17
Sex, Cosmo, K-Lo, and the Pope
When K-Lo writes an article at America’s Shittiest Website™ called “Holy Sex@40,” it would be a grave disservice to our readers to pretend that this didn’t happen. And when the article gets some of the other Cornerdomites ramped up about Cosmopolitan magazine and sluts, it would be not just a disservice, but a crime, to let this all pass by without comment on our part.
K-Lo’s article is a fond recollection of the 1968 Papal encyclical that sought to assure a steady supply of Catholic altar boys for the delectation of the clergy by declaring that contraception was even more sinful than touching your naughty parts (unless, of course, you provided every single detail of that experience with your naughty bits to your parish priest during a very lengthy confession):
Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops in Rome, said recently that “the encyclical is not simply a ‘no’ to contraception but also a defense of the dignity of woman against whatever might degrade her greatness as a person, wife and mother, reducing her to an object of pleasure.”
Apparently the best way to recognize the dignity of the woman is to elevate her to the status of a baby-making machine.
Of course, the worst thing about contraception is that it resulted in Cosmopolitan magazine:
[T]his month’s Cosmo … announces that the “one exception” to the rule that “The Pill has many positive effects” is that it might not be good for your bones. (No mention, of course, of your mental health or the quality of your relationship(s).)
Masturbation makes you go blind and the pill makes you go crazy. And don’t forget all the relationships that were destroyed by the use of contraception. The fact is (hehe) that the reason most guys leave their girlfriends or go gay is that their girlfriends were on the pill.
Forty years ago this summer, Pope Paul VI predicted that men will lose respect for women. They will “no longer (care) for her physical and psychological equilibrium.” The man would reach “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.” Could Pope Paul have been predicting the August 2008 cover of Cosmopolitan?
Or maybe he was predicting that Madonna would dump Guy Ritchie and shack up with A-Rod?
Over at the Corner, Mona Charen was the first to chime in on the Cosmo angle:
I was in the supermarket yesterday with my 14-year-old son who asked “What’s up with Cosmopolitan? What is that?” I replied, “It’s a magazine for sluts.”
What do you want to bet that when young Master Charen starts calling all the girls in his class sluts and hos, this filthy-mouthed mommy will try to blame it on MTV?
Charen’s “magazine for sluts” remark prompts this barely literate post from K-Lo:
A lot of girls we know and love who we don’t think of and who don’t want to be sluts read it —and take it in, absorbing more than they realize — alas.
And then go out and buy Barbie dolls that are dressed up in fishnet stockings. No, seriously, that’s what K-Lo means.
Then Iain Murray, who apparently wanks off to comic books, points out that the Black Canary wears fishnet stockings.
As you can see, it’s a slippery slope from condoms at Walgreen’s to a Barbie doll in fishnet stockings.
Gavin adds: Have we heard from Derbyshire yet, or is he down in the basement watching Sailor Moon?
D.N. Nation said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:22
Damn near laughed out loud upon seeing those two images together.
Guess I’m a “fauxgressive,” or whatever nonsense.
Melissa McZuzu said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:24
Yeah you are. That’s it, last straw, changin’ my vote to Fred Phelps.
D.N. Nation said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:26
Anyway, the esteemed Ms. Jon”” and K-Lo is too much Crazy English to take in one day.
The clauses! The clauses! I’d love to see something like this in a diagram. Or maybe a simple outline:
Girls
- Lot of them.
- We know them.
- We love them.
- We don’t think of them as sluts.
- They don’t want to be sluts.
Read
- It.
Take
- It in.
Currently absorbing
- More than they realize.
Alas.
WereBear said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:27
Is that Mona Charen on the NatReview cover?
Because even before I read your article, I got this “Piper Laurie in Carrie” shiver down my back.
Mr. Wonderful said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:27
“A lot of girls we know and love who we don’t think of and who don’t want to be sluts read it —and take it in, absorbing more than they realize — alas.”
Damn you, Swank! Get out of K-Lo NOW! The power of Christ compels you!
Typical Republican said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:29
Some conservatives may be stupid, but liberals are worse.
There are just too examples for me to list any.
Liberals. Hmf.
D.N. Nation said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:29
Were- It’s K-Lo.
Mr. Wonderful said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:29
And yeah, I know these fish aren’t going to shoot themselves.
But a showdown between K-Lo and Scarlett Johansson? Hardly sporting, mate.
AJB said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:30
It’s always amusing how these Cafeteria Catholics will focus so much attention on Humanae Vitae as the end-all-be-all for Catholicism and completely ignore Populorum Progressio, which basically blames free market capitalism for Third World poverty.
Plus, didn’t the Vatican oppose the Iraq War and support the recently proposed ban on cluster bombs? Why no words from K-Lo on that?
javafascist said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:35
Um, wow. Somebody start a paypal account for that boy’s future therapy needs now.
Principal Blackman said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:37
For the good of humanity and to fight off the Horrible Spectre of Cosmo Magazine, I hereby volunteer to make a baby with Scarlet Johansson.
Ariadne said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:38
K-Lo’s article is a fond recollection of the 1968 Papal encyclical that sought to assure a steady supply of Catholic altar boys for the delectation of the clergy by declaring that contraception was even more sinful than touching your naughty parts (unless, of course, you provided every single detail of that experience with your naughty bits to your parish priest during a very lengthy confession):
While re-enacting every detail?
WereBear said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:38
Thanks, DN Nation.
Either way, I’ll have “They’ll all laugh at you!” ringing in my head.
dave said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:47
Well, it’s true in a way: I DO have absolutely no respect for either KLo or Mona Charen, even though Mona has become one of the prime contributors to the op-ed section of our local rag, the Springfield (MA) Republican (a wholly-owned subsidiary of the Republican National Committee).
kiki said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:48
Movie Nerd Alert: The correct quote is “They’re all gonna laugh at you!”.
