[Railroader]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

...or maybe had crazy sex with him at all hours of the night instead of her sexually incompetent "virgin husband" while going to a fundamentalist evangelical church 3 times a week?

But hey, that's just my experience.

greg

Are you being serious?

[besson3c]

[CheesePuff]

how old is she

[macgeek2005]

15 and a half.

[G4ME]

Originally Posted by CheesePuff 

how old is she

does it matter?

[CheesePuff]

Originally Posted by G4ME 

does it matter?

if there's grass on the field, play ball

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by CheesePuff 

if there's grass on the field, play ball

So you're interested in 12 year olds?

[nonhuman]

What I want to know is how long it's going to take for this thread to become as interesting as the last one.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

So you're interested in 12 year olds?

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

15 and a half.

Doesn't look that way.

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What I want to know is how long it's going to take for this thread to become as interesting as the last one.

I think we're getting there.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

I think we're getting there.

Yeah, but the last one got there faster.

[Laminar]

It's getting a slower start though. The other one was nearly an instant classic.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Laminar 

It's getting a slower start though. The other one was nearly an instant classic.

I suppose it's just more evidence that sequels are never as good as the original.

[Laminar]

Isn't that the truth.

[macgeek2005]

Wrong. The Godfather Part II is as good as The Godfather.

[paul w]

Originally Posted by CollinG3G4 

Back in my high school days, the girls who were into jesus tunred into the chicks that gave bunches of it away by senior year.

back in my day there girls in the catholic school across the street we're really quite horny. And those skirts...Oy!

[centerchannel68]

Depends. There are two types of jesus freaks. Ones that rebel against all the retardedness that is christianity and splurge by being horny drunken kinda slutty chicks, and those that refuse to give it up until marriage (psychos).

It's rare to find a normal chick in the realm of manmade religions.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

Depends. There are two types of jesus freaks. Ones that rebel against all the retardedness that is christianity and splurge by being horny drunken kinda slutty chicks, and those that refuse to give it up until marriage (psychos).

It's rare to find a normal chick in the realm of manmade religions.

Rob, we all know that you are an atheist or agnostic and you have serious issues with the church. I feel the same way.

However, I don't think it's cool to call Christianity retarded. People's religious beliefs are deeply personal to them. I don't see a need to be this insulting about something of this nature, just like it isn't necessary to tell some guy that you think his wife is ugly (even if you really feel this way).

The general theme I pick up from many of your posts is that you seem intolerant of any other viewpoints but your own. A little restraint is a very useful life skill. This forum is an excellent opportunity for you to practice your sense of restraint.

[Railroader]

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Rob, we all know that you are an atheist or agnostic and you have serious issues with the church. I feel the same way.

However, I don't think it's cool to call Christianity retarded.

I'm pretty sure the people who were burned at the stake for thinking differently than the church didn't like being burned at the stake much either.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I'm pretty sure the people who were burned at the stake for thinking differently than the church didn't like being burned at the stake much either.

You are welcome to feel as you do about religion, but it isn't constructive calling religious people retards, that is my point.

You are sort of the Ann Coulter of religion and SUVs

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

You are welcome to feel as you do about religion, but it isn't constructive calling religious people retards, that is my point.

I wasn't calling anyone a retard. I was calling a contradictory, nonsensical, man-made belief system retarded. There is quite a difference. One is an opinion I'm allowed to have on these forums, the other is attacking someone and calling names, which is not allowed on these forums. You can read into it however you like, but I have not called anybody names.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I was calling a contradictory, nonsensical, man-made belief system retarded.

The doctrine that no doctrines can be believed is itself a doctrine. In other words, this belief, that no beliefs are true except for the one belief which states this, is a perfect example of a contradictory, nonsensical, man-made belief system.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I wasn't calling anyone a retard. I was calling a contradictory, nonsensical, man-made belief system retarded. There is quite a difference. One is an opinion I'm allowed to have on these forums, the other is attacking someone and calling names, which is not allowed on these forums. You can read into it however you like, but I have not called anybody names.

And by calling these beliefs retarded, you are indirectly calling people who believe these beliefs retarded. I mean, anybody that would believe such retarded beliefs must be inadequate somehow, right?

