Florida Pastor issues a "30 Day Sex Challenge"

[Bluebear]

YBOR CITY, Fla. -- A southwest Florida church issued a challenge for its married members: Hanky panky every day.

Relevant Church head pastor Paul Wirth issued the 30-day sex challenge to take on high divorce rates.

“And that’s no different for people who attend church,” Wirth said Sunday. “Sometimes life gets in the way. Our jobs get in the way.”

Wirth, pastor of the Relevant Church in Ybor City, said the 50 percent divorce rate was the inspiration for the challenge.

The challenge doesn’t extend to unwed congregants, however. He says the single members of the church are challenged to abstain from sex for 30 days.

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=37450&cat=14
http://www.pantagraph.com/articles/2008/02/25/wtf/doc47ba80bf35d40380420474.txt

[EmperorHasNoClothes]

1. Someone has been watching Seinfeld a little too much

:rofl:

[valerief]

4. LOL. That's the first thing I thought of. nt

[SteppingRazor]

2. Hmmm ... the story never says exactly what the challenge is.

Have sex every day for 30 days? Twice a day? Once a week? :shrug:

[lynnertic]

8. "hanky panky every day"

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

87. You know this guy's a sexual dynamo...

Anybody refers to fucking as "hanky panky" is going to an animal...

[lynnertic]

101. >LOL

:rofl:

[verges]

133. ???

Doesn't "hanky-panky" mean illicit? Is he encouraging his congregation to commit adultery for 30 straight days? And if the single people have to abstain (which really doesn't seem fair), they have to commit adultery with other married people. Do they have to be in the same congregation?

[comtec]

163. Is it OK if said single people join in with the married people?

Like a tag team... :D

[NC_Nurse]

3. Abstain? He should be challenging them to have sex every day for 30 days!

Now THAT might save some marriages! :P

[Bluebear]

6. Only the single people have to abstain.

I spliced in another news story to clarify. The married ones get to have sex like rabbits :)

[NC_Nurse]

10. Now you're talkin'

I thought all the single people in church were already supposed to be abstaining.
Guess they gave up on that. ;-)

[HockeyMom]

15. As long as they are willing to breed

like rabbits too, whether they want or can afford as many children as God "blesses" them with.

[physioex]

7. Sad part is...

Most of those single people don't know that anal intercourse is sex.... :rofl:

[EOTE]

11. I think that's what he's suggesting. NT

[mrcheerful]

5. Yep its always the sex behind divorce with these morons

never mind that money troubles are the leading cause behind divorce. Maybe the 50% rate is because people marry to change either their lives or their partners lives without a clue on why they need change. Marriage the quick easy fix to boredom.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

53. Sex is remarkabally healing in relationships.

My wife and I can have a doozy of a fight when we settle it there can still be an emotional disconnect sex after a fight can bond a couple tighter and helps each to let little things slide.

[mrcheerful]

75. True in a healthy relationship but from my dealings with the true believers

is women are more status symbols then partners to them. Value of a good fundie wife are children bearing, house cleaning and cooking. The man is the king of his castle, though he more then likely is a brown nose to the boss. Sex is usually lights out, night dress up, get it in, get it off, go to sleep. Remember these types are manly men and don't give a crap about anything except what they want.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

77. I dare say by DU standards

I would likely fall into the 'true believer' box but people in my life who would probably also fall into that box dont match at all with your perception.

I can place no value on my wife she is to me more precious than anything else, save my kids, on this earth. I do appreciate the kids that she has, through great effort, brought into this world but the decision to have the two angels (and any others) is on both of us. If she wants more we will have more, if she decides its too hard (she does have difficult pregnancies) there will be no more and Ill love her none the less for it.

True I appreciate that she cares for the home but if tomorrow she decided she wanted to work outside the home she would have my blessing. Hell if she could pull in more scratch than me and we were to home school I would let her be the bread winner.

A 'True believer' knows he is not the king of his castle but God is, and god has some pretty strict commands for how a husband is to love their wife.

As to sex, there are nights when I have worked 16-20 hours that Im *really* not in the mood but my wife who has been watching kids is now most defiantly seeking the bonding experience of sex so sparing you any details, it happens... Sometimes the reverse but usually we are both looking for it. And sometimes she just wants to hang out and talk while we work on a puzzle or something and no matter how tired I am we will do that..

Please don't try to pigeon hole people based on their religious beliefs..

[tjwash]

89. "god has some pretty strict commands for how a husband is to love their wife"

Did god tell you that?

Damn...every time god comes down here and starts telling people shit, I'm either asleep or in the bathroom or something. Or did you read it out of some mistranslated book written by a bunch of macho strutting nomadic desert bigots?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

93. Mock me if you must

The the Bible is a holy text of my faith and there in are commands for how to love my wife..

BTW I don't just use the English translation of the Bible I use both the Hebrew and the greek where appropriate.

But hey go ahead and make snarky comments... I really could care less

[Common Sense Party]

136. Ignorance abounds here. Ignore it.

Some of these folks have never so much as spoken to a true Christian in their lives, yet somehow they're experts about who we are, what we believe, how we live, etc.

[hendo]

168. Yeah

I have noticed that.

I do applaud what this pastor is doing, I hope that his 30 day sex challenge actually does prove to be a tool for saving marriages. Divorce is far too common now.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

170. Im sure it will

Sex opens up many other lines of communication... I think many here are trying to discount sex as something optional because they dont seem to need it but for 99% of married couples a good roll in the hey can open them up to bonding beyond.

Im just amazed at the knee jerk reactions I see on this site..

[Tatiana]

150. I totally understand where you are coming from. I wish more men were like you.

:pals:

Sounds like your wife has a good thing! Don't let the anti-Christian commentary here discourage you. There is absolutely nothing wrong with being a person of faith.

[hendo]

174. and it's talk like that

that makes a lot of Christians turn to the republican party.

[qb]

9. Did he specify that they have to have sex with each other?

This could get interesting.

[Bluebear]

14. ........

:spray:

[Mabus]

20. that reminds me of a visit had at the gynecologist's

I was there for my yearly pap. My feet were in the stir-ups and I could only see the top of the doctor's bald little head. He was starting the exam when he stopped and asked, "When's the last time you had sex?" I wanted clarification, so I asked, "With myself or with someone else?" The nurse started laughing. The doctor took a while to respond. Finally, he peeked over the sheet hanging between my knees and said, "With someone else."

[qb]

22. LOL It is a relevant clarification IMO

I wonder what went through his head during the pause :rofl:

[Mabus]

26. I think he was stunned at first

I'd like to think that it wasn't the first time someone said something like that to him.

