I think this is my favorite prayer ever, if only because it has “dry humping” in it:
Oh, lust be rebuked! Homosexuality be rebuked. Lesbianism be rebuked in the name of Jesus. Masturbation be rebuked in the name of Jesus. Not even dry humping, lord God! Not even any masturbation of any kind, lord God! Not even fondling in the name of Jesus! Not even excessive hugging, lord God! Not even molestation in the name of Jesus. I cast all of these to hell in the name of Jesus.
—Marlon Hines, “Prayer Against Lust“
Lust, homosexuality, masturbation, dry humping, excessive hugging, moles…. wait — did he say “excessive hugging”?
I find it interesting that Christians use “Lord God” (or an equivalent) as a spiritual replacement for “um” during prayer — isn’t that using their precious Lord’s name in vain?
A crime so hideous, so outrageous, so evil that it’s the third major commandment God gave to Moses? It must be pretty bad, because God put it in the 10 Commandments, and left out slavery, racism, rape, war, torture and excessive hugging.
Maybe they should spend their time trying to sin less against their God by using his name in vain instead of publicly condemning homosexuality, masturbation, and dry humping — which didn’t even make it into the Top 10 Things That Make God Really, Really Angry.
(via)
100 quatloos for anyone who knows the origin of the accompanying graphic (I know).
Even better than dry humping has to be “Not even molestation in the name of Jesus.”
Once you start forbidding molestation, where will it end?
molestation in the name of jesus
the bible cannot just be picked up and read,
it needs to be studied, broken apart and analyzed.
there are stories in the bible that scriptures that have alot of descriptions in them that are not explained. they need to be explained by your pastor who probably got them from the understanding of the holy spirit or by his studies. that means that the holy spirit told him the meaning of certain unexplainable scriptures.
molestation in jesus name does not mean to molest for jesus.
christians nowadays tend to say IN JESUS NAME when they stamp there prayer closed or feel like its really gonna happen cuz they said it. or maybe they feel the need to impress there pastor or peers or maybe they think they are praying right by saying it.
it is usually said in prayer emphasizing the person desire to have the prayer answered readily.
the bible says if we ask anything IN JESUS NAME THAT it would be given to us. so we should ask for anything we want in JESUS NAME by theory.
According to studies, IN JESUS NAME should really mean that that is the same thing that Jesus would ask for. alot of christians i have met i dont believe know this.
Eamon: http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/592/what-does-do-not-hump-mean-on-the-side-of-railroad-cars
Religion…stinks. A new nature (Christ’s) within, that’s life. I guess they never heard that they (their old man) died with Christ on the cross…truth…is…always…liberating.
I think it’s funny that whenever a potential employer searches for “Marlon Hines,” it is going to lead them to this prayer — and unless it’s a very fundie Christian ministry, they are going to laugh and go to the next applicant. :)
lulz. well said!
God should have added “excessive blogging”. I need help.
My favorite example of excessive concern over other peoples physical intimacy has to be Pensacola Christian College. This is a school where touching a member of the opposite gender is strictly forbidden.
Apparently two students were even punished for “optical intercourse”, i.e. gazing into each others eyes for too long. The students refer to it as “making eye babies.”
i believe it was billy graham who does not step into the same elevator as a woman does if he is alone.
it prevents career hitting desicions.
if pensacola makes rules like that it is not because they believe it is a sin. it is because they want to protect there students from self induced harm.
HA! Great observation, as always.
Shouldn’t stupidity of that magnitude be painful?
We’re kinda like the lurking sharks awaiting another bucket of chum (a new thread) to lure us into another dead topic feading frenzy about some over-sensationalized, hyped up half-truth drama.
Time for some new material there Danny!
Let’s see…recent topics include Abortion, God kills us, Pope-mobile, God hates women…calling Jerry Springer, Jerry???
