|
|
 |
|
Getting On : The Trailer Park
|
About The Trailer Park:
This section is for comments that get a little carried
away. When comments become flames, they are transferred
to this area. If you wish to continue the threads posted
here, feel free, but the content will stay in the Trailer
Park.
(More on the Trailer Park)
|
The Jon Waters Thread | from charity - January 18, 2003
accessed 3899 times (moved from Education Cheaper in the US article)
hey,besides me, who else thinks "JON WATERS" is an ass-hole?! lets make a list to slag off the 10 biggest ladder climbing, scum-bagged, 2-faced backstabbing wannabe king penies and mama diareahs VS's-"WOWIE!!"
1 SAM(of china)JEFFS BUTT-EATER
2 JON WATERY WATERED ALL THE WIVES
3 VAS-ELINE STILL AT IT
4/5 FRANK AND SARA... WUT A PAIR!!
NOTE:PLS FEEL FREE TO ADD TO THE 10
NOW, LETS ADD A FEW NAMES OF THOSE BOO-HOO,NEVER MADE IT UP THE MOUNTAIN CHART OF WONDEROUS BS'S WHO TRIED SO HARD, AND FAILED LIKE SHIT!! GBT!
peter delorenzo
erik smith
sunny james
miguel alvorado
sam(for the first 10 years prior to kissing jeffs ass)
miguel(of cherrish?)
spring(of god-fucking free)
AGAIN, PLS FEEL FREE TO ADD TO THE SHIT LIST. GBAKYAMYAB
|
|
|
|
|
Reader's comments on this article Add a new comment on this article |  from dillwd
April 14, 2004 - 01:37
i especially like the 4\5 combo bunch that sh*t up
(reply to this comment) | from dillwd
April 14, 2004 - 01:36
i especially like the 4\5 combo bunch that shit up
(reply to this comment) | from dillwd
April 14, 2004 - 01:36
i especially like the 4\5 combo bunch that shit up
(reply to this comment) | from worldly
March 25, 2003 - 07:16
lets get back to the jon waters subject... that was way too much fun!!
viva stupidity and deranged minds- yippee, so much more fun then talking all your cult crap bout how sorry your asses all are! constipation goes away, but the jon waters thread never dies!!! halelujah
(reply to this comment) | | | | | | |  From Joe H
Tuesday, April 15, 2003, 16:24
(Agree/Disagree?)
Let's not say bad things about him! He's my former brother in law and one of my best friends. Johnathan Waters' father was a new member in the cult and wanted to name himself "Living Waters." At the insistence of his 'shepherds' he chose Phineas Waters instead (no improvement IMO). This is how Johnathan got the last name by which he was known in the cult. His real last name, which I won't post, is a standard American surname, though one elementary school kids might poke fun at. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from Anthony
January 27, 2003 - 19:23
Question to all feminists: What are you personally doing to help educate the general public about, and reach the goals and ideals which the movement, in general, purports to stand for? And no, posting tired diatribes and unoriginal rhetoric on this or any other Website does not count.
(reply to this comment) | | | | | | | From Jules
Monday, January 27, 2003, 20:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Anthony, you are too cute. ;) Female initiative seems to be alive and well without any "motivation" from you at all, so I don't think you need to worry. (Though you should definitely keep those pictures coming.)
Are you really saying that anyone who doesn't answer your question is an "obstacle" to the women's movement?
(Crap, I can't believe I've gotten so pulled into this thread.) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From -
Tuesday, January 28, 2003, 23:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ha, that'll be one to tell your grand-kids. From what I've heard from you though I'd have to assume this guy was a real asshole for you to have gone to such great lengths. If not that may explain your guilty, apologetic stance.
Cruel though the guy was probably sick with anticipation till the police showed. You could have at least shown a little mercy & contacted the village people to keep him company. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Tuesday, January 28, 2003, 23:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh so many stories, but not many for the grandkids. Hey, we all have our "bad (and very naughty)" days. It actually didn't take much as the handcuffs were always on hand (though that's another story/ies) and the guy in question was frequently around.
I am usually guilty as charged, though very rarely apologetic. Ant and I had a private conversation preceding this and I told him to mark the day and time, as to apologise is (probably) harder for me than for Pompous John.
In this particular incident no police (except the initial supplier of the cuffs, love you Jack,) were involved. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 11:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
:D
Now that is funny. I can't believe a married man would think that rewording something constitutes an apology.
No matter, I was looking for a debate not an apology anyways. No reparation is necessary. You have your views and I have mine, and we don't have to agree and I don't take it personally. I have many chauvinist friends (and even one who's a Republican).
I was simply referrering to the fact that you don't really seem to be the apologizing type, and neither am I. I specialise in the Dilbert style weasel apologies actually. My favourite one in the Family for when I had to apologise was: "I'm very sorry that you got so angry". (reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 12:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
You just earned yourself an extra slice of my precious respect, Jules, anybody with the maturity to agree to disagree, especially with someone as abrasive as myself desrves it. I'm glad you have Republican friends, there may be hope for you after all.
FYI, my wife does not accept re-wordings as apologies, in fact she rarely accepts any apology, and my only hope is to avoid putting my foot in my mouth in the first place. I can sometimes plead "language barrier" but in any case I give her a lot more editorial control over my utterings than I extend to the general public. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | from Jules
January 27, 2003 - 11:10
Could I make a suggestion here?
There are three types of arguments in this thread that I can see:
1. Presentation of the issue:
This to me is interesting and worth reading and participating in. We all have different opinions and a well-presented, well-documented debate is enjoyable and informative to read, whether you agree with the conclusions or not.
2. Personal insults towards a person:
The “I know you are but what am I” sort of stuff is entertaining sometimes, but gets old really fast and the participants look like idiots no matter who “wins”.
3. Derogatory statements about an entire group of people:
Blanket statements about ex-family guys, women, community college students, etc. are offensive and ignorant. The only thing it proves is your level of ignorance and bigotry.
The content here comes from the participants, and this web site is what people make of it. If this is what you want then go for it. If you are interested in presenting a topic of debate though, then may I suggest the first approach if you want to be taken seriously?
(reply to this comment) | from Random Commentator
January 27, 2003 - 06:51
This debated topic has certainly lost much if any coherency. Culty, seems to want to go along with and validate many contradicting views it seems his argument is more about winning points (even if only to himself) rather than actually presenting and defending an actual point of view. Possibly this is because Culty doesn’t actually have a point of view worthy of defending but it makes him feel better to find an opposing argument to every stand point. It must somehow make him feel smarter to be able to say “I know someone who disagrees with you”, and “ you can’t be a bigot & say that their point of view is wrong”. He tries to take this “neutral ground”, completely backing up Jon’s behavior (or behavior type), and then saying “I don’t even know Jonathan Waters”. Does it really matter if you know the guy? I don’t think so. What’s being debated is certain behavior & activities which Jon seems to be notorious for (in fact I’m sure there are plenty of other people who conducted themselves in similar manner), so it’s the behavior mostly, the person is really just an example.
Another thing about Culty & I’ll give examples of some of his comments:
1. “I enjoy drama and would enjoy if people used it more frequently instead of resorting to PG language and acting all "moderate"! What a bore that is.... The ordinary forgetful camaleons you see blending themselves and their comments with the wallpaper of society.
People could use more "dirty language" to make life a bit more colorful...
Kiss it where I like it pumpkin! :P”
Versus
“But let's lay off the sarcasm and discuss these topics like grown ups. We don't even have to get into all the extras like "Fuck this and that" to get a point across.”
-Sounds to me like Culty really doesn’t have an “opinion” to speak of, he just wants to be heard. But we still have more wonderful Culty comments to keep us amused:
2. “I was simply wanting to express without feeling bombarded with "bloody bigot" claims or being called a "philosophically inbreeding hick" who can't think outside of bible terms and 2000 yr old perspectives”
Versus
“I'm glad you can claim what fact is without having to give examples Charity, (suffereth long, and is kind, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, does not behave herself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but in the truth) maybe you could live up to yours”
-It sound’s like Culty will gladly do a bit of Bible bashing when trying to make a person by the name of “Charity” feel guilty for disagreeing with him. However when Cuty’s “progressive/ modern persona” is at the keyboard suddenly the Bible is “2000 yr old perspectives”. How convenient Culty! Now for other little doozies:
3. “Just the fact that more than 90% of cultures practice some form of polygamy should be enough proof to you that this is a very ethnocentric comment. Polygamy is not merely Polygyny there are also parts of the world where Polyandry is practiced (one woman with various males). Who are we to judge weather or not that is moral to them.”
Versus
“I believe the government has no business interfering in people's private lives unless life, property or liberty is at risk in some way. The 3 constitutional rights that should define all other amendments.”
and
“there are a lot of different views that are based on a group of people or individuals that choose to live differently, and who are protected under the bill of rights. One of the greatest fallacies, very common amongst those who chose to live and become friends with those who reinforce their own set of beliefs is to think that numbers mean best. Or that if someone experienced something negatively in one situation that involved an action that it must be bad for everyone and therefore should be outlawed or considered inappropriate. When the case is that those who are adults cannot be forced to do squat in a legal consenting environment. That's where independent thinking and critical skills come in handy. You don't fall for the pressure and you know when to say no. You know what you like and you know what you don't and unless forced in a criminal way (in other words, in the case of sex-rape or harassment) people have the right to enjoy and experiment with whatever it is they like so long as it does not harm people in an obvious and impairing way. ”
-Mmmm, Culty, this “Bill of rights/ Constitutional rights” you keep referring to, do they have ANYTHING to do with the 90% (I’ll take your word on that figure) of people who practice polygamy? I’d have to say no, because the US is only country with this unique “Bill of Rights” you keep going on about, but to my knowledge Polygamy is against US law. You like to portray that this 90% of people are somehow protected by this “Bill of Rights” when in reality the people who do practice it have probably never heard of “The Bill of Rights” & certainly aren’t any more progressive because they practice it. You also say it’s a fallacy for people to think “that numbers mean best”, and yet you shamelessly get on your soapbox and quote figures from your Psych textbook.
You talk about “independent thinking & critical skills” & even tie it in with the ability for people to “not fall for the pressure” & to “say no”, yet you know full well that “independent thinking” is a particular thing that “The Family” teaches actively tries to stop, & therefore you have no choice but to agree that “The Family” has largely torn down people’s ability to “say no”, in fact with some destroyed it completely. The people most influenced by “The Family” are easy prey in the hands of people like Jon who make use of the teachings to get what they want. Yet here you go, pretending that the situation with people in “The Family” is the same as merely having an “Open Relationship”. Sorry, buddy but it’s not. I haven’t heard a single person on this thread saying it’s wrong to have an open- relationship or multiple-partners if that’s what you’re after, just that it may not be everyone’s “cup of tea”. You must remember, however that “The Family” that Jon plies his manipulative activities does actively and staunchly teach against monogamous relationships. So, the people you’re defending are in fact preaching against personal freedoms of individuals. Just because they so strongly indoctrinated us as kids to accept their views, to where some people hold them as their own does not mean that they did not take our freedoms away. If someone tells you, you’ve got no other choice but to believe X or X, doesn’t that constitute taking away peoples rights? I believe it does.
I believe the phenomena that is us born in “The Family” is that many don’t even realize that we were denied our right to be monogamous if we wanted to. In fact the existence of any monogamous couple, not adulterers, would certainly be news to me. I guess what I’m saying is, no one is forcing you to be monogamous, hey, “the more the merrier”, if that’s what “floats your boat”, as far as I’m concerned, but WE WERE FORCED to accept the ideas you are now again trying to preach at us, just this time from your newly found Psychobabble perspective instead of your religious one. No, I don’t believe you were like some of us SGA’s in “The Family” who couldn’t agree with what was being forced on us, in fact you are only trying to validate “The Family’s” Neanderthal mentality with more creatively pathetic arguments, and probably only so you can get better marks on your Psych essays, because you know the “Puritan stance” won’t get you any extra marks.
Now just one more little Culty Exhibit:
4. Shamrock, maybe you should be the one to zip it, this is my article and I can comment all I want. And I don't think you represent everyone either I can write a longwinded encyclopedia, or a two word statement. I don't need to do anything you request. So why don't you fuck yourself!
Versus
(Written to Jules) I'm working on the paragraph dividing too, I just get lazy when it comes to presentation sometimes. The last 2 semesters we haven't had to write any papers, been a bit out of practice with the formatting.
And written to me:
True about the paragraphs and grammer, maybe even the spelling too. But you probably noticed these petty concerns mean very little to me. Writting is merely one of the many medians. (I even left in the unique spelling)
-Hey, Culty, I can’t here you, audibly that is, and so, since writing is your medium of choice, please try not sucking at it so bad.