The Mona Charen line is the funniest bit, because when I read it I imagined it being said by Angela from The Office.
Svensker said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:54
K-Lo’s article is a fond recollection of the 1968 Papal encyclical
Your a lyer! There was NO Paypal in 1968.
Jake H. said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:54
I’m young, so please help me out here–people WERE having sex for pleasure before 1968, right?
Jay B. said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:57
I was in the supermarket yesterday with my 14-year-old son who asked “What’s up with Cosmopolitan? What is that?” I replied, “It’s a magazine for sluts.”
14-year old boy: “Are they naughty sluts?”
Mona: “Yes son. All sluts are naughty.”
14-year old boy: [staples all remaining checkout counter Cosmos onto chest, waits for sluts to come].
Thus endeth the lesson.
Doc Washboard said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:57
What does the Church say about vasectomies? I’m under the impression that this little bit of contraception has left me and my wife with a happy 25-year marriage that’s more sex-filled than ever. Is our relationship on the rocks and I just didn’t know about it?
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:00
AJB said,
July 17, 2008 at 19:30
Yes, AJB, they completely ignore the left wing and liberal branches of the church. What do Bill Donohue and Phil Donahue have in common? Why, they’re Irish Catholic and they have similar names! That’s about it. Father Andrew Greeley? You’d think he didn’t exist at all. The elderly nuns who’ve gone to prison for trespassing during protests at Offat AFB or The
SchoolTorture of the Americas? Ask K-Lo about them. Wonder what she’d have to say. Would she call them apostates? Heretics? I shudder to think what her opinion of those socialists, the Catholic Workers, must be. It seems to me K-Lo and all right wing Catholics just want to hijack the Church the same way they and their ilk (yeah I said ILK!) hijacked the Republican party.I’m an atheist who never was able to believe in the myths of the church, even when I was a practising Catholic. But I understood that the teachings of love thy neighbor, feeding the poor, the dignity of a life of dedication to the service of others – those were worthwhile things. K-Lo and Donohue and their ilk don’t seem to take those lessons away from their religion at all. They might as well be Jesus Camp fundies for all the dignity they bring to their practice of the faith. Horrible people, and causing terrible harm to the image of the very Church they claim to love. Good job, K-Lo, you stupid cow. (No that’s an insult to cows, who are generally gentle creatures.)
stryx said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:01
Did she really write “sluts take it in and absorb more than they realize?”
Oh my.
And a fun trick I learned from Pandagon: regendering-
The man would reach “the point of considering her as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as his respected and beloved companion.”
becomes
The woman would reach “the point of considering him as a mere instrument of selfish enjoyment, and no longer as her respected and beloved companion.”
gbear said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:01
The term ‘Cornerdomites’ makes me want to run out and cut all of the cables coming into my house.
Jake H. said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:02
Ye gods, I clicked through. Uh, wow. I’m not quite sure how this toweringly inane final paragraph escaped Clif’s attention:
Elle declares in its most recent issue that “The Pointy-Toe Shoe Is Back!” How about human life and dignity? How about — are we ready for this four-letter word? — “Love”? Do I have some takers? Don’t hate us because we’re Catholic — we’re happy to share with you something that really works. The Good News is for sharing.
Are we sure that Malfunctioning Robot guy didn’t write that?
commie atheist said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:03
Please, please read Jonah’s response to all of this:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZTI0Yzc5ZTE0MzBkMDNmY2U0MTVlZmU5N2Q5ZWRkOTI=
My favorite part:
I’ve been to Las Vegas, I’ve ambled through the seedier parts of cities, and I’ve quaffed more than a few cocktails at the right (or wrong) bars; I know what hookers look like. No, I have never sampled their wares, but while I’ve also never ridden an elephant, I’ve been to enough zoos to know what they look like. In short, this slattern effigy my daughter opened on Christmas morning (we do Chanuka and Christmas at the Goldbergs’) was a gum-snapping, six-inch-heeled, F-me-pump-wearing ho. Fo sho.
Thank you, Flying Spaghetti Monster, for giving us Jonah Goldberg, the gift that keeps on giving.
jim said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:05
Every picture tells a story – but I sort of wish the 2nd one would just STFU.
Okay, now – you know, usually I have the intestinal grit to click through … even to the Freepers … but not this time, Bucko! Nuh-uh. No WAY. Play with my MIND, sure, go right ahead – but leave “jim 2.0″ out of this!
gbear said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:05
I’m young, so please help me out here–people WERE having sex for pleasure before 1968, right?
Not me, but I was just 14.
comsympinko said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:06
They’re. All. Such. Wankers.
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:08
She’s an editor of some sort? She’s not qualified to edit a first grade student’s spelling test.
comsympinko said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:09
You’ll never, EVER see the words ambled, quaffed, slattern and effigy in such close proximity again.
Edward Bulwer-Lytton, eat your heart out.
Snorghagen said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:11
Most certainly not! Until Pope Paul slipped up and inadvertently conflated sex with pleasure, people only copulated out of a grim sense of duty.
Krassen said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:12
“Cardinal Giovanni Battista Re, prefect of the Congregation for Bishops in Rome, said recently that “the encyclical is not simply a ‘no’ to contraception but also a defense of the dignity of woman against whatever might degrade her greatness as a person, wife and mother, reducing her to an object of pleasure.”
See, that’s just not fair at all!!! when are they gonna come up with a pill that can reduce us dudes to an object of pleasure? That would be so awsome!!!
Malfunctioning Glenn Reynolds Robot said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:14
Nope! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where’s my recession? Mickey Kaus says McCain’s gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where’s my recession? Mickey Kaus says McCain’s gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where’s my recession? Mickey Kaus says McCain’s gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where’s my recession? Mickey Kaus says McCain’s gonna win! Heh. Indeed. We’re winning! Read the whole thing. Obama’s about to pivot on Iraq. Dude, where’s my recession? Mickey Kaus says McCain’s gonna win!
