Lolo Says No-No to Sex; ‘Infuriates’ Liberal Entertainment Media
Once upon a time waiting to have sex until marriage was seen as a beautiful thing, well that time has come and gone according to the liberal media.
Lolo Jones is a 29-year old Olympic track star who recently came under the left’s scrutiny after openly speaking about her virginity on HBO’s “Real Sports with Bryant Gumbel.” She said her reason for sharing something so personal was, “because she wants other girls who have made the same decision to know that they are not alone and that it’s not easy.”
Here we have a woman, who despite heavy cultural pressure to conform, decided to stand up for what she believes in and set a good moral example for young girls to follow. Yet much like in the case of Tim Tebow, the media’s response to sexually pure role models has been to launch an all out attack.
The Olympic hurdler was slammed on May 29 by The Frisky’s Alexandra Gekas who authored “The Soapbox: Why Lolo Jones’ Reason For Staying A Virgin Infuriates Me” on that celebrity blog. Slate’s Emily Shire also criticized Jones on May 31 in an XX Factor column called, “Is Being a 29-Year-Old Virgin Really an Accomplishment?”
Both articles argued that the biggest problem with the Jones’ public statements about her virginity was the fact that it was more about her husband rather than herself. Shire remarked “That Jones makes her virginity into a prize is also problematic because it is not ultimately even a decision for herself. Jones stated during the interview that ‘It’s just a gift I want to give my husband.’ Really, something that supposedly involves more work and discipline than making the Olympics is for some person you haven’t even met yet?”
It is astonishing how both these authors failed to see value in the selfless nature of the athlete’s decision and instead chose to portray it as some sort of flawed, outdated ideology. Shire even accused Jones of “feeding into a mythical cult of virginity” suggesting that “rewarding chastity” is as wrong as ridiculing it.
Gates and Shire were not the only ones to berate Jones’ decision; TMZ produced a segment titled “Virgin Talk” in an effort to further ridicule her. Amid the crude sexual references, the bit features a discussion about Jones in which one woman stated in a tone to indicate how pathetic chastity is: “This poor girl, she has some cats. She’s 29. She’s telling everyone about being a virgin … It’s just not a stereotype you want to lend yourself to.”
- Taylor Hughes's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Oh, how far we've
Submitted by motherbelt on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 11:56am.
Oh, how far we've come....something that used to be prized is now considered pathetic.
Ashley Madison, call your office!
Funny, isn't it?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:24pm.
Funny, isn't it? The girls who lose their virginity in high school are sluts, but the girls who keep their virginity through college are prudes. And the ones who keep their virginity until they are married are infuriating! And this is how the women, themselves, describe it! And, yet, it's the men who, supposedly, are obsessed with sex.
The guys, of course, have a different outlook. If a guy says "I lost my virginity in high school (usual by the prettiest cheerleader, no less!)," we say "yea, yea, yea, quit bragging!" If they say the lost their virginity in College (once again, by the prettiest cheerleader), we say, "yea, yea, yea, quit bragging." And if they say the lost their virginity on their wedding night," we say "why did you wait so long?" No drama, no judgement, no interest. For men it's "who the heck cares about your sex life? I'm more concerned about my own, or lack thereof!" So, tell me again which gender is obsessed with sex? It doesn't seem to be the guys.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yes, liberals mock the virtue
Submitted by Blonde on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:04pm.
Even Tim Tebow's teammates got into the act.
Fortunately, this young lady seems to be as secure in her decision and the reaction to it as Tebow is. I love how she handled the "furor".
Handy Reference Guide to Obama's Gaffes and Goofs ~ Currently Numbering 200 (and Counting)
MB, yes...
Submitted by retrocon on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 10:20am.
But it does show the hypocrisy of the left...
if you decide to announce your sexual preferences (and maintaining virginity seems to be a sexual preference):
1) you announce you're gay - the left celebrates
2) you announce you're a virgin - the left castigates
Proves it's not about tolerance.
Misery
Submitted by Joe W. on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:18pm.
Misery loves company. The scoundrels on the left cannot stand that others would even consider the virtue in abstinence prior to marriage. Lolo Jones and Tim Tebow ought to do an interview together, and share it in our schools. Ah, but the school administrators would rather be boiled in oil than to allow anything to interfere with their liberal indoctrination of our nation's youth. My hat is off to both of these great examples for our young people....
Well, Janeane Garofalo is a 47-yr old virgin.
Submitted by SickofLibs on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:29pm.
And she infuriates the hell out of me, so I guess we're even.
Wrong...
Submitted by Joe W. on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:38pm.
Wrong, my friend....the only thing virgin left on Barfalo is her ears. Bill Maher said so....
Oh jeez, SoL, that was a good
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:08pm.
Oh jeez, SoL, that was a good one!!! I almost sprayed my coffee here on an early morning in Asia/Hawaii.
Actually, Garruffalo is probably anything BUT a virgin - the worrisome part of that is the type of guys that were involved - if it was, in fact, guys.
Completely and purposefully
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:39pm.
Completely and purposefully missing the point to slam these two columns.
So, what's the point?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:50pm.
Ok, Bal, as you are obviously far more intelligent than anyone else here, perhaps you could enlighten us on what is the point of the two articles in question?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Yes, blaboa, do tell us what the point was.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:23pm.
We're eagerly awaiting your response.
First Bal has to read his
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:27pm.
First Bal has to read his moveon.org daily newsletter, then he can tell us. ;-)
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
Must be the paper was late today, Free.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:41pm.
.
Sorry for the double post.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:20pm.
.
I don't think doing it for
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:31pm.
I don't think doing it for your future spouse is really the best reason either, but the columnists are also making it into some anti-feminist thing, while I'm sure Lolo would say its a good idea for men to do it for their future wives either. The idea is that you're devoting yourself to the other person, not that women are marking themselves as submissive. So I say the columns are a terrible response either way.
And really if she said that she was doing it for herself because she thinks its morally better, I'd imagine they'd even be more outraged, calling her a backwards fundamentalist; and that's why people take her kind of stance, because it sounds like its about love rather than morals.
The columnists are being
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:23pm.
The columnists are being skewered as bashing Lolo when Shire actually wrote, "Jones deserves praise because no doubt, her announcement made many others choosing to abstain from sex feel more confident in their decisions." She also wrote how the TMZ bit was "incredibly unfunny." Shire's criticism lies with Lolo making her virginity into too big a deal:
"It is completely understandable that Jones wants to combat the “uncoolness” associated with being a nonsexually active adult, but feeding into a mythical cult of virginity does not help matters."
