Is that a reference, or am I just reference-happy?

See MikeC's post over on Religion in Media.

I think that was after this board was created, Scott.

Well, it's still appropriate!

It's a line from Clerks, that movie's most famous one.

Regarding the sex before marriage that was being discussed on the last board: I found out today that one of the teenagers in my church just became a father. His mother is one of those people who's always spouting off about "family values" and considers herself some sort of expert on raising her children. Now she's got her son, his girlfriend (who got kicked out of her own house) and their baby living with her. This boy has been getting in various sorts of trouble for years, and his mom just says, "I'm letting him find himself." I guess he found something!

True enough, true enough, Scott.

Sex before marriage--my thoughts

In a religious sense, I am opposed to it because I believe sex is something that God wants purely for two married people, when it is truly beautiful.

In a secular sense, I am opposed to it because I believe sex is a loaded pistol that needs to be carefully dealt with. I live in a small, Midwestern village--I have seen at least two teenage pregnancies. I have seen plenty of relationships turned sour. Heard many a horror tale. Sex can wait.

Okay, then, how was it justified back when arranged marriages were all the rage? The couple in question may or may not have met prior to marriage, and love wasn't always involved.

Was postnuptial sex still considered beautiful, even if the nuptials in question were for purely political reasons?

My take on premarital sex (because y'all just knew I'd get into this discussion sooner or later) is this: If you're underage, don't do it. Even if you're very mentally mature for your age, you will, or should, understand and realize that you should wait. However, if you're gonna do it anyway (which would mean going behind your parents backs and against their wishes and betraying their trust in you), then by all means use protection! And if the girl gets preggers then the boy should take responsibility. That is, if the girl's parents don't have him thrown in jail or emasculated in a .12 gauge manner.

Now, if kids wait till they're not only legally of age but mature adults as well, and it's with someone they feel strongly about, and they have protection, and both people want to do it, then by all means go for it, but they should take their time to enjoy it all that much more. Of course, given the hormonal conflagrations of one or both people, compounded by the excitement of doing it for the first time, doesn't always make for the most memorable first experience either or both people might expect, either. And again, if it's mutual and the female gets preggers then the guy should take responsibility and support her in whatever decision she makes regarding the pregnancy. But that's a discussion for another board.

I also think it's a good idea to have sex before marriage because then both people can and will know how to sexually satisfy each other beforehand. If two people date without ever having sex (which is also cool cuz it's their own business so I'd never judge them for it), then get married and have great sex the rest of their married lives, then great! That's wonderful, and I'd be very happy for them. But on the other hand if they don't have sex before marriage then they might find out that they're sexually incompatible for each other after the wedding ceremony, like that night. But of course they could always try working on it, too, to see if in fact they can become sexually compatible with each other in some way or other.

Anyways, that's just my two cents worth.

But on the other hand if they don't have sex before marriage then they might find out that they're sexually incompatible for each other after the wedding ceremony, like that night. But of course they could always try working on it, too, to see if in fact they can become sexually compatible with each other in some way or other. MarkN

Well, one's a man, one's a woman. That sounds "sexually compatible" to me.

I've heard it said that sexual compatibility is directly related to emotional compatibility, meaning the sexual relationship will be determined by the emotional one. I don't know to what extent that may be true, but it does seem to me that without the emotional relationship the sex would be pretty empty. In any case, I hate the thought of someone loving someone else, but not willing to get married because they feel the sex is inadequate. "I'd marry you, babe, but sorry, you just don't cut it where it counts, ya know." Is sexual satisfaction such an important consideration that it makes or brakes the marriage? For some maybe, but I'd pity them.

Now, if neither person has had sex before the marriage, there's no standard for comparison, and that first time can honestly be called by both involved, "the best I've ever had." And yes, they could always try working on it.

If you're breaking up a marriage because the sex isn't "great" enough, that's sort of sad.

Arranged marriages were sort of silly, as that defeats the purpose of marriage, but it was done frequently for political reasons, yes. I don't think post-nuptial sex was as beautiful (it probably could have been) if the two people weren't really in love.

On the other hand, if a person has sex prior to marriage, s/he can bring that experience to the wedding night and make it all the more memorable.

Is it still considered sinning if a couple has premarital sex, and later choose to get married? And just how far does it have to go before it's considered sinning, anyway? Presumably, kissing is okay. Is mutual masturbation?

Is it still considered sinning if a couple has premarital sex, and later choose to get married? And just how far does it have to go before it's considered sinning, anyway? Presumably, kissing is okay. Is mutual masturbation? Machiko

First question: I'd say, yes, still a sin, but marriage would be an important part of repentance if the people involve acknowledge their sin but want to correct it and stay together.

Second question: Mutual masturbation, not OK in my book. There are lots of immoral things that shouldn't be done, even if they don't technically constitute intercourse. Personally, I'd say it can be hard sometimes to know where the line is drawn, and for that it's important to have the guidance of the Holy Ghost. In addition, though it wouldn't mean much to non-LDS, our church leaders have addressed such questions frequently to make clear what the Lord's standards for us are.

