Witless, but certainly not a wanker:
Our new candidate from Delaware
September 15, 2010 • 12:11 pm
Why Evolution is True is a blog written by Jerry Coyne, centered on evolution and biology but also dealing with diverse topics like politics, culture, and cats.
“But certainly not a wanker.”
LOL ZOMG!!!ElEvnty1!
And she is, of course, lying. Anyone – every last one of them – who claims never to have masturbated is lying.
Well, not to come to her aid or anything, she may actually be reasonably honest on this one.
It wouldn’t surprise me one bit if she’s as frigid as they come. She’s surely tried, but I wouldn’t at all be surprised to learn that her efforts were unsuccessful.
Cheers,
b&
Well she didn’t claim to have never done such an act. She said the act was a sin. If cornered I guess she would admit to being a sinner.
This is a classic control mechanism. Jesus doesn’t want you to do it, but you did it! You KNEW it was wrong! Now tell Jesus you’re sorry.
[One week passes.]
Yikes, you did it again! You must be a really bad person. This proves you need Jesus more than ever. He’ll take away all those guilty feelings.
Cults often use sexual desire as a means of degrading the self-worth of its members, thereby reinforcing their dependency on the cult.
Just in case anyone is wondering:
Whoops, sorry for the duplicate! Didn’t see the link to the video in the post.
masturbating too often will make you blind…
Wha??
But that’s OK, Jesus cures that too you know.
But only while you’re masturbating.
“Witless, but certainly not a wanker:”
Hmm…and Ted Haggard is completely heterosexual.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZmHC75FDqQ
Of course, as a teenage virgin and pompous “sexual purity” advocate, Christine O’Donnell appears to have had no clue that self-awareness helps one tell a partner what works for them. Ms. O’Donnell was probably one of those women who thought that people should just magically know what their partner likes. What a maroon.
Virgin? Hardly:
As she explained to the Wilmington News Journal in 2004, she did “things she regrets” in college, such as drinking to excess and becoming somewhat sexually promiscuous. Those regrets spurred her to promote chaste values, and to seek out a national forum to advance related policy aims such as abstinence education.
Ah, from the do as I say not as I do school of morality… :-p
Not necessarily so. See, if she sleeps around all the time she may feel no compulsion to use grown-up toys.
It would be pretty funny if some of those dudes from college started talking.
Of course! Regarding celibacy, who is more of a credible authority than the formerly promiscuous?
So this single, never married, lady’s remarks (“She [..] made negative comments regarding [..] premarital sex”), then, are based on her own bad experiences with drunk-college-sex, and now nobody else gets to give it a try? The old “If I fail, you all will fail”?
(Source of quote: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_O'Donnell <- interesting read: not somebody you would trust very much to handle money matters!)
At a Christian school my Bible teacher said “98% of males have admitted to masturbating and 2% of males are liars.” He left some in the class a little red-faced, I’ll admit, but that’s far better than being left with the impression that one is potentially damned.
For Facebook members: http://www.facebook.com/?ref=home#!/event.php?eid=153696911322301&ref=mf
National Masturbate to Christine O’Donnell Day! November 2, 2010
Errr.. NO! Just NO, thank you very much.
(And here’s a better link: http://tinyurl.com/26mox53 .. even though I fully expect it to be yanked soon -absolutely no pun intended-)
As predicted .. Facebook yanked that page.
Well, she is kinda cute, Jerry’s photo notwithstanding. And after all those years of sexual repression, I bet she’s all pent up. Oh yeah… man, I’m getting worked up already. Do I really have to wait until November??? 😉
No. Sorry. I must stand firm about this. If we allowed that, nobody would come at… come to that event in November.
In the other han… On the other hand, I guess it IS okay to already practice a bit.
And I meant, of course, “YES, sorry..you have to wait”. WHERE were my thoughts?
Regarding the photo, even politicians have to occasionally yawn.
Gah, so many objectionable statements in so short a video.
But I liked this part: “If he already knows what pleases him and he can please himself, then why am I in the picture?”
Right, because sex is all about genital pleasure and guys who discover masturbation have no desire to be with real women… What planet is she from?
And about preventing AIDS, etc. “Don’t wear a condom. That’s a sin! No, you can’t have sex at all. It’s a sin too! And masturbation is right out. Don’t even think about it; that’s a meta-sin.” Talk about sabotaging your own efforts.
And all this talk about “purity”, as though sex is a contaminant…
And apparently teh gay secks is truly spectacular, since it entices straight people from their straight lives with their straight hetero partners and into a life of depraved but fabulous sex.
Nice picture. Clearly a chronic masturbator.
“Christine O’Donnell thinks masturbation not the ‘answer’”
What was the question?
“What makes you go blind?”
Of course masturbation is not the answer! We all know the answer is 42!
Now, what was the question?
The question relates to how many times you should masturbate in a week (unless you are a teenage boy).
Dude, you just destroyed the Universe!
Golly, Americans get down and dirty when it comes to politics!! This woman is the ‘founder’ (pardon me?!) of SALT (Savior’s Alliance Lifting the Truth?!), and someone with these flaky credentials is actually an official candidate for the US Senate?! She wants to stop people masturbating?! Does she want to make it a law? I gotta admit one thing though. In American politics there’s never a dull moment!