[shain from kane]

24. A lady goes to the dentist.

A lady goes to the dentist. In the chair, the dentist notices a dark spot on one of her teeth.

"Aha, cavity! I'll have to drill this one out!" says the dentist.

"Oh no, I'd rather have a baby!!!" cries the lady.

"Make up your mind, I have to adjust the chair first," replies the dentist.

[Mabus]

27. ...

http://www.instantrimshot.com/

[Obamarama]

12. But wait....I thought the gays were responsible for the destruction of traditional marriage!?!

Now it's lack of sex?

These fundies are so freakin' whacked!

[Orsino]

169. Apparently, the trouble is with the straights not being straight enough. n/t

[noamnety]

13. Ignorant ass.

Does it even occur to that idiot that coercing a person to have sex when they don't want it is rape, or that many women are raped by their spouses? Why would he spew crap that just encourages a spouse to guilt-trip/force an unwilling partner into sex they don't want?

[Bluebear]

16. And 30 days in a row certainly means . . .

. . .no consideration for the lady during her cycle, etc. No, the show must go on, for the man's sake.

[negativenihil]

17. hey if you time it right...

won't be an issue.

[Bluebear]

19. Maybe it's an issue if she just doesn't feel like doing it!

Pastor be damned!@#&@

[NashVegas]

30. Sex Takes Many Forms

Not all must involve intercourse.

[noamnety]

38. And none of them are acceptable

if the participants don't both want to participate. (Using "both" here because he was specifically speaking to married couples.)

It's not the place of a third party - especially one in a position of some sort of authority - to pressure a person into having sex if they don't want to. And it's not the place of a third party to try to make someone feel deficient for not wanting to have sex.

[NashVegas]

40. I'm Giving the Guy the Benefit of the Doubt

And am assuming he's not going to be checking everyone's bedsheets in the morning and condemning those with clean ones to hell, you know?

In a healthy relationship of equals, sex is a good, healthful thing. There are countless studies detailing how a lack of sex & intimacy after children are born contributes to marital break-up.

Those who would see this pastor's challenge as a threat should seek counseling, IMO. Either because they are living with an abusive person and truly are threatened, or they have serious issues they need help dealing with and getting past.

[noamnety]

46. I think you are missing the reality here.

If there is a marriage (and odds are there are more than one) in his congregation where one spouse is pressuring the other to have sex, how is his message going to be used by the person doing the pressuring to harass the other spouse?

It has the potential to cause harm and escalate abuse. That's the problem with it.

Now you can sit in your safe place outside that situation blaming people who don't want to have sex for being the problem and implying they need therapy, but that's a reflection of our cultural values, not an objective viewpoint. And his giving ammo to potential abusers is NOT going to help anything.

Do you think there are any couples in his congregation who both want to have sex daily but just didn't think of it until he put that idea in their heads? I'm thinking if they don't want to have sex, there's a reason. And ALL reasons for not wanting to be pressured into it are - by definition - valid reasons for saying no. He's done nothing to address that except lay blame on people for not saying yes and just putting up with it when they really mean no.

I have a big problem with anyone contributing to a rape culture, and he doesn't need to be physically checking their sheets to contribute to that.

[NashVegas]

85. I Understand Where You're Coming From

More than you may imagine.

In the situation you describe, there is either an abusive partner or a (possibly) dysfunctional partner who is manipulated into sex by a partner with a stronger drive than they have.

What you are describing is a conflict preventing a happy, successful marriage no matter how you look at it and if the people inside of it aren't capable of confronting that conflict and resolving it, the options are therapy or divorce, wouldn't you agree? If you've got a marriage where one person has a strong sex drive and the other wants nothing to do with it, that's a problem that is not going to go away on its own.

I see no reason why people who believe that sex is an ingredient of a healthy marriage (and science has pretty much proved it out) should have to pipe it down out of fear of that philosophy being perverted.

[Firespirit]

48. There is ONE reason why a relationship would end if there was no sex.

That reason is that one or both of the partners decided that "sex = love" and therefore "no sex = he/she doesn't love me anymore."

If your relationship is based on the mind rather than the body, there's no reason why a lack of sex would have any influence whatsoever.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

54. If you dont think sex helps people emotionally bond youre missing something..

in your sex life...

No a relationship cant be all sex and no mind but pornea love is very important to a healthy marriage.. While sex may become a smaller and smaller part as the years go on its always a great way to bond in times of stress..

[Firespirit]

57. I am asexual, so no, I don't understand it in the least

It has always seemed to me that people convince themselves that sex is emotional, because of the years of cultural association, but it's a biological drive... hormone-driven, and we all know that hormones fluctuate. Love is about the person, the mind, at least from my viewpoint.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

60. So at least you admit you are missing something..

"It has always seemed to me that people convince themselves that sex is emotional"

Not at all, scientific research shows brain and hormonal activity causes emotional responses during foreplay, intercourse, and even in the moments after sex.

"but it's a biological drive... hormone-driven"

So is fear (emotion), anger (emotion), ..., ... all of out base emotions have a biological and hormonal components..

"Love is about the person, the mind, at least from my viewpoint."

There are many different kinds of love and all are important to a healthy long relationship..

Pornea (Physical love) is an important kind of love couples should have. Take two newly married people and deprive them of sex for a year see how well it works out. Im not saying a relationship can survive on sex but it can help set table..

[Firespirit]

64. It seems that we are not sexually liberated after all

We've accepted every orientation but one, it looks like.

"Couples should have."

I'm not telling anyone else not to have sex. Is it really necessary to judge people based on what happens to be best for you?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

66. LOL

for someone who starts a conversation with "if lack of sex could end a relationship the people must think sex equals love" all the sudden to play the 'you're too judgmental' card is amusing..

[Dorian Gray]

151. That may be your experience with sex.

And, to tell you the truth, I have had that be my experience for awhile. Sex devoid of emotion. But, now that I am in a loving marriage, sex is an extremely bonding thing for both of us. After sex, we are extraordinarily close. It elevates our moods. We treat each other more lovingly in the aftermath. It helps strengthen our already strong bond.

I know it's not like that for everybody. I have experience with it when it was vastly different.

And I don't think that this pastor's challenge was nefarious. There are many nights where couples take one another for granted and ignore one another while watching television or surfing the net. The bond that they can strengthen if they put those things away and focus on one another really can strengthen a marriage.

[Firespirit]

161. I assure you, it's not.

I've never had sex. I've never WANTED sex. There is literally no one that I have ever felt that sort of attraction for. I have, however, wanted partnership, a soulmate, just like most people would, and there have been people I've wanted to be with as more than regular friends -- just not sexually.