Finally, Culty, you can’t possibly agree with everyone & disagree with everyone all at the same time, in fact I think you look pretty stupid because that’s what you’ve been trying to do. You’re so afraid of being proven wrong that you’re busy disagreeing with yourself just to make a point. A little suggestion, get a perspective & stick with it, you’re so obviously trying to come across so intelligent by backing every concept or ideology you’ve ever heard of (as long as it’s not causing “actual bodily harm”) to where you just look & sound like an ignorant wanna-be. You will probably be one of those rarities who actually become stupider from finishing university because you’ve got no way of putting all these ideas into proper, do-able, liveable perspective.
(reply to this comment) | From Cultivator
Tuesday, January 28, 2003, 04:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Actually, I'm not just about picking fights with people. If that's how it appears to you then you're wasting your time in trying to defend that thought because you won't find anything to back it up.
I've said many times that people who differ are cool by me. In fact I don't see what your point is in your "pasted quote" vs "pasted quote". First the quotes deal with different people, different variations of an issue, and different questions. So at the least, you're just taking my words out of context. Different Strokes to Different Folkes. I don't direct my comments in the same way to everyone. It all depends on what they said, claimed, and the tone used. I might not have shown too much interest in your "jonathan asshole claim" but I did unzip and analyse some of the comments that came with it, which to me appeard to fit an image of "evil" as you see it which really means very little to me, being that I can't see through your eyes.
Did you ever consider that the goal of debate and questions are not about putting people down as much as letting statments mean something concrete let them stand for themselves.
That maybe I might not even have an agenda because I might be interested in ideas greater than my own? That shying away from confrontations and challenging people to back up their claims in some way is not about being cynical necessarily, and could just be another way of saying "show me the money"!
Just a thought! I'm not saying my "view" is flawless. I'm not that concerned with "showing" what is right as much as questioning and really diggin in to see if it's a perspective, a conditioned claim, or really a well documented fact. I mean if something works for you, what's it to me if your square "peg" doesn't fit into my "round" slot? No biggy, that's why prodding and asking is cool. It's how we find what works for us, and what doesn't. I don't see anything wrong in that type of critical curiosity, even if anoying, at times. Again, from now on if you want to chat about Jonathan Waters, hey, knock yourself out. I don't defend or attack his immage. I wasn't around, can't be of help to you.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From shaenock
Monday, January 27, 2003, 10:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
that exactly- was my point.
he can't even get an arguement across whithout getting over-heated and dodging the issue entirely! thats why i- shaenock have become a silly little girl taking the piss outta him, wanking that dimn-witted head-and he still replies?? the worst part about it here is that he persists in making known to us that hes "so smart?!" (reply to this comment) |
| | from Cultinvator
January 24, 2003 - 14:46
It seems to me like some people still don't get that we are not the originators of this argument about the virtues and disvirtues of polyamoury.
Someone popped in a comment in this education oriented article and obviously someone had sexual issues or grudges with a guy called Jonathan Waters and felt that they would like to express it in this section being that
I, the author, happen to have the same first name. Don't ask me where the effective logic lies in that. I have said numerous times that I've never begun the debate over monogamy verses polyamoury. Like many debates out there it remains just as much of a legitimate one, yet I still think it's a bit unappropriate to add it in this section, when anyone can post their own article and attract those who feel like battling it out in their own damn terf.
Subjective views are difficult to argue in terms of right and wrong. It's almost like saying which soccer team is the right one, or which religion is the right religion, or what color is the right color. These are all very subjective things and there are no right or wrong answers.
However being that this debate is somewhat interesting to me I'll go ahead and add this comment to Shamrocks last reply.
Just because something took place in the Family doesn't necessarily mean that it is intrisically evil and wrong.
I personally dispise most of the sensoring and restrictions that stifled my pursuit of happyness and self-accomplishment. Yet a lot of the styfling I found to be the same in most cults and narrowminded religions.
Some are even more extreme than the family, does that make the family any better, not really. So to those who are still in it and are of age, they, like me have the choice to move out if they chose, yet it isn't always that easy for obvious reasons like financial, and social dependance. But that is all together another topic. I said it before and I will say it again, you have to separate correlation with validation. Look it up in the dictionary if you don't understand. I had to look it up at some point too...
BTW, I don't really agree on a personal level with marrying several people, we're discussing having sex with more than one person, that's very different from a daddy with several wives out in Utah somewhere, ha! The concept of being physical with more than one person in on honest relationship is not exclisive to TF. Making a distinction between correlation and validation in itself will save you a lot of false asumptions in this arena. In other words, "don't always throw the baby out with the baby basket" that type of logic leads to beliveing that just because we ate something or sang a song or had a certain view about somethng in the family, that that view is exclusive to the religion and defines it's mission statement and nature. I belive in honesty in a relationship. I don't particularly hold the view that it is necessary to only have sex with one person for a relationship to be meaningful and you only need to ask my girlfriend who I spend almost every day with to see if she is happy with our relationship. First those who have never tried it can't really speak for those who have, they don't have to live their life, and they probably have a handful with theirs. Monogamy is not being attacked here, Gosh, how many times do we have to repeat that to get through some of your thick heads. Some people are so friekin dense sometimes.
There is very little that Berg can claim as being his idea originally, he basically did a fair amount of reading and ripping off of concepts to suit his plans, obviously not a well ballanced all around informed person, being that he constantly pushed for his agenda in everything he said, and often only questioned concepts when they didn't fit into his counterculture mold of what his religion or supposed "christian fundamentalist approach" was. So, basically he just kept confirming and reinforcing his feelings about sex, religion, and destiny in everything he said, taking upon himself the right to choose for the rest of us, when he called himself the "archeologist" who digs deep to find out what's really there under all the garbage. In other words he felt that he had the responsibility and right to decide what's right and wrong because he felt more worthy or connected to the pure source. Which is obviously a lot of nonsense bull.
So if you like monogamy, or a more traditional approach to life, nothing wrong with that, be that way. We're not arguing with you, quit arguing with yourself and labeling us with your insecure chain of slandering names which you ingorantly take as all one and the same. Being exclusive in throwing blanket statements and pushing illogical ideas for all will only prove the opposing point. In fact to a lot of your arguments, we probably should stop responding since you seem to hang yourself everytime.
(reply to this comment) | From charity
Friday, January 24, 2003, 21:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
to the contrary!! you couldn't wait vent your insecurities on the likes of this subject. and btw culty...i would be very interested in asking your girlfriend...the one that you spend everyday with to see how "happy" she is...if that is really so. if it is...why the hell not!! sex...free this...free that...i wouldn't be surprised if your just a big joke in her book. and i hope you know that she's screwin around just as much as you!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Saturday, January 25, 2003, 00:26
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't know you Charity, don't even go and try to asume omniscience on who me and Miranda are and what we are. I'm not the one bringing up the subject, you can ask her by writing her, but first I'm going to go ahead and add a recent essay that she wrote last semester in college in her Critical Thinking Philosophy class totally on her own about the issue, she's drawing right now so I'll post it up in an hour or so. For now if you want to ask her a question feel free to post it here and I'll pass it on to her, or write us at writejst@hotmail.com. Until then I'll have to leave you with suspense.
Everyone has insecurities, this is not a bad word, what's a bit anoying is when people take them out on others.
(reply to this comment) |
| | from bobo
January 24, 2003 - 14:30
all these comments are fine, but what have they to do with the article above?
US / California education?
and oh, by the way, "Thou shalt not commit adultery" isn't that a lot easier to follow than the alternative, cult-"Sharing" rules or screwed up relationships!?
(reply to this comment) | From Cultinvator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 15:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not saying you're wrong in believing that. But I must point out that the 10 commandments and hebrew law do condone multimarriages which I don't really agree with. But that's just my perspective. Polyamoury or sexual or interpersonal relationships outside of marriage in an honest and non-threatening environment is not seen by me as something intrinsically harmful for those who chose to live the lifestyle. Oh and about the 10 commandments. I'm neither Jewish, Muslim, nor Christan. I respect those faiths, but find them largely limiting, restrictive, and based on a patriarchial system of propagation. But I have many religious friends who seem to like it, and that's fine by me. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Random Commentator
January 23, 2003 - 22:05
Of all the interesting topics of conversation, we have those defending decent relationships including Charity & Shaenock & those like PompousJohn, JoeH & Cultinvator promoting & defending those with no respect for the personal relationships of others. Fine, you think it ok for someone to screw every “hole” around, even if that includes people as old as your parents & people involved in relationships, after all its not against the law is it? Or is it? – Ever heard of grounds for divorce?
Admittedly, I’m not one with a notable IQ, and I neither am or intend to be a student of sociology, psychology, psychiatry, reproductive biology or proctology (at least they discuss important issues). Still, I think you’ll find it considerably hard to convince anyone (with half a brain that is) that you are going to be popular by running around screwing other peoples wives, husband’s, girlfriend’s, boyfriend’s, mum’s or dad’s. Perhaps you should remember while you’re busy defending Jon’s right to screw everyone that he’s the one following & benefiting from “The Family” mentality, not the partner of the person being screwed & probably not the partner being screwed. At least those who are outraged, hurt or upset about his “fucking around” with their partners, relatives or friends are showing a respect for typically decent human relationships. All I can say for those defending Jon on this issue is I hope you get the terrific opportunity to have your girlfriend, sister, mother & any friend screwed by him or any other wannabe alpha male.
As for screwing “dirty aunties”, fine, granted, it’s not against the law to have sex with someone as old as your mom or dad. But you like those in “The Family” seem to earnestly want to push the boundaries of what’s normal, wanting people to have to accept that because it can happen it should & it’s just as normal as everything else. Sorry guys, but not everyone is going to accept you’re cave man ideals of the alpha-male VS screwing all the females in “the tribe”. Don’t you see Jon’s only emulating big old Berg himself & you’re there supporting him.
I see a correlation here between Charles Darwin’s “natural selection” & this weirdly apparent “alpha-male” syndrome which by the way is not isolated & was & is certainly rampant in “The Family”. His Theory not being survival of “the fittest” per se, but the domination by those most well adapted to their environment. The way I see it, Jon represents by animal kingdom standards, a head bull or the most dominant lion in a pride who will next be toppled by the next more dominant challenger. The difference is that the whole environment is contrived, Jon by normal environment standards should probably be well over 5 years past his own expiry date. If it wasn’t for the incredible constraint shown by many because of intense religious indoctrination to accept his activities he would probably be either dead, a vegetable, horribly disfigured with no teeth left, or at best hopelessly in debt from all the law suits against him.
Anyways if you want to disregard this entire notion or comment as simply “dominant male talk”, think again & research for yourself, you’ll find there are actually plenty of lesbians who would probably be even more outraged in the same situation & there are plenty of possessive & non-possessive women who actually value their boyfriend’s, husbands or partners. There’s nothing inherently wrong with being possessive of a partner (IMO) so long as people don’t think they own each other.
So PompousJohn, JoeH & Cultinvator, wishing you all the best, I sincerely hope all your past, present & future, girlfriends, sisters, mothers, mother’s & father’s sisters, mothers in law & close friends get repeatedly & hopelessly shagged by the same alpha-male man-whore, & then I hope you all come back on here & tell us how much you enjoyed it. You sick, twisted, pathetic little punks! O, and PompusJohn, for you a little something extra, I hope you get that conquest of Jon you’re so obviously desperate for, even better heads & tails with your own partner.
(reply to this comment) | From shaenock
Friday, January 24, 2003, 12:06
(Agree/Disagree?)
yeh jon phinux
you are pretty sick and rather sickly pathetic and patheticly sick!! you guys think you have such "liberal" views and talk shit like "the world hasn't caught on to the benifits of orgys" blah fuckin blah
your wierd and i would skip trying to give us your little tips. why don't you go back to the cult and be in awe of your berg role-model, or so it seems. maybe i've gotten this whole thing distorted, but it seemeth like you are defending the very thing we left? (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 15:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
See, you're going to start throwing out names like "Sick" or "pathetic" don't expect people in this site to have "Christian Graces" you're probably going to get a lot of "Inotolerant Dirty Bastard" "Nazi Bigot", "demented inbread hick" "bible thumping closet pervert" "gayhating redneck" "wifebeater" "shit for a brain, two bit memory social dinosaur"
"Childspanking, abusing, friek from the midwest" and who knows what other stereotypes out there to put "bible thumpers" in their place along with all the other stereotypical right winged millitia and timothy McVeigh, why don't we add Heaven's gate while we're at the list of frieks. Yea... how does it feel... Having problems seeing through other people's perspectives. It's very easy to put people down. Why don't you start thinkinf for yourself instead of bieng a brainless moron who takes a 2000 yr old book and claims the key to the universe. What a friek! (reply to this comment) |
| | From mex
Tuesday, March 04, 2003, 22:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
You where having so much fun I thought I would add my two cents:
Spastic colon ankle biting foul whining filthy piece of distended rectum smeghead bootlicking born-in-a-swamp elf-skinned mulletheaded vassal.
(deep breath) Smegma sucking assmunch fen sucked half faced flap mouthed flybitten mangled mewling paunchy puking, warped whey-faced reeky venomed barnacle.
that is all i have to say about that. (reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Friday, January 24, 2003, 13:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
As I said before, I'm not defending anything; I just thought that whiny guy was a loser.