Keep it up and you’ll move from #14 to the top 5 in no time! Of course, you’ll have to start hanging out with the likes of Paris Hilton and the other drama queens! ha.
I know, I know…I can always take my bucket (of chum) and go play in another sand pile huh??
TMZ
I gotta say, I’m not sure using “Lord God” as a filler in prayer really counts as taking his name in vain. I would think that commandment refers to deliberate (mis)use.
Also, for the record, during my 15 years of being a Christian I never once said a prayer that mentioned “dry humping”. But I too find “excessive hugging” to be a mortal sin, but that’s mainly because I have a cousin that can’t help throwing her arms around absolutely every person she meets on a daily basis. It’s really quite impressive, actually.
I’m at work right now and can’t listen to it, but do they mention incest as not being allowed? After all, it happened in Lot’s case, and Lot was one of those holy guys…
It would be interesting if someone compiled a list of biblical prohibitions, ranked by frequency and force of their appearance.
Does anybody know of anything like that?
My guess that the order would be something like the following:
1. Worshipping other gods.
2. Having a lot of money.
…
(somewhere near the bottom)
98. Homosexuality.
99. Sexuality.
100. Killing.
Prohibition of sexually provocative behavior, which could be construed to prohibit ‘ocular intercourse’ or playing footsie, would be ranked last. If at all.
I think Christians should put their money where their mouths are — literally — and start working their way down the list in order of importance. Starting with number 2.
Masturbation, along with dry humping etc. (but not ear sex) was an issue at the Baptist college I attended for a couple semester before transferring.
I hated the way people would try to force guilt on you for masturbating. It didn’t stop anybody, though. The guys in my dorm would masturbate in the shower so much, one morning I swear I saw a baby crawl out of a drain!
Interesting, Elliot.
I have a question, everyone, that will surely reveal my ignorance of the Bible.
Why are the words spoken by God to Moses in Exodus 20 considered the only commandments, when there are many more “ordinances” laid forth in Exodus 21+?
Is this just an example of man made religion condensing what their opinions tell them are the most important ones? Or is there something I’m missing in Exodus that is obvious to others?
Weird that molestation is included. This won’t be a popular prayer in the catholic clergy
Why has he got homosexuality and lesbianism – doesn’t he know that lesbianism is contained within homosexuality?
Is fondling ok, so long as it’s “fondling in the name of Jesus”?
Masturbation’s down twice – is he projecting, do we think?
I like the way (on the notes under the vid) he says “I prayed this at Midnight, to symbolically be in the place of lust.” Fantastic. Doesn’t he know that midnight is really the witching hour?
Another reason why I despise all religions. Instead of studying human sexuality in all of its forms and bieng honest about it, the holy rollers would rather pretend that behavior a lot of them engage in is a sin against an invisible sky daddy.
Instead of the church giving thoughtful advice such as, if you are going to engage in sexual behavior outside of or before marraige at least use condoms and prevent the spread of disease and babies amongst folks who are not ready/mature or never even loved each other in the first place.
Its like christians are pretending to live in a world thier own behavior suggest they dont believe in, in fact I would go so far as to say that the whole abstinence debate is blatant hypocrisy on the part of the church and christians in general because the majority of christians I know dont even seriously attempt to wait until marraige. The majority of christians I know dont even talk about waiting until marraige to have sex and yet the majority of christians I know wont publicly come out with a platform that encorages responsible sexual behavior on the part of all people.
Im talking mainly about safe sex, birth control and suggesting generally that folks wait until they are a little older to bring children into world based on the principle that a 27 year old will usually make a better parent and is more usually finacially able to provide for children than a 17 or even a 21 year old for that matter.
Is there anything about anal intercourse in there? I understand that’s how young people now preserve themselves for marriage. (heh)
@ the non believers
mark: I have a few question for the folks who used to be christians and may care to comment on them.
1) When you were a christian did you have any intellectual debates with non believers the way we do here?