Maybe the author is wrong about this, maybe not. But it's not bashing. Shire feels that Lolo is also misplacing the importance of this "gift,":
"While Jones’ faith in her future spouse is admirable (especially for someone who has braved the online dating world) it’s disheartening that her choice to remain a virgin is not for her own sake, but someone else’s."
This a reasonable criticism, and not some kind of piling on to mock Lolo for her decision to be a virgin.
Gekas also has positive words for Lolo, writing, "if Jones’ decision is right for her, then not only do I say more power to her, but I am impressed that she has neither succumbed to the pressure nor the temptation." Gekas' problem with Lolo's statements, as with Shire, are with Lolo making about her husband, believing that Lolo is feeding into the "archaic notion of “value” placed on a woman’s virginity," that a woman's value is not tied into whether or not she's a virgin.
"If Jones had said “I want to share my first experience with a man who loves me and is committed to me; and who I love and am committed to,” I would’ve tipped my hat to her and been on my merrily unchaste way. If she had said, “I’m doing this for myself, because I only want to be with one man,” I would’ve thought, “Do your thing, sister.”"
Again, maybe you disagree, but these are not flippant comments by people looking to ridicule or bash Lolo for her decision.
I addressed that, they're
Submitted by redfish on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:30pm.
I addressed that, they're making it into some feminist thing (emphasizing "woman's virginity") when her comments didn't specifically apply to herself as a woman, and they're also overly concerned with that she might be promoting abstinence (the horror) instead of it just being a good thing for her. But they're not ridiculing her for not having sex, no.
Thanks for letting someone disagree.
Submitted by UpNorth on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:33pm.
Again, they take Lolo to task for wanting to remain a virgin for her husband. If only Jones had said she wanted to share her experience with a man, not share her experience with her husband. How dare she embrace the "archaic notion" of self value.
And, there's always the slam about the "mythical cult of virginity".
And, Lolo didn't make her virginity a big deal. The people who felt compelled to write about her virginity made it a big deal.
I believe she made it a big
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:45pm.
I believe she made it a big deal when she decided to tweet about it.
FWIW, one of the websites that posted these "attack" columns has also posted a rebuttal: http://www.thefrisky.com/2012-06-01/the-soapbox-leave-lolo-jones-and-her...
No, Bal
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:52pm.
No,bal, it became a "big deal" when those women decided to become "irked" and just had to include themselves in the "discussion." Before that, it was simply a statement posted on Twitter. Had they, and Gumbel, simply ignored it, it would have gone mostly unnoticed. THEY"RE the ones that made it into a "big deal," not her.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
As if tweeting to thousands
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:13pm.
As if tweeting to thousands of people that you're a 29-year-old virgin won't be noticed? She knew exactly what would happen.
She did, did she?
Submitted by ant on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 8:10pm.
And, of course, society is going to pounce on the announcement of someone's virginity because we are all just sharks sniffing for blood in the water. Is that your view of society? While the media has no problem ignoring numerous stories that don't fit into their agenda of protecting Obama, maintaining racial divisions, supporting minority positions on social issues, suppressing crimes stories that may create a clear vision of problems, ignoring the trampling upon Constitutional rights, etc., etc., ...boy, they just can't help jumping on the 29-year old virgin story...it's just too damn important....sarcasm, BTW.
"Archaic notion of self-value...as if a womans value is determined upon whether or not she's a virgin". Of course, "value" comes from sexual experiences, one-night stands and participating in 'slut-walks', everybody knows that. Women can also derive their value from being part of a monolithic voting bloc for Obama as well, as long as they survive the abortionists scissors, on the way to taking that first breath. Because, again, everyone knows women have no value whatsoever, aside from parasite, until they are completely independent from their mother for survival. At which point they must rely on Democrats for their survival.
Much like commenting on NB, that
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:13am.
you are convinced that Wesley Cook and Joanne Chesimard are innocent? You didn't think that would be noticed, Blab? You knew exactly what would happen.
You seemd to have missed some
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:06pm.
Bal, you seemed to have missed the flippant statements. Let me enlighten you on a few:
We'll start with The Soapbox.
"However, my respect for Jones’ decision has one big “but,” and that is because of one little sentence: “It’s just a gift I want to give my husband.”
So, her "decision" to "respect" her has a "but." In other word, there's a dis qualifier.
"With this archaic notion of “value” placed on a woman’s virginity comes the belief that exclusive rights to her womb should be saved for the highest bidder"
So, the lady in question believes in "archaic" ideas, and she's willing selling her virginity to the highest bidder. Noting flippant about that, right? WRONG!
"Instead, she perpetuated the vulgar notion that a woman’s virginity is proprietary."
So, her ideas, her stated beliefs, are vulgar. Is THAT flippant?
"But to “give” it to a man is to suggest that it is about him more than it is about her and that’s what irks me."
The lady in question isn't being selfish, and that "irks" the author? What's that all about?
"But I just wish she’d made it clear that she’s doing this for herself instead of for him, whoever he turns out to be"
Yea, really, why take the man's perspective into consideration?
"So that instead of thinking of this decision as a prize to bestow upon a man, girls would be one step closer to thinking about it as part of the process to realizing their own identities."
You better think the way I think or you'll lose all my respect. That's the entire gist of her article.
Now, let's move onto the Slate article:
"However, Jones also ascribes an irksomely large value to virginity."
So, yet another woman is "irked" when someone is, dare we say it, proud of their virginity. And, apperently, virginity itself has no inherent value.
"If virginity is commodified into the “perfect gift,” it becomes about a woman pleasing a man rather than herself, and it is difficult to picture the determined and forceful Jones being that submissive in any other aspect of her life."
Once again, the woman in question is, somehow, surrendering her femininity in favor of the man, even thought the woman is the one who's making the decision. There's no man intimately involved at all, obviously. (By the way, does this mean she's being submissive to herself? She must be, there's no man in her bed) It's all about the man, not about the woman. Apparently she's a victim of the "mythical cult of virginity."
"It is hard not to be a little cynical about any highly public commitment to chastity. "
She's actually ADMITS to being cynical!
Bal, it's obvious that these woman are not celebrating her, they're denigrating her. They both claim that she's outdated, has "irksome" ideals, and, most of all, are harming girls with her "submissive" idea that virginity is more than never having had sex, that there is an actually emotional aspect to "losing your virginity."