As for you, you're just a retard. You responded to the wrong comment, misspelled half of what you said, and I can’t even figure out what it is you’re trying to say, I’m guessing that’s because you have no idea. You need to READ PEOPLES POSTS before you respond to them. Also you should try to make some fucking sense and not just type random insults that have nothing to do with what’s being discussed.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Friday, January 24, 2003, 08:43
(Agree/Disagree?)
For all of you inept and unsuccessful “decent relationship” hopefuls, here’s a 12 step program to help you attain that descent relationship you’re craving.
1) Don’t be a member of a bizarre cult that views monogamy as a weakness and encourages married couples to engage in sex with people outside their marriage.
2) If you find you were born in such a cult as the one described above, leave as soon as you can, hopefully before embarking on what you hope will be a “decent relationship”
3) Learn to qualify your partners. If you insist on marrying in the group, don’t just marry the only girl who happens to be in your age group in the country where you live. Make sure you actually care about this person, and more importantly, that this person actually cares about you enough to stay out of other people’s beds.
4) Assuming your spouse is as interested in monogamy as you are, it wouldn’t hurt to ask for prayer for both of your “herpes outbreaks” at devotions once every couple of months. I doubt it will help your herpes much, especially if you don’t have herpes, and if you are as interested in descent relationships as you claim you shouldn’t. But this will significantly reduce the instances of guys wanting to “share” with your wife.
5) If your wife does sleep with someone else, especially Jonathan Waters, don’t TELL EVERYONE about it. This reduces the chances that people will begin to think your dear spouse is “easy” or that you are not interesting enough to demand faithfulness, either case makes it easy for the “alpha males” that underachievers so freely whine about to move in on their spouses.
6) Don’t be so preoccupied with infidelity on the part of your spouse. This will only cause her to doubt your self-confidence, which is the first step in her losing all respect for you. At some point when it can be clearly understood that you aren’t joking, let her know that you won’t be upset if she’s unfaithful to you, you’ll just be absolutely uninterested in her for the rest of your life, and that you will probably (calmly) kill both her and her partner in some slow painful manner without so much as breaking a sweat a la “Hannibal Lecter”. Then forget about it, enjoy the long walks on the beach and the quiet romantic dinners, and maybe once or twice a year buy a scalpel or some other frightening object that is generally used for murder in the movies and make sure she finds out about it.
Steps 7-12 are to repeat steps 1-6 since you are such a loser and probably fucked it up the first time. (Also I ran out of ideas)
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From PompousJohn
Friday, January 24, 2003, 10:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not interested in controlling women, or in hearing them whine about being controlled by the simplistic stereotypes they (and you) try to classify me with.
I'm quite comfortable with the natural behavior patterns of the female species as I observe them, and I get what I need by playing my natural part in the food chain.
I know what's good to eat and I know what wants to eat me, and as long as I look for the first and avoid the second I'll be fine. You've mentioned several times that you're not particularly intelligent, but if you just try to master that one simple concept, which seems easy enough to even the dumbest animals you should do ok as well.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From cultivator
Saturday, January 25, 2003, 15:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Aren't you a REAL trip. I find telling people that they aren't real and that they don't live in a real world a way of pushing one's reality on someone else. We obviously all have different realities, because we don't live through the same real person. If you're talking about people "putting up" with other people. No one has to put up with anyone, unless they're shakled in chains with some type of physical restriction, so really, you're creating a false dilema to which you think you own the answer. It's not our dilema, it's your prerogative. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 15:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
See feminists had their place in history and still do in the Job market to some degree, as well as some obsolete heat ridden villages of redneckfests, but in cosmo environments where women have more rights than men, its ovious that their statements are a bit outdated. Women have just as much psychological power and respect than men today in most cases. Men are staying home to do homecare and childrearing, and I don't find anthing wrong with that. Women have been mistreated a lot in the past, but think that femnists often have long memories and might be living the past with a male-hating crutch that keeps them from meaningful relationships with males, if they're heterosexual, that is.
Men have rights too, and there are probably as many female derogatory terms as there are male. Using them indiscriminately doesn't make you a better person, it just projects your fears and insecurities, not to mention, intolerant random bigot claims.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From cultivator
Saturday, January 25, 2003, 14:44
(Agree/Disagree?)
I'm not sure who your directing your "thin ice" comment to. I just wanted to add that it was not my intention to minimize all the great work women's rights programs have had.
Much like the slave trade being mostly over, the extreme women attrocities are dwindling although not uneard of. I'm glad they're still there and I would hope someone would continue to lead the worthy mission indefinately. However, I just wanted to point out some issues on the other side of the scale, which is that people often use the hurts from the past to get back at men who are not shovinistic to the least and play on the term to gain leverage in a serious discussion, or to push a personal agenda.
Even women's rights have their limit, just like men's rights do too. One can't just label people they don't like in that kind of conditioning way.
And I'm not saying you are Jules, I just wanted to explain my perspective in my rebound to some of the previous comments, I guess my miranda's computer can't access this site, and since you thought I was that pervert online it hasn't been able to get into the chatroom either. Just checking, that's all!
I understand that I sometimes use somewhat disturbing expressons, yet I'm an artist, so I can't hold back on controversy, that's what art is about challenging and discovery.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From JoeH
Friday, January 24, 2003, 19:19
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ah yes, I knew someone would take that bait! Now it's time for another controversy at Joe's expense:
If women don't want to sleep with me, I respect that, but I convinced there are a whole bunch that want me but are afraid to do anything about it because of the way society has oppressed them into being shy and reserved.
Or maybe I just need to make more money? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Jules
Friday, January 24, 2003, 21:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
lol :-)
Well good for you for not letting rejection dampen that ego.
In the real world though, when a woman says "if you were the last man on earth and holding the last liter of water and last morsel of food and I was dying of thirst and starving, I still would not sleep with you" she just means "no".
(PS: sorry dude, between the "your mama" vs. "no your mama" cluttering up this site, the hate mail from the people looking for moveon.org, the utter nonsense from the Family, the exmember FGs giving me grief for "creating division--we are all sufferers", my house infested with teenagers, deadlines looming at work and a sprinkle of PMS, you really brought this up at a bad time. You are a brave man.) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From PompousJohn
Friday, January 24, 2003, 08:51
(Agree/Disagree?)
We laugh at you too. By the way, in the real world I live in, (obviously different from yours) wives who cheat on their husbands do NOT get to pass all of the blame to their "seducers" but share the blame for their indiscretions, no matter how smart or educated they are. It is well known that women are attracted to authority and success; if they can't ACHIEVE it they'll FUCK it instead. Sadly for you, this does not excuse them for cheating on their husbands with successful men in authority. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From PompousJohn
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 16:27
(Agree/Disagree?)
Jules, I know what this smells like to you, please try to just take it at it's face value, rather than second guessing my reasons for having said it. I know this comment makes it very easy for you to try to put me into a variety of negative stereotypes, but after all, are you willing to argue that this is not true? If so, would you be willing to say that women are attracted to subservience and failure? We both know that is not true. Sure to be fair we could mention the things men fuck and the reasons for it, but that wasn't the topic we were on. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 19:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
If it looks like a duck and it quacks like a duck...
I think I am taking your statement at face value, I didn't pull out any negative sterotypes, but I think your statement did. I'm not going to get into the specifics of this particular case, since I don't know anything about it, and it's really none of my business. I am just looking at your comment that "it's well known..".
What you said is that women who have sex with men who are successful and powerful are women who cannot achieve that themselves. I am very willing to argue that is incorrect. In earlier western society, when women were denied the right to self-determination, and currently in repressive cultures (which to some extent was the case in the Family), the only access women had to power themselves was through a man. However this is simply not the case in most of western society today. People generally date within their own social circle, which means your partners are likely to be in a similar financial and social bracket. In most relationships, women are equal partners. Yes there are gold-diggers and women who are only interested in the size of a man's bank account, but there are also men who do the same to women. Anyone seen to be powerful and successful will attract leeches. There are enough unscrupulous people in both genders to make that applicable to men as well.
I do object to the gender specific slur you wrote here. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultivator
Monday, January 27, 2003, 03:46
(Agree/Disagree?)
True, there is the male version of "suga mama boy" I guess I'm not entirely against that type of relationship if they both get what they want both in female and male "leaches" being that they might not always take without satisfying each other's demand, whatever that may be. It's not always about the bottom line. Generally, for me at least, I find goldiggers a bit fickle being that thinking in terms of handouts alone to value an individual in an interpersonal relationship, and especially a sexual one, underestimates a lot of the other qualities that people have, in other words, lack of appreciation for the best things in life which often come free of charge.
I agree that not all exchanges of services are parasitical, some are symbionic (don't know if I spelled that right) I can only speak for myself. (reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 21:12
(Agree/Disagree?)
Sorry it came across slurred, Jules, allow me to clarify.
I’m speaking from my own experience. I've been in and out of authority and success in and out of the Family, and oddly enough, I got laid a lot more when I was on top.
While it’s true that people generally do date within their own social circle, few will pass up the opportunity to date "up". This seems particularly true of women, maybe because when women have the power they tend to avoid loser guys, whereas when guys are doing well it seems a bit more likely that they will avail themselves of the social climbers that swarm around them like flies on shit. (For obvious reasons, my experience is limited to heterosexual situations, maybe in the gay/lesbian community it’s different, but if "Queer as Folk" is any indication, I don't think so.)
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Random Commentator
Monday, January 27, 2003, 08:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
All I’m hearing from PompusJohn is “Success is getting laid”, & “being on top is the way to be successful/ get laid”. So the “aim of the game” is to “get on top” & then “get laid” a lot, because that shows how “successful” you are.
Geez Pompous-Jackass-John, please, keep your “how to scare your partner into staying with you” relationship pointers to yourself.- No one needs them, no one (except simpletons like Culty) wants them. There’s no doubt you have a good looking wife, but her acceptance of your BS mentality says little for her intelligence.
You obviously had your fair share of “Family” romping, & if you think that makes you a “winner” & others “losers”, well good for you PompousJohn, at least there’s one person in this world who thinks you’re a real hero.
Keep it up! You’re a real champion!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Monday, January 27, 2003, 08:52
(Agree/Disagree?)
If you couldn't tell that my 12 step program was pure sarcasm, then you need to get yourself into a real 12 step program.
And if you can't debate without name-calling, then you need to grow up.
I didn't say success was getting laid, I said successful people get what they aim for, that's why we call them "successful", get it?
I'm sorry to break it to you, but competence is usually a general quality. If you're good at making money you'll be good at attracting the opposite sex, good at handling people, just good in general. And there will always be an abundance of incompetents crying "no fair" about how you did it.
It's just the way our species is programmed, like all species we seek the partner that will assure the highest quality offspring, thus losers get picked last, and if a majority of females seem to think that a particular male is a worthy partner, well who am I to argue with nature?
It's like Sean Connery said in "The Rock" "Losers whine about their best, winners go home and fuck the Prom Queen"
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Random Commentator
Monday, January 27, 2003, 19:40
(Agree/Disagree?)
Funny thing, PompousJohn, your supposed sarcasm goes right along with your little theme of trying to establish that the only way to hold on to your partner is through deception, manipulation & playing on insecurities. Let me just say I don’t think any of you “lucky-wanna-be-alpha-male-he-whores” are worth a dime. You’re filth, you don’t respect people who wouldn’t think it right to abuse positions of authority. You’re the kind of people who’ll tell a lie & blame someone for believing it. You see you actually think those who “made it” to “permanently-getting-laid VS status” are successful, or to use your newly coined term more “competent”. Well I have news for you, a “con-man” is not a success story. A “rip-off artist” may very well be “competent” at what he does, but that does not make him a “success”. Keep dreaming pal, the only thing keeping you going & so “successful” is an over abundance of confidence based on satisfaction of “conquests” which you gained through manipulation & deceit. There IS a difference between a successfully rich story & a successfully rich-thief/ con story. I can’t wait for that bit of Karma to catch up with you.
Funny you point out “how our species is programmed” & how “who are you to argue with nature”. Funny that, that is pretty much what I said in my initial comment about how much like the “animal kingdom” some of you guys are. It’s like, “I’m just heading off to the zoo so I can explain away some of my behavior”, charming. PJ, you belong in a zoo, you’re simply regressive.
Sean Connery, was right, winners do “fuck the Prom-Queen”, but not everyone took that quite so literally. Finally, stop whining like a little punk because I called you a Jackass John. Aren’t you the one who said women “fuck success” because you wanted to “anger your opponent”? – Fair IS fair!! – Loser!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From shaenock
Monday, January 27, 2003, 21:05
(Agree/Disagree?)
shes right...besides, like you said your only sticking up for a friend. so jn waters aside(as i dont know the extent of dammage he caused)
there are many others that were moraly corrupt in they're actions and ways of thinking.
this arguement has degressed into becoming a battle of the sexes. male/female-- the point is not about success(as i dont think we agree on the BS-success factor anyway) its about using and abusing ppl the very way zerby does! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From this is how we want it joe
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 23:02
(Agree/Disagree?)