2) If you did debate non believers was thier any question (s) asked or point(s) made by non believers that you had no answers or legitimate response for?
3) Was thier ever a debate or conversation you had were in defence of christianity you said something you knew was dishonest or refused to respond to a main point or refutation from your opponent?
4) When you were engaging in apologetics for christianity did you manage to provoke the same annoyance and exasperation as the christians who post here provoke amongst the non believers?
5) When you were christians, was thier any particular debate or debate moments when your faith was seriously questioned by arguments made by non believers?
6) Did you ever try to change deffinition of words to justify the bible or the christian god?
7) Did you ever engage in the type of dishonesty I have heard the atheist here accuse believers of engaging in.
I am asking these questions out of the curiosity of wondering why christians make statements such as god is love or morality comes from god but yet in the bible itself god is the author of many acts we (man) consider immoral including drowning thousands of innnocent babies durring the flood.
No one has to answer these questions I am just curious.
“Is there anything about anal intercourse in there? I understand that’s how young people now preserve themselves for marriage. (heh)”
mark: I thought that was oral sex.
“…fondling in the name of Jesus”
Made me chuckle.
Yes, but what if you’re dry humping Jesus?
Is that ok? Or is it a double sin?
I’m a Christian, totally in favor of plenty of huggin. :)
Hugging someone without their consent is, in fact, assault.
One loony Christian doesn’t represent all Christians.
Now Atheists say what you wish but I probably won’t even come back to check and see if you made a comment toward me on this post. :-|
I went to the website you linked and thought it quite interesting that they changed it recently from “Godtube.com” to “tangle.com.” Yet another deceptive ploy to suck in viewers who would normally avoid a website containing the “g” word. Sounds like they’re ashamed or embarrassed at the evangelical connotation…
Actually, I think “ensnare.com” would be a much better name. Synonym for “tangle” and much more truth-in-advertising.
Absolutely agree, Val.
Freakin’ cool. I’ll work “dry humping” into a message in the future perhaps. Hilarious find though. Good stuff.
I’m sorry I am british – what is dry humping – should I try it?
Maybe I am 52 years old so I think I used to do that but can’t remember . LOL
Yeah, no Bristol Palins allowed round here!
Tried it but my wife thought I was having a convulsion
Interesting that he feels lesbianism is different to homosexuality. I’m interested in the various different kinds of masturbation he seems to know about, though. It’s made me feel uninventive.
Also, I now can’t rid myself of the image of the holy ghost dry humping Mary.
Doesn’t it have something to do with train cars?
I had a friend who was a hobo for a while, and she and her companions fell asleep in a boxcar that was getting humped. They woke up just before it slammed into another car at the base of the hill, and they had just enough time to brace themselves against the wall closest to the impact.
I guess hobos get killed from time to time if they’re in a car that is being humped.
I knew! I knew!
I just had to work instead of goof off on this website till now.
Well, now that my desperate bid for approval and admiration is done, I thought at first you were referring to your own graphic, an ammonite… but i have no idea if “eamon knight” is supposed to resemble that or not.
Or you could be paying homage to author Damon Knight. (Or heck, it might just be your name!)
I just love that you used “quatloos”.
Damn. Tyro beat me by about thirty second.
Ah, so John, you support lust, homosexuality, molestation, masturbation, dry humping, and excessive hugging?
“Making eye babies”?!? Love it!
They also have separate sidewalks for genders in some places. Poor kids.
The tighter a set of regulations is, the less effort it takes to routinely and creatively break ‘em.
So, would an eye-gasm be shedding tears? Eye-jaculation? Is poking yourself in the eye eye-ntercourse? Somebody stop me!!
Imagining a poor child eye-birthing an eye-baby makes me think of parasites which lay eggs in your eyeballs, Catholicism which lays its eggs in your brain and this old joke:
During a human science class for younger students, the teacher asked the students what part of the human body could grow to six times its size at certain times.
