Truth. . .want some?

traumaqueen · Post by **traumaqueen** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:50 am

...ridiculous.
indeed.
i will cut you all.
jerkss.

Krieves · Post by **Krieves** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 9:39 am

Lou B do B dooo · Post by **Lou B do B dooo** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 12:02 pm

Be very careful in some cases once the ring comes out of the box and is placed on the finger. The remote rarely works again.....

HillgrassBluebillyFTW · Mon Feb 12, 2007 2:45 pm

yeah.. but read the fine print three months after you slide the real ring on and say I do.. those doors close... FOREVER!!!

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:44 pm

anderson wrote:yeah.. but read the fine print three months after you slide the real ring on and say I do.. those doors close... FOREVER!!!

spoken like a single man...

MynameisJenn · Post by **MynameisJenn** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 5:37 pm

anderson wrote:yeah.. but read the fine print three months after you slide the real ring on and say I do.. those doors close... FOREVER!!!

I disaggree... I'll put out post marriage

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Mon Feb 12, 2007 10:29 pm

bassjones wrote:
anderson wrote:yeah.. but read the fine print three months after you slide the real ring on and say I do.. those doors close... FOREVER!!!
spoken like a single man...

Who was married for many years. . .do your homework.

traumaqueen · Post by **traumaqueen** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:17 am

Garr wrote: Who was married for many years. . .do your homework.

i'd say that "many" is kind of pushing it, wouldn't you, Garr?

and i'm not really going to cut anyone.
but this one really does infuriate me.

HillgrassBluebillyFTW · Tue Feb 13, 2007 1:18 am

Garr wrote:
bassjones wrote:
anderson wrote:yeah.. but read the fine print three months after you slide the real ring on and say I do.. those doors close... FOREVER!!!
spoken like a single man...
Who was married for many years. . .do your homework.

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:24 am

Well, considering the relativity of the word many, Ando was married almost as long as I have been, and that's many years to me. Be infuriated all you want. . .but remember that adjectives like many don't refer to specific values.

traumaqueen · Post by **traumaqueen** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 5:28 am

Garr wrote:Well, considering the relativity of the word many, Ando was married almost as long as I have been, and that's many years to me. Be infuriated all you want. . .but remember that adjectives like many don't refer to specific values.

no, silly, i wasn't infuriated by you using the term "many".
they were 2 seperate points:

point 1 was that i thought you were using "many" a tad liberally in the part that has nothing to do with the actual thread-starter.

point 2 was getting back to the original thread topic.
i was referring to my first post here in the thread, saying that i wasn't serious about getting physical over it, but that the original thread message really offended me. one of the few times i've gotten offended by content here....
it made me angry and sad.

i hope we are all clear now.....

Garr · Post by **Garr** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 7:30 am

::nod:: I'm clear now. I think.

This does; however, point back to very fundamental Christian beliefs, though; and while it may be crude, it is representative of the idea that people are not supposed to (in the eyes of some religions) engage in sexual activity until they're married. I guess that it's all in how you choose to interpret it.

I see the truth in this imagery, and perhaps it's that truth that offends you? I'm not saying that the scenario is true for all, but it certainly has held true on enough of a basis for this illustration of the idea to have validity and for people to understand the concept upon seeing it.

bassjones · Post by **bassjones** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:23 am

Garr wrote:::nod:: I'm clear now. I think.

This does; however, point back to very fundamental Christian beliefs, though; and while it may be crude, it is representative of the idea that people are not supposed to (in the eyes of some religions) engage in sexual activity until they're married. I guess that it's all in how you choose to interpret it.

I see the truth in this imagery, and perhaps it's that truth that offends you? I'm not saying that the scenario is true for all, but it certainly has held true on enough of a basis for this illustration of the idea to have validity and for people to understand the concept upon seeing it.

Perhaps those fundamental Christian beliefs are what allow my wife and I to enjoy a healthy, monogamous sex life after 10 years of marriage. Contrary to popular opinion, Christians aren't prudes. Most of us rather enjoy sex and believe that it is actually more enjoyable within the confines of God's plan and purpose for it. I do know some fruitcakes who believe sex is only for procreation, but they probably believe Song of Solomon to be pornographic - BTW, it's a pretty interesting read.

traumaqueen · Post by **traumaqueen** » Tue Feb 13, 2007 10:02 am

because i'm enjoying this conversation, i'll bend to believing that you posted this as a statement about religion- though i'm really hard pressed to. i'm more inclined to think you saw it, thought it was funny, so posted it. but ANYWAY,

the reason i do not like it is because i interpreted it as just one more way to perpetuate the myth that all women are basically just money-grubbing whores that will literally open up their legs to you for gifts of any sort.