I want to be taken-tired of throwing flaunts
Lie me down and sense how it’s done
Its killing the moment-to verbalize my wants
I know how to accurately give it to you
Uninhibited, nasty and downright wild
You don’t have to tell me what to do
I take control and pull the reigns
Sitting on top, and performing my way
But my drive for you is starting to wane
A real man who can cause me to burn
Positioned thunderously, strong and free
Outrageous passions how I yearn
I’m not playing anymore and that’s that
If a man can’t act like a man to me
Then I’m outta’ there as fast as that!
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From from a just a girl
Wednesday, January 29, 2003, 01:58
(Agree/Disagree?)
Obviously you don't know Joe or you would have taken him up on this offer. He is quite the man. I don't know why he's constantly portraying himself as the " helplessly desperate type" as he is actually very intelligent and sophisticated. He may act a little young at times but it is only to feed his need for constant attention. If you take the time to know him you'd find him quite charming and full of life and inspiration. He's just bored and finds this site entertaining a long with all the lonely girls that have nothing better to do them critique him. Oh well I'll "test" you anytime Joe. You don't need to worry about having to visit PompJohn for that. (see last comment by him about finally getting you laid! not necessary) (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From PompousJohn
Friday, January 24, 2003, 13:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Success is relative to whatever you’re trying to accomplish. If you want to be a butt-licking VS than you are successful if you are a butt-licking VS. If you want to make stupid posts that show what a moron you are, then I guess by now Shaenock is pretty successful.
Everybody’s dissing Jon because he’s an ex-family member, well so were the rest of us. They whine because he had sex with people he wasn’t married to, well don’t you think that’s a pretty hypocritical criticism, considering what (and who) most of us have done?
Oh never mind, you don’t really THINK at all, you just type random insults – never mind.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From PompousJohn
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 16:42
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't have to be gay to stand up for a friend, what kind of homophobis crap is this? A little insecure there? And in case you haven't noticed, most of the compaints about Jon are based on how many girls slept with him, and most of the people on the "other" side of this argument are over eager feminist wannabe's who don't even know him, admit they don't know him, and would just as happily attack anybody accused of chauvanism if they thought it would sharpen their nails and allow them to assert their newfound views. Real femminists would laugh them off their soapboxes. (reply to this comment) |
| | From charity
Monday, January 27, 2003, 05:00
(Agree/Disagree?)
i couldnt give a shit on how many grls jon watery slept with!!!! howeva...not only was the age bracket out of hand...but he did use his position of authority to get what he wanted. he was an asshole BS and treated many of those under him like shit!! (and im not talkin about myself) granted...he probably was only doing what he thought was right but he sure did enjoy his position and make use of it--like so many others!! that i believe is something you have to face up to...admiting you were a blind idiot would be a start!! maybe he has changed now but if he is anything like u boyz...i highly doubt that!! your all a bunch of ignorant scrotbagz!! and btw ur comment earlier about his breath alwayz smellin like a sweaty vagina...wel i alwayz thought it smelled like a rats ass!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Monday, January 27, 2003, 08:25
(Agree/Disagree?)
I never sniffed a rat's ass Charity, so I'll have to take your word for it.
As far as admitting I was a blind idiot, I left the group didn't I? I never experienced Jon as a "leader" though, so I'll take your word on that too. When I knew Jon we were all a peer group trying to make sense of the obvious abuses of power by our leaders, none of us were perfect, we all tried to get laid as much as possible, much like any group of 20-something year old guys. We used all the tools in the box to get what we wanted, I tortured women with home-grown sappy love songs, Tim R. had this slightly insane intellectual thing going on, Sam Piper treated everyone like crap, Tim A. humped everybody’s leg like a sick puppy until he got the right response, and Jon had this dumb-blonde football player kind of thing that seemed to work pretty well for him. Maybe he changed after Zerby took his wife away from him, I don’t know, I only bumped into him once after that, and it was a very brief encounter.
In any case if MY wife slept with him, I would be looking for a new one, not whining about Jon.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From but....
Monday, January 27, 2003, 10:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
if your a blind idiot in the cult... chances you'll b a dumb fuck outta the cult too!
see, there is a fine line you could draw stating "brainwashing" and just plain stupidity.
even in the cult, i had a brain. and if someone tried screwing my lill sissy--i'de fucking blow his head off! this is all alot of bulox if you ask me. you can't defend someones screwed up actions(especially if they were 25+yrs)on some leader telling him to do such and such. we all did dumb things, but some of us knew when to call it a day- and had some line to draw. why would you go on a rampage to get your own peers in trouble from the very rulers you dont like?? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | From cultivator
Saturday, January 25, 2003, 14:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Oh, name calling, wow aren't you the bright one? I'm glad you can claim what fact is without having to give examples Charity, (suffereth long, and is kind, vaunteth not itself, is not puffed up, does not behave herself unseemly, seeketh not her own, is not easlily provoked, thinketh no evil, rejoiceth not in iniquity, but in the truth) maybe you could live up to yours.
JUST AS A CLARIFICATION:
When I said "If you came to my house and pointed a gun in my head, and I would slit your troat, does that make me a terrorist, no" This was not directed at anyone at all, I should have probably written something like "if someone threatens you with a gun, and you happen to kill him/her in selfdefense, the person who is the aggressor looses his right to life in that instance of attempted murder" Just thought I'd clarify, I'm not a criminal, and any type of unwarranted agression goes totally against my grain.
I suspect my girlfriends's IPs have been blocked to this site and I asume it's probably because someone took it personally as a direct threat. Bad choice of words, maybe even an exreme metaphor, that's all! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Jules
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 19:29
(Agree/Disagree?)
Cultinvator,
My server was offline due to the worm propagating through the internet Saturday night. No one blocked you. I told you to contact me privately if you were having problems accessing the chat room.
I didn't read the comment you are referring to. Sometimes your stream of consciousness posts are a bit much to wade through. Breaking them up into paragraphs would help to make what you say a bit more comprehensible.
Just a suggestion. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultivator
Monday, January 27, 2003, 03:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Gotcha, I was guessing that you get an automatic "a comment has been posted e-mail" would be sent, but you're right, I bet you don't being that that feature is for those who wrote the article right? I'll go ahead and do that from now on. Not including this post of course.
I'm working on the paragraph dividing too, I just get lazy when it comes to presentation sometimes. The last 2 semesters we haven't had to write any papers, been a bit out of practice with the formatting.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Cultivator
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 14:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Reviewing my ass, ha! I just have a good memory from all the drilling that took place in the past. Comes in handy for world religion classes and discussions on theology in religious debates. People have less of a chance being evasive since I still have some of those chapters memorized, and people have less of a chance preaching at me because I often know the bible better than they do. I am interested in hearing both sides so there is nothing wrong with having un understanding of a book which most likely has had the biggest effect in western thinking and laws. Sometimes, it also makes it easier to know what I don't want or care for being that I've heard their stance, and they have no bible amendments, all they can do is basically change their interpretation, but even that is limited, you can't look at a verse that says, "He that has the Son, has life, and he that has not the Son, has not life but the wrath of God abideth on him." All that alegorically. It obviously means that they want you to buy the package, or in their eyes your screwed, sounds like a forced date to me. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Cultinvator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 06:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Also, I might add, you seem to think that you have the all knowing perspective on what is "natural". In the accademic world you'd get chewed to bits for using that word to reinforce your own view. Babies drinking milk when they're born is "natural" and "innate" versus "learned" or "Socially adquired" Sex with more than one person is difinatelly not "natural" or at least proven to be.
Just the fact that more than 90% of cultures practice some form of poligamy should be enough proof to you that this is a very ethnocentric comment. Poligamy is not merely Poligyny there are also parts of the world where Poliandry is practiced (one woman with various males) Who are we to judge weather or not that is moral to them. Let them pick their own rules. Our constitution is somewhat tainted by early settlers ideas of their strictly defined mores. Thank god we've got amendments or else you couldn't give your husband a blowjob without going to jail for Sodomy (which litteraly means sex outside of procreational utility)
Slaves would still be the norm with blacks getting lynched, and non believers would consided witches who should be burned at the stake. Thank Goodness for the separation of church and state, Ignorance does more harm than help, that's why we're trying to get people to question their traditions, and values, not because they're wrong but because we're better than to think that we are the center of the universe. Those who live by the laws get to chose the laws, and even then there is such a concept as mob rule, so we need a bill of righs to defend minorities, like you and me.
If you can't prove direct harm in most cases, it's free for all in my book.
You probably noticed that even emotional court cases like Judge Judy are not moral courts. And you can't put your man or woman in jail or cheating on you. You can leave him/her or divorce him/her, but these days you can do that pretty much because you just don't like the person you're with, with good reason. if after multiple attempts you find out that that person is not for you it's hell to have to be chained to that person. I've lived with one parent and I don't belive that being a single parent is all that bad if both parents contribute to the rearing of the child. I would have hated to have my bio dad after I found out what a looser he was to my mom. I honestly don't even know if my mom is made for marriage. She's kind of independant like myself. But she has fun and I had father figures other than my biodad in my life to more than make up for his absence... so see, the world is really not all that black and white. Morals are just that, selfdiscipines to make us better people, or at least that's what they're supposed to be. I just can't stand those who have to manipulate facts to fit them into their religion or belief system only because they've been conditioned to like it. For me I try to fit my belifs to facts and not the other way around. Does that sound like a rational plan? (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Random Commentator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 09:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
You want to talk about some of the other peculiarities & primitive mentalities of cultures, how about cannibalism, or should we maybe bring that back in too because hey, it might work for some people & we don't want to dictate morality right? Seriously, you seem to just want to challenge every rule, find the exception, you just want to learn from making mistakes instead of thinking your actions through & seeing the probable result & people like you cause chaos.
I'm happy you enjoyed being in a single-parent family, but I can absolutely assure you that the majority of the world does not consider that an advantage. Most people would wish for their family's to remain together & strive in some way to that aim. Perhaps that is an archaic & a soon-to-be-outdated mentality but the way I see it the world as a whole has really not progressed beyond the point of creating equal security & opportunity in single parent families as in duo parent families & so it is really at present really the exception rather than the rule. So, what I'm saying is by all means have all the open-mindedness in the world, perhaps your reckless experimenting with life will lend itself to improving social progression for others, but don’t try & say less is more just because you have less, if you know what I mean.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultivator
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 14:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
I liked the first paragraph you used, I think I'd just change the last word "chaos" to "growing frame of moral"
To me loss is not a reason to freeze growth. Two steps frontwards, one step forward. And about better or worse, I understand there is a lot of stuff out there that is worse, especially in the case of a very unbalanced distribution of wealth, USA and Western countries being some of the worse culprids, however, single mothers were IMO much worse off before, first being harrased and called all kinds of names like "old Maid" and less than a century ago women who were "dumped" had no rights or anything at all for that mother unless the family they were from were extremely forgiving and caring, being that divorce was seen often as the fault of the woman. Dead beat fathers weren't held accountable by law, and the standards of living were horrid.
Every revolution has it's winners and loosers, except for the risk of nuclear war, and environmental issues pressing worse, lack of proper distribution of wealth and affordable access to medical and legal aid, in many cases we're better off than ever before. This is not to say that we don't have a far way to go before we reach a harmonious world. I doubt that'll happen any time soon unless we all unite to fight some extraterrestrial force, people are too set in their ways to compromize for the wellbeing of all. It's really all about interest groups and bottom lines. Find a wing, and protect the pack... well, not much different than the animal world. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 15:31
(Agree/Disagree?)
Ok so here we go with linking and conditioning multisex with canibalism. I belive in basic human rights, and cannibalism doesn't fall under one of them. When you say things like "I can assure you the rest of the world" I don't really think you have the data to back it up. You're talking out of your ass about people you know and those who reinforce your archaic views. Yes, I think a good deal of laws are restrictive and stifling. I belive the government has no business interfering in people's private lives unless life, property or liberty is at risk in some way. The 3 constitutional rights that should define all other amendments. Yes, art is often about challenging what is, that's the difference between holliwood movies and art movies.
Art often is anoying, challenging, disturbing and that's what it is meant to be, so is growing, I might add. Holywood is about reinforcing what you already know, about "good people" versus "bad people" where "good" whatever that is, always triumps in the end. Never giving you a chance to look outside the narrow confines of the "Bubble". Wanna think you know all the answers, be that way. Maybe you'd be interested to know that Socrates thought that the more we know, the more we know we don't know... I certainly don't claim to have the key to the moral solutions of our world, I don't even think it's anyone's job to "make the world safe for everyone" I like danger, good and bad, the ying and yang, gosh, there is no good without bad. doesn't mean we can't protect ourselves, and define our own views, control frieks just stink in my opinion because they're always tring to make everyone be and see like them, what a narcisistic, selfindulging, delusional approach to the world. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 02:38
(Agree/Disagree?)
Wow, random person, random thoughts...
