Fashionistas you have arrived 3-25-03 - 10-3-03 - Page 1075

Atticus Grinch · 07-31-2003, 01:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I read somewhere that a lot of the sexual mores in the bible were really codes regarding property and misunderstandings about the science of procreation.

Student: Rabbi, can a woman bear a child after her husband has knowledge of her anus?

Rabbi: Of course it is so. Where else would Pharisees come from?

[Klezmer music.]

Quote:

With regardi to procreation, I think--and another pedantic person can correct me if I'm totally off on this-- the understanding at the time was that semen contained the whole of nascent life -- the woman is just incubating space (and property). Hence the spilling of semen for any non-procreative purpose -- in coitus interruptus, male homosexual acts or male masturbation -- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. Every sperm is sacred, and so forth. If the point of life was to have as many kids as possible, incentives to directing your sperm to the proper recepticle had to be developed.

[PEDANTIC]This thesis is supported by the fact that several schools of Jewish ethics permit birth control to be undertaken by a woman, but not by a man. A woman may do everything in her power to avoid pregnancy, so long as the man does everything in his power to impregnate the woman. Hilarity ensues![/PEDANTIC]

greatwhitenorthchick · 07-31-2003, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I read somewhere that a lot of the sexual mores in the bible were really codes regarding property and misunderstandings about the science of procreation.

I am sure that is true. What bothers me is that people preaching humility (a good thing) have the nerve to slap the brand of "God" on some system specifically and only concerned with petty human needs and desires in order to foist it on the rest of us. My cat probably has more of a clue about what God's plan is than 99.99999% of people.

I realize I am saying obvious things probably better expressed by a 10-year old. Doesn't mean it still doesn't bug me. And I have heard the arguments that he doesn't exist so why not appropriate his name as a marketing tool. That doesn't really wash with me either.

Shape Shifter · 07-31-2003, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by greatwhitenorthchick
My cat probably has more of a clue about what God's plan is than 99.99999% of people.

As long as His plan involves flaked Ocean Whitefish, shitting in a box, and Q-Tip worship.

notcasesensitive · 07-31-2003, 02:05 PM

http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues...l/1/index.html

... but then anyone with any sense would! Right, E/O?

07-31-2003, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Replaced_Texan
I read somewhere that a lot of the sexual mores in the bible were really codes regarding property and misunderstandings about the science of procreation.

Adultry, brother-mother incest, and brother-sister incest were basically "don't fucking touch my property" prohibitions. They don't make as big of a deal about father-daughter incest, cuz she's your property until you sell her off to the guy with the most goats.

With regardi to procreation, I think--and another pedantic person can correct me if I'm totally off on this-- the understanding at the time was that semen contained the whole of nascent life -- the woman is just incubating space (and property). Hence the spilling of semen for any non-procreative purpose -- in coitus interruptus, male homosexual acts or male masturbation -- was considered tantamount to abortion or murder. Every sperm is sacred, and so forth. If the point of life was to have as many kids as possible, incentives to directing your sperm to the proper recepticle had to be developed.

Then the assberets who wrote the bibile were clearly closet cases. bc on this theory, a blowjob swallow would be tantamount to canniablaism and what man doesnt enjoy blowjobs and sploogin? None. So by denying themselves access to their desired sex partenrs, men, they could limit sex to the obligatory fuck the wife. ANd probably the young boys cruising around bethlehem back in the day.

purse junkie · 07-31-2003, 02:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
http://www.dallasobserver.com/issues...l/1/index.html

... but then anyone with any sense would! Right, E/O?

Sounds like Plano didn't love him much either.

notcasesensitive · 07-31-2003, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by purse junkie
Sounds like Plano didn't love him much either.

Yes, but in fairness, Plano is soulless and lacks the ability to love.

Did you just call me Coltrane? · 07-31-2003, 02:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Puft Daddy
Here's a name to add to the NOT list: Jennifer Love (what the hell happened to my career) Hewitt.

I vehemently disagree. I would so give her the gook.

Edited to add that I've never written the above sentence down before. I hope no one thought this was a racial comment. "Gook", in this sentence, rhymes with "book" and means, well, "jism". I read it over again and alarms started going off in my head...

sebastian_dangerfield · 07-31-2003, 02:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by ThurgreedMarshall
You people are in-fucking-sane.

TM

Cruz and Hayek are simply extraordinary.

S(Both could make dead men cum)D

purse junkie · 07-31-2003, 02:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by notcasesensitive
Yes, but in fairness, Plano is soulless and lacks the ability to love.

That's so sad. Perhaps an extended visit by Dr. Phil is in order?

NotFromHere · 07-31-2003, 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
So what happened? God pulled the Pope aside and said, hey, gays are going mainstream. First there was Will and Grace, then Vermont and Hawaii, then Queer as Folk. Then the Supreme Court said they could wed. Now Brave has gone totally gay and Queer Eye is a huge hit. It is time to bust out the whip and stop the insanity?

Thats not a good enough answer. We dont even know that God is anti gay. Where is the jurisdiction?

As for Bush, what happened to Life Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness? What is this The People bullshit?

Here's what people keep forgetting. The ruling was that laws regulating sodomy were impinging upon privacy. What people keep forgetting is that sodomy is not just for gay people. Sodomy includes oral contact with the opposite sex. Some people are freaking out that the ruling would lead to gay marriages. What? Don't forget the blow jobs. It's all about the blow jobs.

Shape Shifter · 07-31-2003, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by paigowprincess
ANd probably the young boys cruising around bethlehem back in the day.

Somebody's got to put the "man" in "manger."

Shape Shifter · 07-31-2003, 02:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Don't forget the blow jobs. It's all about the blow jobs.

focus.

NotFromHere · 07-31-2003, 02:32 PM

Will strip stories split Jen and Ben? (Please say the answer to this question is yes).
July 31 — Is “Bennifer” headed for splitsville? Ben Affleck and Jennifer Lopez’s very public relationship is very much on the rocks because of the bombshell allegations in the new issue of the National Enquirer that Ben was cavorting with strippers, says a source who knows the couple well. “IT’S NOT REALLY the strip club that’s the problem,” says the insider. “It’s all the sordid details about taking the girls back to (Christian Slater’s) house and what they did with them there. This relationship had issues before this article came out, and I think those details are going to make Jennifer snap. They may be making some public appearances together to promote their movie ‘Gigli’ but it’s going to be tough.”
The article also alleges that cocaine and booze were available at the party — although it never says they were used by Affleck, who had a highly-publicized stint in rehab.
Affleck’s lawyer has denied the story, calling it “totally false.”

I did not snort

Edited to add Reese Witherspoon to the NOT HOT list.

Sidd Finch · 07-31-2003, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NotFromHere
Don't forget the blow jobs. It's all about the blow jobs.

That should be added to the standard marriage vows.