The woman in question attaches a lot of emotion to her virginity. She believes it is something almost sacred, something to be protected, something to be cherished. She want to wait until marriage and then will fully, unabashedly, lovingly "give herself" to "her man," the man she truly loves, the man she wants to spend the rest of her life with, that man she wants to raise a family with. That's a beautiful sentiment, one shared my untold number of woman all over the world, but you'll NEVER get the feminists to agree, because, for them, there's no emotion involved with sex, it's just entertainment.
Care to respond?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So, her "decision" to
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:12pm.
So, her "decision" to "respect" her has a "but." In other word, there's a dis qualifier.
***Not a disqualifier, just a qualifier. Still doesn't mean she's attacking Jones because she's a virgin.
"With this archaic notion of “value” placed on a woman’s virginity comes the belief that exclusive rights to her womb should be saved for the highest bidder"
So, the lady in question believes in "archaic" ideas, and she's willing selling her virginity to the highest bidder. Noting flippant about that, right? WRONG!
***It's a flippant statement, yes. Obviously the writer doesn't think virginity's value should depend on who "wins" it.
"Instead, she perpetuated the vulgar notion that a woman’s virginity is proprietary."
So, her ideas, her stated beliefs, are vulgar. Is THAT flippant?
***No, it's not flippant. The writer believes that the idea of virginity as being something a man can win is vulgar, that it's a man's to win.
"But to “give” it to a man is to suggest that it is about him more than it is about her and that’s what irks me."
The lady in question isn't being selfish, and that "irks" the author? What's that all about?
***She's irked because, again, she doesn't think virginity should be about the man. I think the author is being a little picky here.
"But I just wish she’d made it clear that she’s doing this for herself instead of for him, whoever he turns out to be"
Yea, really, why take the man's perspective into consideration?
***What does the man's perspective have to do with a woman's decision to have sex for the first time?
"So that instead of thinking of this decision as a prize to bestow upon a man, girls would be one step closer to thinking about it as part of the process to realizing their own identities."
You better think the way I think or you'll lose all my respect. That's the entire gist of her article.
***No, she disagrees and wishes Lolo hadn't stated it this way. She still respects her.
Now, let's move onto the Slate article:
"However, Jones also ascribes an irksomely large value to virginity."
So, yet another woman is "irked" when someone is, dare we say it, proud of their virginity. And, apperently, virginity itself has no inherent value.
***No, she's saying _too much_ value, not that it has no value.
"If virginity is commodified into the “perfect gift,” it becomes about a woman pleasing a man rather than herself, and it is difficult to picture the determined and forceful Jones being that submissive in any other aspect of her life."
Once again, the woman in question is, somehow, surrendering her femininity in favor of the man, even thought the woman is the one who's making the decision. There's no man intimately involved at all, obviously. (By the way, does this mean she's being submissive to herself? She must be, there's no man in her bed) It's all about the man, not about the woman. Apparently she's a victim of the "mythical cult of virginity."
***I can understand this POV, and as with the last author, I think she's a little too worried about the woman losing her identity to the man in some way if it's about him instead of her.
"It is hard not to be a little cynical about any highly public commitment to chastity. "
She's actually ADMITS to being cynical!
***Well, sure, a private matter that's announced to thousands over Twitter? RIGHT before the Olympics? I think it's fair to be cynical.
Care to respond?
My response
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:39pm.
"Not a disqualifier, just a qualifier. Still doesn't mean she's attacking Jones because she's a virgin."
It IS a disqualifier . She's not attacking Lolo for being a virgin, she's attacking Lolo for CHERISHING her virginity.
"It's a flippant statement, yes. Obviously the writer doesn't think virginity's value should depend on who "wins" it."
Obviously you, and the writers, don't understand that Lolo doesn't think of her virginity as a prize, but as a gift of LOVE!
"She's irked because, again, she doesn't think virginity should be about the man."
But it's not about the man, it's about the love.
"What does the man's perspective have to do with a woman's decision to have sex for the first time?"
Well, geeze, I don't know. Maybe because without that man, there will be no sex? I guess his emotions, he ideals, he believes don't play any part at all, right? We're nothing more that a walking phallus, right?
"No, she disagrees and wishes Lolo hadn't stated it this way. She still respects her."
No, she despises her because Jones attached a LOT of emotion to the sex act, and Lolo doesn't exclude the emotions that a man feels in her decisions. That's something those feminist woman just can't allow, hence their claims of virginity being a "prize" for men and how "submissive" Jones is for not thinking the way thay do.
"Well, sure, a private matter that's announced to thousands over Twitter? RIGHT before the Olympics? I think it's fair to be cynical."
OH MY GOD! How dare someone who is known publicly post their own beliefs and their own ideals on Twitter where anyone can read them! She's acting like a columnist! We better respond, pronto, or else this journalist usurper just may continue her heretical activities!
Get real, bal! There's noting "irksome" about someone stating their beliefs in any venue they want. GET OFF THAT HIGH HORSE!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I didn't say how dare she, I
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:39pm.
I didn't say how dare she, I said that it's natural for people to be cynical about a public figure deciding that the run-up to the Olympics is the time to announce she's a 29-year-old virgin. That's not a crazy notion. In the 3+ years since the last Olympics when anyone heard anything about her, nothing. And now, boom.
Again, these writers are not attacking her, do not despise her. They're criticizing the way she's chosen to view her virginity, not that she is a virgin, which is what the original author of this article on NB wanted to convey.
"Lolo says No-No to Sex; That ‘Infuriates’ Liberal Entertainment Media". No, saying no to sex, being a virgin, didn't infuriate anyone.
"Once upon a time waiting to have sex until marriage was seen as a beautiful thing, well that time has come and gone according to the liberal media." Not true, if she's using these articles to back up that claim.
"the media’s response to sexually pure role models has been to launch an all out attack." Ridiculous hyperbole. These writers voiced their opinions on the matter, but this in no way represents so kind of all out attack.
Fair point
Submitted by Model850 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:50pm.
"...it's natural for people to be cynical about a public figure deciding that the run-up to the Olympics is the time to announce she's a 29-year-old virgin."
Much in the way it's natural for people to be cynical about a public figure deciding that the run-up to an election is the time to announce they are supportive of same-sex marriage.
But in comparing the two scenarios which person comes off as the more cynical? [Hint: Which person has the most to gain?]