I see someone with good intentions, trying to help "us punks" be better people, unfortunately your perspective is just that. You talk about decency, you throw out words like "screwing" as if sex is a dirty thing outside of marriage or monogamous relationships. If you do you should know that you can't push your views or those of a group of people on everyone. Can't you see how you're linking concepts with perspectives, the contioning pattern in your article is clear. There is nothing alpha male about wanting to screw or fuck or penetrate vaginas anuses or any other orphus of choice, if you don't like it don't do it. Anal sex is somewhat more hazardous, being that it has no natural lubrication, and there are those like myself who don't care for it all that much, but thats a choice we make and I'm no one to apply my set of values and likes to someone else and definately not someone to demonize others by linking these practices with an alpha perspective. Obviously you might need to take a class in human sexuality to understand and maybe catch up on some of the current debate on the issue of what you're talking about. I don't know about the rest of you but I suspect a very narrow defined view of the world if one has to start labeling others with a celfcentered intolerance towards differences. I'm sorry random person but your comment kind of cries out IGNORANCE. Nothing wrong with stating a value or a perspective that is different, it's just the labling that I find disturbing and obnoxious. You're closemindedness reeks hidious if you ask me. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Random Commentator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 04:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
"You see" wrong my dear friend. As for ignorant, please, at least I don't claim to have anything noteworthy in the way of IQ's. You on the other hand are a clearly identifiable wanna be alpha-male emulator. In fact the reverence with which you, PompousJohn & JoeH speak of Jon shows clearly your admiration for his Alpha-male status. You think you're more open minded than me because you accept his Alpha-male behavior & the way he has been able to set himself up using religion & social pressure to get what he wants, & you think you are the only ones in on this little secret which you yourself are trying to master. You see it's all about popularity isn't it. "We are all kings and pawns", and you my sweet friend are a pawn!
Now to a few other discrepancies with your reply: I don't see how "screwing" is a bad term for sex, casual yes & that’s the way I've used it, why, would you prefer "love-making" used instead, geez. I don't as it happens think anything bad about sex before marriage, however I do think open-relationships are fucked-up & I don't think "swingers parties" between married couples is desirable. I have friends who won't have sex till marriage, is that "dumb" and "ignorant" to you? I bet it is & you know why, because you believe in what you think will advantage you, meaning you're more likely to get what you want if someone is more "open-minded". That's all "open-minded" is to a lot of people including quite obviously yourself. People who want you to be open minded about something they will end up benefiting from. Seriously dude, I really don't care what you personally think & like I said go get that man whore to have intercourse/sex/lovemaking with your girlfriend or wife, sisters, friends and your mother & then come back here & tell me I'm ignorant because I think that’s sick shit.
I wonder why so many ex-family SGA's have to go & study the social sciences in university & then turn around and tell us all how fucked up we all are without even noting that; a) most of us probably read even more than they do; b) most of us have social interaction with ordinary people and can tell you with common sense when behavior is wrong, divisive, self-gratifying, ignorant or just plain stupid; c) most of us realize that the social sciences don't even all agree with each other, "experts" are constantly disagreeing because human nature is relative to environments.
So Cultinvator, you little wanna be alpha-male emulator punk, I'm not "trying to help you", I’m not in the business. I think you're a dumb little shit who thinks he knows more than everyone else because of how "open-minded" you are & because you finally discovered university & a psychology textbook. The problem is you still think with your dick!!
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 05:15
(Agree/Disagree?)
Gosh, looks like someone is getting excited over this debate. Hey you know what they say about extremists much like Judo, the extreme use of force unchecked can work against you unless you really know what you're doing. I don't claim to have the keys to the truth, and I don't need to put up a pretentious front using fake humility remarks about lower or higher IQ, being that I know how little IQ really means in terms of success in life and adjusting to one's environment. But let's lay off the sarcasm and discuss these topics like grown ups. We don't even have to get into all the extras like "Fuck this and that" to get a point across. Basically you have shown yourself to be quite sure of yourself in your statement about what is decent, obvious and logical. Instead of challenging your perspective what I'll do is pose a few questions that I usually ask myself when I belive I'm dead right about an issue to help me look at things more objectively, especially when dealing with people who I strongly dissagree with. I too would be frustrated at college or university pricks flashing psychological sounding jargon around without speaking to me in laymans terms about an issue I was simply wanting to express without feeling bombarded with "bloody bigot" claims or being called a "philosophically inbreeding hick" who can't think outside of bible terms and 2000 yr old perspectives. I like most of the people on this site was a devout born again christian and couldn't figure for the life of me why gays and lesbians could so shamelessly portray their lifestyle, why people all over the world saw things so differently than how the bible put it, and why did they all disobey the letters that where the "manual" to the "way, truth, and life". When one thinks in terms of right and wrong instead of what works for some and not for others. And I'm not referring to universal human rights like the freedom to exist without crime, rape and murder. We're dealing with highly subjective personal decisions. I think there are no right and wrong answers to these issues, and you're wrong to say that I'm defending Jonathan Waters, if you read more carefully you'd note that I am neutral to his actions being that I am not the person he had sex with, neither was I living with him, which upsets me, because I find stereotyping like that to be the beginning of a link of correlations that make people judge each other. That leads to slander, intolerance and eventually hateful actions. People have the right to belive in monogamy and poligamy, if that is what makes them happy. The type of arbitrary morals that cause wars are those where people want to make blanket statements as to how everyone should live their life. Ignorance is not something that is against the law. In fact there are plenty of things I'm ignorant about, and I am no better than you. I'm sure there is something that you do that I probably don't have the slightest clue about. Human Sexuality happens to be something I've done a good deal of research on and a bit of social history. Does that make me a better human being, no. But it shows me that there are a lot of different views that are based on a group of people or individuals that choose to live differently, and who are protected under the bill of rights. One of the greatest falacies, very common amongst those who chose to live and become friends with those who reinforce their own set of beliefs is to think that numbers mean best. Or that if someone experienced something negatively in one situation that involved an action that it must be bad for everyone and therefore should be outlawed or cosidered unapropiate. When the case is that those who are adults cannot be forced to do squat in a legal consenting environment. That's where independant thinking and critical skills come in handy. You don't fall for the pressure and you know when to say no. You know what you like and you know what you don't and uness forced in a criminal way (in other words,in the case of sex-rape or harrassement) people have the right to enjoy and experient with whatever it is they like so long as it does not harm people in an obvious and impairing way. And that does not include SnM which is the desire for pain so long as it does not leave marks. Who are we to say that people can't do these things. It's our body (for us who do not belive it belongs to some diety) and we can do as we chose being confident that there is a defined separation between church and state making sure people are not demonized for controversial views and conduct, and mostly that they do not suffer the typical "witch hunt" that occured time after time in society when a set of morals and ideals rule the vast array of people who are not and cannot be the same in tradition, morals, and perspective. So my point is, who are you or I to judge. As I mentioned in a previous comment, there is a grate difference between correlation and validation. If you can prove that non-exclusive sex is an alpha phenomena and that it attacts the dignity of women (whatever that means) or the self respect of them as a human beings, the latter being a more objective term, then maybe there is room for the next step which would be to ask why and how that is. Old morals and traditional values are great, but they have their place and in subjective issues they don't supercede freedom to persue happyness and openminded expression. And agian, I happen to be male, but it doesn't take a genious to note that there are a lot of women who like to experiment sexually with different people before tying the knot. Pick up a book about sexuality from a credible source and you'll note that terms like promiscuity are not really objective words they are pretentious and are based on a pragmatic view that reinforces the idea that sex should be kept with one person, and one person alone. If that's your choice and you're happy with it, all the more power to you, but I certainly don't appreciate your judging attitude towards those who see the world differently. If people are responsible and aware of the consequeces of their actions, the fruits or results should speak louder than words or views. Those are merely reflections of perception. If one thinks more in terms of functional, disfunctional, connection, the lack of it, harmful, helpful, we seem to be able to get deeper and more concrete results than those based on a strict paradigm of telling ouselves what we already know instead of searching and experimenting with what's new and unknown to us. I don't know about you, but the latter seems so much more invigorating and challenging. Why relive the old concepts of those of the past, let's stop linking things to the extremes and putting people into stereotypes both "good" and "bad". Think of it, if you think that oriental people are "naturally" good at math, what happens if a person who happens to be oriental isn't good at it, a stereotypical thinker would say "what's wrong with you, you suck at math... you aren't living to the "popular" perception of who you should be. Get where I'm headed. "harm" does come from sexual activites, and I'm not saying they shouldn't be regulated and curbed, but so does harm come from a myrad of problems in life, from driving to breathing, to working, to sex. Does that mean we should all play safe and sue those who prefer the riskier business, so long as people are informed of what's going on it's their choice to do what they want with their lives. It's not like they're asking you to watch of be part of it. Those who want to make sure that people stop climbing dangerous mountains, or who keep people from camping in the beach or who are against pornography, or controlled home substance experimentation within limits, etc... are silly in my opinion. Because they feel like they're some kind of God or "moral majority" who should make sure people don't live, think, or act differently from the conformed mold. Where is living in that? I rest my case. (reply to this comment) |
| | From shaenock
Friday, January 24, 2003, 12:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
u long winded wind-bag
shut up because no ones listening to your droanings on and on and on,,,,
maybe you can start by going to school and learning how to compress all your endless crap into maybe 2 or 3 sentences that someone might bother reading u concieted thing. your one of the wannabes that has to tell everyone how wonderful u r becase you'll never hear it from anyone else.... (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Cultivator
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 15:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
When Shag-egg-knogg portrays me as Mr. Conceided, I can percieve her or call her whatever name tickles my ass. Just because I don't kiss and lick outdated tuna to feel good about myself doesn't mean I don't appreciate the views of women and men alike. I usually try to react with a similar level of aggression in hopes of not overkilling an argument or being perceived as a backless doormat. Did you really want to know or are you still fucking with me? (reply to this comment) |
| | From shaenock
Sunday, January 26, 2003, 21:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
see, you are very stupid! you get worked up about everything and are not very stable in your "manliness"
you have to give us your girlfriends e-add"even ask her"to back you up.har!!that was funny
John is right tho, i dont even read your posts--they are too long-winded and pointless. i simply speel away my folly and it works for you! i'm having fun bieng a silly little girl at your expense. harhar (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Monday, January 27, 2003, 04:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
My expense, ha! You're pretty funny actually, Not silly at my expense though! Just a silly little stupid girl with her thumb up her butt, that's all.
I don't see how that could cost anyone anything? Except your time typing, and conversing with me, hey I enjoy the attention. No such thing as bad publicity. And I already enjoy conversing so wheather you type something in my section or not doesn't mean I won't take the exact same amount of time typing some other post. I spend basically the same amout of time typing.
Don't get too excited "westhollywood" butch, Sorry to let you down if you were hoping to have a go with Miranda, no she's not bi that way, not online with strangers. Wouldn't mind if she was in real life though! She's mostly exclusive with me so far, but that's her choice. Yea I'll post her essay in a bit, awww... feeling the suspense huh?
Last time I was about to post it the bug hit the internet and I couldn't get on right after posted the article saying that I would. Hopefully I'll have better luck this time.
Glad you know so much about what is "manly", sounds like another one of those "farmer brown" terms that you hear in these "be a man" campaigns like "men don't dance" and the like crap, well if you know anything about sexual confidence you'd know that it's very little about acting out a stereotypical role, that sounds more like someone who is insecure in his/her sexuality. And nice try on the "worked up" part, just shows what a dumb bitch you are for pretending to know my mood and state of mind based on a dramatic comment. I enjoy drama and would enjoy if people used it more frequently instead of resorting to PG language and acting all "moderate"! What a bore that is.... The ordinary forgetful camaleons you see blending themselves and their comments with the wallpaper of society.
People could use more "dirty language" to make life a bit more colorful...
Kiss it where I like it pumpkin! :P
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Cultinvator
Monday, January 27, 2003, 04:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Miranda wrote this during the last Fall 2002 Semester. The class 'Philosphy, Critical thinking' dealing with everyday logic in reasoning issues. Just to give a bit of background to her article, I'll add that the teacher required an essay that indicates a way in which independant thinking is, and is not characteristic of one's personality.
Miranda G.
PHIL 115
12-11-02
Essay#2 Independent Thinking
Most people in the United States believe intimate relationships should consist of sexual exclusivity. In other words, a person should only engage in sexual affairs with his or her current partner. Through my own reasoning and research, I believe if a couple is honest and trusting of each other, protected sex and sexual contact with other people is permissible. This is also known as an open relationship.
My reasoning stems from the notion that an open relationship allows a person to enjoy the freedoms of single life, but retain the comfort of a relationship. When people have a healthy relationship, sex outside the relationship is usually for mere pleasure and not meant to replace the bond between the couple. Therefore I believe that if an honest relationship is tarnished from nonexclusive sexual activity, the problem is not rooted in the sex, but in the lack of trust, feelings of jealousy, and or insecurities the other partner may possess. I also noticed many reasons our society follows sexual exclusivity are common in religious documents containing illogical explanations hindering sodomy or sex for pleasure. As an agnostic and a person who thus far only engages in sex for pleasure, I found the reasoning behind sexual exclusivity unsatisfying.
