28 thoughts on “By the way

  • 12/19/2006 at 2:31 pm
    Permalink

    I do not find it so much ‘weird’ as ‘totally awesome’

    Reply
  • 12/19/2006 at 5:22 pm
    Permalink

    Where/when did they make out? And more importantly, are there pictures? I require them for some serious scientific research.

    Reply
  • 12/19/2006 at 11:54 pm
    Permalink

    I’m not sure. In fact, I can’t even provide ample evidence that it happened. My only sources have been random radio stations and a mention on a tabloid website*. What I can say is that it’s extremely important that everyone on Earth, Americans and non-Americans alike, encourage Miss USA and Miss Teen USA to repeat these events while being video taped from multiple angles so that a 3-D movie can be made and distributed to people everywhere.

    *I read tabloid websites like it’s my job

    Reply
  • 12/20/2006 at 9:17 pm
    Permalink

    Gee “gentlemen” (you’ll have to imagine the scathing and sarcastic tone), would there be this much excitement about two guys making out?

    Is that girl on girl thing really so much of a fantasy for men? If that’s the team she bats for, you won’t score, so what is the deal?

    It may not have been Miss Teen USA. It could have been some other blond. And actually the punishment being considered had more to do with underage drinking (which not everybody does, contrary to popular belief) and possibly drugs. She gets to keep the crown provided she goes to rehab. And really, what’s sexier than rehab?

    Reply
  • 12/21/2006 at 8:08 am
    Permalink

    Nope! There would be zero excitement with two guys making out. You see, men are awkward uncomfortable hairy knobby creatures whose immaturity and resemblance to Neanderthals is expected. Women are beautiful goddesses of grace and visual perfection.

    As for your question about what is sexier than rehab? I think the answer is clearly Lesbian Rehab.

    Reply
  • 12/21/2006 at 9:52 am
    Permalink

    I think the greatest appeal of two girls kissing is that as guys, we think that maybe, just maybe these two women (the hotter the better) are a little more dirty, self-destructive and twisted than they let on, and that makes us feel better about being so depraved ourselves.
    Also, I think taking away the Miss USA crown would be the biggest burn EVER. That crown represents a gross disproportion of recognition and fame to achievement. Congratulations, you’ve got good genes and have a great make-up artist. Here’s a token that establishes you are America’s biggest whore!
    Then to TAKE IT AWAY. “You just won a large award for your ability to walk around half-naked, smile for people who judge you solely on your appearance and answers to cliche questions, wave at people and kiss babies. Unfortunately, due to your recent self-demeaning behavior, we’re going to have to take that award away. Wouldn’t want you giving the wrong idea to impressionable youngsters!”

    Seriously, what the hell. That’s like taking a linebacker out of the Football Hall of Fame because they tackled too many players.

    Reply
  • 12/21/2006 at 11:51 am
    Permalink

    1. The “girl-on-girl” thing isn’t a fantasy so much as it is an ideal.

    2. The reason I think girls kissing girls is awesome is this: If girls are true, outright lesbians, that’s cool. I’m glad that they can be open about their sexuality. If they are not (bi, just looking for attention, whatever), it shows that they are more willing to experiment, more open-minded, and possibly have a greater libido (what an old-person word) than the more strait-laced ladies out there.

    Reply
  • 12/21/2006 at 12:18 pm
    Permalink

    You make an excellent point about beauty contests, Sander. I agree with you on that.

    Reply
  • 12/21/2006 at 12:26 pm
    Permalink

    Wow! Sander, that was awesome! And your answer about the fantasy makes a lot more sense than what the others spouted.

    The truly open, sexy, and confident don’t have to make public displays.

    And wouldn’t a guy rather have a girl who’s into experimenting with just him, and not every random stranger on the street, or in a bar? Doesn’t any man on the planet realize the treasure of a woman who is a sexual dynamo for him alone? A woman who devotes all of her amorous creativity to his pleasure? A woman who behaves herself in public? Are any men capable of appreciating the honor and wonder of being the lover of such a woman?

    Besides, “girl on girl” does not equal “girl on you.”

    Reply
  • 12/21/2006 at 12:43 pm
    Permalink

    Spam’s not so bad. Very good in salads.

    Reply
  • 12/21/2006 at 3:30 pm
    Permalink

    Some people don’t require monogamy. All this “for him/you alone” stuff sounds awfully possesive and/or needy. Promiscuity can be a societal benefit. Different strokes for different folks, etc.