And before you say "oh you just haven't met the right person," just... don't go there. I've been told that, and it's insulting as hell, every bit as insulting as telling a gay man that he's just unable to relate to women, or some such garbage. I did some research and discovered that there was a real asexual orientation that fits this sort of personal history perfectly.

Are you going to tell me that I am missing an emotional bond, that by definition any committed relationship I have will be counterfeit? You haven't acted like a douche like some others in this thread, so you probably won't. But you must understand that when you go on about how it strengthens your bond, makes you feel close, and so forth, it kinda implies that relationships without it are counterfeit. Even if that's not your intention, that's how it comes off.

[Dorian Gray]

172. I'm not telling you

that YOU are missing anything. Your choices are just that... YOUR choices. And your orientation is your orientation. I have no problem with you not wanting a sexual relationship. I think people choose to live that way all the time.

I just think that sexuality is, to many people, a very important aspect of partnership, and it shouldn't be denigrated as meaningless. And I believe that the post that I responded to was your assertion that it was solely a biological urge. I disagree with that. I do think it is a truly a bonding experience between loved ones. That doesn't mean that every sexual experience will count as such.

[Pastiche423]

58. You and my ex-husband would make a perfect couple

I left him because he cut me off. I was still in my twenties and there was no way I was going to continue a marriage with NO SEX.

[Firespirit]

59. Well, that's you

If it's really that important to you... :shrug:

I'm in my mid-twenties, BTW.

[Pastiche423]

61. If it's really important to me?

I do not believe I'm the weird one in this exchange. Sex is a very healthy and wonderful component to a good marriage.

I do believe you have issues.

[Firespirit]

62. It's just a different orientation

Google "asexuality." It's a perfectly legitimate orientation, not any sort of issue. It's defined as a lack of sexual attraction.

Why so defensive?

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

65. perhaps when you start a post by

deciding that "There is ONE reason why a relationship would end if there was no sex. That reason is that one or both of the partners decided that "sex = love" and therefore "no sex = he/she doesn't love me anymore."

You placed a judgment that if someone considers sex a critical part of a relationship then they must thing sex=love... rather than sex is an important expression of love!

[Firespirit]

67. And I stand by all I said

I do think that we are culturally conditioned to associate it with the emotion of love, but there is no love inherent in the act itself.

If you have been taught to think that it's an expression of love, I am sure it would be hard to switch out of that way of thinking, perhaps even impossible. So, whatever works. I'm not on a crusade.

But that doesn't change my perception.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

68. Right *your way is the right and truthful way*

"I do think that we are culturally conditioned to associate it with the emotion of love, but there is no love inherent in the act itself"

I can tell you that is not about conditioning there is love in the act... The brain activity of a person during sex is similar to other romantic activities.

"If you have been taught to think that it's an expression of love, I am sure it would be hard to switch out of that way of thinking, perhaps even impossible."

Science disagrees with you...

[Firespirit]

69. You can stop putting words in my mouth

I. DO. NOT. CARE. WHO. HAS. SEX.

Got that?

What romantic activities do you refer to, physical ones? If so, yeah, I find that believable... physical pleasure just might stimulate the same parts of the brain.

There's something you ignore, though. Kids usually love their parents. Friends love each other. Elderly couples who do not have sex love each other, but there is no sexual attraction involved in any of these scenarios.

Now, I find it highly amusing that you talk about "science" and "love," as if love is something that science can quantify. Is it love when apes are in heat? No, it's a biological drive. In other animals, those who have estrus cycles, there are entire stretches of time when there is no sexual drive. Humans happen to have the ability to maintain a year-round drive, but we are still animals. Why should the underlying mechanism be different?

It's not. Any romantic attachments we have are cultural.

[noamnety]

82. "The brain activity of a person during sex is similar to other romantic activities."

I am guessing you don't work in a rape counseling center or a women's shelter.

[NashVegas]

84. I Don't Have to Change Your Perception

But one does have to wonder why an asexual would wish to marry in the first place.

[Chovexani]

102. Why is it so hard to understand?

People marry for many different reasons, little of which has to do with bumping uglies. Some people marry for financial reasons, some enjoy the companionship it brings.

Romantic love is not the same thing as sexual love, no matter how much some like to conflate the two. They often go hand in hand but not always. One can be present in a relationship without the other and it doesn't make the relationship any less valid or meaningful for the participants. As long as the people involved are happy who gives a shit? :shrug:

I'm about as far from asexual as a person can be :P but I really don't like the way asexuality's getting trashed in this thread. It's as legit an orientation as the more well known ones.

[NashVegas]

105. I'm Trying Very Hard

To not trash ... it's a little difficult, however, as those who are championing that view appear to see that as a superior position; from a biological success standpoint it most certainly is not.

[Firespirit]

106. The evolutionary measure of success is passing on your DNA

From that viewpoint, only heterosexuality is "successful."

I think you must be talking about me when you say "superior position." This is something I encounter a lot IRL, people who think I don't want them to have sex or look down on it or something. It's really nothing to me, except when they get upset over sexual problems and become convinced that they are not being loved because of it. My only reason for getting involved in this thread was to state my opinion that a sexless relationship shouldn't fail ONLY because of the lack of sex.

[EOTE]

108. I wouldn't become involved in a sexless relationship.

Sex is important to me and I wouldn't be with someone if I knew that we'd never have sex. It sounds like you're suggesting that because I feel that way, I'm somehow shallow.

[Firespirit]

119. Well then, whether you like it or not,

you're saying that you can't love someone romantically unless they have sex with you.

That's exactly what your relationship standard means. If that's truly how you feel, it shouldn't bother you for it to be put that way. No one said "shallow," but could it be that you, yourself, feel that it's shallow?

[EOTE]

121. That's bullshit.

I could love someone romantically without being in a sexual relationship with them, I just wouldn't want to be in an extended relationship with them if they never wanted sex. Why? Because sex is important enough to me that I choose to have it be an important part of my relationship. It's important, just as the romantic side of a relationship is important.

[Firespirit]

123. Doesn't change things

What you're saying is that after X period of time, sex becomes MORE important to you than the person you are with, or you wouldn't break off the relationship. You would choose sex, or the possibility of having sex, over staying with that person. This isn't a judgment; it's just a statement.

And it shouldn't bother you for it to be phrased this way....

[EOTE]

126. Once again, I call BS.

Sex is a PART of the person I'm with. I choose to have both a physical AND emotional relationship with the person I'm with. If one OR the other is missing, I'd continue to find someone who offers me both.

