A rapist's charter?
It's great to get messages from people who've read something here and felt moved to invest even more time by leaving a comment. So far, everyone's been positive – many thanks to you all – no Daily Mail readers and no Ann Coulter.
One lives in hope, but in the meantime, there's plenty of idiocy to laugh at.
With this in mind, thanks to Mike for dropping in here and commenting on the 'load of wankers' story. This led me to his own blog, Confessions of a Horny Old Guy, which in turn led to Single and celibate, which tells us that masturbation is A Bad Thing.
"Many people interpret Genesis 38:8-10, where it talks about Onan spilling his seed on the ground, as God's message against masturbation because what Onan did displeased the Lord," says blog author Petula Wright.
They might well do, but Margrave of the Marshes, the excellent autobiography of that excellent and sadly lamented DJ, John Peel, throws rather clearer light on the theology.
"It seems that Judah went in unto Shuah and she bore a son and called his name Er. Then Judah went in unto Shuah again and she bore him another son and called this one’s name Onan.
"A few years later, to cut a long story short, the Lord was displeased with Er, by now a married man, and smote him. And not content with this, He told Onan to go in unto Er's wife and lie with her. Onan, being a decent sort of chap by all accounts, thought this was a bit tough on the widow and, not to put too fine a point on it, spilled his seed upon the ground rather than in his brother's wife. For this refinement of feeling, he too was smitten. So Onan, whatever you may have believed hitherto, was, in fact, a thoroughly moral man and not the wanker everyone thinks he is."
Does this mean that our Pet believes that masturbation is more 'sinful' than rape? Or that rape is fine if God commands it? Or even that, on a different level, this story was anything about masturbation at all? Seems that it's not so much a question of 'thou shalt not wank', but 'thou shalt rape when I tell you to'.
Jesus didn't help matters, of course. Given that the Judeo-Christian God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, you'd have thought that He would be able to forsee just how obsessed his followers would be with sex, and would provide better and clearer teaching. But no, his hippy son had to preach the peace bit, but didn't get around to coining the phrase: 'though shalt make love but not war'.
Apparently Jesus had nothing to say about sex, beyond 'don't commit adultery', and certainly nothing to say about sexuality (unless those writing the gospels dismissed any such teachings as boring and not worth noting down).
But, just in case her readers are not impressed enough with the Biblical stuff to instantly forswear playing with their own naughty bits, our Pet has a second sting to her argument:
"Despite the rumors that men spread about it being harmful or some scientific basis arguing the necessity for sexual release, single individuals must turn to God when faced with temptation and stand on His word for support."
Okay; so all this stuff about research linking frequent ejaculation to reduced levels of prostate cancer is a lie? Lucifer’'s got himself a white lab coat and was leading the research?
Pet and her ilk have to ignore this sort of research, of course. What's the alternative? That God, despite being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, decided to create man in such a way that, if he forswore sex, he'd actually increase his chances of disease? If this is the case, what does that say about Pet's God?
Does Pet believe men should risk cancer? Does Pet believe that her God wants men to risk cancer? Does Pet think that all young men should get married as soon as legally possible (regardless of the educational, career and financial implications) so that they can get 'release' without masturbation and, therefore, reduce their chances of disease?
God didn't plan this very well, did He?
And for added measure solo sex has other health benefits too.
Personally, wanking sounds much the best option for dealing with PMT, instead of just putting up with it or popping pills. But then again, some of these Christians probably think that period pain was a deliberate punishment from God for leading poor Adam astray.
One lives in hope, but in the meantime, there's plenty of idiocy to laugh at.
With this in mind, thanks to Mike for dropping in here and commenting on the 'load of wankers' story. This led me to his own blog, Confessions of a Horny Old Guy, which in turn led to Single and celibate, which tells us that masturbation is A Bad Thing.
"Many people interpret Genesis 38:8-10, where it talks about Onan spilling his seed on the ground, as God's message against masturbation because what Onan did displeased the Lord," says blog author Petula Wright.
They might well do, but Margrave of the Marshes, the excellent autobiography of that excellent and sadly lamented DJ, John Peel, throws rather clearer light on the theology.
"It seems that Judah went in unto Shuah and she bore a son and called his name Er. Then Judah went in unto Shuah again and she bore him another son and called this one’s name Onan.
"A few years later, to cut a long story short, the Lord was displeased with Er, by now a married man, and smote him. And not content with this, He told Onan to go in unto Er's wife and lie with her. Onan, being a decent sort of chap by all accounts, thought this was a bit tough on the widow and, not to put too fine a point on it, spilled his seed upon the ground rather than in his brother's wife. For this refinement of feeling, he too was smitten. So Onan, whatever you may have believed hitherto, was, in fact, a thoroughly moral man and not the wanker everyone thinks he is."
Does this mean that our Pet believes that masturbation is more 'sinful' than rape? Or that rape is fine if God commands it? Or even that, on a different level, this story was anything about masturbation at all? Seems that it's not so much a question of 'thou shalt not wank', but 'thou shalt rape when I tell you to'.
Jesus didn't help matters, of course. Given that the Judeo-Christian God is supposed to be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, you'd have thought that He would be able to forsee just how obsessed his followers would be with sex, and would provide better and clearer teaching. But no, his hippy son had to preach the peace bit, but didn't get around to coining the phrase: 'though shalt make love but not war'.
Apparently Jesus had nothing to say about sex, beyond 'don't commit adultery', and certainly nothing to say about sexuality (unless those writing the gospels dismissed any such teachings as boring and not worth noting down).
But, just in case her readers are not impressed enough with the Biblical stuff to instantly forswear playing with their own naughty bits, our Pet has a second sting to her argument:
"Despite the rumors that men spread about it being harmful or some scientific basis arguing the necessity for sexual release, single individuals must turn to God when faced with temptation and stand on His word for support."
Okay; so all this stuff about research linking frequent ejaculation to reduced levels of prostate cancer is a lie? Lucifer’'s got himself a white lab coat and was leading the research?
Pet and her ilk have to ignore this sort of research, of course. What's the alternative? That God, despite being omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent, decided to create man in such a way that, if he forswore sex, he'd actually increase his chances of disease? If this is the case, what does that say about Pet's God?
Does Pet believe men should risk cancer? Does Pet believe that her God wants men to risk cancer? Does Pet think that all young men should get married as soon as legally possible (regardless of the educational, career and financial implications) so that they can get 'release' without masturbation and, therefore, reduce their chances of disease?
God didn't plan this very well, did He?
And for added measure solo sex has other health benefits too.
Personally, wanking sounds much the best option for dealing with PMT, instead of just putting up with it or popping pills. But then again, some of these Christians probably think that period pain was a deliberate punishment from God for leading poor Adam astray.
posted by Amanda Kendal at 1:16 pm
3 Comments:
Blimey, lets hope that Petula doesn't ever see http://beautifulagony.com/public/main.php poor love would have a fit.
"The researched showed that the protective effect of ejaculation is greatest when men in their twenties ejaculated on average seven or more times a week. This group were one-third less likely to develop aggressive prostate cancer when compared with men who ejaculated less than three times a week at this age."
Bloody hell, seven times a week.
No wonder they don't develop prostate cancer, I bet they have't even got time to catch a cold if they're at it that much.
Hmmm, interesting what a Google search will come up with. Not exactly the point I was getting across, but if you want to use that misleading snibbet then cool!
I'm gonna check out beautifulagony.com... what o what awaits me!? Uh, if you kept up with me you would know that it wouldn't cause a fit!
Oh well... check me out http://petulaw.blogspot.com.
Post a Comment
<< Home