Agree with Duke.

Sex before marriage, in my opinion, cheapens the actual act, can lead to a fistful of problems, and just isn't worth it.

On the other hand, if a person has sex prior to marriage, s/he can bring that experience to the wedding night and make it all the more memorable.

Machiko is right! Let's all marry whores guys. Then we can really have a nice wedding night. o_O

Peter.

What is that symbol after your sentence, Peter? Is it a non-frowning face, a guy with a big eye, or Wilfrid Hyde-White?

It is supposed to be a raised eyebrow, expressing confusion or the sense that it was a bizarre statement, which is certainly true there.

"Now darling, I want such a perfect wedding night that I want you to spend the evening with every man in the street. Go along now."

Peter.

Peter, why are you so full of hate?

That's not hate, it's more angry sarcasm, like Andy Rooney. And frankly, unless I'm misinterpreting Machiko, a legitimate point...unless Machiko is saying that pre-marital sex between the actual couple (not pre-marital sex between the participants and outside people) is good, which I can understand. Not agree with, but understand.

ummmmmmm... is the line in "everyone's" mind either some female has sex with everyone or no one?????

Why couldn't the she in question have had a few (<5)previous sexual encounters, learned from those, and use that knowledge to pleasure her husband more than if it was her first experience (since first times are typically awkward)

?

"Now darling, I want such a perfect wedding night that I want you to spend the evening with every man in the street. Go along now."

Big diference between a slut who will F*** anyone, and someone who has had sex with a person with whom they were in a serious relationship, but not married.

Well, one's a man, one's a woman. That sounds "sexually compatible" to me.

If ONLY it were that simple, Matt.

No matter what some feminists try to tell you, men and women in general have almost opposite needs in terms of sexuality, and while the initial attraction and passion of a short-term relationship can cover the differences up, they come out eventually. This can cause big problems in a long-term relationship like marriage, unless you are willing to work very, very hard.

If you're breaking up a marriage because the sex isn't "great" enough, that's sort of sad.
Mike, this statement represents an interesting dichotomy in people's thinking about sex. On one hand, you indicated in an earlier post that you think sex is a beautiful, sacred thing. On the other hand, the sentence above seems to imply that you think sex would be a trivial thing to break up over. How can both be true?

Anyway, I doubt many people break up because the sex isn't "great." They're more likely to break up because it's "horrendous" or "nonexistent."

Arranged marriages were sort of silly, as that defeats the purpose of marriage, but it was done frequently for political reasons, yes.
Not to pick on you, Mike, but how does arranged marriage defeat the purpose of marriage? What is the purpose of marriage?

I would have agreed with you before I came to Asia, but now I think Westerners are so repelled by the idea of arranged marriages simply because they have never seen one up close. Yes, it can be bad if the two parties are forced into a marriage they don't want, but even then, not so bad as you might think.

Marriages in America fail in part because people have so many choices. They search and search for the "perfect" soulmate, then when they finally find them and marry them, their expectations are so high that their partner cannot possibly live up to them, so they get divorced, thinking that the perfect person must be out there somewhere.

Societies that practice arranged marriages are more pragmatic. They go into a marriage expecting very little besides a certain amount of financial security, companionship, sex, and of course children. Their desires are realistic ones that are relatively easy to fulfill, and the love develops later. Not always, but I would guess that on average, arranged marriages are at least as successful as "love marriages," if not more so.

And you notice that Peter said, about sexual experience, "Let's all marry whores guys!" Excuse me? What, it's OK for a guy to phuck everything on two legs, but a girl is a slut if she's with one or two men before she meets the man she marries? •••• you Peter! You clearly know nothing about women other than your slavish mother. Any woman that lets herself be treated like a second class being just cause some dickhead wrote it down ina book 2000+ years ago fuckin' sickens me.

And you notice that Peter said, about sexual experience, "Let's all marry whores guys!" Excuse me? What, it's OK for a guy to phuck everything on two legs, but a girl is a slut if she's with one or two men before she meets the man she marries? Phuck you Peter! You clearly know nothing about women other than your slavish mother. Any woman that lets herself be treated like a second class being just cause some dickhead wrote it down ina book 2000+ years ago fuckin' sickens me.

Thaaaaaat's nice.

Yeesh.

While I agree with the sentiment about double standards (sluts vs studs), that was completely unnecessary.

What I'm saying, Mike and Peter and whoever else is misinterpreting me, is that I see no reason whatsoever that if a person has had premarital relations (whether with the intended or an ex), there should be problems with bringing it to the marriage bed.

Face it, Peter, would you rather your future wife bit you when and where she shouldn't out of ignorance, or would you like her to know better?