~C'mon, everyone knows the Olympics is a popularity contest
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:56pm.
.
"Much in the way it's natural
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:03pm.
"Much in the way it's natural for people to be cynical about a public figure deciding that the run-up to an election is the time to announce they are supportive of same-sex marriage."
Absolutely. Very much agree.
It's not natural, Bal.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:02pm.
Bal, it's not natural for people to be "cynical" about the timing of a twitter post. It is the height of cynicism to even mention the timing, for it is IRRELEVANT! Just what the heck does the Olympics have to do with it? It dosn't change her beliefs and her ideals.
"Lolo says No-No to Sex; That ‘Infuriates’ Liberal Entertainment Media"
Are you really that stupid, or are you purposely being obtuse? What does that have to do with what you and I were discussing. Nether the two columnists, nor Lolo, nor you, nor I, made that assertion. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the writer.
""the media’s response to sexually pure role models has been to launch an all out attack." Ridiculous hyperbole. These writers voiced their opinions on the matter, but this in no way represents so kind of all out attack."
Well, that's were you and I disagree. These women INSERTED THEMSELVES into this. They didn't have to say a word . They could have let it alone and no one would even remember this a month from now. But, no, they just couldn't keep quiet, they HAD to make a "statement." They did that for a reason, you know. Gumbal may not have been attacking Lolo, but the two columnists most certainly are!
Tayler is right, in respect to the two columnists in question at least, this is an all out attack! They used the same argument, and even used the same word: "irksome." It's like they were collaborating! "Irksome" is not a word people use very often, What's the odds that two columnists from two completely different publications would use the same word in the same way? The odds for it are nearly astronomical!
I've seen these type of attacks again and again by the liberal press,. So, I fully agree with the assertion.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Not much of an attack, two
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:03pm.
Not much of an attack, two columns with reasonable questions and comments. TMZ? Yes, that's an attack, but they're horrible human beings. But not these two columns.
As for quoting the headline, this has been my point all along: that the writer has unfairly characterized the nature of these two columns so that she can write a provoking headline and article, and so everyone else can join in the "rock throwing" and lament the poor way that a virgin is treated.
What does the Olympics have to do with this? Why do you think she suddenly chose this moment to announce this? Coincidence? This was just a random "Hey, I think I'll announce I'm a virgin today" moment? The upcoming Olympics doesn't change her beliefs and ideals, no. But it makes an excellent moment to present the issue when she knows it'll get the maximum amount of attention.
Once again, we disagree.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:16pm.
"As for quoting the headline, this has been my point all along: that the writer has unfairly characterized the nature of these two columns so that she can write a provoking headline and article, and so everyone else can join in the "rock throwing" and lament the poor way that a virgin is treated. "
Once again, , we disagree. The author is correct in the assertion. This is just another example.
These woman are ATTACKING her beliefs, her ideals. They describe her as "irksome," "submissive" "archaic," and the like, Just what about that do you find positive?
"Why do you think she suddenly chose this moment to announce this? "
Ask yourself this, mister cynic: would her beliefs be any different if she posted them 3 months before, or three months, after? No, he believes, her ideals, wouldn't have changed in the slightest. So, what do you find that makes you so cynical? Most people would only be cynical if her beliefs HAD change just prior to the Olympics! Since they haven't there's nothing to be cynical about.
"But it makes an excellent moment to present the issue when she knows it'll get the maximum amount of attention."
Well, that's an interesting assertion, considering that the two women columnists didn't comment on her Twitter post itself, they commented upon the answers she gave in the Gumbal interview. It looks to me that your projecting your cynicism upon the wrong person. Its not Lolo who deserves your, or theirs, cynicism, it's Brian Gumbal! He's the one who's taking advantage of the timing of that post, not her. After all, even you admit that only a few thousand people read them. Well, thanks to Gumbal, millions of people are aware of that post AND her beliefs about virginity. So, who do you think deserves your cynicism, her or Gumbal?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
She decided to post this now,
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:19pm.
She decided to post this now, not Bryant Gumble. It's her timing. She decided right before the Olympics to tell everyone she's still a virgin. Not in 2010, or '09. If it hadn't been Gumble, rest assured, it would have been someone.
The columnists are commenting because the Twitter post did what it was supposed to do, get Lolo attention and a platform to talk about it more (Bryant Gumble) which has led to more exposure and where we are now. They wrote about it, I'm sure, because they thought it would be a column that would garner attention and something their readers would want to read about.
We disagree. Nothing wrong with that. :-)
He decided to question her about it
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:28pm.
Bal, HE decided to question her about it in national TV. Had he not broached the subject, most people would have been totally unaware of her views. That puts the onus directly on HIM, not her. You cant just spin that away.
Bal, people like Gumbal decide to ask others those types of questions. They're not provoked into it by someone's Twitter posts, no matter how badly you wish that were true. She didn't hold a gun to his head and force him to ask about it. HE MADE THAT DECISION FOR HIMSELF! Why do you refuse to admit that Gumbal is the one who caused the most exposure on this? Of course, we know the answer to that: it would tend to negate your "most people would find this cynical" argument.
And as far as your "some one else would have," assertion, you know this, how?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Sure, Gumble brought into
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:43pm.
Sure, Gumble brought into national attention. And? He did so because he knew it would make for a more interesting, attention-grabbing interview.
How do I know that in an Olympic year someone else would have asked one of our top track athletes about being a 29-year-old virgin? Because I'm aware of how the media works? Heck, FN themselves might have had her on to champion her stance.
And, yet...
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 8:12pm.
"Sure, Gumble brought into national attention. And? He did so because he knew it would make for a more interesting, attention-grabbing interview. "
And, yet, you insisted that she is reasonable the target of cynicism even though she wasn't the one that "brought national attention" to her Twitter post. You now admit that he did that, not her. So, bal, do you still think that "most people" would be cynical about her post?
"Heck, FN themselves might have had her on to champion her stance."
There you go with the "might have" and "could be" but Bal, who DID this? Fox sure didn't! What do you think, that Fox News or Fox Sports would wait until someone else, say Brian Gumbal, DIDN'T mention it if they thought it was news worthy? No, Bal, it doesn't work that way. They're not going to wait to see if someone else has an exclusive. They would jump on it as soon as it was posted, if they actually thought it was news worthy. In the cut throat competition of news services, he who gets there first, gets their best. Pulitzers are never awarded to the second in line. I would expect some who claims to be "aware of how the media works" would understand that. I guess you not as aware as you seem to believe.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Balboa~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:42pm.