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:14
I’d love to see K-Lo take a blue pencil to Jonah’s work sometime. The resulting fight would look like a brawl in a comic strip; a big doughy ball rolling about, with fists and feet and dust flyin’ and #!%&!
I’d put money on K-Lo.
Jake H. said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:15
In K-Lo’s eyes, men seem to be 100% blameless for everything she complains about, even when she’s complaining about the way men treat women. Once women started using contraceptives, it was basically inevitable that men would start using them sexually and treating them like shit. I mean, they practically had to–they were taking pills!
Warren said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:15
“Why?”
“Because they’re all about how slutty women can be slutty and have slutty sex by taking off their slutty clothes.”
The boy ponders this for a moment. “So … Dad’s magazines are for sluts too?”
Five of Diamonds said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:16
…mental health or the quality of your relationship(s)
Sexless relationships are the bombz. I prefer my women to wear cast iron chastity belts with electric shock security defenses for those times when I drink too much.
mikey said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:17
Actually, I’m pretty sure is was VaticanJanusNodeBenedict….
mikey
stryx said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:18
What’s that? Is the Pope a raging left wing lunatic environmental moonbat?
Why yes, yes he is:
Kathleen said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:18
yes, it’s really prior to feminism when men were so respectful of women.
Woodrowfan said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:19
let me be the first to say it, K-lo, you no playa the game, you no make-a da rules!
Snorghagen said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:19
Thanks in large part to Humanae Vitae, what’s actually happened is that both men and women lost respect for popes.
PeeJ said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:20
Don’t hate us because we’re Catholic
Still clueless, after all these years.
eidos said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:21
My god, its been a week of epic stupidity in the Right-o-sphere. And its only Thursday …
WereBear said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:22
Love is about human life and dignity and sex.
Maybe Ur Doin’ It Rong?
blowback said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:22
Clif – you are not reading enough Cosmopolitan – you can’t tell the difference between stockings and pantyhose
PeeJ said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:24
Though I was a ten year old naif in 1968, I’m 100% certain that people did indeed have sex for pleasure before then. For many of them, the baby making part was quite unintentional. And the forced birth lobby hadn’t even been founded yet.
Righteous Bubba said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:25
Forbidden
You don’t have permission to access /757/5/22/42/2228522420027227617tRxfsw_fs.jpg on this server.
It’s 2008 and I can’t look at pantyhose? Curse you K-Lo!
javafascist said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:25
Thank you, Flying Spaghetti Monster, for giving us Jonah Goldberg, the gift that keeps on giving.
On the other hand, he’s working damn hard to be such a caricature that we are going to be incapable of mocking him by doing anything other than point and laugh.
For this, I despise the wingnuts the most. They’ve killed witticism and never once apologized.
Scott said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:27
Noted crazyassmotherfucker Stephen Green says “A children’s doll in sexually suggestive clothing is irresponsible — it’s filth.”
It must be noted that Black Canary and Zatanna both wear fishnets, Wonder Woman wears a one-piece swimming suit, She-Hulk has sex with boys, and Tigra don’t really wear anything at all. Hell, Superman wears his underwear on the outside, which draws attention to his naughtybits, and Batman is a leather boy.
Batwoman, luckily, wears a full-body costume with very little skin showing. Oh, if only more superheroines were like her…
commie atheist said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:28
Elle declares in its most recent issue that “The Pointy-Toe Shoe Is Back!” How about human life and dignity?
If you want a picture of the future, imagine a pointy-toe shoe stomping on a human face…forever.
Davis said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:29
I saw that cover at the airport and just stood there, staring. I don’t remember if my mouth was agape. Could have been. Scarlett is a goddess who shares emails with Obama, and that drives them crazy.
And yes, the Pope was right as usual. Women were universally respected by men before the Pill, especially in the Church.
tigrismus said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:35
(No mention, of course, of your mental health or the quality of your relationship(s).)
Because nothing is so conducive to mental health and relationship-quality as an unwanted, unplanned pregnancy.
Legalize said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:37
Is K-Lo suggesting that in order to save the Heartland Values, I must have relations with Scarlett Johansson – unimpeded by a rain coat? ‘Cause that’s what I got out of it.
stryx said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:38
I don’t know if there’s such unfairness in comparing Scarlett and K-Lo. I mean they’re both talentless hacks that get by on their looks, right?
DAS said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:43
It’s always amusing how these Cafeteria Catholics will focus so much attention on Humanae Vitae as the end-all-be-all for Catholicism and completely ignore Populorum Progressio, which basically blames free market capitalism for Third World poverty.
Plus, didn’t the Vatican oppose the Iraq War and support the recently proposed ban on cluster bombs? Why no words from K-Lo on that?
I happen to know one of the few non-Cafeteria Catholics in this country (who happens also to be quite conservative). I’ll give his response in his absense:
Yes, those who focus on the B/C ban and ignore the plight of the poor are not Real Catholics(TM). However, while the Church categorically says B/C is wrong, abortion is murder, etc., the Church only says you have to work to alleviate the plight of the poor, support peace over war, etc.
And as to how best to alleviate the plight of the poor, promote peace, etc.? Some say the way to do this is to constrain capitalist rapaciousness, not fight in needless wars and otherwise adopt a left-wing view. Others say the way to do this is to encourage the “free market” to lift all boats, fight small wars to prevent larger ones, etc. Are some of the latter group just self-interested rich folk trying to preserve their own privilege? Yes. But some of the former group are just a bunch of commie pinko socialists trying to promote a liberal agenda that is against all that is sacred and who cover it up by claiming to be on the side of the poor even though they don’t really care about the poor anyway.
*
Of course, to this liberal, there is something suspicious about this sort of argument — somehow when it comes to issues regarding teh hawt sex, the Church’s statements are clear cut yet even the most clear cut sounding statements regarding other issues are met with “the world is flat? the world is round? opinions differ … and both sides have people arguing their point for the right reasons and both sides have scumbags arguing their point to further their own agendas” … but that’s the argument that gets made.