[Dorian Gray]

152. That's not entirely true....

if they were choosing sex, they could just cheat on the person with another person. It's about having sex with someone that you have an emotional bond with.

I'm not saying your way is wrong, and if you can find someone who has the same orientation that you have and will happily live a sex free partnership with you, that's fantastic. But, it's unreasonable. We DO have biological urges. And those urges CAN help us bond with one another. Sexuality is a natural part of love. I wouldn't want to have sex with anyone else other than my husband. If he stopped having sex with me? I'd probably stay with him, but it would change the tenor of our relationship, and I'd fear that we'd lose one aspect of our relationship and closeness. And if we were to separate, I would never search out SEX. But if I fell in love, I'd enjoy sex immensely.

[Firespirit]

158. That's a fallacy

One can place sexual pleasure higher than the other benefits to their relationship, but still have a problem with infidelity.

I have yet to see anyone successfully refute what I said. If there are no other problems in the relationship that you'd consider split-worthy, and you have chemistry and enjoy the person's companionship--in other words, if there is NOTHING else wrong with it--but you terminate a relationship solely because there is no sex, then logically you are placing sex as the most important thing that you look for. More than emotional bonding, more than intellectual bonding. And if you think that an end to sex damages the emotional bond so severely that you can't continue the relationship, then you have made it THE most important aspect of that bond. This is not a judgment on my part; it's just a logical conclusion. It seems, though, that this particular conclusion makes people uncomfortable.

[EOTE]

171. You have a very hard time with logic.

What you say is without a doubt not true. You say that if a relationship is going fine and dandy with the exception of sex, and you choose to break the relationship off because of that, that person is placing sex as the most important thing they're looking for. If you can't see that as a logical fallacy (a phrase you're very fond of throwing out), then you need to go back to high school. What if a person has a check list of attributes he's looking for in a relationship. Say this person wants a mate who shares his passion for hiking, who enjoys traveling and likes fine red wines. Petty, yes. But say that all three of these are deal breakers meaning that if his potential mate lacks any one of those three (or dozen depending on the circumstances), he'd break off the relationship. Now, if he meets someone who's the perfect match for him, but she doesn't like red wine so he breaks it off, does that mean that he values her taste in wine more than her love of hiking? No, it means that she lacks something that he's looking for in a relationship. ONE THING. He doesn't value that one thing more than any of the other criteria he has. Do you understand that? So, it's bullshit to say that one who would terminate a relationship solely because of sex is valuing sex more than anything else in the relationship, it's simply ONE thing in the relationship that person refuses to be without. Is that so difficult to understand? I'm guessing so.

[Dorian Gray]

173. There is a disconnect here....

If I have a friendship, there are many qualities that I look for in a friend. I may uphold honesty as the most important, but if someone leaves me sitting alone because they are regularly an hour late, no matter how honest they are, I'll probably stop being friends with them.

There are many aspects to successful relationships. Sexuality doesn't have to be a part of that, but for many couples, it is. I had a friend whose marriage didn't survive, and lack of sex was one of the reasons. His wife had been molested as a child, and she, very understandably, carried a lot of issues into her adult life because of that horror. She and her husband never had intercourse in the course of their two year marriage. That wasn't their only problem, and it was one that could have been addressed with counseling, which she pursued after their divorce. (And she's re-married with a child now, and continues to see a therapist for her issues.)

Her lack of sex drive (and this is only her case... it in no way means that I suspect everybody who lacks a sex drive was abused or molested) was a result of her abuse, and it was only a symptom of a greater problem. That greater problem is probably about 50% of what drove their marriage down the tubes. Many friends think that the sole issue was lack of sex, but my friend who is divorced will say that wasn't the sole issue. There was also a lack of trust and openness which the lack of sex represented for them in their relationship. Add some money issues, and you have a recipe for disaster.

Having sex in their case wouldn't have cured all their problems. Of course it wouldn't have. But, if they addressed their issues with counseling and were able to become emotionally healthy individually and as a couple, the sexuality and bonding may have come along with it. As it seems to have done in her new relationship.

[treestar]

128. True, it is perfectly possible to have loveless sex and everyone admits that

So you could have sexless love - say one of the spouses became handicapped or ill and couldn't do it any longer - the other spouse might still love them and stay with them.

[Pastiche423]

71. What part of my post did you find defensive?

"Asexuality" maybe a perfectly legitimate orientation, but it is not the norm.

[Firespirit]

74. You said "I do believe you have issues."

I suppose that is taking the offensive, but if your method of argument is to cast aspersions on someone else's mental health, expect a response. And usually, if you tell someone they have issues, the response will be a lot more vocal than mine.

Many things are not the statistical norm. Doesn't mean they are "issues."

[noamnety]

81. Amazing, isn't it?

"sexual liberation" seems to have morphed into "society will tell you what you must do, and if you deviate, you are defective and need therapy."

In other words, not sexual liberation at all, just the same old shit. And people are trying to market that as "progressive."

Objective truth: a difference in sexual desire can cause tension in a relationship.
Newfangled "progressive" version of reality: More sex is by default good sex, the person with the higher sex drive is "right" the one with a lower sex drive is "wrong."

And no clue whatsoever that pressuring a person into having sex if they don't want it is immoral; no clue whatsoever that in fact a great deal of sex is not about love at all - that love and sex can coexist, or either one can exist without the other. Characterizing sex with a blanket statement that "it's about love" discounts and marginalizes a great deal of sex which is about control, domination, and abuse. Anyone who's been a victim of sexual violence knows how "objective and scientific" that statement is.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

63. Im amazed at the people on DU who discount

sex as an important part of a relationship!

[EOTE]

90. Seriously.

It's like we've become the fundies that we so like to disparage. No one here is mandating sex or saying that sex should be forced upon someone who's not interested. This pastor is just encouraging the couples in his church to have more sex over the course of a month to see if it has a positive effect on their relationships. I'd imagine lots of good will come from this and very little bad. Yet, because this challenge is issued from a religious person/institution, lots of people are jumping all over it. As someone else has mentioned in this thread, I feel if this were coming from a non-religious organization, reaction to it would be greatly different.

[Firespirit]

107. Can't speak for others in the thread

This hits just a little too close to home for me, except I've had to deal with pressure to be sexual not from churches, but from well-meaning peers who like to throw ancient psychology studies at me. The issue is that it's no one else's frickin' BUSINESS how much sex anyone has unless the persons involved MAKE it their business, it's ignorant of this preacher to think that a tumble in the sack will fix a troubled relationship, and no one has the RIGHT to use a position of leadership to pressure anyone else to have sex.