Are you worried she wants to be on a Wheaties box or something?
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
~If everyone knows she's a virgin right before the Olympics
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:54pm.
they'll be more likely to call in and vote for her when the time comes!
Oh, wait.
WB~tee hee
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:05pm.
He does seem to think she's getting some selfish advantage out of this.
If it's not the vote thing, it has to be the Wheaties box. But I don't think it would market that well for them...
WHEATIES
BREAKFAST OF CHAMPIONS -- AND VIRGINS
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Spot on!
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 8:54pm.
"He does seem to think she's getting some selfish advantage out of this."
Yes, he does seem to feel that way. I just don't understand what advantage it's suppose to give her. Nothing she said, or will say, will have the slightest effect on her performance.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
...no? Why would I?
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:37pm.
...no? Why would I?
Balboa~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 7:48pm.
That was a joke, in case that was not clear. But I'm trying to figure out how you think this is going to give her any sort of advantage with anything -- personally, I mean.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
That is a good question.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 8:19pm.
That is a good question.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
I don't know that advantage
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 9:08pm.
I don't know that advantage is the right word. I think she's going to get more publicity. And there's nothing wrong with that. I'm just not sure she decided to announce this right now by chance.
~Keep sniffing, bal
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 9:39pm.
You indefatigable sleuthhound. I'm sure you'll get to the bottom of her nefarious plot to..whatever...eventually.
What in the world are you
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 10:14pm.
What in the world are you talking about? I don't think there's anything nefarious. Quit trying so hard.
All those posts mst have worn you out, bal; ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 11:07pm.
causing you to miss Bru's light sarcasm.
MD
If so, then I apologize.
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 11:18pm.
If so, then I apologize.
More publicity? Really?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 11:53pm.
Really? You think she's doing this to garner more publicity? As if having the entire world watch her perform in the Olympics isn't enough? Do you really think that someone who is willing to admit, in public, on national TV, that she's still a virgin at the age of 29, despite knowing that there will be a lot of rather tasteless jokes, and a lot of derision, direct towards her, is that vain?
No, I don't believe that. I think you're grasping at straws, trying to save yourself from drowning in your own cynicism.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
So why do you think she did
Submitted by balboa on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 8:41am.
So why do you think she did this?
~It was a deep, dark, ulterior motive, I'm sure
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 10:54am.
You look like a total f-wit here, whining "Whhhhhhhhhhhhhhyyyyy?!?!?!" about a young woman sharing a personal conviction. Get a life.
Not whining. Stating. Asking.
Submitted by balboa on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 10:59am.
Not whining. Stating. Asking. Learn the difference.
~Keep obsessing over it
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:05am.
The next step is digging through her trash and sniffing her gym equipment in your relentless search for her true motive.
I don't know, bal.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:19pm.
I don't know why she did it Bal. Perhaps she was responding to another tweet? What difference does it make, anyways? I don't care about her motivation. I'm not that cynical.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Getting dizzy~
Submitted by GG_NB on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 8:00am.
[Tried to post this last night, but it didn't go through, so trying again].
I feel like I'm on a merry-go-round. If you find her timing is suspect (in reference to the Olympics), then you are implying she is being cunning. For WHAT PURPOSE? What does she hope to gain personally, from the "publicity"? Okay, so if you find her timing suspect, let's go with that. Other than her giving thought to tweeting this before the Olympics to shine a spotlight to support and encourage other females, any other reason would have to be for herself -- something selfish. She would have to be plotting and scheming to get something for herself.
So what does she get out of it? A better chance of winning at the Olympics? Uh, no. Endorsements/commercial gain for being a virgin? Hard to believe that one would happen. More popularity? Uh, usually these brave souls are often made fun of by a segment of society's loudmouth libs (that sure has happened).
So let me off this merry-go-round and tell me what she gains for herself.
Dizzy, really gettin' dizzy. ((*_*))
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
It may be that she did it now
Submitted by balboa on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:07am.
It may be that she did it now simply to give the issue more attention, as you said to support and encourage other women. I don't think it's necessarily for personal gain.
Balboa~
Submitted by GG_NB on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:22am.
Well, then let's just go with that, shall we? Since there seems to be no other reason that makes much sense, let's just hop right on that train.
And that way, you won't need to go through her garbage. LOL.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Timing? no Hypocrisy? yes*
Submitted by cajun2 on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:30pm.
Just think the reaction if she came "out of the closet" as gay before the Olympics. Like Obama coming out for gay marriage just before elections. Media cheers, what heroes!!!
But what Balboa does not understand is that homosexual behavior has the highest health risks of any behavior, even sugary drinks. But they are considered heroes. STD's and HIV incidents are rising at a frightening rate and of all the new cases, 50% are teenagers.
Young people are not always stupid. Some of them are aware of the risks of engaging in promiscous sexual behavior.. It is an increasing change in behavior for our young people.
http://www.citizenlink.com/2011/03/04/virginity-rate-rises-among-teens-y...
She is not trying to be a role model, she has done some thinking about what is best for her and her future. Liberals hate that regardless of the subject because they want "group" behavior, "group" equality, they hate individual liberties, individual rights, and individuals taking responsibility for their own actions.
Why would she, Bal?
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:28pm.
Bal, what makes you think it was done for publicity, other than it would be something you would do?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
By the way, Bal....
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:33pm.
"It may be that she did it now simply to give the issue more attention, as you said to support and encourage other women."
If that's true, Bal, then she'd doing it for altruistic reasons. She's not doing it for herself, she's doing it for other woman. If this is the case, then what reason do you have for being so cynical about it?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
If Lolo were doing it for other women,
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 3:14pm.
I only wish she had gone public several years ago. Imagine how many fallen doves who succumbed to the temptations of the flesh might have been saved by Lolo's earlier inspirational intervention.
Jer
She may have done just that.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 3:27pm.
"I only wish she had gone public several years ago."
She many have done just that, but you wouldn't have heard about, for she wasn't "famous" then. It's kind of hard to "go public" when the "public" has never heard of you.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Jer, Leave it to you
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 3:43pm.
Jer,
Leave it to you Liberals to attack a woman for saving herself until marriage. You should be ashamed of yourself,
but as Cajun said.
if this had been an Olympian who came out of the "closet" and said he/she was homosexual you, Rocky boy, the writers and sportscasters who are going after Lolo would be cheering, appluading, calling the Olympian brave, an example for all to see, admire and follow. Neither Rocky boy nor any other Liberal would be questioning the newly out of the "closet" Olympian's motives.