My experience in holding this belief varies only slightly because I am cautious with whom I share my views. To not be cautious I risk social exile in both work and other environments. I usually abstain from sharing my belief with those who possess strong religious morale or who strongly oppose my view due to its social intolerance. Certain people who fail to understand my reasoning perceive I lack morals and I engage in sex with anyone at anytime. I confide only in my friends or people open to the concept since they are willing to understand rather than despise my perspective on open relationships.
Independent thinking is somewhat characteristic of me. I constantly challenge my reasoning to make certain why I truly feel a certain way about various concepts. I often attempt to peer into the reasoning behind opposing views to create an understanding of them. I like to believe I can refine or change my views if a better answer appears. Independent thinking is not characteristic of me when my openness to outside opinion changes to gullibility.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Random Commentator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 09:08
(Agree/Disagree?)
Yes, someone is getting excited with this topic. You know how you can tell? When you get excited about a topic Culty, you neglect to break down your comments into readable paragraphs & you tend to ramble. Nonetheless entwined in the encrypted assortment of word collections there is maybe a little coherency here and there to which I will try and reply.
You’re right Culty, it’s not about IQ’s, yours or mine, I’m glad you picked up on that. Let me just clarify again for you, the reason for this debate is not about whether someone likes to have sex more often or with more partners than someone else. It’s not even really about whether someone has a “religion” that teaches against monogamy or against homosexuality. We all know what this is about, it’s about not even knowing the difference. Being taught a religion which allows other people to take advantage of us. The enemy are those who take advantage through deception guised as religion, a religion from which most of us had no escape until adulthood. A religion which allows people like Jonathan Waters to have his way with grown up married women, who now don’t even question whether it’s wrong or intrusive, it’s just a part of everyday life. The question is not whether these women chose this kind of lifestyle, because if they were born into the cult we know their decision was made before birth, the question is whether they have been allowed, through their own experiences to make their own informed decision on the matter, & that rightly is very individual. But truly, I have heard many SGA’s say they’ve made the decision for themselves when it was so obvious they never opened their mind to the possibility of something else. It’s so much easier to have right & wrong put in a box and given to you without having to make the hard personal choices for yourself. That was the cop-out our parents made, listening & believing every word of Berg, & it’s the same cop-out (IMO ) most of the SGA’s who remain in “The Family” make when they remain in.
“The Family” can now almost be broken down into a caste system. You have people like Jonathan who can have their way with peoples wives, daughters, mothers & friends & yet there are certainly those who are not so lucky. Many people in “The Family” certainly do bow down to authority in that respect without even knowing (IMO) that their own rights are being violated.
You go on & on with statements like: “people have the right to enjoy and experiment with whatever it is they like so long as it does not harm people in an obvious and impairing way” – Now for a psychology student, that’s just stupid especially since were talking more about deception than coercion; also statements like: “If you can prove that non-exclusive sex is an alpha phenomena and that it attacks the dignity of women (whatever that means) or the self respect of them as a human beings, the latter being a more objective term, then maybe there is room for the next step which would be to ask why and how that is” - Again sheer stupidity considering the topic is what these women believe they are supposed to do on account of religion, because if it wasn’t for a religious authority position held by Jonathan, I can guarantee you his notoriety would be minimal; and how about your statement of : “but I certainly don't appreciate your judging attitude towards those who see the world differently” – Dumb and ignorant again, don’t you see the reason you “see the world differently” is because of your own judgemental attitude? Besides people like you who tell us to throw caution to the wind & experience everything rather than rationalise things through are exactly the kinds of people responsible for a bunch of hippies forming an experimental cult called “The Family” neglecting the care of their children & their own responsibilities to society and ultimately causing abuse and harm.
Finally, next time, when you say “I rest my case”, try & stick to it. -Thanks sweetie.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultivator
Saturday, January 25, 2003, 20:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, with your endless amendments I'll just have to amend my previous comments you give me no choice, or do you? At the end it's not about who's right but what's right, and I certainly don't need this debate to make me feel better about myself. I do, however enjoy the exchange of perspectives, I feel whatever doesn't kill you only makes you stronger, and the clashing of ideas makes us more well rounded individuals.
Who knows, one day I might run into one of you and we might turn out to be best friends, I like people and I differentiate them from their ideas being that values are fickle and for what I see as an open minded person, once we find a varying perspective that seems more rational and coherant in our lives and world of meanings, why should we stick to archaic previous views that only hold us down to the past. Unless, of course we feel restrained by friends or connections from people who have a set of frozen ideals, but then we're more like slaves for extrinsic gain than free spirited living beings. Restraint is not something I'm against, I do it all the time. I'm not a sociopath, we have do deal with people all the time, and to think push people who think otherwise only works against us, I'm completely tolerant towards people being more traditional for whatever their reasons might be. NOt a problem. Just becuase I don't flash my limits, doesn't mean I don't have them. Presuming you know me like this is a mistake.
True about the paragraphs and grammer, maybe even the spelling too. But you probably noticed these petty concerns mean very little to me. Writting is merely one of the many medians. Like a comment I once heard "just because someone speaks with an accent or imperfection, doesn't mean they think with one". How I lay out what I say is really no big deal when talking informally at this level. My last name and personal info is not even on this site so really, analyzing someone's argument based on his/her grammer is just silly and desperate in my opinion. It's not like every other word is misspelled, so if you find this casual chat intolerable in your anal perspective of how things should be, isn't that your problem, not mine.
However, this discussion is getting a bit murky and unobjective, the only topic I'm addressing in this already randomly tangented debate (in regards to the article posted)is that polysexuality and polyamoury isn't necessarily linked to being a bad or untrustworthy person, and since you just confirmed that this isn't such a big deal to you, would you mind putting your thesis in a few lines for me and those reading that way we're not dealing with semantics and clowdy volleys of slanders, I think we'll be able to deal with what's at hand instead of finding flaws in each other's unreal erroneously perceived argument.
If you just don't like who I am from what I've said so far why don't you just stop writting?
There is no reason for me to hate any of you, I don't even know you. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Libertine!
Friday, January 24, 2003, 00:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Random Commentator wrote: "...we have those defending decent relationships"
What do you mean by "Decent" relationship? I hope you aren't one of those Fundamentalist types who thinks anthing that isn't the missionary position is perverted. In Australia they call assholes like that "Wowsers" Here is a basic definition of the term:
"A wowser is simple, satisfying, succinct, single word which aptly distinguishes the whole race of windy. watery, cantankerous, snuffling Chadbands, Stinggingses, Holy Joes and Scripture-spouting sneaks, hypocritical humbugs, and unctuous, dirty-minded rotters, who spend their time interfering with the healthy instincts and recreations of healthy-minded, honest humanity."
Have you ever heard of polyamory? You should check out www.polyamory.org, they have a lot of interesting information. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Random Commentator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 01:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
I should think the general population would understand the inference to "decent relationships" much like most people (besides you & those like you) would know there is a difference between polyamory & a slut, whore or prostitute. You ask the question what I mean by "Decent" relationships & without waiting for an answer, decide to dazzle us all with your marvellous knowledge of obscure Australian slang. "Wowser" a term probably invented by a toothless, topless, drug-addict prostitute out in a rural outback mining village while trying to describe someone who unlike them actually knows what a condom is.
I’m sure to supplement your wonderful research on www.polyamory.org you would have also discovered there are numerous sites for polygamy, bigamy, & since you’re another one who likes to push the envelope of “decent”, you’ve probably thrown in a bit of incest & paedophilia into the mix. It’s pretty obvious you’re “out there”, I’m just trying to decide whether you’re a redneck with a computer, a hippie with a book & a computer, a sex-worker with paedophiliac connections, or maybe a mixture of more than one or all three including some others I haven’t thought of.
Maybe your circle of friends appreciate Jon & his behaviour, I can guarantee you most of the world does not.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From Libertine!
Friday, January 24, 2003, 01:49
(Agree/Disagree?)
Gee, really good dickhead, accuse me of being a peodophile and a drug addict just because I disagree with your blue-nosed obsession with morality. Why don't you accuse me of being a satanist/communist who puts poison in halloween candy and plots to replace the Constitution with a UN government?
I mean as long as you're going to be a right-wing shit talker you might as well give me the whole dose. You sex-obsessed guilt-ridden freak, you puritans are the ones responsible for all those perversions in the first place!
Sexual repression creates sexual deviancy,(IMHO) and is the cause of much of the evil associated with sex. I believe that teenagers and older children should be free to explore their sexuality WITH EACH OTHER, and I think this is healthy. I believe adults should stay out of their kids sex lives, neither encouraging or discouraging them from exploring and experiencing love at their own pace and WITH THEIR OWN PEERS. This is what I wish the adults had done with me.
Nowhere in my post did I condemn your choice of monogamy, if that's what does it for you then great, I wish you the best. But you need to realize that not everyone shares your opinion, and you have no right to call us "Indecent" simply because we differ from you.
To hell with the Puritans!!! (reply to this comment) |
| | From Random Commentator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 03:04
(Agree/Disagree?)
Good to see you're so open minded you cry "To hell with the Puritans". Hey, the Puritans have been some of the most persecuted people in the world, you're intolerance of their rules of decency are just as valid as your lack of rules whatever they may be. Look, I'm not calling you a paedophille any more than you're calling me a "Puritan", so calm yourself. I'm sure there's nothing wrong with teenagers or kids experimenting as they wish & I agree everyone should be left to develop at their own pace. Neither am I saying that it is wrong to have multiple relationships or that it's inferior to being monogamous, because thats not what I think.
What I do think is that "The Family" concept of "sharing" is not at all the same as "polyamory", therefore your entire little arguement is worthless. "The Family", as you should well know, uses religion to influence peoples reactions & ways of thinking. Jon Waters clearly uses "The Family's" religion to get what he wants, and that I think is harmful and wrong. Especially because the people who fall prey to that sort of thing are often those who are maybe easily influenced or who can be pressured into something they may not naturally do. If you think Jon's so honorable, fine, tough titty's, keep your opinion I'm not trying to change your mind, I just whole heartedly disagree. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Aita.
Friday, January 24, 2003, 07:01
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Family used religion to back up their twisted sex beliefs & that's where things are different. See, you are free to believe whatever you want, you are free to practice whatever you want, but when you go & push your beliefs on someone else (backing them up with a "perfectly logical religous interpretation") that's a totally different story.
I don't know Jonathan Waters, but I do know that a lot of people in TF did use these believes to get what they wanted: sex with anyone they wanted at the moment.We all know that. A lot of us have experience this first hand. So maybe now we have a more close minded attitude towards sex, we don't accept anyone's differences, we don't want to fall in that trap again. Does that mean we are Puritans? or maybe you're at the other side of the balance: you are totally open to anything. You agree with swinging partners, anything goes in your book. Does that make you a pervert & a whore?
I don't think so. I think we were never free to actually find our own beliefs, our own sexuality, so it's going to take a while of going back & forth before we can give a clear answer as to whan we believe is moral for us & what isn't. And even when we find it, whatever is moral for us might not be for the guy next door. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Aita.
Friday, January 24, 2003, 06:57
(Agree/Disagree?)
The Family used religion to back up their twisted sex beliefs & that's where things are different. See, you are free to believe whatever you want, you are free to practice whatever you want, but when you go & push your beliefs on someone else (backing them up with a "perfectly logical religous interpretation") that's a totally different story.
I don't know Jonathan Waters, but I do know that a lot of people in TF did use these believes to get what they wanted: sex with anyone they wanted at the moment.We all know that. A lot of us have experience this first hand. So maybe now we have a more close minded attitude towards sex, we don't accept anyone's differences, we don't want to fall in that trap again. Does that mean we are Puritans? or maybe you're at the other side of the balance: you are totally open to anything. You agree with swinging partners, anything goes in your book. Does that make you a pervert & a whore?
I don't think so. I think we were never free to actually find our own beliefs, our own sexuality, so it's going to take a while of going back & forth before we can give a clear answer as to whan we believe is moral for us & what isn't. And even when we find it, whatever is moral for us might not be for the guy next door. I think that was the original bottom line of this article. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultinvator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 05:37
(Agree/Disagree?)
See Random, his reaction when crying out "to hell with Puritans" was just a reaction to your originating statement that blasted those who are not like you.