[EOTE]

109. Yet men hear that they need to be better communicators all the time.

What if men don't want to communicate more? What if they don't like feeling pressured to express themselves better? Why all the misandry? Somehow I don't think you'd be complaining if the pastor issued a "30 Day Communication Challenge" to churchgoers. Yet, because it involves naughty sex, people are all up in arms. And yes, the pastor has a RIGHT to say just about anything he wants to short of what might be a direct cause of physical harm to others. And FYI, sometimes a tumble in the sack will go a ways towards fixing a troubled relationship.

[Firespirit]

112. You really see no difference between asking people to talk and this?

It's called boundaries! Talking does not have the potential to violate anyone's personal space or body. A communication challenge would have the potential for a hell of a lot more benefit than this.

I don't mean LEGAL right, and I think you know that perfectly well. Don't act disingenuous. :eyes:

[EOTE]

114. Once again... it's a CHALLENGE...

Some people don't like being told to have extra sex, and for those people, DON'T HAVE ANY MORE SEX. Lots of men get tired of incessant requests at talking more. For some, it's the bane of their existence. If they're put off by the request, they don't need to comply. Neither does any one of this church's parishioners. And if you're not referring to a legal right, what right are you referring to?

[Firespirit]

117. Why are you making this about "men"?

Last I checked, in a heterosexual couple there is also a woman....

Anyway, if you don't see why it is inappropriate for an authority figure to pressure people to have sex, read up on rape. It's not all street rape by strangers -- most of it isn't, in fact. Conflating pressure to TALK with pressure to have sex is incredibly insulting. And again, if you just can't see how that might be, research it.

THAT is the right I'm referring to. Yes, legally it's covered by the 1st Amendment, and no one would argue otherwise. But it is an abuse of power. Whether you see it this way or not, devout churchgoers see the pastor as an authority figure, and I have little doubt that this particular one knows it full well. He is overstepping his boundaries.

[EOTE]

120. Wow, you think the pastor is advocating rape?

That's pretty screwed up. If he was advocating rape, I'd think that he was an asshole. As he's doing nothing more than encouraging CONSENSUAL sex, I think it's great. And no, I see no boundary difference between this guy ISSUING A CHALLENGE for couples to have more sex for a month and doing the same for communication. I've done enough research on my own, if you have something worthwhile to contribute, please do. And if you think it's an abuse of power, you can simply state so. No need to go about confusing things by using words you know are inaccurate.

[Firespirit]

122. This style of argument is insulting

You clearly have no conception of the power that these Southern Evangelical churches have over their communities, or you would understand exactly why this is a gross abuse of power that he has no right, from an ethical standpoint, to do.

Many of these couples won't take it as a "suggestion." This is a culture where women are taught in church to be subservient to their husbands. This will be taken as a "marital duty." Know that phrase? It's a Victorian era euphemism for sex that reveals a hell of a lot about how these types of people see it. Funny thing, in that era, communication wasn't seen as a responsibility in a marriage. Sex was, and the reason for this was that it was used as a method of power and control.

I CHALLENGE you to spend some time in a church in the Deep South before you make these pronouncements.

[EOTE]

124. I have.

I lived in Florida for 7 years and went to church with my fundy cousins plenty of times. So, there's that. I understand how the south works with regards to religion. I'm familiar with the term "marital duty" as well. And I definitely think that if a couple is so screwed up as to use a term like that, nothing this pastor says is going to make things any worse. And for someone who has such a gripe about the proper use of loose/lose, you should know that "conception" is how babies are made.

[Firespirit]

125. Oh, grow up.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/conception

con·cep·tion

1 a (1): the process of becoming pregnant involving fertilization or implantation or both (2): embryo, fetus b: beginning
2 a: the capacity, function, or process of forming or understanding ideas or abstractions or their symbols b: a general idea : concept c: a complex product of abstract or reflective thinking d: the sum of a person's ideas and beliefs concerning something
3: the originating of something in the mind

:eyes:

You've made your views very clear, though. Between your whining about "misandry" on this thread, your proud statement that a desire from a woman to communicate is the "bane of a man's existence," and your misunderstanding of the psychology of rape, it's QUITE clear where you're at. Good luck finding a woman who will put up with such chauvinism.

[EOTE]

131. I already have, thank you.

And what with me doing 90% of the cooking and a good portion of the "child rearing", I think she's comfortable with my chauvinism. And I'm amazed you have the nerve to suggest that I'm the one who's twisting arguments here. I said that some guys really hate being told to communicate, not that I do, or all men do. And you've never quite made it clear how I misunderstand the psychology of rape, you just implied that I'm somehow happy that this pastor is condoning rape. Roll your eyes all you'd like, I'm not the one who's reaching here.

[Firespirit]

134. Oh, right, you were talking about *other* men

YOU brought up communication, and your idea of men's opinions on it. In your post 109, you brought it into the debate, and you brought up misandry. Then you continued on your tirade with the "bane of existence" comment and said "If they're put off by the request, they don't need to comply." --In other words, it's just dandy if they resent talking to their wives. Combine all this with your statements in the other thread that you'd ditch a woman over a lack of sex, and it's a VERY small jump to figure out that you are talking about yourself. It's a bit late to backtrack now.

You misunderstand the psychology of rape because you disregard what rape truly is. If someone is pressured into having sex when they don't want it, it's rape. If they're married, it's still rape. Sex as a tool of control is rape. If a woman has sex only because she's afraid she'll be dumped otherwise, and she would prefer not to and the guy knows it, then it is a case of sex being used for control, and she is being raped.

[EOTE]

137. You still don't get it.

He's encouraging both spouses to be more positive about sex. No one is suggesting that people have sex when they don't want it. And once again, you twist my words. What don't you understand about this? SOME men, really hate being told to communicate more. That's not to say they don't already communicate, but they figure they already do enough as it is. No one said anything about it being dandy if a husband doesn't want to talk to his wife. Frankly, I think that I far more represent the 'typical women' in my relationship with regards to communication because at least in my opinion, I'm better at expressing myself and working towards resolutions in our disputes. I'm not backtracking anything.

And I very well know what rape is. But I think that you don't. If a woman has sex because she's afraid of being dumped, that's very unfortunate, but it's nothing coming close to approaching rape. Sorry, you 'loose'.

[Firespirit]

139. Sex under pressure IS RAPE, whatever the pressure may be

She may well love other aspects of the guy. And yes, it's a pitiable situation. One could go so far to say that she is weak to stay in that relationship. However, HER weakness does not excuse HIS abuse.