You Liberals can be quite pathetic and huge hypocrites.
But we know how it goes for Liberals....Liberal, perverted ideology must be praised, worshiped, adored followed without question.
Conservative ideology must be attacked, destroyed and anyone who dares to follow it and live accordingly is an idiot with ulterior motives.
Jer~oh my
Submitted by GG_NB on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 4:48pm.
I lost what I typed to you. Believe me, you're glad.
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Uh oh, GG...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 6:17pm.
Please don't look for it. Let it remain lost forever. The thought of having GG upset with me and being publicly scolded by her is almost unbearable.
I humbly withdraw the offending comment. I must have momentarily taken leave of my senses.
Jer
Jer~
Submitted by GG_NB on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 7:27pm.
Don't worry. I did not re-type it. Let's call it an "act of God," especially since you did withdraw the comment. ;)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Black holes are real! In cyberspace anyways.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 1:48pm.
"I lost what I typed to you."
The Bit Black Hole strikes again! The same thing happened to me yesterday. As I like to think of it, I went One Click Beyond! Beyond what I was supposed to do to post a comment.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Jer ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 5:32pm.
"Fallen" women.
"Soiled" doves.
:o)
MD
Thanks for the correction, Matthew...
Submitted by Jer on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 5:52pm.
I trust it was a product of superior scholarship rather than personal experience.
:-)
Jer
Jer ---
Submitted by matthewdean on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 5:55pm.
Good one ! :o)
MD
I believe when this all began
Submitted by balboa on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 7:03pm.
I believe when this all began I said that it was understandable why the columnist had used the word cynical. I didn't say I was cynical.
~OMO
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 7:29pm.
Just break into her house with wilted flowers clutched in your hot little hands and get it over with.
"I think it''s fair."
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 1:39pm.
Bal, you said "I think it's fair to be cynical." So, you think it fair, but you, yourself, aren't being cynical? Yea, right. Got any Bridges to sell? You sure spent a lot of time trying to defend that cynicism, for someone who doesn't share it.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Let me know where you want
Submitted by balboa on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 3:45pm.
Let me know where you want that bridge delivered.
Balboa, Rocky, rocky... You
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 3:49pm.
Balboa,
Rocky, rocky...
You are quite the amusing Liberal.
So, we must question and learn, find out the truth about Lolo. We must seek out her ulterior motives.
But oh goodness the heartattack you have, how nutty you go if anyone dares to question your god Jon, too ashamed of being Jewish, Stewart, right?
So, 29 year old Olympian says she is a virgin. Balboa immediately assumes there is an ulterior motive.
50+ radical socialist "comedian" night in and night out attacks Republicans, edits videos to make Conservatives and Republicans say what Jon Stewart wants them to say. Balboa will attack, ridicule and piss on anyone who dares claim that Jon Stewart has ulterior motives.
Balboa, I am 100% sure that you are blind to how ridiculous you sound.
Remember people, according to Balboa's behavior on NB, we MUST question the motives of a 29 year old Olympian claiming that she is a virgin, but you are an idiot, you are dumb, you are silly for questioning the motives of Jon Stewart. Balboa's curiosity ends where his radical Left wing ideology begins.
Funny. ain't it?
Submitted by ant on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 5:31pm.
This woman has some 'ulterior motive'...but let a President under investigation for perjury bomb Iraq out of the blue.. a blue-blood Kerry, all of a sudden has the need to "get me a huntin' license 'round here?".....or a Stephanopoulis start bringing up 'contraception' days before it becomes a strategy of the Obama campaign....and Piglosi's pet Fluke....etc. etc., etc.......nah, nothing contrived from the Dimocrats...not evah!!!
Balboa, Rocky, rocky...You
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 3:51pm.
double...
Do you want to know what is cynical about this, bal?
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 8:42pm.
Bal, do you want to know what is actually cynical about this? It's the responses by those women , Gumbal, and even YOU. If she wasn't an Olympic athlete, if she was just an ordinary woman with no "link" to "history," no "connection" to "the masses," nether you, nor Gumbal, nor of those other women would care about anything she says to say, ether in public, on twitter, or whatever. To all of you, it''s not what she posted that matters, it that she's going to be in the Olympics that matters, it's that she's "Famous."
She's Famous, and because she posted something "controversial", she now the topic of so much discussion, the object of so much negativity. She's Famous, so she's the object of you cynicism. But, guess what? YOU are the ones who should be facing cynicism, not her.
So what if she's Famous? So what if she's going to be in the Olympics? So what if she posted that before she even competed, before she ether won a medal and became more famous or lost and became yet another forgotten athlete? Why should that make her a target for cynicism? What is there for you to be cynical about?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Well, yeah, if she wasn't
Submitted by balboa on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 9:12pm.
Well, yeah, if she wasn't famous I'd probably have never heard about this. Not sure of your point here.
I don't think she posted something controversial. It's unique, it's unusual, and it's also unique that she chose to make it public.
My point is...
Submitted by CobraMan on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:09am.
My point is that the cynicism you so willing apply doesn't come from what she said, but form what she's going to do, namely perform in the Olympics. It's her "status " as an Olympic athlete that is making you cynical towards her, not her opinions. Her opinion, obviously, hasn't changed much since she went through puberty, for if it had, she wouldn't still be a virgin, correct?. So, what's changed? What's causing you to be so cynical? It's her status, and ONLY her status! You're cynical over what she said not because of the message, but because of the image of her as a world class Olympic athlete. That's a very cynical thing for you to do.
"It's unique, it's unusual, and it's also unique that she chose to make it public."
It's not unique. That sentiment used to be quite prevalent less than 50 years ago, well within a single lifetime. Heck, my own mother was a virgin until she was married. The first time her and my dad has sex was on their wedding night. She "gave" her virginity to him.
It's also not unusual. Many women, right here in America, feel that same way she does. Haven't you ever heard of a Purity Ring? What do you think "Purity" stands for, water quality?
It's not even "unique" that she chose to "make it public." Several woman, actress Meagan Good being one of them, have done the same thing.
Oh, but, wait, she did "made it public." So, that's it, right? Tell me, would you have found it less cynical of her if she didn't tell people how she felt about this subject? If so, WHY?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
CobraMan, Well stated. The
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:41am.