A little girl raised her hand and said, “Teacher, you know my daddy’s a preacher and you know we don’t say those words in my house. You are just trying to embarrass me.”
Next he called on Johnny and Johnny said, “The iris, it grows to six times it size when you are in the dark.”
The Teacher said, “That’s right Johnny.” Then said, “Little girl you have a very dirty mind, and when you grow up and get married one day, you are going to be very disappointed.”
It wasn’t exactly held up as a good thing for Lot in the Bible.
Isn’t there somewhere in the OT where God tells two sisters to procreate with their widowed father? I can’t remember the ref.
Not to mention Jacob marrying two sisters, which these days isn’t allowed, on counts of 2 sisters = incest, and polygamy too.
Lot made it with his daughters?
I thought he offered his two tender young things to the mob outside, if only they would go away and leave him alone!
Especially when it’s in the name of Jesus.
Depends where in the bible you’re looking. Jesus said little to nothing about homosexuality, or sexuality in general, but a lot about money. Paul said a little about money but a lot more about sexual sins (including homosexuality). The Old Testament says a heck of a lot about idolatry but comparatively little about most other sins (though it mentions just about everything under the sun).
They all say that killing is wrong unless God told you to do it. :(
Also, I don’t know if you can really judge a creed’s opposition to a crime by how often they condemn it. The bible only condemns bestiality a couple times, but does it need to be mentioned more? I would think once would be enough. (Eww.)
Whereas a “sin” that the people are particularly tempted to indulge in would warrant more attention, even if it’s not comparatively as “bad”. Idolatry is clearly the #1 no-no in the Old Testament because every time you turned around Israel was bowing to another statue.
I’ve probably read more secular literature condemning racist speech than child rape. That’s not an indication of the insults being worse, just that they’re more common and not many of us really need convincing that child rape is a bad thing.
The Ten Commandments were the “first 10″, engraved on stone when Moses was on the mountain. In theory they should cover all the bases, or at least be the foundation for the further law. Not unlike how the Bill of Rights is foundational to American law but doesn’t make up the entire law.
The other several hundred commandments were more detailed.
Jesus even went further and distilled it to two commands: love God and love your neighbour. Everything else is an extension of those two. I think even as atheists, while we reject the first, can recognize that the second is a pretty good catch-all for how to treat other people.
I know that atheists like to cut up the old testament’s laws for being archaic, sexist, homophobic, etc. And there are definitely valid accusations there, to use the OT law today would be ridiculous. But it’s also important to recognize that historically it was actually a pretty significant step forward for the concept of human justice. It was the very first ancient document to suggest that the punishment should fit the crime–you don’t execute thieves and you make them pay a fine proportional to what they stole. Furthermore it also put restrictions on how slave-owners were to treat their slaves. Reading it now is barbaric by our standards but by the standards of the time it was pretty progressive.
The only thing that really divides the ten from the rest is that by the text the ten were literally handed to Moses by God on Mt. Horeb (or Sinai, or whatever), whereas the six-hundred-and-three others were explained later. According to Jewish tradition, the ten aren’t in any other way more special than the others (i.e. more important), except in the sense that they serve as fundamental principles which guide the interpretation of some others.
The whole point of the OT vs Christ in the NT is the transition from an external “law” to an internal nature.
Hence…
This is the (new) covenant I will make with them…I will put My law in their minds, and write it on their hearts, and I will be their God and they will be my people….and there sins I will remember no more”.
Jer 31:33&34.
Now we’re getting closer to the real message & offer of Christ…not religion, but a new nature (His) within.
JC
It’s too bad English doesn’t a mythical storytelling tense like some other languages.
When we’re talking about events in the bible, we’re forced to use indicative mood, which is really for actions the speaker claims are true. It always strikes me that we atheists have to say:
“Moses did X, Jesus did Y, God says Z”
When in reality, our attitude towards the event would be better expressed with an irrealis, dubitative, or counterfactual verbal mood.