And with regards to the claims you make about your life -- what do you want, a pat on the back? As I said, it's a bit late, when you come into a subthread IMMEDIATELY playing the misandry card and say the sorts of things that you said.

[EOTE]

141. No, I don't want a pat on the back.

I was foolishly trying to teach you something. Once again, you need to check your definition of rape. You demean others who actually have been raped by throwing the term around so loosely. It's funny, you IMMEDIATELY playing the misogyny card and then coming out and trying to lambaste me for having the nerve to stick up for guys (after several other posts of mine that had nothing to do with the subject). I don't give a damn how late I am, I really have no desire to try and impress you.

[Firespirit]

143. Good, because you're not.

I approach rape from a feminist perspective. Since the overwhelming majority of rapes are perpetrated against women, this is appropriate. My view is perfectly in line with a feminist's view of rape. If you want to say that the feminist view of rape is demeaning, be my guest, but take the consequences of it.

[EOTE]

144. Yes, I say it's demeaning.

Because it makes powerless the very people that feminism is supposed to empower. If you call a woman having sex to save a relationship 'rape', then the woman by all intents and purposes is raping herself. That's stupid. Once again, it's unfortunate, it's sad, but it's not rape. And not only that, but that's not even close to what this pastor is suggesting. If a couple is so screwed up as to buy into the whole 'marital duties' and crap like that, listening to this pastor as 'gospel' is the least of their worries. If they're that fundamentalist, then most likely the husband is already of the mind that his wife is his property and nothing this pastor says is going to change his stupid mindset.

On edit: I'm heading home now. Have fun being negative.

[baby_mouse]

145. "My view is perfectly in line with a feminist's view of rape"

Uh, not really...

[Firespirit]

146. From DU itself

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=364&topic_id=2980288&mesg_id=2980288

Emphasis on these.

15. You are a rapist if you manipulate her into sex when she doesn't otherwise want it. If you say, "If you loved me you’d do X" then you're a rapist. If you say, "All the other kids are doing it!" then you're a rapist.

16. If you threaten her, or act in a way that SHE thinks you're threatening her then you're a rapist. If you puff up and get loud and frustrated while trying to 'talk' her into sex then you're a rapist.

[Dorian Gray]

155. Question:

What makes you think that this church is a fundamentalist evangelical church? How do you know the pastor and the congregation don't skew liberal?

[Firespirit]

157. A liberal church that explicitly tells unmarried people not to have sex

and after claiming that it will fix marriages.

What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

But, OK... maybe they don't handle snakes or protest soldiers' funerals, so they're liberal.

[Dorian Gray]

176. How many churches

protest soldiers' funerals?

ONE? One very vile one made up of about 30 people.


The majority of churches would encourage celibacy amongst non-married parishoners. That's just what they do. It's not so shocking.

[Dorian Gray]

153. What did the pastor say

in any way.... that advocated rape? He didn't say to pressure the partner into sexual relations, just for married couples to do it more.

[Firespirit]

156. A pastor, by definition, is putting pressure on people

He's an authority figure, for crying out loud. When the fundie organizations send out their voting guides, those are "suggestions" as well -- but these masters of manipulation also "suggest" to their flocks that their opinions are the opinions of God. Churchgoers place an incredible amount of weight on what their perceived leaders "suggest" for them.

And if a person is pressured into sex, whether by being told "the preacher said we should," "it's God's design for marriage," or what have you, and that person did not want to do it, it's rape.

[Dorian Gray]

175. What definition

of pastor = putting pressure on people?

You and I obviously have a vastly different experience with religions. I am religious, though I attend a Catholic church in brooklyn, not a fundamentalist church in the Bible Belt. Our priest never demands anything of us. He may put out "challenges" (like don't curse or treat people with respect), and I couldn't imagine him putting out a call for his parishoners to have more sex. Not that there is anything wrong with that, but he's the first to admit that it would seem weird coming from him, a celibate priest. (He's a close personal friend of ours, as he and my husband used to work together teaching at a high school years ago.)

I don't necessarily think that this came from a bad place. I think he was trying to encourage his flock to be closer with one another... to put away the distractions and strengthen their bonds with one another. Stop watching television and ignoring one another. Start making out, spending time with one another, and develop stronger bonds of intimacy. I don't understand what is so nefarious about that. And if some idiot takes it to mean RAPING his wife... then he is a monstrous idiot who would probably do that regardless of what the pastor said.

[EOTE]

177. Well said...

All this crap equating what the pastor said to advocating rape is really sickening. It would be like saying that the pastor is advocating everyone to quit their job if he asking his parishioners to spend more time together. Or saying that someone is advocating bank robbery if they suggest that they should be earning more money. Just ridiculous reaching in order to lambaste religion.

[NashVegas]

135. I'm Sorry That

It hits so close for you; I just think that you and another in this thread automatically assumed the worst-case scenarios, which I don't believe is what was being advocated at all.

[treestar]

129. It's just that it's not this pastor's business

Every couple would be different and there is no law or norm that must be observed. He's making an assumption. Some are fine as they are, some might need more, others less.

It's just presumptuous of him to lecture people on this subject.

[Chovexani]

103. I'm amazed at the judgmental assholes

Who can't understand that everyone isn't wired the way they are and can't accept that there are other ways of living and conducting meaningful relationships besides the way they do it that are equally valid.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

111. Im amazed at the overly sensitive assholes

Who just because they don't fit in a bucket that 99% of people fit into decide that the bucket is crap..

If sex is a naughty bad thing for you and you experience no emotional bonding well thats you, cool... It does not make the bucket that 99% of people fit into crap..

[Firespirit]

115. Nobody said that

There is not one single person in this subthread who thinks it's a "naughty bad thing."

There is not one single person who said "the bucket is crap."

I asked another person why she was being defensive, but you are clearly the defensive one. What is your deal? Why do you see different opinions, opinions outside your life experience, as *judgments* upon you? And you very clearly do.

[EOTE]

116. That's the gist I've gotten from the detractors on this thread.

Maybe no one used the words "naught bad thing", but with the way this pastor is being demonized, you'd certainly think that was the bulk of the argument. If people are this much up in arms by a pastor merely suggesting his followers do more of something, it must be a pretty damn evil thing he's suggesting they do.

[Firespirit]

118. People are up in arms over him overstepping his boundaries

This is the Bible Belt South. Churchgoers see the pastor as a leader, as the mouthpiece of God, and they have Bible verses to back this viewpoint up. He is abusing power! It doesn't matter that it was a "challenge" -- it is still a person in a position of leadership putting pressure on people.

Why pressure? Because evangelical Southern Christians tend to see the advice of their church as the advice from God.