CobraMan,
Well stated. The problem Balboa has is that he has to go with his life experiences with whom he surrounds himself with. Sadly, he probably does not know any women who waited until marriage and beleives that his own life experience AND what he sees on television and the movies must be everyone's experience.
Like you, CobraMan, I know quite a few women who are virgins, who waited and are waiting for marriage to lose their virginity. A noble, admirable things to do.
No doubt that he will read this and tell himself, "oh please, women who wait until marriage are prudes..." LOL
The problem with Liberals is that they honestly believe that the movies, television and their own life experiences are everyone's life experiences.
Poor Balboa, he believes that since everyone is having sex on television and the movies, well....everyone in real life isn't waiting and it is rare to be a virgin. LOL
Balboa's selective cynisism.
Submitted by Liberallies on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 11:33am.
Balboa's selective cynisism.
29 year old female says that she is a virgin waiting for husband to lose her virginity, Balboa and his cynical, perverted Left wing buddies will say, "There has to be more to this! Why is she saying it now?! She is looking for fame...that's all! Ignore her. It is pathetic that a 29 year old is a virgin!"
36 year old Gerry Studd rapes a 17 year old Congressional page, Balboa and his Left wing buddies say it is not rape because the law says it is not. Balboa and his Left wing buddy are not outraged by Studd's sodomizing a 17 year old. They don't question Studd's motives. Instead, they question the motives and accuracy of Conservatives who point to Studd's disgusting and immoral behavior.
By the way, Rocky, unsure what world you live in, but 29 year old virgins are not as rare as you have allowed yourself to believe. Or as you have allowed yourself to be brainwashed to believe. You may want to leave your Left wing bubble, Rocky.
Stupid post number 153
Submitted by cocodrie on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:32pm.
Stupid post number 153 was worth pointing out. You're almost halfway through your calendar and have yet to make a sensible one.
Jesus Loves You so much He died for you
I hate the left and the left hates me
Submitted by DontFeedTheTrolls on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:47pm.
The left hates restraint and rules.
They embrace every perversion on earth.
If the Obama's came out and said Michelle had slept around and they didn't know who fathered their two daughters, they would be praised as 'progressive, forward thinking, free spirited human citizens of Mother Earth'.
High School
Submitted by rusino on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:53pm.
When I was in high school, if you DID you lied and said you Didn't. Now If you DON'T you lie and say you DO!
The World is upside down.
"It's my body, but not my virginity."
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:55pm.
"Virginity is not an object, it is not a possession and it is not a gift you can give someone."
Ok, I get it, it's your body, but not your virginity. That's makes perfect sense, NOT!
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
One reason why people hate virgins.
Submitted by Servo1969 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 12:56pm.
When some people hear a person say they are a virgin by choice - they believe that they've just been insulted. There's a lot of psychology going on here that I won't get into but basically they believe (due to their narcissism) that every statement must somehow reflect on them and their choices in life. The subconscious guilt they feel inside is projected onto the person claiming to be a virgin.
In other words - when they hear "I'm a virgin by choice." They immediately 'feel' something like "Oh, so you're better than me, is that it? You think your better than me? You think you're a better person than I am? How dare you judge me! Who do you think you are? I love sex! Everyone loves sex! You're just weird. You're the one with the problem, not me."
It reminds me of a guy who gets drunk then acts indignant towards every woman that turns him down. "You think you're better than me?"
"Virgin by choice."
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:00pm.
I've always found the term "virgin by choice" to be a rather humorous claim. It there such a thing as "virgin by accident?"
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Cobra
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:38pm.
Ugly people might not have had a choice. :)
Two drink minimums.
Submitted by CobraMan on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:48pm.
Isn't that when the two drink minimums take effect?
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Don't forget, Cobra,
Submitted by UpNorth on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:23am.
"the girls all get prettier at closin' time".
If this gal wants to protect
Submitted by killa37 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:09pm.
If this gal wants to protect her virginity, she probably ought to refrain from talking to known sexual harrassers like Bryant Gumball.
Why so angry?
Submitted by freecitizen on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:17pm.
Such irrational hate and anger leads me to believe that these women are dealing with some self-loathing and guilt from their unfulfilling casual sex lifestyles. Misery doesn't just love company, it requires it.
Personal choice
Submitted by oldfart on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 6:24pm.
To the left the only personal choice is one of their choosing - not the individual. The concept of the 'individual' is foreign to them. This is typical of people who live by the model of 'rude and cude'. If they want to lie down in poop, then frankly, my dear I don't give a damn - but don't DEMAND that I join you.
This poor girl, she has some
Submitted by misterbee241 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:27pm.
This poor girl, she has some cats. She’s 29. She’s telling everyone about being a virgin … It’s just not a stereotype you want to lend yourself to.”
But I suppose the stereotype of a black woman being a sleep around slut or ho is. Liberal logic. Go figure.
So what do you think they
Submitted by djmdjm on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:20am.
So what do you think they meant by Clinton "being the first black president." or by Zimmermen being a "white Hispanic." According to Liberal logic if Zimmerman were a true Hispanic he would have been the thug getting shot. It's only white guys that belong to neighborhood watches. If Clinton was truly white he wouldn't be such a dog. Some things never change. Democrats are the same racists they have always been.
This remind me of the anger
Submitted by Free Stinker on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:33pm.
This remind me of the anger at Sarah Palin for not aborting Trig.
As a woman at Breitbart.com said: "Millions of women who aborted healthy babies had to take stock of themselves, and they didn't like what they learned"
In the same way, all these women who treated sex so casually are taking stock of themselves and they dont like what they are learning"
/// Sarah Palin Fan since July 11, 2007 /// خال
~Normal men respect a woman who doesn't devalue herself
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:38pm.
Damaged men hate a women who doesn't devalue herself. Women who've been treated like crap by damaged men hate women who made smarter choices than they did.
I was a virgin till marriage (at age 23), and I approved this message.
Locking this in
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:40pm.
Only because I think this post includes the only typo I've ever seen from you. :)
~May the fleas of a thousand camels nest in your armpits
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:47pm.
.
WB~Amen
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:30pm.
[on your first post...and second one as well, LOL].
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Hey!!!
Submitted by RESTLESS 1 on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:41pm.
Now, if I could only do something about these itchy armpits.
Restless~
Submitted by GG_NB on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 4:24pm.
May the balm of forgiveness heal you. ;)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Did she get her HS diploma?
Submitted by CJohnson on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:40pm.