And then Moses went down the mountain and saw everyone breaking the commandments he’d not given them yet, so he smashed the tablets. Fortunately, god was in a good mood and re-typed them out “like unto the first”, and yet no-Christian I’ve ever met pays the slightest attention to these second set of ten commandments that people other than Moses actually got to see…
*doesn’t HAVE
Sheesh, it defeats the point of making a linguistics joke if I can’t even get my grammar right.
At least we have a vestige of the subjunctive mood, which provides a (clumsy) way of talking about counterfactuals in English.
“If Jesus were to exist, he wouldn’t want you to make googly-eyes at the girl next door, son!”
Traditionally, in law and in religion, male and female homosexuality have been treated separately, with the former almost always being treated more severely.
Because the latter is hot.
Or so the movies tell me.
True. And of course Queen Victoria refused to countenance that lesbianism existed. But still, these days, it’s well known that a) lesbianism exists and b) lesbianism = homosexuality between women. For Marlon – and incidentally other xians I know – to separate the two, makes them look like dumb-asses imho, or at least rather behind the times. I also have several gay friends who’d go *eyeroll* at him at the very least.
Lol.
I think we should go back to the 18th century, when the subjunctive could be used in the present.
“If Jesus be real, I pray he not find the magazines under my mattress”
Ha ha.
“But it’s also important to recognize that historically it was actually a pretty significant step forward for the concept of human justice.”
I’m sorry, but no. Dr. Hector Avalos has pointed out, OT biblical law is very similar to other Ancient Near Eastern law. Better in some regards, but worse in others.
For example, you mention slavery. Leviticus allows for the manumission of Hebrew slaves after seven years. The Code of Hammurabi allows for the manumission of ALL slaves, not just Babylonian.
He has a post on this topic at Debunking Christianity: http://debunkingchristianity.blogspot.com/2008/07/paul-copans-moral-relativism-response.html
(warning: it’s a loooong post.)
I totally understand that they were the first, and the ones put on the tablets…
But is that the reason that all of the others seem to be ignored?
For example: I doubt many followers of the Bible would condone putting someone to death for cursing their parents, but it’s right there in black and white.
WTF?
That’s all I got to say.
The closest thing to a response I’ve ever gotten from an evangelical is that the second set are the “ritual commandments,” while the first set were the “moral commandments.”
It didn’t really fly with me, particularly since there’s some overlap. But I really want someone to try and put up a set of the commandments in front a courthouse, then have “Thou shalt not seethe a kid in his mother’s milk” on the list.
Yep, Tyro’s URL is pretty good. I first encountered the term a long time ago, when I and several friends were walking someplace in Toronto, and we happened to pass a rail yard in which were a number of flatcars bearing new subway coaches being delivered to the transit company. Every car had a “DO NOT HUMP” sign hanging on it. None of us knew what it meant, but since we were all about 20yo (ie. prime age range when every damn thing reminds you of SEX), we were enormously amused.
Her Partner is going to be disappointed.
also
It looks like the little girl didn’t do her reading assignment that day.
Yeah, and not forgetting oral-anal. And show me where in the bible it says watersports is wrong.
http://saddlebacking.com/
Excessive hugging… eeewwwww!
Not being sarcastic here. I’ve been in a few new-agey type groups where I was the only one holding out on the teacher telling everyone to turn and hug someone.
Eccchhhhh.
I’m in life to learn what I’m all about, and that includes whom I damn well feel like hugging – and only if it doesn’t violate their boundaries – and whom I DON’T.
How is it that some of these types are obtuse about fucking off of my boundaries?
Some guys hugged long enough for me to stand there figuring out how to escape. (Yeah, I know, but it wasn’t assault, and I’m not violent.)
Jeremy, see my reply to DF about excessive hugging. Bleccchhh!
“Saddlebacking”
To honor pastor Rick Warren’s Saddleback church.