But, this doesn't matter... You will continue to do what you have done for years, this won't make a bit of difference, so I'm done.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

And by calling these beliefs retarded, you are indirectly calling people who believe these beliefs retarded. I mean, anybody that would believe such retarded beliefs must be inadequate somehow, right?

I told you that you were free to read into whatever I write, however you like. I can't make up your mind for you; I don't want to act like the church. That's your interpretation of my statement about religion. I was not name calling.

[centerchannel68]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

The doctrine that no doctrines can be believed is itself a doctrine. In other words, this belief, that no beliefs are true except for the one belief which states this, is a perfect example of a contradictory, nonsensical, man-made belief system.

I didn't make a doctrine. I stated my opinion. I did not publish a book with my views condemning all those who disagree with me to fiery eternal damnation. I just stated my opinion. There is a huge difference, apparently your brain was scarred by religion too badly to understand simple comparisons, because yours is horrible.

Also, I never said that 'no doctrine can be believed'. You are putting words in my mouth. I have never stated that. Then again, religious people generally enjoy fiction, so it makes sense that you were pretending I said something I didn't.

[torsoboy]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Doesn't look that way.

He said, "if there's grass on the field, play ball"; that has nothing to do with this 15 and a half year old girl. 11 and 12 year old girls start growing "grass on the field".

[Kevin]

Besson Rob is reacting in your typical self defense mechanisms.

The same way say Fred Phelps does when he bashes gays.

Just ignore it.

He will either.
A. Grow up and stop letting what others believe effect his behavior.
B. End up getting shot down from a water tower because someone used chap-stick while turning left without using their blinkers.

I am hoping for A.

Those that are secure with their beliefs don't act out like this. For example, I am not too keen on say Hinduism. But for the life of me I don't think I've made one post bad mouthing it or those that practice it.

Rob needs to ask himself why he needs to lash out in such hateful ways he does.

All jokes aside, I see conviction.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by torsoboy 

He said, "if there's grass on the field, play ball"; that has nothing to do with this 15 and a half year old girl.

Actually, I'll bet he was saying that in reference to this 15 1/2 year old girl. You don't have to like the joke, but don't twist the man's (obviously non-serious) words.

[design219]

Originally Posted by centerchannel68 

I stated my opinion.

We've got to be very careful about religious references.

[shifuimam]

Originally Posted by macgeek2005 

No, she was christian.. she didn't believe in going beyond making out. AT ALL. That's part of the reason I dumped her.

Oh...my...God.

She definitely didn't deserve you if your relationship with her was conditional on where she'd let you put your hands.

What else is there for a sixteen-year-old to do?

Hugging > Holding Hands > Kissing > Making out > Boob-mashing > "Dry Humping" > Hand jobs > Blow jobs > Sex

I'd have to say that any teenage girl who respects herself at all (especially one who upholds Christian values) isn't unusal for denying you the enjoyment of getting your wanker wanked on.

Sexual chastity from a Christian standpoint isn't just about avoiding peeny-in-giney sex. It's about avoiding temptations and things that are overtly sexual until you're married, so that you can share those things with the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with.

Then again, you're a 16-year-old guy in the United States. MTV has done a good job of teaching you that teenagers should do "everything but" as a norm in a relationship.

*shakes head*

[Dakarʒ]

Yes, it's MTVs fault.

[G4ME]

don't forget religion

[design219]

and the microwaves.

[Dakarʒ]

Ah, teamwork. That's nice to see.

Ooo, the grass is soft.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

I'd have to say that any teenage girl who respects herself at all (especially one who upholds Christian values) isn't unusal for denying you the enjoyment of getting your wanker wanked on.

What just amazes me are the people in this thread that think there is something wrong or bad with that above.

Bizarro world.

We have enough girls getting pregnant and spreading nastiness around today.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by shifuimam 

Oh...my...God.

She definitely didn't deserve you if your relationship with her was conditional on where she'd let you put your hands.

I completely agree. I'm hoping if this girl is real and not imagined, he's making up the part about her even consenting to kiss him.

[besson3c]

There are also more practical and less religious reasons for a teenager to abstain from having sex which have to do with emotional maturity, which whining about not being able to own a sword doesn't really demonstrate being in possession of.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

We have enough girls getting pregnant and spreading nastiness around today.