Isn't sex training a requirement for graduating from public high school?
They're just pissed that
Submitted by ant on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 1:41pm.
They're just pissed that Planned Parenthood and,by extension, the messiah's campaign are losing out on money from 'women like her'.
Whoa
Submitted by Lamdog on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 2:20pm.
A woman who values herself more than just a plaything for men and libs are shocked? Shocked, I tell you I'm shocked.
It's not a prize, it's a gift
Submitted by CO2Maker on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 3:44pm.
And both people give the gift of themselves to the other. That's overwhelmingly powerful feeling. Imagine how strong the bond between them will be if they both experience the full power of sex and love for the first time with each other. Whew!
Otherwise, it's masturbating by proxy.
Lolo has unwittingly revealed a basic principle of feminism, at least in matters of sex. It's all about me, and for feminists, "me" is a person who can't write her name in the snow. The best that feminism has to say about the snow-scribes is that they're not rapists and are willing to clean up at home. And they put the seat down. (Duh. I've watched Home Improvement.)
Powerful sex
Submitted by djmdjm on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:26am.
Well I don't think they will exactly "feel the full power of love and sex the first time." Having been married for 24 years. Lets say there is a learning curve. I kind of have to chuckle at unmarried sex. As if these young men have any idea what they are doing and as if the young woman are really really enjoying themselves. Marriage is the perfect vehicle for that learning curve. Yes it can actually get much better. Unmarried sex, yea do yourself a favor. Especially you young ladies. Wait untill you find someone that loves you enough to fork over the ring and the promise of love.
I said powerful, not perfect
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 9:02pm.
I agree, newbie sex is probably awkward, self-conscious, anxious, and filled with desire and passion. Then comes the finale and >BAM< wow! what was that! When that happens for the first time on your wedding night, with all the loving feelings for you wife or husband of six or eight hours, can you imagine the impact. That's what I was thinking of.
I agree with your about how sex gets better over time. I was married for 21 years, and not married for about another 25 years before and after. I've had a fairly respectable number of partners, and I knew all of them except for two before we went to bed. Some of those were one-time encounters with a friend, but many were longer lasting, some very long lasting relationships. And in all of them, I discovered two truths.
1. Sex, by and large, always works, even if neither of us finished the task! Just the hour or so we spent doing all the rest of that stuff was worth it.
2. The first time with any new partner comes down to doing the same tried-and-true crowd pleasers because you're still making sure everything is fine and she's not feeling any buyer's remorse. After several nights, then the exploration and experiments begin, the casual discussing of what is comfortable and exciting or uncomfortable and off-putting. Eventually, after the 20th or 58th or 1,312th time together, you discover a little spot on her shoulder blade that even she didn't know about and really likes. You never would have found it if you didn't stay together for a long time. It gets better. And as I say, the boring, everyday, same-old-same-old still delivers.
~"Fairly respectable number"
Submitted by Wrathful Brunette on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 1:28pm.
What an amusing choice of words considering the subject.
Yea, yea, yea.
Submitted by CobraMan on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 1:35pm.
"I've had a fairly respectable number of partners"
Yea, yea, yea. Quit your bragging.
The Citizens of each State shall be entitled to all Privileges and Immunities of Citizens in the several States. The US Constitution
Unless you're a fetus. The US Supreme Court
Or Anwar al-Awlaki.
Okay, that didn't come out well
Submitted by CO2Maker on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 2:32pm.
Oh, rats, another bad choice of words.
I just meant ...
Never mind, I'm going to stop digging now.
CO2~
Submitted by GG_NB on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 2:37pm.
Good idea. It's a wise man who knows when to put the shovel down. ;)
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
Huh? I've lived in Georgia nearly forty years...
Submitted by Jer on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 5:08pm.
and I've never heard it called THAT. Oh wait...I thought you were referring to, uh...never mind.
Jer
Unlike Boy Baraka, when CO2
Submitted by killa37 on Sun, 06/03/2012 - 11:50pm.
Unlike Boy Baraka, when CO2 talks about 'shovel-ready' jobs, he is tellin' the truth.................or is he braggin'??? I know that Boy Baraka and his gang of rich thieves got a big laugh out of their own version of 'shovel-ready' jobs.
Shoveling SOMETHING~
Submitted by GG_NB on Mon, 06/04/2012 - 12:01pm.
Leave it to you guys to use the word "shovel" to continue along your guy ways. God love ya, you are such...guys. ^_^
Hey, did you ever hear the news story from a a pretty long time ago about some woman who hit a guy over the head with a shovel to (in her words) "smarten him up"? True story. I read it quite a while back, in a Midwest newspaper. Personally, I thought the story was absolutely hideous -- but my boyfriend at the time laughed his head off, so I guess he was privvy to something amusing I was not.
So, anymore shovel jokes, guys? Huh? Got anymore? Let me suggest you don't. {{^_^}}
[Note to those not sure: Never, ever hit anyone with a shovel, no matter how frustrated you feel.].
"If not us, who? If not now, when?"
~Ronald Reagan
"woe to those who call evil
Submitted by okie-pastor on Fri, 06/01/2012 - 5:03pm.
"woe to those who call evil good and good evil, who put darkness for light and light for darkness, Who put bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter" -Isaiah 5:20
I feel sorry for these liberals who ridicule purity, and glorify infidelity, adultery, and sexual perversion. Sad. Just sad.
Keeping ones virginity
Submitted by djmdjm on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 12:03am.
I like this comment the best:
Shire remarked: Really, something that supposedly involves more work and discipline than making the Olympics is for some person you haven’t even met yet?”
So according to Liberals, keeping ones virginity until marriage is akin to the discipline and hard work of being an Olympic athlete. Yea right. To extrapolate that I guess then only Olympic athletes will make it to heaven seeing they are the only ones who can keep their pants on.
The Real War on Women
Submitted by maryerin on Sat, 06/02/2012 - 10:43am.
Virginity infuriates Liberal women because it is against their ultra feminist ideology. Liberal women want to wield sex like a weapon in their war for supremacy over men and have no real concept of selfless love or intimacy.
Everyone keeps talking about the war on women. As a woman, the most fearsome and dangerous enemy that I see are feminists. They undermine and attack everything that is important to me as a woman: the unborn, motherhood and fatherhood, conventional marriage, freedom of religion, selflessness and morality.
I am fighting back and saying that these selfish, apathetic, feminist women do not speak for me!
Fulton J. Sheen