DrDick said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:45
My only question is what the hell would K-Lo know personally about any of this? Her idea of an orgasmic experience is eating an entire pan of double fudge brownies and chasing it down with a case of Ho Hos.
D.N. Nation said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:46
Scarlett isn’t a great actress, but she owned well enough in Lost In Translation. I think she’s best when playing a bemused, emotionally drifting Gen Y-er. Not exactly the hardest of roles to play, but she does it well enough.
She’s funny on Robot Chicken.
She’s also gorgeous.
Gerald Curl said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:48
I replied, “It’s a magazine for sluts.”
“Then why don’t you have a lifetime subscription, mom?”
Yeah, I’d take sex tips from an institution that practically shuts down when a new episode of “The Suite Life of Zack & Cody” comes on.
seventwentyfour said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:49
“Sexy Eyes”? I thought the whole “optical intercourse” and “making eye babies” topic was over a couple weeks ago.
commie atheist said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:51
comsympinko said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:09
You’ll never, EVER see the words ambled, quaffed, slattern and effigy in such close proximity again.
Edward Bulwer-Lytton, eat your heart out.
And Doughy sez that’s probably his most popular column evar. Methinks he mistakes heavy sarcasm for praise in this case, or perhaps the Corner’s readers really are as stupid as we think they are.
D.N. Nation said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:52
K-Lo:
USA Today’s Sports Weekly declares in its college football preview that Knowshon Moreno has made Georgia into a national title contender. How about human live and dignity? How about — are we ready for this four-letter word? — “Love”?
Grand Moff Texan said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:53
GGGAAAHHH!!!
Every time I see that picture of K-Load, I’m reminded of this video, starting about 10 seconds in.
.
Mr. Wonderful said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:55
“It’s always amusing how these Cafeteria Catholics will focus so much attention on Humanae Vitae as the end-all-be-all for Catholicism and completely ignore Populorum Progressio…”
I love Populorum Progressio. You laugh, but add your own fresh chopped parsley and some red pepper flakes, and you’re good to go with rigatoni, on sauteed chicken, or whatever.
pedestrian said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:56
Has K-Lo ever seen a Men’s Fitness cover?
Lesley said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:57
If you’re a woman getting angrier by the word as you read this, do yourself a favor…
and stop reading. Yes. Ah…….relief.
commie atheist said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:59
Legalize said,
July 17, 2008 at 20:37
Is K-Lo suggesting that in order to save the Heartland Values, I must have relations with Scarlett Johansson – unimpeded by a rain coat? ‘Cause that’s what I got out of it.
Only if you’re married to each other, and neither one of you enjoys it.
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:03
Only if you’re married to each other, and neither one of you enjoys it.
Huh. I didn’t know the man wasn’t supposed to enjoy it. I thought he was ok’d to get his rocks off, theologically speaking, but she was just supposed to lie there and think of other things, for example, “Oh, God, please don’t let me get preggers again. We can’t feed the twelve we’ve got now.”
Snorghagen said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:05
She can easily learn every super-hot and sweaty sex secret there is to know by asking His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. He’s seen it all and done it all.
Lesley said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:06
Btw, Clif, is K-Lo eating more pancakes topped with whipped cream or did you ham up her girth in Photoshop?
[Clif adds: Photoshop was not used to alter K-Lo's appearance. We are strict adherents of the papal encyclical In Nostrum Photoshopulorum et Urbi which reminds us all that the deform tool is the first step towards the objectification of the opposite sex.]
Bitter Scribe said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:11
What’s especially delicious about seeing Scarlett Johansson in this context (beyond, of course, the deliciousness of seeing SJ in any context) is that not long ago, Mark Steyn picked on her for getting STD tests instead of pumping out babies, or something.
stringonastick said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:12
PEEJ, I too was 10 in 1968 but I do recall some interesting news bits that looked to me like the birth of what we know now as DFH’s; there’s that F in the DFH that makes me think the ol’ wink-wink, nudge-nudge had some ooooohhhhhh, yaaaaaasssssss in it back then.
Why the central tenant requiring hatred of all things pleasurably bump n’ grindy? I’ll never know, but I don’t want to join any play group where buzzkill is a virtue.
commie atheist said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:13
Huh. I didn’t know the man wasn’t supposed to enjoy it.
Wasn’t it Paul who considered sex a necessary evil, something you do quickly and without pleasure, in order to further God’s glory? I dunno, maybe I’m misremembering my Catholic youth.
O'Brien said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:13
Huh. I didn’t know the man wasn’t supposed to enjoy it. I thought he was ok’d to get his rocks off…
We will abolish the orgasm, Winston! Our neurologists are already at work on it!
stryx said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:14
Fertile Mrs. Moore, had thirteen kids but still looked good
Till her old man jumped leave on a ship.
She never read a book, but by Christ she understood,
that the meaning of life starts in bed.
pedestrian said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:15
As it happens, a few good priests may be exactly what feminism is looking for: some holy men with inspired guidance.
Looks like somebody has been making good use of her Sexy Priest Calendar.
J Luv, God skipped over the sex and impregnated a virgin. Not even his divine guidance is going to be able to help a man find your love button.
commie atheist said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:15
She can easily learn every super-hot and sweaty sex secret there is to know by asking His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. He’s seen it all and done it all.
He probably has, considering he used to be the head of the Inquisition…er, the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:17
Nah, you’re right, commie atheist, Paul did indeed say that. I’ve been tainted by hearing the Prot fundie view, I think. I’ve been away from the church a long, long time. About 35 years now since I’ve been “lapsed”.
Paul . . . that dude had issues, mon.
pedestrian said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:22
Wasn’t it Paul who considered sex a necessary evil, something you do quickly and without pleasure, in order to further God’s glory?
Yes, and he advised men against ever touching icky women at all if they could possibly help it. He was also the one who made a cryptic reference to the “thorn in his flesh” that he kept trying to free himself of, to no avail. Conclude what you will.
WereBear said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:22
Paul was 87.3% responsible for my leaving the Protestants. What a nutty, twisted, scolding fellow he was.
fadegeophile said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:23
Damn, Derbyshire is a sick fuck.
He actually tries to equate a woman’s attractiveness with who gets raped the most?
As I often seem to find myself saying in reference to wingnuts: Project much, Derb?
You just can’t even go there in you brain unless you equate attractiveness with who you’d like to rape.
Seriously. I wouldn’t be a bit surprised if Derb has forced himself upon at least one teenager in his life.
Gross.
commie atheist said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:27
Paul . . . that dude had issues, mon.
No shit:
I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I.
But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.
pedestrian said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:28
She can easily learn every super-hot and sweaty sex secret there is to know by asking His Holiness Pope Benedict XVI. He’s seen it all and done it all.
Maybe in his youth. These days he’s fairly monogamous
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:29
Sex and Marriage, sex and marriage apparently don’t go together like a horse and carriage . . .
Saint Paul:
Marion in Savannah said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:29
Paul’s problem stems from the fact that he was violated in his baby carriage by his male nurse. It’s in the Bible, I’m pretty sure… At least that’s what all his letters have led me to assume.
sagra said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:30
Don’t all Barbies wear the same high heels?
Grand Moff Texan said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:30
No, I meant THIS VIDEO, starting 10 seconds in.
.
WereBear said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:32
DIRTYPILLOWS!
Man, I held off as long as I could.
Feel better now…
commie atheist said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:35
Yes, and he advised men against ever touching icky women at all if they could possibly help it.
Pedestrian does not lie. More Pauline goodness:
Now concerning the things whereof ye wrote unto me: It is good for a man not to touch a woman.
Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.
You can just hear the resignation in his voice…”well, if you really have to…I guess I can’t stop you…”
commie atheist said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:39
Candy -
I’ve always thought there were two driving forces behind Christianity (at least the Pauline version of it): fear of death, and hatred (and fear) of women. Paul obviously could not deal with female sexuality.
WereBear said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:40
I felt, once out from under the MindHead influence, that upon rereading those Pauline epistles, the man was totally gay.
Not that there’s anything wrong with that.
But in my experience, this distaste for women, regarding them as, at best, puzzling aliens, and, at worst, somehow at fault for all his troubles, is highly indicative of a deeply, deeply, closeted mindset.
(as best as I can ascertain from a straight perspective)
Boston Charlie said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:46
I’m sure it would stick.
sagra said,
July 17, 2008 at 21:56
a. Priests and preachers sermonize that only bad women [take birth control pills | get an abortion].
b. You decide to [take birth control pills | get an abortion].
c. You remember what the religious leaders said and you feel like a bad person.
Therefore,
d. OMG! [Taking birth control pills | getting an abortion] causes irreparable damage to your mental health!!!eleventy1!
sagra said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:00
Sadly, Naaaaah!
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:02
Candy said: “I’d put money on K-Lo.”
I’m sure it would stick.
Boston Charlie: Ewwwwwwwwwwwwww
I’ve always thought there were two driving forces behind Christianity (at least the Pauline version of it): fear of death, and hatred (and fear) of women. Paul obviously could not deal with female sexuality.
Yes, I think that’s exactly right.
Considering the terrible influence Paul had on Christianity, the religion should be called Paulianity.
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:02
Or Paul-inanity
Jake H. said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:10
… and the unrepentant fornicator is sure to find himself among the goats.
Careful, unrepentant fornicator, don’t trip on Micky Kaus!
g said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:15
How exactly did Goldberg’s daughter get a slutty doll for Christmas if he and his wife didn’t buy it for her? (no I’m not going over there).
Of course, my Barbie, issued in 1962 or thereabouts, was far sluttier than the current Barbie, with her black and white striped strapless bathing suit (standard issue) her blond pony tail with curly bangs, and her blue eye shadow and black eyeliner.
FlipYrWhig said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:15
Elle declares in its most recent issue that “The Pointy-Toe Shoe Is Back!” How about human life and dignity?
OK, “The Pointy-Toe Shoe Is Human Life and Dignity.” You know, that’s not bad! Maybe K-Lo is an editrix after all!
billy pilgrim said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:16
My god, its been a week of epic stupidity in the Right-o-sphere. And its only Thursday …
summer hours.
FlipYrWhig said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:17
How exactly did Goldberg’s daughter get a slutty doll for Christmas if he and his wife didn’t buy it for her? (no I’m not going over there).
Has to have been that goatlike pagan idol, Santa Claus.
gbear said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:19
Alternate Therefore,
d. OMG! These church leaders are full of garbage! – Immediately on the road to recovering full mental health as functional, thinking, human being.
MajorKong said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:28
These people are as obsessed with sex, in their own weird way, as any 1970s “swinger” was.
Z said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:30
Oh no. A Black Canary Barbie doll, dressed just like Black Canary, whose outfit must be totally wholesome, since it was created in the saintly 1940s.
sagra said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:34
gbear,
Whereupon,
e. Mona and/or K-Lo call you a slut.
Fozzetti said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:38
If asked by my 10 year old daughter, I would reply that Cosmo is a magazine for “really dumb” teenagers. I liked to read it as a teen. Around the age 19-20 I realized each magazine was exactly like the one before it, and bought other magazines, including MS. Wonder what whatsername would say about Ms. ?
stryx said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:38
we do Chanuka and Christmas at the Goldbergs’
My only functionally literate, publicly educated brain thinks there’s something odd about this statement.
Is it an example of creeping Marie’ Jon’ ism’ or is Jonah showing off his ivy league book learnin’?
And plus, Did the ~8 inch tall doll really have 6 inch heels?
And also plus, this:
I know what hookers look like. No, I have never sampled their wares, but while I’ve also never ridden an elephant, I’ve been to enough zoos to know what they look like.
What kind of zoos does this guy go to, what has hookers?
gbear said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:41
Whereupon,
f. You flip them the bird and leave them to stew in their own juices.
(sorry if I’m being insensitive to the pressures women are made to bear. I came thru a similar guilt thing when I came out and don’t have time for it anymore)
cowalker said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:48
I may be the last living American ex-Catholic who paid attention in religion class and remembers the lesson.
Put on your stained glass glasses and look at the world from K-Lo’s and pope’s perspective. Here’s how it’s supposed to work:
Sexual arousal and activity is good, but only as God intended it–between a man and woman who are married and who are not frustrating the natural result, which is children. There is nothing wrong–REALLY!– with enjoying the heck out of it within these limitations. Now, the facts that no condoms are allowed, women aren’t using contraceptives, and abortion is forbidden, means that sex becomes a very risky business in terms of pregnancy. The rhythm method can lower the odds, but it absolutely prevents spontaneity, and good luck with happening to hit the “safe” period when you’re not living with that person. Thereby faithfulness to the wife is encouraged (be nice to your only source of relief!) and sex outside of marriage becomes a good way to incur 18 years of child support obligations. There will be no naughty pictures or sex talk in magazines, because that leads to the enjoyment of sexual arousal outside of the marriage. (NO! You’re not allowed to fantasize about Scarlett Johanssen, George Clooney or anybody else, either while doing it with your spouse or at any other time.)
Within the marriage, the partners compete to be unselfish, and that is why the rhythm method works. Sort of. Some of the time. Of course modern life being what it is, couples really don’t have much choice but to plan their families. Very, very few can manage to support, monetarily or energy-wise, the family that results from untrammeled sex between a couple over 30 fertile years. The man graciously accepts that he can only have sex maybe 7 consecutive days a month. The woman denies her own desire the same way, but never refuses her husband even during an “unsafe” time, because she wouldn’t want to be an occasion of sin for him, perhaps driving him to masturbation or infidelity. Nor will he deny her, even though it may mean another addition to the family. In this crucible of self-sacrifice, life is beautiful, and respect for women oozes from the man’s every orifice. After five children, several miscarriages and a couple of parental nervous breakdowns, some smart doctor finds a diagnosis that for which the recommended treatement is a hysterectomy. Utopia.
Now, after doffing the stained glass glasses, I will tell you what has always puzzled me. Sexual pleasure is regarded as legitimate only when it’s part of the whole act of consummation, with the possibility of creating life left open. Arousal and orgasm are “natural” only within that context. Now, sweet flavors and fatty mouth-feel in food are “natural” cues to encourage us to eat nourishing items. Surely it would be wrong to indulge the taste buds while frustrating the absorption of calories, wouldn’t it? Yet the church never speaks out about saccharine and its related compounds, or pills that prevent fat absorption, or non-nourishing substances that mimic the taste of fat in foods. Why is that?
PeeJ said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:49
Obsession is the proper word. For many years now my only dialog with the fundies has been to gently ask them “why are you obsessed with sex?”
And for a bonus, Rick Santorum has informed me, in an email asking for money,
I also love
Of course he is correct about that last part. All except the fortune thing which I unfortunately lack.
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:51
Fozzetti: At around 15 or so I had my Cosmo phase. This would have been mid 70s. They still published short fiction, back in those days, and while most of it was crap, occasionally there’d be something worth reading. I must admit that I was mostly all about the fashion, the quizzes – I must have taken a hundred of those stupid quizzes – and Teh Sex! As a girl from a small city in a small state, long before the window on the world that is the internet, I was really interested to read about the Big City. Ah, New York. How I yearned for New York. I remember readig a story about Studio 54 and thinking that being with the in-crowd there would be like heaven. I believe that at 15 that was my idea of the very epitome of sophistication.
I also read Fusion, Cream, Crawdaddy and Rolling Stone, though, and I think that helped to mitigate the Cosmo influence. :-) Of course, one day I just outgrew Cosmo. (Still have the RS subscription.)
g said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:52
a handful of wealthy gay men are plotting ways to use their giant fortunes to reshape the entire American political landscape in their own image.
I had dinner last night with some wealthy gay men. They were fabulous! I wouldn’t mind some folks being reshaped in their image.
g said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:55
At around 15 or so I had my Cosmo phase.
me too, along with the same other mags you read, as well as Vogue and Seventeen. I remember realizing after maybe a year that it was all recycled stories written by freelancers, illustrated with stock photos, and ads for clothes and cosmetics. Yeah, and the quizzes. The quizzes and “How to keep your man interested in you” articles were pretty fun.
gbear said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:56
Candy, did you get the coffee table book commemorating the history of Cream magazine? Not nearly as comprehensive as it should have been but it’s fun to have around.
g said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:56
Was it Cream or Creem?
gbear said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:57
Oops. Creem
Candy said,
July 17, 2008 at 22:58
No, gbear, not yet. Maybe I’ll be able to pick it up when the ginormous Planned Parenthood book sale comes around this fall.
fadegeophile said,
July 17, 2008 at 23:07
Oh, and Cosmo need to give me a hat tip for the Johansson/i-secks thing.
That is all.
Da Twoof said,
July 17, 2008 at 23:10
Hey! Stop making fun of me!
I have superior logic and argumentation talent! I proved you all wrong over and over again! On everything! I declared myself the winner every time we locked horns!
I owned you!
Do you hear?
fadegeophile said,
July 17, 2008 at 23:11
And by ‘me’ I mean RB through T-Bogg.
BTW – I can’t see the pantyhose either, RB, and I enjoy carte blanche access to the t00bz.
Righteous Bubba said,
July 17, 2008 at 23:23
And by ‘me’ I mean RB through T-Bogg.
Hooray! I get credit for something involving Scarlett Johannson!
Mauro said,
July 17, 2008 at 23:37
Wow. These feminists. They’re insane. And they’re not actually feminists. Seriously, yes, women are being treated as pleasure objects. So are men. This is bad, to some extent. But to say that women are the victims of the sexual revolution is being really, really, really dumb. Women have always been treated as pleasure objects, and while, to some extent, men have been brought down to that level, it’s much more true that there is MUCH more respect now for the sexual well-being of both partners by both partners, even in the mainstream media. These people need to realize that feminism means empowering women, not hiding behind a veil or burqa.
To be fair: what IS up with Cosmo?
And I really don’t understand all this right-wing angst about the pill. I remember my reaction when I learned, at age 15 or so, that my recent ex-girlfriend was going on the Pill. I was, uh, sexually innocent at the time, and I was thinking that it was because she was having unprotected sex. She explained about the hormone regulation, and since then, many of my girlfriends and female friends have remarked about being on it because it makes their periods regular, when irregular, and bearable, when extremely painful. Not because they’re having unprotected sex (some were even virgins). WHY IS THIS SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND? I see the Pill as a hormone regulator that has the side effect of preventing pregnancies, not as a pregnancy-preventing device. The right-wingers are batshit insane.
Again, to be fair: we all already know that.
billy pilgrim said,
July 17, 2008 at 23:37
Odd how most of the folks around here are unwilling to click on links to wingnutty web sites, but it looks like most of the guys went directly for the stockings and pantyhose links.
fadegeophile said,
July 17, 2008 at 23:42
I prefer being treated like a sex object, BTW.
And yes, Billy: pr0n > wingnutz
Alan said,
July 17, 2008 at 23:48
I’d just like to note that The Pill and proper STD testing has been a boon in my (monogamous) relationship with my partner. Not having to use condoms has enabled all types of play and positions….
I’m pretty sure my partner is The One, which means we get to go on having fun and then plan to have kids when we’re good and ready.
Maybe I’ll go tell K-Lo.
So, in other words, I’m bragging.
gbear said,
July 18, 2008 at 0:13
Seriously, yes, women are being treated as pleasure objects. So are men. This is bad, to some extent.
OK, now I’m getting mad. Am I the only one here not being treated as a pleasure object? Am I chopped liver? Nobody thinks about the shallow gratuitous treatment that would make us over-50, over-weight and under-utilized types happy (at least for a few minutes). Life is so unfair.
billy pilgrim said,
July 18, 2008 at 0:16
yeah, fadge, but what if that link had been a RickRoll?
fadegeophile said,
July 18, 2008 at 0:24
Then I’d be humming the sweet refrain of ‘Never Gonna Give You Up’ for the next 57 hours straight, I guess…
commie atheist said,
July 18, 2008 at 0:24
That’s right, while we are tending to our jobs, going to church, and raising our families, a handful of wealthy gay men are plotting ways to use their giant THROBBING COCKS to reshape the entire American political landscape in their own image.
Fixed. And dripping with santorum.
Snowwy said,
July 18, 2008 at 0:50
OK Eww.
MzNicky said,
July 18, 2008 at 1:06
Wonder what whatsername would say about Ms. ?
That it’s a magazine for lesbos?
Shar said,
July 18, 2008 at 1:56
I believe my favorite line was:
As it happens, a few good priests may be exactly what feminism is looking for: some holy men with inspired guidance.
Yes. Indeed. What I need in my life is advice from a bunch of single, supposedly celibate men. Men who will never know the fear of the possibility of an unplanned pregnancy. Who have no idea how adult relationships work in practice. Who supposedly aren’t even going to have sex (not that this works, the pastor of my childhood Catholic church left the priesthood to have a relationship with the married woman he was doing marriage counseling for. Oops!)
Oh, damn, my bad, it’s okay, because God’s telling them the answers. Or is it just because they are men and women are too stupid to talk to God or think for themselves about adult issues?
Child diddling aside, I like life advice from people who have had similar experiences, or similar enough ones that the can extrapolate and commiserate.
I’ve always hated the idea of getting parenting and marital advice from a bunch of permabachelors with no kids (well, in theory).
What is the wingnut obsession with BC side effects, anyway? Yeah, you can get nasty mood swings, but you can change pills until you find one that doesn’t screw you up, or get a new one. The quality of relationship noise is just garbage, and complete value projection. Removing the fear of an unplanned pregnancy made my ventures in sexual activity a lot better, and my relationship stronger because of it. Just because I, in theory, had the freedom to sleep with someone who may not have become my spouse in the future doesn’t make my relationships cheaper or less fulfilling, because, gasp, I am not a Catholic guilt robot anymore.
We have more sex for pleasure now, at least in theory, but that’s the wonderful result of reliable birth control and romantic relationships based on love, rather than matches made by our families because marriage was too important to leave up to individual whim.
At least she didn’t mention that “traditional family” crap that is such, well, crap (the nuclear family love match is a pretty new invention).
Snorghagen said,
July 18, 2008 at 2:01
Aieeeee!
Doctorb said,
July 18, 2008 at 2:21
Man, I just don’t get why you can’t just enjoy having sex with someone without it meaning that you think of them as some kind of “object”. You know? I don’t really have a great deal of interest in the lives of the farmers I bought a bunch of peaches and nectarines from, right? I pay them some money, they give me some fruit, nobody is upset that I’m just using them to get fruit.
And I’m not really talking about sex as a commercial transaction, just wondering why out of all the other interactions between people it’s this one that’s singled out as “objectifying”.
Doctorb said,
July 18, 2008 at 2:25
What I actually mean is more like if two people are in the mood to have sex together, and aren’t trying to churn out more sprogs, a certain group of celibate men in dresses condemns this as “turning a person into an instrument of pleasure”. Replace sex with a game of racketball, or going out for Chinese food, or going to the movies, or collecting porcelain figurines of famous Popes, and suddenly the other person is a person again and you’re not just using them as a thing, even if you are only hanging out with them because it’s better than eating in the restaurant alone like some kind of loser.
Arky - Sexual Orient Express said,
July 18, 2008 at 3:10
Dear Str8 dudes.
I’m totally sorry the word “sex” is within 500 miles of K-Load. You’ll probably need therapy before you can look at a woman and think of sex without thinking of K-Load.
I, on the other hand … wait. What’s happening? The S.O. just walked in the room and all I can think of are two giant eyebrows and about a dozen chins.
OH GOD HELP ME!!
cowalker said,
July 18, 2008 at 3:28
Doctorb:
That is a very interesting question. I sell the use of my brain from 9 to 5 to the people I work for. They are nice people, but they don’t love me, nor do I love my job. This is not necessary as long as I get paid my salary. Why is sex different? Frankly, I’m not so sure it needs to be. Very few people get to earn their living doing work they are very proud of and that they love to bits. Does there have to be huge drama and a swearing to lifelong committment accompanying every sexual encounter? If you believe so, why? An awful lot of our assumptions about sex and relationships is learned, rather than innate behavior.
I think K-Lo/pope are living in the past, where the only model for a satisfying, mutual sexual relationship was marriage, where children would inevitably arrive, and the parents would have to be able to work together to raise them. Usually at least one parent would die at a relatively early age. With our long lives and the need to limit our family size, it’s an insufficient model.
annejumps said,
July 18, 2008 at 3:40
Doctorb, it’s disingenuous is what it is. They want more bodies in the pews (and from what I know, there aren’t many . Women having choices and calling the shots, if you will, puts a crimp in that. They don’t actually give a shit about objectification, but it sounds like they’re trying to be nice. Aw.
annejumps said,
July 18, 2008 at 3:41
Well. I screwed that up. I was meaning to add in a thing about how there aren’t many who convert to Catholicism, at least not when compared to other types of Christianity, but I wasn’t sure about that and then I forgot it was in there.
Trilateral Chairman said,
July 18, 2008 at 4:29
She explained about the hormone regulation, and since then, many of my girlfriends and female friends have remarked about being on it because it makes their periods regular, when irregular, and bearable, when extremely painful.
My wife used to have periods that were seven days long and so heavy that she’d have to wear a tampon AND a pad (and change both every few hours). I’m not even mentioning the horrid cramps and the vomiting. The pill put a stop to all of that.
I don’t actually know the Catholic Church’s position on the use of the birth control pill for reasons like that. Maybe it’s okay as long as you’re not having sex, but my guess is that people like K-Lo would simply advise my wife to see her heavy periods as a message from God about original sin or some such thing.
Thursday said,
July 18, 2008 at 5:39
May I suggest a Catholic worth listening to?
a href=”http://www.abc.net.au/rn/religionreport/stories/2008/2304911.htm”>Religion Report
He’s discussing the exact same issue, but intelligently. Oh, and he interviews his mom about her choices in contraception, which is an interesting choice.
Thursday said,
July 18, 2008 at 5:40
Oh, for… Trying again:
The Religion Report
MarktheSpark said,
July 18, 2008 at 9:49
K-Lo’s point that officially “celibate” conflicted gay men are the best to go to for sex advice seems pretty twisted, even for a “conservative”.
Freud pointed out how sexually repressed people take refuge in sublimation; finding some substitute for the “evil” activity they secretly desire yet fear. In K-Lo’s case, one would assume the sublimation is steered into big, greasy portions of gravy-soaked beef. Perhaps that’s some link to the “absorb” comments.
By the way, was she perhaps separated at birth from the anti-sex “feminist” (Heaven forefend) Andrea Dworkin? There is more than a superficial resemblance physically and emotionally.
MzNicky said,
July 18, 2008 at 13:22
MorktheSpork: Ever actually read any of Dworkin’s work? Knew her personally, did ya? No, I didn’t think so. So STFU.
lobbey said,
July 18, 2008 at 13:49
Anyone obsessed about sex this much (particularly Catholics IMHO) must have a secret, sordid sex life well hidden away. Is K-Lo actually a furry, or is it uniforms and bondage gear?
MajorKong said,
July 18, 2008 at 14:37
Not sure about K-Lo but I suspect Mona Charen is into the uniforms and bondage gear.
Strider said,
July 18, 2008 at 15:43
LOL. I know the cover says it’s Johanssen but it doesn’t look like her to me.
Ann Althouse Considers Giving It Up For Christian Bale said,
July 18, 2008 at 17:41
Re: Cosmo for Five Year Olds [Iain Murray]
To be fair, Kathryn, Black Canary has dressed in fishnet stockings, pirate boots, and a bustier since 1947. I’ve never been sure why she hangs out with that ’60s leftie Green Arrow, though.
Translation: Iain wore a stripe of black electrical tape across his secret decoder badge when Black Canary married Green Arrow.
sagra said,
July 18, 2008 at 19:49
No problem, g. I’m just attempting, poorly, to point out a beautiful example of perfectly circular reasoning. If you listen to them, you feel bad — if you don’t, you are bad. Nothing like “Hey look, I’ve made my own choices and I feel great!” could ever possibly penetrate it.
MarktheSpark said,
July 19, 2008 at 1:41
MzNicky:
Yes, I read Dworkin’s “work”, between bouts of hysterical laughter.
Sorry I’m unwilling to STFU, right-wing, sexphobic troll.
J. A. Baker said,
July 19, 2008 at 3:29
In all likelihood, he’s been rewinding and rewatching all the panty flashes ten times each. At least. Oh, and don’t touch the remote – it’s probably very sticky right now.
MzNicky said,
July 19, 2008 at 4:32
right-wing, sexphobic troll.
Mork: You talkin’ to me? Man, are YOU rattlin’ the wrong cage.