my new sexual orientation

http://www.abstinenceonly.com/

Dear Bishop,
my girlfriend and I have an honest, loving relationship and have both agreed we want to wait until marriage to "do it." We like to go on long walks holding hands and kissing sometimes. When we're "in the mood" she'll let me masturbate her through her panties while she jerks me off until I ejaculate on her breasts and face (mouth closed, of course.) Could this be considered as "spilling my seed in vain"?
Yours Truly, Wondering

Dear Wondering,
Depends on what she looks like... (ha ha, just a little clerical humor there... ) All kidding aside, there's nothing "in vain" about firing your load all over your faith partner's face and tits. The bible specifically admonishes Onan for "spilling his seed upon the ground", so as long as your aim is good, you have nothing to worry about. Ditto for your faith partner, so long as she doesn't let any get into her mouth.
A few words for our readers regarding this practice, known in religious circles as a "facial cumshot." A common misconception is that this is some form of abasement or sexual humiliation when in fact nothing could be further from the truth. With the possible exception of the fingerprint, the human face is an amalgam of our most unique physical characteristics and as such represents a visual template of our DNA. The male desire to spray sperm all over people's faces is, in actuality, an expression of the natural desire to procreate, juxtaposing visually their literal DNA against the metaphorical DNA of their partners face. Along the same lines, ejaculating on a woman's breasts symbolizes your desire to have her lactate. if your faith partner seems reluctant or squeamish about such practices, simply explain this to her and everything should work out fine.

A Devil's Dictionary of Bush-Speak.

our esteemed leader has a special talent for stealing words - ever notice how the folks who are captured in the 'war on terror' somehow dont count as 'prisioners of war'?

http://www.tomdispatch.com/index.mhtml?pid=2288

For the last few years we have been ruled by lexicographers. Never has an administration spent so much time creating, defining, or redefining terms, perhaps because no one (since George Orwell) has grasped the power and possibility that lay hidden in plain sight in the naming and renaming of words. In a sense, our post-9/11 moment began with two definitions: The Bush administration named our global enemy "terrorism" and called the acts that followed a "war," which was soon given the moniker "the global war on terror" (later reduced to the acronym GWOT, also known as World War IV), which was then given an instant future -- being defined as a "generational struggle" that was still to come. All this, along with "war" itself, was simply announced rather than officially "declared."

Given that we were (by administration definition) at war, it should have been self-evident that those we captured in our "war" on terrorism would then be "prisoners of war," but no such luck for them, since their rights would in that case have been clearly defined in international treaties signed by the United States. So the Bush administration opened its Devil's Dictionary and came up with a new, tortured term for our new prisoners, "unlawful combatants," which really stood for: We can do anything we want to you in a place of our choosing. For that place, they then chose Guantánamo, an American base in Cuba (which they promptly defined as within "Cuban sovereignty" for the purposes of putting our detention camps beyond the purview of American courts or Congress, but within Bush administration sovereignty -- the sole kind that counted with them -- for the purposes of the Cubans).

In this way, we moved from a self-declared generational war against a method of making war to a world of torture beyond the reach of, or even sight of, the law in a place that (until the Supreme Court recently ruled otherwise) more or less didn't exist. All this was then supported by a world of pretzeled language constantly being reshaped in the White House Counsel's office, the Justice Department, and the Pentagon so that reality would have no choice but to comply with the names given it.

(follow link to continue..)

united in intolerance - maybe there's hope..

seems like theres one thing that leaders of the diverse communities in jerusalem can agree on - god hates fags. muslims, jews, catholics, and armenian orthoxies have all come together to speak out against a gay pride festival planned for this august, to be called 'love without borders'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/31/international/worldspecial/31gay.html?ei=5065&en=149e1c8e0aa86a2c&ex=1112936400&partner=MYWAY&pagewanted=print&position=

of course theres a right wing american wingnut behind it all:

"Interfaith agreement is unusual in Israel. The leaders' joint opposition was initially generated by the Rev. Leo Giovinetti, an evangelical pastor from San Diego who is both a veteran of the American culture war over homosexuality and a frequent visitor to Israel, where he has formed relationships with rabbis and politicians."

"Mr. Giovinetti circulated a petition against the festival, titled "Homosexuals to Desecrate Jerusalem," which he said had been signed by every member of the ultra-Orthodox Shas Party in the Israeli Parliament. Another American who helped bring together the opposition was Rabbi Yehuda Levin, of the Rabbinical Alliance of America, which says it represents more than 1,000 American Orthodox rabbis. At the news conference in Jerusalem, he called the festival "the spiritual rape of the Holy City." He said, "This is not the homo land, this is the Holy Land."

im all for interfaith alliances, but this isnt exactly what i had in mind.

sacrificing the virgins!

turns out that not only is the current obsession with abstinence naive and misguided, its also actually destructive.

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002212720_std19.html

"Teenagers who take virginity pledges — public declarations to abstain from sex — are almost as likely to be infected with a sexually transmitted disease (STD) as those who never made the pledge, according to an eight-year study released yesterday. "

hmm - people are still having sex. quel suprise.. further, teens are not being provided with the information they need to have sex safely. even in the rare case of an individual who is abstinent until marriage, information about contraception and protection from std's is still relevant. thats where the real harm comes is - the deliberate witholding of pertinent information.

"Not only do virginity pledges not work to keep our young people safe, they are causing harm by undermining condom use, contraception and medical treatment," said Bill Smith, public-policy vice president for the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States. "

score another one up for bush and co. way to go, guys.