Obviously we need to do a better job of teaching them to use condoms.

[Kevin]

Or just keeping their legs together and not sexing every tom, dick or harry that walks by.

Hey, I realize teenagers are going to have sex. But to break up with a gal because she wouldn't put out after a month or so esp that young it just obnoxious.

Obviously the OP was just looking for some "experience points" and didn't really like the gal. She probably caught on to that. (Girls, at least smart ones, can tell)

I applaud her for not giving into the guy.

If he really liked her, waiting awhile wont matter. She didn't feel comfortable with him yet. She is still 15. Girls that aren't "experienced" are going to take a long time before they want to "experiment".

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Boring obvious stuff

Oh come on, you know I was just throwing fuel on fire.

This is why you disappoint me. You take an obvious joke as an opportunity to lecture.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

Girls that aren't "experienced"...

'Not necessarily stoned, but beautiful.'

[red rocket]

Originally Posted by shifuimam

Sexual chastity from a Christian standpoint isn't just about avoiding peeny-in-giney sex. It's about avoiding temptations and things that are overtly sexual until you're married, so that you can share those things with the person you're going to spend the rest of your life with.

Firstly, what's wrong with writing penis and vagina, like an adult, instead of resorting to idiotic-sounding baby talk? Penis and vagina are proper Latin words, there's nothing dirty or shameful about Latin. (That said, I did take Latin at school, so I'm biased.)

Secondly, I find the concept of virgin brides both sexist and mediæval.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Oh come on, you know I was just throwing fuel on fire.

This is why you disappoint me. You take an obvious joke as an opportunity to lecture.

How was it an obvious joke?

You'd be surprised how many here would respond to my post with what you said while being serious.

How is one supposed to tell the difference?

In another forum I might have taken it as a joke. But not here.

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Firstly, what's wrong with writing penis and vagina, like an adult, instead of resorting to idiotic-sounding baby talk? Penis and vagina are proper Latin words, there's nothing dirty or shameful about Latin. (That said, I did take Latin at school, so I'm biased.)

I think he was being "cute"

Secondly, I find the concept of virgin brides both sexist and mediæval.

Sexist? Depends. If you feel you can rape and pillage but your wife has to be virginal then yes, that is sexist. If you hold the same values to yourself as you do your wife then no it is not. As far as it being "mediæval" well yes such practices did occur during this time. But so do a lot of practices we still perform to this day that are perfectly legit. Such a practice is tons older than that as well. Not that it's relevant to anything.

If someone wants to wait till they are married I applaud them for having such will power.

Acting as if something is wrong or abnormal with said practice is absurd.

It's not doing anyone any harm.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by Kevin 

How was it an obvious joke?

Consider the source.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

You'd be surprised how many here would respond to my post with what you said while being serious.

I know, that's who I was mocking.

Originally Posted by Kevin 

How is one supposed to tell the difference?

Obviously my reputation does not proceed me.

[Dakarʒ]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Firstly, what's wrong with writing penis and vagina, like an adult, instead of resorting to idiotic-sounding baby talk? Penis and vagina are proper Latin words, there's nothing dirty or shameful about Latin. (That said, I did take Latin at school, so I'm biased.)

Personally, I can't take the term penis and vagina too seriously ever since Kindergarten Cop.

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Secondly, I find the concept of virgin brides both sexist and mediæval.

Look who's mister fancy-pants!

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by red rocket 

Firstly, what's wrong with writing penis and vagina, like an adult, instead of resorting to idiotic-sounding baby talk? Penis and vagina are proper Latin words, there's nothing dirty or shameful about Latin. (That said, I did take Latin at school, so I'm biased.)

Secondly, I find the concept of virgin brides both sexist and mediæval.

Penis and vagina.

I like the sound of that!

Penis and vagina... penis and vagina... penis and vagina... la la la... This could be a great song!

[Kevin]

Originally Posted by Dakarʒ 

Consider the source.

Well since I am not on a personal level with you Dakar, nor do I know you that well..
You have to take these things into consideration when you post something. That is all I'm saying.

Also by responding to it the way I did, hopefully it will stop anyone else from responding to me in like.

[design219]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

penis and vagina... la la la... This could be a great song!

Country, hip-hop, or pop?