    Reply
  • 12/21/2006 at 10:48 pm
    Permalink

    Guys are highly cognizant of the magical wonder of a woman who saves her sexual energy for just him. The problem is even in the best of times we can’t help but see the grass being greener with some other girl who wildly flaunts her sexuality, from which we infer a bedroom prowess reserved for letters to Penthouse.
    Behold the following brilliant movie quote:
    Rob: I’m tired of the fantasy, because it doesn’t really exist. And there are never really any surprises, and it never really…
    Laura: Delivers?
    Rob: Delivers. And I’m tired of it. And I’m tired of everything else for that matter. But I don’t ever seem to get tired of you, so…

    Reply
  • 12/22/2006 at 7:28 am
    Permalink

    One of the biggest drawbacks of promiscuity is that it enables the spread of STDs. If everyone were monogamous, STDs would likely die out. Hence the Biblical design is far more advantageous health-wise.

    Reply
  • 12/22/2006 at 9:31 am
    Permalink

    Much like not eating pork was the jewish religious leaders’ way of keeping people from dying of pork poisoning…

    makes a lot of sense!

    Reply
  • 12/22/2006 at 11:29 am
    Permalink

    In the days of the Old Testament there was not sufficient knowledge or technology to cook the pork properly to kill parasites. So yes, there was a health reason for that.

    Promiscuity may be the animal way (though it’s not for all animals, puffins for example) but human beings are supposed to be able to rise above animal behavior. And it’s neither needy nor possessive. It’s called love. “Love is not jealous, seeks not it’s own way…” If you save yourself for the person you truly love then there are fewer “might have beens” lurking in the background. And if you are with someone who has saved him/herself for you, you might not be as insecure about his/her past relationships. Just a thought, but it’s worth considering.

    Agreed with Jes Saint, the Biblical way is safer on many levels. Granted safe is not always more fun, but really who’s ever heard of someone lying on their deathbed saying “I wish I’d nailed so and so?”

    Reply
  • 12/26/2006 at 9:06 pm
    Permalink

    Love is what we call it but monogamous relationships are part of the way that many animals raise their young. I don’t think we need to be lording our love above the animals. We’ve already got them beat with the opposable thumbs and all!

    Oh, and for the second part… I’m not around people on their deathbed often enough to get a good sample but I have to say that it would definitely happen! Maybe we should check with some doctors.

    Reply
  • 12/27/2006 at 12:24 pm
    Permalink

    Monogamous relationships are not necessarily part of animals raising their young. Look at all the animals who live in herds/packs where the male is basically there for protection and reproduction and has nothing to do with the young. (not a bad idea in some cases)

    Opposable thumbs are awesome.

    But humans are actually much more selective sexually than most animals. If you’ve ever owned a male dog that wasn’t neutered you know that many will proposition any other animal of their species. (humping furniture and other species does not count, that actually has nothing to do with sex) Sure there are some people who will go to bed with anybody, but most people have some standards, a “type” if you will.

    Now we’re into the issue of sex vs love. Being monogamous does not necessarily imply love, just fidelity.

    It would seem natural that someone who is in love only wants to be with the person they are in love with. However, some people don’t know what love really is and think that it only lasts 2-5 years (or seven for some celebrity marriages).

    The point of a loving AND monogamous relationship is never power or neediness or possession, though those can be fun in roleplay. Saving yourself for someone you truly love is about respect for yourself and the person you love. It’s offering yourself as a gift.

    If you love someone you want to demonstrate it, even if they don’t love you back. Even someone who doesn’t love you might be able to appreciate the gift you offer, of course if they have any decency they’ll turn you down so you can offer it later to someone more worthy.

    Being faithful because you want to has nothing to do with being needy, it’s about saving something sacred for only one person. It’s like saying “Here’s my ferrari, you’re the only other person in the world I will ever let drive it.” It’s a statement of the ultimate trust.

    I know most people disagree with me. I don’t expect to change anyone’s mind. But I do expect people to at least pretend to respect my beliefs even if they think I’m nuts. I don’t ask other people to live by it. I just like to explain my views to eliminate misuderstandings.

    Good idea to ask doctors. I haven’t been around deathbeds either, but I can say with certainty that I’ve never heard of it in books, movies, plays, or TV shows.

    Reply
  • 12/28/2006 at 6:59 pm
    Permalink

    Actually I didn’t know that, but thank you.

    What do you think of the car analogy?

    Reply
  • 1/5/2007 at 2:12 pm
    Permalink

    Very well put. I agree with you too, and always appreciate people who can articulate what I sometimes have difficulty explaining!

    The misunderstanding of love is something that is SO clear in our society, given the high divorce rate and all. And for people who haven’t really heard this viewpoint, I love the car analogy – it’s easily accessible and understandable.

    Reply
  • 1/5/2007 at 3:22 pm
    Permalink

    I would never let anyone else drive MY ferrari.

    Reply
  • 1/7/2007 at 4:19 pm
    Permalink

    Well Kurt, maybe you just haven’t found that one other person in the world who will love and respect your ferrari as much as you do. Someone who, like yourself, sees the ferrari as a sacred thing of beauty that should be protected and cherished and occasionally waxed.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Jes Saint Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *