Does Pastor Swank have a “gorgeous” body and an okayed manhood?

I was too traumatized to put that in, but I’d probably guess “sady, no!”

Cupped? Marriage vows are good an’all, but there’s not usually cuppage inside of them.

Swank needs to remember that people always tell surveyors what they want to hear.

Especially when we’re unarmed, and they’re carrying chains.

right, DON’T think of Mrs Swank with a giant purple veined strap-on doing the good Mr Swank doggie style while he sings “Amazing Grace” while wearing a dog collar and a french-maids skirt. got it.

Great. Now I’m thinking of the Swanks cupping things.

Cupping things!

Theo — they’ve got rods, too, don’t forget. *Snicker*

Am I to understand Pastor Swank is watching off-beat pornographic films which feature English housewives revealing intimite marital details to quantity surveyors? And then they have cups of sex?

Huh?

“Yeah, so there! I just put images of me and Mrs. Swank doin’ the nasty in your heads!”

Nasty indeed…

:Shudder:
Now I’m off to scrub my brain with steel wool, dum dee dum…

My dirty mind just wondered whether the wives were at home…alone…lonely…when a handsome young English itinerant surveyor knocked at the door…

“Well, that wasn’t as fun as the sex cupped inside my marriage vows, but good on you nonetheless. Now take your clipboard and get out of here.”

Trust Swank to use the English as a benchmark for sexual desire. Not hating on the UK or nothing but it has never had the stereotype of being a hotbed of sexual passion. I mean, I’m not holding my breath for Brits Gone Wild.

Um, how does Pastor Swank know that “marital sex is more fun”? Does he have personal experience to compare? Or is he relying solely on the word of English surveyors?

Um, how does Pastor Swank know that “marital sex is more fun”? Does he have personal experience to compare? Or is he relying solely on the word of English surveyors?

That’s an outstanding question that I never, under any circumstances, want answered.

“Two thirds of married females polled stated that their most fulfilling sexual experiences happened with their spouses.”

Only wimpy Republicans would CARE what a female thinks about her sexual experiences.

Related to the point Auguste raises, just how much extra-marital sex does one have to have to feel one is knowledgeable enough on the matter to judge? I mean, I’ve drunk a cases and cases of wine in my day, but don’t consider myself to have an expert palate…

Enough to be known as a slut or a stud, but not so much as to be known as a skank/Ron Jeremy…

No matter what all of you say (and Woodrowfan, it was a valient effort), but I can’t shake the image of the Queen and King of All Cosmos out of my head after reading this.

All SwankMan needs to do is learn Esperanto to complement his Swanklish, making him totally understandable to a level of linguistics not seen since Furbish.

…and then teh universe will ASPLoDe!!eleven!

Wait, am I reading this correctly? Unless I’m totally mistaken, he claims “the wives” told some English surveyors that the sex with the Swankster was more fun? Wow. I’m impressed! Just how many wives does the good Pastor have? Does he “minister” to them all simultaneously? And isn’t “English surveyors” a subtle reference to voyerism? I can picture it now: Pastor Swank gettin’ nasty with his 6 wives, while several English gentlemen look on, growing ever more excited as the tangled, sweaty heap of bodies writhes in ecstasy.

were the wives out of earshot?

Woodrowfan, my evil spies inform me that your wild conjecture about Swanksexâ„¢ is 100% accurate in every way… except one. The strap-on is jet-black. That way, the Swanks can feel as though their adopted son is part of the fun, too*.

*FWIW, I am hideously ashamed to have posted that. Really.

I had great sex with my girlfriend, I mean great! Now that she’s my wife, never mind

Hey Gus!

Your post reminds me of something I read a while ago in the local independent newspaper. Someone wrote in to a sex-advice columnist who specialized in rather kinky situations. The guy had a fetish he was having trouble fulfilling. Seems his fantasy was to have sex with a woman who would just lie there and act totally uninterested, she’d be watching the TV or reading or something, I guess. The columnist’s advice? “That’s easy, just get married!” Ouch!

One thing about the good reverend: you can always count on him for an interesting verb. “Cupped” simply isn’t one I would have ever thought of.

Do you suppose he uses Word’s Thesaurus for every verb, then chooses the least felicitous synonym he can find?

Isn’t it against the rules to use words like “felicitous” here at S,N!?

Marq: I’m told the purple one vibrates though….

As the song goes, “isn’t it ironic…?” that Swank, a firm believer in Intelligent Design, is cleverly applying the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest by engaging in and promoting the safest sex possible, while many liberals are throwing caution to the wind when it comes to their sexual behavior, having abortions, getting “gay married” and generally reproducing as little as possible, thus pushing themselves ever nearer to being added to the endangered species list.

Too bad political beliefs aren’t inherited, BLT.

“Too bad policial beliefs aren’t inherited, BLT.”

Do you think I don’t know that Hysterical Woman? Why do you think I read Rush Limbaugh transcripts to my child at night instead of the typical bedtime stories?

My.inner.eye.is.now.blind.

Thanks…

The “safest sex possible” doesn’t do much to increase the odds of one’s genetic material making it to the next generation, now, does it?

But – if you’re a man – going out there and humping every vaguely vaginal-shaped thing you come across sure does wonders to up those odds.

And as we all know (well, all of us who have managed to pass a basic Bio 101 course know), the only thing that really matters in evolution is getting your genetic material to the next generation. “Survival of the fittest” is only an accurate characterization of evolution if by “fittest” one means “producing the most offspring that live to reproductive age”.

There are definite evolutionary advantages to being a manwhore.

