracked or anything, just honest.

How needlessly pedantic.

http://www.answers.com/irregardless&r=67

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061105/capt.c40ed9bb02d54d54aa2dd4ad8485f026.haggard_sex_allegations_dx111.jpg?x=380&y=251&sig=uEELX1DxC8EQlH3Uw6A_Mg--

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061105/capt.58bd1d5f99dc4283a21d4735548be8b0.aptopix_haggard_sex_allegations_dx101.jpg?x=380&y=266&sig=cggvTBfzfPECs3meDNFeVw--

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061102/capt.fbc3a8ec54c94117a9f6ac9130fbd55f.haggard_sex_allegations_coea101.jpg?x=254&y=345&sig=Xg7T_1NkFFrWHVk564KgcA--

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20061103/capt.cd38fdd2b4f24910b376486d7ba744d2.correction_haggard_sex_allegations_codz108.jpg?x=380&y=274&sig=RSnmgPbz6IL2zfcKaUrCjQ--

Exactly. I thought that's how people did the pedantic thing 'round these parts! I spotted me improper grammar and jumped to it lickety split so's I could be the first one to point out someone else's gaffe.

"irregardless" is a word that many mistakenly believe to be correct usage in formal style, when in fact it is used chiefly in nonstandard speech or casual writing. Coined in the United States in the early 20th century

(xxpost)

Haha, yes! I didn't notice that kid until now but he is positively radioactive with adolescent lust for the redhead girl (and his mind is clearly not on Jesus).

Also, if you go from lizard king's right underarm, past the first head popping up, there's this gray-haired guy in a sportjacket who looks like a Jew going "Am I doing this thing right? What's supposed to happen now?"

http://www24.brinkster.com/virginsuicides/pics/main3.jpg

Chruches that do not look like churches are par for the course in nu-Evangelical World. Studies have shown that religious symbols such as crosses or murals depicting biblical scenes scare potential church-goers away, so modern sanctuaries are usually do not have these, or if they do, they are not front-and-center.

I had AP English in the same room I had sunday school in, only 8 years later.

But the photo in question is of an actual church, a church that is designed to look as far from a pimped-out Catholic sanctuary as possible. A church that is the forefront of a trend that brushes aside religious symbols in order to "not look too churchy." I'm not too keen on the fundamentals myself, but I think once you're tucking away crucifixes to make your place of worship look more appealing... i dunno, i think that's a little shady.

haha i love that word. can't think of anybody but Homer Simpson whenever i hear it.

oh yeah, and my church went to a high school in 1984, fwiw.

Maria- Whereas most Orthodox churches seek to serve a community/culture that have always been in the fold, Evangelicals are primarily concerned with bringing new, non-believing, un-churched people through thier doors and keeping them there (pls no discussion about passing the plate at this time).

The idea is that people who grew up in the Godless 2nd half of the 20th century are freaked out by religious imagrey and places of worship in General. Hence, you make your place of worship look more neutral, less religious, and above all else as comfortable as possible. It is my understanding that Willow Creek Church began this movement.

Also, due to the recent events, the day that photo was taken was an "over-flow standing room only" crowd. It's hard to tell, but it looks like the people in the photo are standing in an aisle.

They had to have paid off the fire marshall.

I would have sex with all this white girls. Seriously, every five seconds on the streets of New York I pass a girl I wouldn't mind sleeping with. I be like damn!

dude you're in new york

But these girls you really have a chance with. All the guys are gay.

visiting nyc was the biggest disappointment, pussywise, of my life

which is saying something

friday_daaaaaaamn.jpeg

(xposts i spent 10 minutes GISing for that shit)

I have no "chance" with any of them as I am married and intend to stay faithful. But that only gives me more confidence to walk tall and give them sly looks.

I'm also married and intend to stay faithful, but on the other hand there are gay prostitutes, massages, deep massages, and meth. It's a choice I'm going to have to really think deeply with God about.

Fucking heat. Even the ones that don't look that good look good.

i went there in the middle of the summer & none of them looked good! what the fuck

what abouts the flabbies?

I definitely saw a few chubby girls that I still wanted to do.

when i was there last week i was quite taken with a few girls. on the other hand, i usually end up on the subway with tons of hot fags comin home from the pride parade, but this year, they were all fat puerto rican gays and quiet dumpy lesbians from jersey. very disappointed in our homosexuals this summer.

i can dig chubby girls, but only if they're black (i'm serious, don't want to discuss it, just a weird preference in chubby ladies).

I think your hot fags must have been on my train into Penn heading back to the city from Fire Island.

Just like that, Thotiana is cancelled pic.twitter.com/zZESmmBFbF

— D (@ImHatedByAll) January 31, 2019

a thread from a different era

otm