[NashVegas]

138. I Think You Should More Closely Study This Church

http://www.relevantchurch.com/

They made a PR splash with the "footsies" billboard recently, IIRC.

Because of that, I would expect this is a boundary their congregation is a little looser about than your average Southern Evangelicals.

[Firespirit]

140. But not loose enough to accept premarital sex, it seems. /nt

[ProdigalJunkMail]

167. sure...let's just throw out scripture

apparently if the church follows the teachings of their texts that is not ok with you...bizarre. Me thinks you might need some help...

sP

[NashVegas]

83. If Your Relationship Is Based on the Mind, Not the Body

You probably shouldn't have married that person in the first place.

Look, I'm not saying this as either a religious person (I'm not) or a nymphomaniac - I'm saying this from my own experience: anyone who feels the need to completely downplay the importance of sex and/or emotional satisfaction in a relationship while hyper-elevating the importance of all things mental most likely has some serious issues they've successfully avoided confronting.

I'll also throw in that I had a grandmother who divorced her second husband (after being widowed) at the age of 62 because he refused to seek treatment for impotency throughout their two years of marriage. It wasn't because she didn't love him, or he didn't love her. It was because he didn't love her enough to put her need for sexual intimacy ahead of his dysfunction.

[Firespirit]

110. Well, you don't mince words.

Issues again, SERIES ones.

I never said a word about downplaying emotions. Emotions are mental, after all. But, look... your body WILL wear out, and while the same thing could of course happen to your mind, it isn't inevitable. Many elderly people retain full mental faculties until death. Your mind is who you are.

I agree it's probably a bad idea for asexual and sexual people to marry, but I refuse to assign blame as you have done. The circumstances are entirely different -- taking you at your word about the guy not loving your grandmother, that's an example of a heterosexual person, presumably with a normal drive, being selfish. Not to suggest that anyone is ever "owed" sex, but the issue here seems to have been that the man was selfish. It probably carried over to other areas as well.

However, let me say this... asexuality is NOT impotence. It doesn't mean that one's sexual organs don't work. It means to not feel sexual attraction to people, and that's not the same thing as romantic attraction. You've got a spectrum of who you could be sexually attracted to -- same sex, opposite sex, both, or neither. That's all it means. You're asking people to act in a way that is completely counter to their wiring, exactly the same as telling a gay man married to a woman that he must put his nature aside.

[treestar]

130. If the two of them want to do it, they can

It's not up to anyone else.

It may be rare, but if that is how they both want it, there is no reason not to consider the marriage successful.

[Jack_DeLeon]

79. If a guy really cares about his partner...

then he wont have a problem with having sex with her during her period.

Nothing gross or wrong with that.

[EOTE]

113. From my experience...

it's always been the woman not willing to have sex during her period. I could care less.... sex is sex.

[NashVegas]

31. It's a Challenge, Not a Law

..

[shain from kane]

18. I'm up for it. n/t

[shain from kane]

21. 30 Days in the Hole

Humble Pie

[Fleshdancer]

23. does it have to be with your spouse??

:rofl:

Seriously though, having sex everyday while still doing a piss poor job at communicating might not do much to lower the divorce rate.

[DadOf2LittleAngels]

55. True but having sex every day for a month

does not preclude communicating better does it?

[Virginia Dare]

25. Sex sells, eh preacher?....n/t

[Solly Mack]

28. Fucking to prevent divorce?

LMAO

[comtec]

164. I always thought fucking (around) caused divorce...

sex every day for a month?!
My wife and I tried that... after 3 weeks, we were celibate for nearly 2 months! :rofl:
For us, the cuddling, being intimate, bathing together, etc, the intimate stuff means more.
In the end it's the closeness, just being together doing things together that matters.

I know a person who is not quite Asexual. He and his mate enjoy each others company, but he's just not as interested in sex (as frequent) as his partner, so they have an 'open' relationship sexually.
For them it works well. His partner get all the sex he wants, and still lives with the person he truly loves.
intimacy != sex, but it can lead to it with mutual interest.


I can't begin to imagine the hell the sex=rape people here have gone through, and have seen, etc.
To say my heart, and good wishes go out to you is really insufficient.
I know it's constitutionally impossible for you to believe, but that (rape) is not normal!

Its true that if you call all intimate acts rape then you denigrate REAL rape, which is a horrible crime in all cultures!
You should never over-use and abuse a word as serious as rape. It lessons the impact that word has over time, and that should not happen. it's a horrible thing, and that word has equally power meaning to everyone who hears it with even a shred of a soul. If it it continually thrown about so casually (like calling all men misogynists) the impact is lessoned, but by bit, as people only hear *unhappy bitter person, it must not be such an important thing after all*. That can not be allowed to happen.

please, get help. consider your words more carefully. Consider the words have on the cause.

[walldude]

29. Wow, finally, a church rule I can live with...

However my wife and I need no encouragement. :evilgrin:

[jmondine]

32. What if they do it a different way each day?

They could have different themed days...
Muff Monday
Tit Tuesday
Waterworks Wednesday
Thumb and finger Thursday
Fellatio Friday
Sadist Saturday and, of course,
Sodomy Sunday

I'm sure the church will go for that. Right?.... right?

[NashVegas]

33. If This Were Coming From Any Non-Religious Group

Why do I think the reaction would be vastly different?

[Bluebear]

39. You're right, everyone is just bashing religion. Waah.

Why do I think you don't care, other than to just be contrary?

[EOTE]

42. I agree with you 100%

This coming from an agnostic, it saddens me to see such a rabid response to what seems a fairly progressive idea for a church. This pastor isn't talking about procreating here, he's talking about fornicating! I think it's refreshing to hear a church talk about sex in ways other than for procreation.

[Bluebear]

43. What's progressive about telling single people not to have sex?

[noamnety]

47. it's progressive in the way all homophobia is progressive.

and in the way that telling husbands they have a right to sex whenever they want it is progressive.

:eyes:

(and yeah, you can switch genders in that statement, I know. But the history is that men who marry women own rights to their bodies on demand.)

[EOTE]

86. He's not saying that at all.

He's encouraging the couples attending his church to have more sex. He's not saying that anyone is entitled to have sex whenever they want it. Whether you like it or not, lack of sex does contribute to a lot of breakups and divorces in this country. I see nothing wrong with encouraging people to have more sex during a particular month.

[noamnety]

94. He's absolutely upholding homophobia.

Ignoring for now your other fallacy, which is that you are refusing to acknowledge that PRESSURE to have unwanted sex also contributes to breakups and divorces...