Your exclusive attitudes are fine and dandy, but when you push them, and cram them down the throats of those who chose not to abide by them, that makes you a bigot. So you can't expect to be treated nicely when you just drew a circle around yourself and said that the rest of the world who is not in that circle can go to hell. We don't have a problem with you adding as many rules and regulations to your own life as you chose, you can put everyone in a neatly defined package and label, just don't litter common space with it because by doing so your arrogance insinuates that those who don't fit into your mold are bad evil and indecent, that does upset people and they have all the right in the world to pop a pin into your buble being that you're the one with the claim, you're the one with the idea, and the burden of proof is on you. Last time I checked people are inocent until proven guilty. When your belief system judges people people don't judge you because they don't like you, they just don't like your belif system because it says that they are less worthy for not fitting into your trips. That might be one reason why so many people despise the bible salesmen of doom that keep judging everyone by their standards based on some kind of elitist "revealed truth" instead of logic that is not circular or based on some presumed hierarchy. I mean is this clear. The only time that one in physical terms is alowed to inflict harm is when they are being attacked. So if you come into my house and point a gun in my face I might slit your troat, why, am I a terrorist. No I just did that because you were the original aggressor, that's a bit of an extreme term but in an extreme way it gets the point accross. The idea that my way or the highway is the way really is the epidemy of the "alpha" perspective, and belive me it's not exclusive to males either. It's just a statement that is forced without logic and respect for dissagreement over non-universal issues that are extremely subjective. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Random Commentator
Friday, January 24, 2003, 08:22
(Agree/Disagree?)
Firstly Culty, I'm not cramming ideas down anyone's throat, take it or leave it,
it's of no consequence. However, I will tell you where you stand, I will point out
what is painfully obvious about you, if you want to try the same on me you're free to do so. When you try to go spouting off that I have “exclusive attitudes” I really just have to laugh. I’m still more “open minded” than most the people I work with & know, yet I don’t consider any of them to be exclusive, what they do know is to respect other peoples personal space, how intrusion into personal affairs of others is not generally appreciated & will most often end in confrontation. Your so called “open-mindedness” is nothing more than a sham to allow you to try and tell others what they should and shouldn’t do by thinking you can make them feel guilty for knowing what a dumb idiot you are.
Culty, I don't have a problem with your lack of rules any more than I have a
problem with your lack of personal hygiene, because I don't have to see it
everyday. But when I come across comments made by you and others which
show a distinct lack of accurate perception to my mind I will very willingly
challenge your thought process or opinion. Your analogy of a person coming in
your house with a gun is good, only it's backwards. People like Jonathan Waters forced themselves into my house, figuratively, & people like you stood by & thought it was the "open minded" & right thing to do to let him stay there whilst the weapon of "Religion" was utilised to enable them to have their way with my family & or friends, some without their even knowing. Don't dare try now to point the finger at me now as being the aggressor. You my dear sweet friend are doing exactly what "The Family" do.
Culty you are in the wrong. You Culty are defending bad and harmful behaviour. With your little idea of "innocent before proven guilty" you would no doubt like to wait till someone is proven guilty of assault in court before letting anyone say whether they are a violent person, & even then your psychobabble would have something to say about it no doubt. No Culty, it will be years probably until the extent of evil & harm many in “The Family” have been allowed to inflict on others will be even understood much less exposed so dumb people like you will understand & finally hopefully justice in some way will be served. In my own opinion, Jon is responsible for his inappropriate and/ or harmful actions which include harm caused by manipulation and intentional deception for personal gain. You Culty, are either too stupid to understand or are just as bad as he is.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From cultivator
Saturday, January 25, 2003, 15:45
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, you're going to have to find a Moral's Court which last time I checked don't exist in this democratic country. I too believe in honesty and not lying and I do not condone the inapproriate behaviour of those who used their power to push their perversions. Yet I'm going to point out a few lies that you have just claimed or illogically insinuated, or at most gross missperceptions about me and what you think I am:
You said:
1. That I stood by and did nothing while poeple were taken advantage of
2. That I don't respect people's personal space
3. That my liberty to engage in controversial activities is a way to shame those who don't wish to
4. That you being around more narrow minded people than you makes you open minded.
5. That I for being liberal do exactly what the family does
6. That lying for personal gain is a crime and something to be exposed to all
7. That I would not defend someone who is being harmed in front of me until it is proven in a court of law
8. That because I don't accept sexual exclusivity in interpersonal relationships as the only alternative to happyness and a functional life that I am either stupid or pushing an "evil" agenda
Here's my answer to each of your points:
1-that I stood by and did nothing while poeple were taken advantage of. No, most of the time I did express my disgust when I saw people being taken advantage of. You have to understand that I too was under the oppression and also the victim of fear and very limited in my knowlege of what to do to help. I had 0 legal knowlege and very little power to do much, being a victim under age myself.
2. That I don't respect people's personal space. That's silly, you like to laugh at my comments, I have a sense of humor too, duuuh! I don't even have to defend this one since there isn't anything specific that I'm being accused of. Why should I go furhter.
3. That my liberty to engage in controversial activities is a way to shame those who don't wish to. First I might add, I've said about 20 times that I don't even know Jonathan, and therefore don't defend him so quite acting like a dumb bitch, and stop trying to paste him on my face.
4. That you being around more narrow minded people than you makes you open minded person. I'm sure lot's of people around hitler were a bit more open minded than he was, using numbers again as a way to make the aggressor not so aggressive. Hey, you can drop the argument anytime, you can stop using names and I will too, you can stop proclaiming to know everything about the world and I will stop challenging your simpleton bubbles as a rule for all.
5. That I for being liberal do exactly what the family does. No I don't belive in their dogma, I don't think everything they do is evil, there is always some good in there somewhere or some people who are not entirely cruel creatures, like my mother, who in her mind belives honestly that she's saving the world. Just because mother theresa was a catholic doesn't mean that she was a child molestor priestess. That's absurd.
6. That lying for personal gain is a crime and something to be exposed to all. Most people lie in some way or another, white lies, silly little personal secret lies, all for personal gain. Unless in a court of law(purgery), this type of hidding is not automatically harmful to anyone and I think people get too up tight about little significant mysteries that people keep evasive. In most cases, lying is harmful to one's self because it breaches trust between significant people, and just like everything it has to be judged on a case by case scenario. Some things are worth lying about others are disfunctional.
7. That I would not defend someone who is being harmed in front of me until it is proven in a court of law. No if someone commits a serious crime at this point in my life when I am an indipendant human being, I will report that motherfucker, and might do something about it myself if I can.
8. That because I don't accept sexual exclusivity in interpersonal relationships as the only alternative to happyness and a functional life means that I am either stupid or pushing an "evil" agenda. Well, that kind of explains itself, I've noticed some people keep deviating from the theme topic to this conversation, polyamoury, which has not been proven to be intrinsically evil or stupid. Many find it rewarding to experiment occassionally with the consent of their significant other. Unusual, sure, evil, no. Dirty, not any more than your sexlife. I'm very higenic, to the point of being anal about smelling and looking good in the "act" so compulsive obsessive about being clean, yea, that's more like it.
So all in all the labeling doesn't end... and dirtthrowing. See, I haven't insulted you in this comment, (except maybe for the "dumb bitch" remark to make a point, but I still said "don't act like one", I didn't say you're one! So differences like that make a difference. (reply to this comment) |
| | from cultivator
January 20, 2003 - 00:01
OK, I think this is looking more like a chatroom pasted string of comments, nothing wrong with that, yet I still don't see the correlation between education and Jonathan Waters who used to live in the Family? Just because my name is Jonathan doesn't mean I represent every Jonathan on this planet, nor Jonathan in the bible or any such hebrew gay relationship.
_ I am not Jonathan Waters, I met him briefly and am not in the position to defend of accuse him.
- TF is the acronym I've noticed when people on this site refer to The Family. We don't like to use whole words in america, you probably noticed, FBI CIA TF HBO CNN NIC FDIC USA
ETC... It's part of the fastfood fast lines revolution, lol!
(reply to this comment) | | | | From Cultivator
Monday, January 20, 2003, 16:03
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, you do have a point about the pressure given to "The one who didn't"
A lot of people simply did not have the will power to put up with all the negative psychological abuse that came as a ramification of fighting it out.
Ignorance, in my opinion was probably the greatest weakness from the victims.
I guess my point is that correlation and validation are are not one and the same.
Not every home had abusive leaders, every home did receive the ridiculous litterature encouraging it. Most of the really crazy blatant rape for a lifestyle letters came out before I was a fully matured cognitive thinker able to assess the situation, you only need to read some of my poetry to get a glace at the hatred I have for the injustice that took place, but I'm not about to jump into a bandwagon of stereotypes and simpelton categorizing.
That same type of ignorace is what IMO caused all the abuse, let's not keep the trend going by projecting our scars. I think that if we're going to vent and bitch out those who wronged us, with rightful indignation we've got to do it in a way that is effective, where our credibility isn't tarnished by bias and partial counter views.
I am very much an activist in the issue, but not an extremist, because often such extreme perceptions are not taken serously without logical arguments to back them, therewith defeating the original goal of effectively dealing with the harm and present issues.
Accountability not out of the question, those who have been seriously harmed have the responsibility and right to hunt out those who have willfully harmed them and bring them to justice. If they don't their harm is menial or maybe they just don't have a clue of where these people might be, but belive me there are ways, as interconected as the family is as a family it's only a matter of time before wrongs will be made right, in this case I do belive the wheels of justice are slow, but not still, if that scar is deep enough, no "Christian grace" is going to let that Nazi get away with murder.
If the error was complete ignorance in some way, there is a possibility for some kind of agreement, ransom, or reconciliation, in light of the fact that none of us are perfect to begin with. Every action has a reaction, I truly believe in Karma. The legal system is covered in flaws and to be real, crime does pay. 70% or more of crimes go unpunished, but not in the long run. There is a balance to the scale and I've paid for shit that I've done carelessly, never in a place of leadership(since I always was a rebel), but more on a personal level.
As far a sex goes, that's really a highly subjective, and controversial topic. Aids really is a reality, but more people die of accidents on the highway than of aids, do we stop driving? Not really, if you think that driving on the highway to go out and meet your friends is a risk you're willing to take, I don't see how someone engaging in careful protected sex with a consenting partner is any different, maybe you should stop watching dumb government/interest group sponsored TV adds.
That's kind of sad if you base your idea of happiness on what Dr. Laura's show, lol! That's what I'm talking about, we as humans have such a exclusive perception that we apply standards to the issues we chose and chose to ignore the ones we don't like. Same with Men are From Mars women from Venus. People have the most outlandish claims of how men and women ar so different genetially, and these people are so fucking ignorant, have no degree in the science, and base their ideas on perceptions and folklore instead of hardrock data. See the same kind of peer shit that goes on in highschool just adds a slight level of complexity and now we've got to get everyone to have sex with one person or they're a witch to be burned at the stake. Whatever!
So long as one is open to him/herself and the other about what they do to themselves and the person they're with, that's their risk and value system, that's not the area where anyone has the right or business to Judge or have a part in. After all, if someone is covering up who they are, a relationship of 4 years is not necessarily a proof that that person hasn't been with every guy/girl in the block. Over a long span of time these claims are empty and silly, if you ask me. It's OK to be exclusive in relationships, and if one's need for variety is enough of a priority in life's scale of risks and values, then my advice wold be, be very careful and communicative with who you're with.
Don't base your life on hearsay, but don't ignore the issues and outcome at hand. We all made decisions every day that affect who we are and where we're headed. I just think that a pattern of thinking that mixes validation with correlation is bound to run into a wall at some point.
With that kind of rational ice creams lead to rapes because their rates both go up in the summer.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | From Cultivator
Monday, January 20, 2003, 16:21
(Agree/Disagree?)
Like I said earlier, I can't judge Jonathan (The other one) and I still don't have a clue as to why the person who started the "ass whole" comment decided to link this one about education to Jonathan's sex life.
But, I just thought I'd comment on your "aunty fucking" perception.
So basically, you're saying that you dissaprove of intergenerarional relationships because you think they're discusting and perverted.
I think you need to take a peek at your value system and see how discusting and perverted your views of the world might be. I don't think we can base a "good, healthy" sexual encounter on age groups or even monogamous sex. Maybe a class in Sexual Psych might help to de-mythify some of your stated perceptions.
There is no valid argument that proves taht there is anything at all dirty or harmful about sex between different age groups. One's sex life is their business and unless illegal or pressured in some way, it's entirely normal. Sex doesn't cause diseases, two healty individuals having sex cannot create aids, or any of the other crabs out there. If one has aids, or is active sexually and then after testing one's self find out that they're infected with something, then having sex with someone becomes very irresponsible, and I belive criminal in some states. But again, liking sex with myth is the oldest trick and what often makes way for the best comedies out there. Myths and inhibitions are the most prized properties of comedy. Ignorant Guilt and Inhipbitions, like a shrink once said, are best kept for sexual fetishes, and bodily functions.