Of course, if your religion frowns on manwhoring, then trying to use your imaginary sky-fairy friend as blackmail to convince women that they ought to let men co-own their uteruses with them is probably the next best thing.

And the purple one does indeed vibrate, but it doesn’t fit well into the strap-on harness. The vagaries of the free market have yet to produce perfection, alas.

Jillian, there are some fundamental flaws in your argument. First of all, you are assuming that sexual promiscuity among males leads to full-term pregnancies, and thus, to the perpetuation of the species. That is rarely the case. Most babies conceived out of wedlock are aborted. That does little to preserve or perpetuate the species.

Furthermore, lets assume for a moment that male sexual promiscuity = more babies. Spreading oneself, and ones offspring too thin leaves males in a position of having very little control in terms of ensuring the safety and security of their offspring. Simply impregnating women is not enough. You have to be around to protect and to provide for the needs of the developing child, otherwise, the child is often at risk and vulnerable to innumerable dangers. If you are the type of person not to ask too many questions of your sexual partner, she could have an STD, or be a crack head. Is impregnating a diseased, drug-addicted woman a ticket to survival of the species? I think not.

Also, there is the matter of what I refer to as Spiritual Survival of the Spiritually Fittest (my adaptation of Darwin’s notion of survival of the fittest), and while none of us are perfect and while no adult can be said to be sexually pure in every thought and deed, being a good stewart of one’s sexuality will ultimately contribute to one’s spiritual health, and being sexually reckless will leave a person spiritually weak. Long term survival of the species cannot occur without injecting spirituality into Darwin’s theory. That’s where Darwin’s theory ends and Dr. BLT’s begins. Without spritual survival, in the end, there cannot be phycial survival of the species.

Of course to be fair to those who came before Darwin, Darwin cannot take all of the credit for his theory. It is common knowledge that he begged, borrowed and stole from others who lacked the resources to make their views well known.

Please excuse the typo: good “stewart” should read, “good steward.”

Swank, a firm believer in Intelligent Design, is cleverly applying the Darwinian principle of survival of the fittest by engaging in and promoting the safest sex possible,

I’m going to have to see some evidence of that. Vaginal intercourse leads to a greater incidence of cystitis and, of course, pregnancy.

while many liberals are throwing caution to the wind when it comes to their sexual behavior, having abortions, getting “gay married”

Because monogamous homosexual relationships constitute caution thrown to the winds of commitment?

and generally reproducing as little as possible, thus pushing themselves ever nearer to being added to the endangered species list.

Some behaviours which reduce the reproductive success of an individual organism – eg., altruism, and homosexuality (1, 2,) can be beneficial for the population as a whole, thus ensuring the reproductive success of the organisms’ genes through its kin.

Please don’t argue evolution unless you understand it.

-The Rev. Schmitt.

With all due respect to you Rev., a revered and sacrosanct man of the cloth, I hope you stick around for at least another forty years. Then you will really begin to understand evolution. Or should I say de-evolution?

Look Rev., conservatives don’t have the corner on the market when it comes to sexual morality. But though they so often fail, sometime miserably, they do, as a community, tend to uphold values and standards that I believe are in their best interest in terms of their own survival. Let’s face it, they are having a heck of a lot more kids than liberals. While the rest of you are busy talking about the earth, they are busy populating it. I’m trying to do a bit of both.

We are all sinners, Rev., and my sin is no prettier than yours. But let’s face it, some behaviors, even altruistic ones, are genetic dead-ends. I don’t see anyone trying to clone Mother Theresa for example. She left behind a collosal legacy, but though she is a Mother to many, she is a mommy to none.

Hey, Doc, pay attention:
Political attitudes are acquired, not inherited.
Political attitudes are acquired, not inherited.
Political attitudes are acquired, not inherited.
Political attitudes are acquired, not inherited.
Political attitudes… oh, I give up.

ajay, the jury is still out on this, but I’ll keep reading Republican talking points to my child in between bedtime stories, just in case you’re right. There is some research to suggest that anything acquired can dramatically alter biochemical structures in the brain. Actually, according to a recent article in the LA Times, political ideology stimulates specific regions of the brain that
are involved in the processing of emotionally-charged patterns of thought. Before too long, scientists may identify a gene that has the potential to predispose a person to a particular political ideology. My hypothesis is that since the right-hemisphere seems more engaged in risk-taking behaviors and the left hemisphere seems more engaged in activities involving boundary-setting and inhibition, conservatives may have unique left-hemisphere profiles and liberals may have unique right-hemispheric profiles. I realize that my depiction of left and right-hemispheric specialization may seem a little simplistic, and I do recognize that brain processes are ineffably more complex in nature, but I have tried to state things in simple terms for the sake of keeping my explanation as succinct as possible.

Doc, I know this may be hard for you to believe but:
Not everybody who’s gay is a liberal or a Democrat.
Not everyone who has an abortion is a liberal or a Democrat.
Not every child of a conservative or a Republican will grow up to become one. (Please lay off reading that stuff-you wanna give the kid nightmares?)

Most babies conceived out of wedlock are aborted.

WTF?!? You have statistics to back this up, of course? From a reputable source, i.e., not Operation Rescue. ‘Cos I’m leaning toward calling bullshit on this. I, personally, know dozens and dozens of literal bastards, many of whom were born well after Roe v. Wade. Proof, please.

Yes, Marq, as a matter of fact he does. Try the Journal of Prenatal and Perinatal Professional Medical Practices, September, 2004, Volume 84, pages 112-119.