He says single people should abstain from sex for 30 days.

When gays and lesbians can't legally get married, what's the implication for them?

[EOTE]

99. Oh, give me a break!

Suggesting that single people should abstain for a month is homophobic? Stop reaching so hard, you'll strain yourself.

[noamnety]

148. Do you know what heteronormalcy is? n/t

[EOTE]

91. That's not the part that I agree with.

And I think that part can be safely ignored, it seems more like an afterthought as to what to tell the single people to do as it would be an inevitable question. I really doubt that this will effect the single people in the church at all.

[spoony]

72. Exactly.

Hell there are idiots in this thread who were so anxious to take the bait that they didn't even read the article and think the guy called for abstinence in marriage.

[Jack_DeLeon]

80. I concur...

[Bluebear]

142. Yes, it's all about religion bashing, poor things.

:eyes:

[Chovexani]

104. A non-religious group would most likely

Not be telling single people (and by extension, us filthy queers who aren't allowed to get married) to keep their legs shut.

What I don't understand is why anyone is applauding this like it's some great blow for sexual freedom.

[treestar]

132. It would be equally presumptuous

were it from Dr. Phil or anyone else.

[Iris]

34. er... what about the 28th day?

do they give suggestions for that?

[comtec]

165. Massages, LOTS of back and foot massages for the women

And chocolate, PURE DARK Chocolate...and steak... my wife goes nuts for bloody, rare steaks around that time.
and hot, candle lit baths!

I once dated a girl where if was a day of the week she wanted it!
After a couple months I could not "keep up" and she moved on.

While 30 days of hankey pankey (foreplay is hankey pankey iirc) is a fun idea, in my age, I have found being intimate more rewarding in the long run.

I think maybe that was the meaning. Make a kid smoke a pack of cigarettes, and they stop, hating the OD. Have couples (let's take a moment and pretend he meant any orientation) do it for a month straight (REALLY no pun intended) and have them learn to appreciate the closeness w/o having sex!

It's that non-sexual intimate time that strengthens relationships. The sex is just a perk. I treasure the time on the couch with my wife, watching something. The time in bed, before going to sleep, just cuddling and talking. That is what keeps our bonds strong. The gentle intimacy. The simple things in life are indeed free, and the most rewarding.

[jmondine]

35. I can see the exchange between the single folks and the ushers in 30 days...

Usher: Welcome back. Say, you look a little tense.
Single Person: FUCK OFF!
Usher: Congratulations!

[JoePhilly]

36. Film at 11? PLEASE!!!!!

[Fuzz]

37. He better ice down those pews!!!!

There's gonna be some sore nether regions in that congregation by mid month.

[Firespirit]

41. What an idiot

As if animal instincts have a damn thing to do with love, let alone marital success.

[Wetzelbill]

44. if anybody wants to try that out

just to do it, send me a pm. :evilgrin:

[and-justice-for-all]

45. I wonder if he could be an Atheist for 30 days. nt

[spoony]

73. I doubt he could be a cat for thirty days either, what does any of that

have to do with this thread? Oh, right, bitterness. Gotcha.

[B Calm]

49. I'm sure this head pastor is helping out the wifes who are not

getting it every night!

[OwnedByFerrets]

50. Did he specify....

that it had to be with their spouses?? :rofl:

[comtec]

166. Sadly yes

someone posted farther up, that it's specified married couples.
Thank GOD gay marriage is legal in a few states and counties now eh? :D
LOL 5 down, 45 to go = territories...

[Missy Vixen]

51. It's easy for him to demand that others spend 30 nights doing the wild thing

Most church offices don't open till 10 a.m., so he'll have plenty of time to sleep in.

Perhaps he should ask why so many of those marriages are ending in divorce. I'll bet that sex is pretty far down the list.

Of course, this is IMHO, YMMV.
Julie

[EOTE]

92. I can't speak for his church members.

But sex overall is very high up on the list in terms of cause of divorce in this country.

[Missy Vixen]

97. That may be

but how many of those couples stopped talking with each other, in and out of the bedroom, long before they stopped having sex?

Julie

[EOTE]

100. I don't know...

But if they have communication issues, that should be worked on as well. This pastor is merely commenting on one aspect of marriage that could be improved. I'm guessing he's discussed communication in the past too.

[RadiationTherapy]

96. As a member of a 2 income, day shift/night shift family

with a 6 year old and a mortgage and both of us sort of going back to school, I understand what you mean. We have a healthy sex life, but our single friends would not be impressed. I could not imagine having sex 30 days in a row without being on vacation or allowing my house to become a complete disaster area.

[LiberalAndProud]

52. !

:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:
:rofl:

i can't stop.laughing.

[MilesColtrane]

56. 30 day sex challenge?

Sounds like a commercial campaign.

We replaced couples' KY with pure Wesson oil for 30 days to see if anyone would notice.

[Bluebear]

95. They didn't notice until they used KY as their salad dressing base.

[Recursion]

70. Oops! My gf and I started about 3 months too early...

Sorry about that.

[puebloknot]

76. They'll need to call in the "Hanky Panky" squad for a workshop on...

...exactly what that *is*!

Laugh or cry? I'm fully in favor of these people fu**ing their brains out for 30 days, and much longer, so they'll maybe stay out of the halls of government!

[Jack_DeLeon]

78. Sounds good...

we would all be better off if were going to spend more time with our loved ones and show them that we care about them.

[IndianaJones]

88. good to see the church making an effort to reinforce the sanctity of marriage. nt.

[Elspeth]

98. I'll bet the wives just loooooove this one

"Honey, I don't care if you've been taking care of sick kids all day. The preacher says we HAVE to!"

[zanne]

127. What's the prize?

And how can they tell who wins?

[Karenina]

147. Watch the divorce stats in his congregation.

:rofl: WHAT A PUTZ!

[SalmonChantedEvening]

149. "Will the congregation please rise..."

:smoke:

[Bluebear]

154. DUzy!

[SalmonChantedEvening]

159. :)

:hi: :hug:

[Jamastiene]

160. So, they are supposed to have sex during her menstrual cycle too.

Lovely.

[Manifestor_of_Light]

162. These right wing pastors are experts on women. Seriously.

:sarcasm: :sarcasm:

They don't think about what women have to deal with.

I was married to a stinkin' bastard with no sex drive who refused to take baths on purpose, so he'd get sticky and I wouldn't approach him. His idea of marriage was very occasional sex with the landlady of a boarding house. No affection, no encouragement. And then he starts yelling at me how this marriage is a failure. He had no intention of being serious about marriage. He was a gold digger.

He's long gone.