I just didn't care for your demeaning comment about the sexuality of those older than you. Hey, one day you'll be old, and then what happens? Should you just stop having sex? See that's what happens when we devalue some humans over others for no valid reason. We start new abusive hate trends, and continue the flow of what we've received. (reply to this comment) |
| | From shaenock
Monday, January 20, 2003, 21:32
(Agree/Disagree?)
the point is not about "age-brackets" u fool,(btw, you must be pretty old)
its about having some sort of infentesimal standard. i would hope that my bf wouldnt go and screw my mom and look apon it as "normal"/
now, my mom looks pretty good, but some sarongd saggy-hags that didnt wash too much in TF weren't 2 desireable, and i dont find it unfair to call them in general "the aunties" who'd just hag and nag most of the day.
if you want to talk about the real world, i dont know many dudes going to bars and humping old ladies unless its they're fetish, or theyre horridly desperate! (reply to this comment) |
| | From exotik tom-boy
Tuesday, January 21, 2003, 11:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
And, yo? what is 'old'? I'm 28, one of the oldest of all the ex's in my city, yet also the one with no kids; who lifts weights 5x a week, runs 45 minutes 5x a week, break dances, parties, has more toys than the rest of them, and has more energy than any of the ones who are 24-25 with more than one kid! I also got body art, as in tatoos (that I've designed) and piercings. And, I am more educated than all of them! Age is a state of mind!
And, you meant 'upon'? (reply to this comment) |
| | From exotik tom-boy
Monday, January 20, 2003, 05:13
(Agree/Disagree?)
I would never want to do any of the ex family kids. When I visited a home in D.C. in '98 the first thing I noticed was how all of the teen members swaped partners. And now that I'm in a city with lots of ex's, I'm seeing that even the married ones (with kids) are all about being 'swingers'! Too much exchange of disease. And when you stop to think about the fact that there are those who've unfortunately contracted (and died of) AIDS, imagine how many members or ex members may be carriers of the virus due to their promiscuous habbits. (reply to this comment) |
| | From exotik tom-boy
Monday, January 20, 2003, 05:07
(Agree/Disagree?)
Now, I think I know who you are referring to. Tall Jon? Abi's boy? Is he out now? If it is this Jon, I can't say anything bad about him as he was only 14 last time I saw him, and he was in the victor program at the Enterprise in Lima.
And, by the way, not all VS kids are all wierdo's! There are those of us who fought from day one to leave, and who always got in trouble for sticking with the underdogs. I used to sneak into the top of my closset and listen in on my parents VS meetings so that I could inform the other kids in my home what new kinds of punishment to expect. One of my brother's also pulled a knife on one of the leaders because (our parents were always gone) he was hitting one of the kids WAY to hard. And I was never spoiled like some of the other VS kids. I was always in charge of the kitchens where ever I lived, and I had to do a lot of provisioning and tapnessing! UGHHH! Boy were they pissed when I finally ran away, I called them after I was in the States, and of course the cog leaders started all kinds of rumors about me! Do I care? nope. I've made a nice life for myself, all by myself! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | from Cultinvator
January 18, 2003 - 21:16
MK.... Great, glad you felt like sharing that in this section. Don't really know what you mean. I met the guy once. He didn't seem like a prick to me. As much as a prick as a lot of other wannabes out there lacking lives of their own. You can't hold someone's position against them just because they were at a place of responsibility, who knows what you would have looked like in his shoes. Then again, I don't really know him. As far as I heard, I don't think he's in TF? Maybe you can vent out your insecurities elsewhere? Just an idea?
(reply to this comment) | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From exotik tom-boy
Monday, January 20, 2003, 20:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
Perhaps your neanderthal arse could place the blame on a male for a change? If anyone was in a leadership position (at least it held true up until '98), and they wanted to sleep with a female, that female would know better than to decline his (the male's) advances, because if she didn't it meant a whole lot of bullshit!
Besides, if Jonathan is as innocent as you claim, why doesn't he have the balls to defend himself on this site? (reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Tuesday, January 21, 2003, 09:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Potential reasons why Jonathan won’t defend himself on this site:
1) Can’t remember fucking your wife
2) Doesn’t care
3) Doesn’t read every stupid thread here
I know Jonathan too, and it’s hard to imagine him “pressuring” someone to have sex with him. It’s pretty hard to imagine him needing to, in fact. The most common complaint about Jonathan that I heard was that his breath always smelled like a sweaty vagina, Jon’s an oversized man-whore with many satisfied customers.
If you were married in TF then you were well aware that neither partner was expected to be “faithful” to the other, and if Jonathan, as a VS did indeed “pressure” your wife into having sex with him, then the only thing he could have done to her as a VS would have been to recommend your re-classification.
So as much as it grieves me to point this out to you, your complaint about him says the following about the both of you:
1) Your wife was sufficiently dissatisfied with your sex life that she fucked a happy-go-lucky walking penis who was well known for being willing to fuck anything with a hole in it.
2) Your only attempt at recovering your dignity after having blurted that out to all of us is the dubious claim that she did it so both of you could stay in the family.
Hmmm, how are we supposed to sympathize with either of you?
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | From Cultinvator
Thursday, January 23, 2003, 13:54
(Agree/Disagree?)
Charity, why don't you really tell us what's on your mind instead of playing your pretentious games of "I see" , "how would you know?", So what if someone feels like fucking everything with a hole in it? So long as it's not rape and it's consensual, if it's desease free, no one is being harmed. Gosh, some people have nothing better to do with their time than to cry about those who are getting it.
A lot of us would be better off getting it instead of crying about those who do. It's not like the trip to the moon, we're talking about penis going into vagina, foreplay and climax. No big deal. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From shaenock
Thursday, January 23, 2003, 11:11
(Agree/Disagree?)
yep, charity is right... joe deff. comes across rather gay sometimes. no prob. we need a few gays to make things happy around here. but really john, have you taken a "satisfied-customer" survey with the women?- or was it that your actually admitting that you were a he-hoe as well, and didn't reach Jons popularity level.
maybe in complaining about the whinny husb. your actually defending yourself! hehe, this site is becoming fun (reply to this comment) |
| | From PompousJohn
Thursday, January 23, 2003, 16:33
(Agree/Disagree?)
I don't see why Joe's or my sexuality should come into question at all in this discussion. No I didn't reach Jon's popularity level, I’d be a fool to pretend I did so it's no problem to admit it. I have other areas I excel in. A “he-hoe”? You mean getting laid all the time and the like? Something like that yes, but I doubt whether my experiences would measure up to your adolescent fantasies – except that my experiences really happened and your fantasies never will.
It's pretty obvious that Charity was pre-menstrual yesterday when she made her comment, you should have seen the trail of crabby remarks and flame-bait she left across this site, all neatly stacked on top of each other in the “new content” page. I should have left it alone, but I was bored, now I’ve got a half-witted troll on my ass whose frustrations are making his gay-dar all twitchy, sending out false positives.
Oh well, maybe I’ll learn someday.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | From Cultinvator
Thursday, January 23, 2003, 13:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
BTW, when I say "well put!" in the comment below, I'm referring to Pompous John's comment not shaenock's alpha male string of nonsense assumptions, and stereotypical projection of his sexual frustrations.
Who cares if John had satisfied partners, that's better than no partners for fear of being labled as a "motherfucker". People have kids and become mothers, who the hell cares if you fuck them or not. If they're "dirty aunties" like you put it, aren't there plenty of "dirty young men"? My point being, Shamrock seems to be getting off on demonizing people to make himself look like a "Decent guy". Who cares shamrock, it's not really all that fun to talk about dirty people, what a weirdo. I think there are probably a lot more dirty young hoes out there who don't know the difference between their clit and their ass, does that make them not need sex, no. Experience makes people better at what they do. What kind of dumb ass myth are you smoking. (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From cultivator
Saturday, January 25, 2003, 15:48
(Agree/Disagree?)
see how little differences of sexes mean to me. men and women are a lot more alike than they are different. That's a fact, so far at least! Any Human Sexuality Book will tell you that.
And no, I don't look up your background and history to feel like I can talk to you, I'm not that paranoid.
That just shows that maybe I'm just not interested in you having heard what's in your noodle. (reply to this comment) |
| | From Cultivator
Tuesday, January 21, 2003, 11:18
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well put!
And to the comment about "what my point my be" from Tom, or lucid, or whoever asked, just re-read maybe you'll get it at some point, I'm sick of explaining the world to you, unless you have something relevant to say about the article, why don't you fucking put it somewhere else, my point is get a life instead of talking shit about people I don't know in an article that isn't dealing with your uncertainties.
(reply to this comment) |
| | From exotik tom-boy
Sunday, January 19, 2003, 19:23
(Agree/Disagree?)
What the fuck kind of comment is that, you little perv? 'Unless he raped your wife, shouldn't she get most of the blame"?
It is because of asses like you that I never have and never will date anyone who grew up in, or have EVER had anything to do with the family/cog! YOU NEED PYSCHOLOGICAL HELP!
As a female, I am very offended at your chauvanistic comment!
First off, any woman who was in the family knows that if a leader, V.S., CRO, whatever, wanted to sleep with one of the female members, that female knew better than to decline; if she did she would face silence restriction, physical and mental torture, and a slew of other abuse! Having said that, I am absolutely horrified to see that there is actually an ex family member who has the balls to make a remark like the one you did!
There aren't too many times when I feel obligated to be brutally honest! However, when it comes to abuse of any kind, I am the first to step up to the plate and defend basic human values. I wish I were facing you right now so that I could kick your ass with the moves my special forces friend taught me!
YOU SUCK!!!!!!!!!!! (reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | From Cultivator
Monday, January 20, 2003, 15:53
(Agree/Disagree?)
Well, you do have a point about the pressure given to "The one who didn't"
A lot of people simply did not have the will power to put up with all the negative psychological abuse that came as a ramification of fighting it out.
Ignorance, in my opinion was probably the greatest weakness from the victims.
I guess my point is that correlation and validation are are not one and the same.
Not every home had abusive leaders, every home did receive the ridiculous litterature encouraging it. Most of the really crazy blatant rape for a lifestyle letters came out before I was a fully matured cognitive thinker able to assess the situation, you only need to read some of my poetry to get a glace at the hatred I have for the injustice that took place, but I'm not about to jump into a bandwagon of stereotypes and simpelton categorizing.
That same type of ignorace is what IMO caused all the abuse, let's not keep the trend going by projecting our scars. I think that if we're going to vent and bitch out those who wronged us, with rightful indignation we've got to do it in a way that is effective, where our credibility isn't tarnished by bias and partial counter views.
I am very much an activist in the issue, but not an extremist, because often such extreme perceptions are not taken serously without logical arguments to back them, therewith defeating the original goal of effectively dealing with the harm and present issues.
Accountability not out of the question, those who have been seriously harmed have the responsibility and right to hunt out those who have willfully harmed them and bring them to justice. If they don't their harm is menial or maybe they just don't have a clue of where these people might be, but belive me there are ways, as interconected as the family is as a family it's only a matter of time before wrongs will be made right, in this case I do belive the wheels of justice are slow, but not still, if that scar is deep enough, no "Christian grace" is going to let that Nazi get away with murder.
If the error was complete ignorance in some way, there is a possibility for some kind of agreement, ransom, or reconciliation, in light of the fact that none of us are perfect to begin with. Every action has a reaction, I truly believe in Karma. The legal system is covered in flaws and to be real, crime does pay. 70% or more of crimes go unpunished, but not in the long run. There is a balance to the scale and I've paid for shit that I've done carelessly, never in a place of leadership(since I always was a rebel), but more on a personal level.
As far a sex goes, that's really a highly subjective, and controversial topic. Aids really is a reality, but more people die of accidents on the highway than of aids, do we stop driving? Not really, if you think that driving on the highway to go out and meet your friends is a risk you're willing to take, I don't see how someone engaging in careful protected sex with a consenting partner is any different, maybe you should stop watching dumb government/interest group sponsored TV adds.
That's kind of sad if you base your idea of happiness on what Dr. Laura's show, lol! That's what I'm talking about, we as humans have such a exclusive perception that we apply standards to the issues we chose and chose to ignore the ones we don't like. Same with Men are From Mars women from Venus. People have the most outlandish claims of how men and women ar so different genetially, and these people are so fucking ignorant, have no degree in the science, and base their ideas on perceptions and folklore instead of hardrock data. See the same kind of peer shit that goes on in highschool just adds a slight level of complexity and now we've got to get everyone to have sex with one person or they're a witch to be burned at the stake. Whatever!
So long as one is open to him/herself and the other about what they do to themselves and the person they're with, that's their risk and value system, that's not the area where anyone has the right or business to Judge or have a part in. After all, if someone is covering up who they are, a relationship of 4 years is not necessarily a proof that that person hasn't been with every guy/girl in the block. Over a long span of time these claims are empty and silly, if you ask me. It's OK to be exclusive in relationships, and if one's need for variety is enough of a priority in life's scale of risks and values, then my advice wold be, be very careful and communicative with who you're with.
Don't base your life on hearsay, but don't ignore the issues and outcome at hand. We all made decisions every day that affect who we are and where we're headed. I just think that a pattern of thinking that mixes validation with correlation is bound to run into a wall at some point.
With that kind of rational ice creams lead to rapes because their rates both go up in the summer.
(reply to this comment) |
| | | | | | | | from greg
January 18, 2003 - 11:06
hell yeh! those fuck-ups will pay!
my ass still hurts from them trying to fuck it with theyre big "title"
now they can sweep the streets in india for all i care
(reply to this comment) | | | |
|
|
|
|
]
[About the Trailer Park] [Who Links Here]