Saddlebacking: sad•dle•back•ing \ˈsa-dəl-ˈba-kiŋ\ vb [fr. Saddleback Church] (2009): the phenomenon of Christian teens engaging in unprotected anal sex in order to preserve their virginities
Definition decided upon by votes sent into Dan Savage. (I voted for this definition myself.)
I mourn the downing of http://www.technicalvirgin.com. It had deliciously viciously satirical videos of teens doing *everything but*, to preserve their technical virginity.
Short story:
I felt obligated to tell people “the good news”, since our preacher man (they didn’t allow women) said, “No one goes to heaven alone. You have to bring someone else with you.”.
But I couldn’t do it, because I was gagging on what Danial calls cognitive dissonance.
I also had the uncertainty that is structured within every belief, and too good a functioning mind to drown it out and convince myself I knew, rather than simply believing. They want you to do that, but I recognized the difference between a belief and absolute certain knowledge. (Which our best research physicists don’t even have.)
That’s a good term for it, and a mild way of putting it.
1)No real debates; I just used to try to convert them. After a bit I stopped doing that as I realised it was futile.
2)During my evangelising, sometimes the non-christians would raise questions or objections. I would always try to answer using a bible reference. As you can imagine, this used to frustrate them since if you don’t believe in the bible’s authority, referring to it is irrelevant.
3)No, I pretty much spoke the truth as I saw it.
4)Yes, very much so. I would say every non-xian got exasperated with me. It’s why I stopped trying to convert; I was losing friends and alienating my coworkers, and I knew I didn’t want to do that.
5)No, nothing the non-believers said shook my faith. That came later, and it happened within me.
6)No, I never tried to change definitions. Admittedly i said “I don’t know” a lot, and also “God in his wisdom” was a useful phrase.
7)I don’t think I deliberately engaged in dishonesty, however for a long time I maintained cognitive dissonance, i.e. I was fooling myself. I would also dismiss accusations of, say, circular logic as something which did not really apply with supernatural issues, and anyway, since I “knew” the truth, arguments against were irrelevant.
Incidentally, no atheist ever asked me such questions as “why would a loving god kill all those babies in the flood”. I think they just wanted to get me off bible topics asap for their own sanity.
‘Course, in those days we didn’t have the internet. I think face to face discussions, limited to the people you meet IRL, changes the dynamics of debate from that of internet fora.
marK: I am an ex-Christian, so I’ll try to answer these.
1) Yes, I had debates both on-line and in real life with non-Christians, but I wouldn’t call them “intellectual”. A lot of talking past each other…
2) Well, I had answers for pretty much all of the points made by non-believers…but they didn’t have to be “good” answers…they just had to be answers. It was enough usually that I could answer the question.
3) No, I tried to be as honest as possible. I wasn’t much of an evangelical, but I talked to people about it if the subject had already been raised. Usually I did a lot pinning the blame on humans for being bad. “The church isn’t so good sometimes because it is made up of bad humans, but that shouldn’t affect your view of religion”, etc., etc.
4) I had never even heard of the term “apologist” when I was a Christian discussing religion, but there were times when I came pretty close to that role. I wouldn’t say that I sparked annoyance; maybe some frustration. I’m not sure.
5) A lot of the non-believers I knew used arguments that seemed elementary to me…or they just made fun of me for being religious. Some of them were vulgar. As you can imagine, that didn’t make me want to take them seriously. A few of them were civil, but most of the questions were complaining about religious extremism, not about concepts such as Biblical reliability or burden of proof for supernatural beliefs. Since I was more moderate, these arguments against extremism did almost nothing for me.
6) I’m sure that I unintentionally changed the definitions of words a few times. I don’t remember much, though.
7) I don’t think I was dishonest. I really believed the things I was saying, or at least I felt like I believed them.