However, just in case she needs to know the biblical foundation of her claim that anyone who lusts commits adultery, and you can’t masturbate without lust, therefore…. QED. You’re wrong, Christine. What Jesus said, since you clearly don’t know, is that anyone (presumably a man) who looks at a woman with lust (see Matthew 5.28) has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Masturbation didn’t come into it, and it was lust directed at a person. Wouldn’t want this mistaken idea to spoil her fun!
Does “sex outside of marriage” include sex with concubines? Because there is a lot of that going on the Bible. Or is it just limited to however many “official” wives you have?
I suppose it depends on whether a polygamous situation is considered to be one marriage with multiple partners, or multiple marriages. I don’t know the official answer.
I believe that, by the first century CE, Jews had become monogamous, so the question didn’t arise. In general, I believe, only patriarchs and the early kings had more than one wife.
Concubines are sort of a middle ground. They’re not wives, but they’re not merely sex slaves or house prostitutes, either.
A man does not commit adultery by having concubines. But having sex with one of his slaves — that would be prohibited. He would have had to elevate her status.
Of course, the potential progeny from that union were not necessarily entitled to inheritance rights. The man had to adopt them in order for this to happen. But neither were they considered “bastards”.
No wonder the middle way didn’t last for long. Too many nuances. Plus, only the wealthiest of the wealthy (and the kings) could afford such large households.
Ask Newt Gringrich, who’s on his third marriage. I don’t care if he says that it’s “old news,” he had divorce papers served on his first wife while she was in the hospital dealing with cancer.
Also, masturbation leaves you drooling, cross-eyed and insane.
But the effect wears off after a few minutes.
Stop STARING at me!!!
If you want an entertaining reason to read the Bible, check out the conundrum of Onan.
“Last night____ I stayed up late and dud-duh-duh-duh,
It felt so good,
I knew it would!”
Getting back to the topic of the blog, here is an article on O’Donnell’s views on another topic:
GOP’s Delaware Senate Nominee Christine O’Donnell Not a Big Fan of Evolution
O, quel surprise.
Corker (?) or Lamar Alexander?
But can she make good tea or is her idea of making tea to dump boxes of the stuff into the sea?
Just what the country needs. Another bag of hammers thinking that the MOST IMPORTANT THING IN THE COUNTRY right now is whether I have hairy palms.
What is the population of the Earth? In her view is that enough? When is enough enough? Can there ever be enough or too much? Ought one wish to have an on-off switch for ones sexual drive? (How many deacons sit amongst the church congregation lusting after that comely blonde in the choir?) The problem there is that, when not in the throes of tumescence, one might be tempted not turn it back on. Then the likes of the Delaware Diva could accuse one of being selfish to some non-descript theoretical human being supposedly not conceived due to this alleged selfishness. Our genes are bound and determined to perpetuate themselves, unmindful of the cares of the man brainstorming how to pay child support to two or more women. As the Doc told the expectant mother, “Fun goin’ in, hell comin’ out.”
Yes. I’ve often thought that the ONLY prescription in the Bible that mankind has been able to follow is “be fruitful and multiply”.
If there really was a god, I’m quite sure he’d be looking at us saying “Enough already! Work on some other verses, OK?”
Gonna steal that one!
As for “be fruitful and multiply”: too many people, I’m afraid, have misread that as “be a fruitcake and multiply” .. and excelled at both.
Time to tell Christine some facts of life:
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/7/78/Ceilingcatanimated.gif
http://images.encyclopediadramatica.com/images/6/6e/Ceilingcat.jpg
Christine may be able to fool some of the people all of the time, and most of the people some of the time, but she can not fool teh Ceiling Cat!
I never saw animated CC, this was my favorite.
http://www.lolcatbible.com/images/5/5f/Cieling_cat_creates.jpg
That’s a great picture of O’Donnell.
Where are her hands, by the way?
Well, to be honest, I’d love to see the Palin and O’Donnell tag team, or one of those other teabagging loonies, win the presidency.
Either way, we’ll have a war hawk president who holds people without charge or trial indefinitely, promises to protect torturers from prosecution, continues expanding government search, surveillance, and police powers, and sucks up to big business all the while.
But at least it’ll happen without the added burden of listening to constant, zealous praise for Obama, just because he’s Not Bush, despite him continuing and expanding many of Bush’s worst policies.
At least people instinctively resist outright dictator figures like Bush. A savvy, seductive character like Obama can get away a lot more…
And besides, politics in America would get even more zany with the Palin Duo in office. Think of the entertainment value!
Like Barack Obama.
BTW, accusing the opposition of being insane really only works when the society in question has limited access to data. When data is readily available information contrary to your hypothesis is easily found and disseminated.
Alan .. come on, this is not science we’re talking about; it’s politics!
Er, no. There’s a huge difference between bad and much worse.
Sure, and depending on your focus, Obama may be a good guy. If your focus is the economy or something like that, he’s probably doing some good things.
But if you were hoping for Obama to roll back Bush’s executive power grab, restore habeas corpus, give all the detainees fair trials, stop the overreaching government surveillance began Bush started, stop extraordinary rendition, prosecute torturers, or restore the civil liberties trashed under Bush, then he’s been a big disappointment. In some ways he’s even taken them farther than Bush.
But you don’t see so many people complaining about it, partly because it’s becoming the new status quo, and partly because he’s got that Obama charm…
Apparently she would turn Anne Frank in to the Nazis