I said a lot of those things you reference at the end of your post:
I said morality came from God, I said that God was love, but I had a lot of rationalizations for these positions. The OT stuff didn’t matter that much because it either wasn’t literal or was part of the “old covenant”. If you cite gruesome things from the OT, it might impress a skeptical crowd and have them oohing and ahhing (how could anyone believe this?) but that won’t get you anywhere with most Christians unless you can come up with a better argument, such as, if God never changes, why was it moral then if it’s not moral in the NT (or now)?
Just pointing out atrocities isn’t enough because a lot of people will dismiss, and say, well, that has nothing to do with Jesus, etc. What you have to do is to go further with that, and say, well, if God is loving or just, why wasn’t he loving or just then? If God doesn’t change, why did he act that way then? Emphasize how the discrepancies make it seem human: emphasize the mythological qualities of the work. That is a much better line of thought when arguing with a Christian about the Bible, even though it takes more work, more time, and is harder to pull off, as some people will just disengage from the conversation before you can bring it to that point.
7) I was never dishonest.
5) No one was able to shake my faith.
…….. any more shaky than it already was. I didn’t need outside help on that.
Maybe someone who was able to drown out his own doubts would answer that question differently.
When years later someone told me that doubt is part of the structure of the activity of believing, which is “accepting something as real, I knew immediately and intimately what he was talking about. It matched my experience exactly.
@ markbey:
1. Not commonly, but yes.
2. Yes. Surely that’s the case in every debate.
3. Not that I can recall.
4. Probably. :) I did try to remain respectful though. There are Christians here who would have annoyed me even when I was a believer. In fact I’ve preached sermons in churches on the fact that Christians are their own worst enemies, and their behaviour often does their argument more damage than good.
5. Not really. You have to understand the “faith” mindset: logic is often secondary. If I didn’t understand something then it either a) was my own failing, or b) something I wasn’t intended to know yet. The Word of God could never be wrong, though everything else (including my understanding of it, and including every scientist under the sun) could be in complete error. In other words, if the bible said the moon is made of cheese then either the moon is made of cheese (and all scientists are wrong), or my understanding of the verse is incorrect.
My abandonment of faith was a personal conviction not caused by any debate or any literature I read.
6. Yes and no. There are words in the bible that don’t necessarily mean what modern western society interprets them to mean. (Even as an atheist, I can still see flaws in some attacks on the bible in that manner.) I didn’t intentionally try to change words, but I did argue that at times the words the bible used didn’t mean what we would commonly take them to mean.
Atheists have to do the same in explaining what a scientific theory is, and that it’s not just a “well maybe” guess.
7. I don’t think I did. I pretty honestly believed the stuff I was preaching.
LOL.
He did do offer them to the mob, but from what I remember of the story, after mom had been turned into salt, Lot and his daughters were holed up in a cave for the night. Since there were no eligible men available, the girls got their dad drunk and had their way with him.
Been done already. Madonna, Like a Prayer video.
Define “plenty”. :)
Eeeeeewwwwww!
Don’t inflict your hugs on me!
That’s violating my space, choice, and the right to control my own life.
Mutually consenting adults, OK. It’s inconsiderate to ASSume someone will like it and just walk up and inflict a hug on him.
Your first guess is correct (EK is not my real name). Congrats: I’m not sure everyone gets that.
Unless you’re really cute. The hugger, I mean. Not the huggee.
Yay!
Odd, I figured it would be a universal expression.
It means having sex while still clothed – essentially rubbing against your partner through several layers of cloth. I usually associate it with teenagers who are too nervous – or too guarded – to attempt anything more interesting.
Think of it as frottaging without the chance of being arrested.
If you’re older than about 18, I would say go full monty. If you’re younger, then dry humping is the way to go!
The bible explicitly condemns saddlebacking:
Thou shalt not lie with a woman the way you like with a man like a woman.
Hey-
I read a bit of your SW blog.. you seem like a cool guy (for now, still a bit suspicious…)