If ONLY it were that simple, Matt. juli k

I agree. I wasn't trying to simplify the matter that much, just jokingly point out that since one's a man, and the other's a woman, there's physical compatibility (barring any unfortunate handicaps, that is ), and that the emotional aspect (which would include differences and needs) can be worked on. I tend to think that any married couple can be sexually compatible, even if they have a lot of work to do to achieve it.

...would you rather your future wife bit you when and where she shouldn't out of ignorance, or would you like her to know better? Machiko

Bit?!

You know, if it's the simple question of knowing the basics, there are books and other resources dealing with the subject that can let one know what to expect. Some are even tasteful, I imagine.

I agree. I wasn't trying to simplify the matter that much, just jokingly point out that since one's a man, and the other's a woman, there's physical compatibility (barring any unfortunate handicaps, that is ),
I know you were joking, Matt. I could tell by the smilie. I just had to comment, because sometimes I think if there is a god, s/he must be playing a very cruel joke on us to make men and women so different. Sure, it makes things interesting, but sometimes it can be a reeeeeal headache. =D

...and that the emotional aspect (which would include differences and needs) can be worked on. I tend to think that any married couple can be sexually compatible, even if they have a lot of work to do to achieve it.
I agree with you for the most part, but I wouldn't go so far as to say any couple can work things out, even assuming we are talking only about couples who love each other and are very committed to their relationships.

To take a somewhat extreme example, if one partner in the marriage comes to the realization that they are homosexual, I don't know that any amount of love or effort can really overcome that (assuming both partners have any kind of sexual appetite and are determined to remain faithful). I wouldn't say it's impossible, but I think it would be a very rare couple that would be able to make it work.

Oral sex is a sin I have no plans to practise.

Peter.

"Let's all marry whores guys!" Excuse me? What, it's OK for a guy to phuck everything on two legs, but a girl is a slut if she's with one or two men before she meets the man she marries? •••• you Peter!

For the record Peter does not hold women to a stud/slut double standard because he does not think that guys should have sex before marrage. Correct?

Oral sex is a sin I have no plans to practise.

Please cite the bible verse where it says that oral sex between married folks is a sin, I don't recall ever reading about that.

Peter, Where in the Bible does it say that oral sex is a sin? Merry

How is oral sex a sin?

And how is that you could catch my implication there, but not of any of the double entrendres that have popped up before?

Where in the Bible does it say that oral sex is a sin?

I read about people confessing to this sin to Catholic Priests once. I don't know if it is in the Bible.

And how is that you could catch my implication there, but not of any of the double entrendres that have popped up before?

I can't recall missing any double entendres, but you were hardly subtle. You said someone should get sexual experience to stop them biting me. It is hardly a master puzzle what you mean.

Peter.

So you are Catholic, Peter? Or not? Why should I, a non-Catholic Christian, care about what the Pope says is a sin? The church I was raised in believes that dancing and drinking alcohol is a sin, but nowhere in the Bible does it say that. I thought you were for going by the Bible.

Merry

Well, let's see. There was Jwb calling Morgan "crotchety and energy sucking" once, and I was so tired, I read it a completely different way. When Benn was kind enough to point out the two key words "crotch" and "sucking" you still didn't get it.

Besides, how do you know I didn't mean biting on the neck or arm?

The reason that some people believe oral sex is a sin, Merry (as I'm sure you know), is that it's considered unnatural and perverted, something only homosexuals do.

Or something equally goofy.

I know why some people consider it a sin.

I'd like to know why Peter considers it a sin, since he seems to base his moral belief system on the Bible. Saying "I read once where someone considers it a sin," isn't exactly what I call a good reason.

And no, I'm not attacking your belief system, Peter. I've agreed with you on a lot of issues. I just want to understand where you are coming from on this.

Merry

Oral sex is not specifically commented on in the Bible (no "Thou shalt not give thy husband oral sex" verse). My viewpoint is that if it doesn't get out of hand (I've seen and heard of some sexual practices that simply are disgusting) and doesn't violate the biblical moral code in referring to sex, I think it's up to the couple.

Sorry for misinterpreting you, Machiko. Basically, I think a couple can get to know each other really well without going to sex.

Juli, I think it defeats the purpose of marriage because I believe God intended marriage for something a little more than simple natural reproduction and success. Adam received a mate because he was lonely and was receiving no satisfaction, not because he needed to reproduce. My statements about sex can co-exist. Sex is beautiful and great (intended to be), but if you're breaking up a marriage because the sex isn't quite good enough for you, I think you're really not getting the point of marriage. Sex is merely a facet of it, not the whole thing.

I do consider oral or anal sex disgusting and perverted, and do not desire it, anyway. I am not Catholic, no.

Machiko, I don't know what you mean. For a start, your message wasn't a double entendre at all. It could have only one real meaning to say that an innocent maiden would bite through sexual inexperience. That Jwb example you mentioned sounded perfectly normal to me and I saw no real reason for all the hoo-haa about it.

Peter.

Okay, Peter, I'll accept that. There's a lot of things I consider disgusting but don't consider them as sins.

As for sex before marriage, I am waiting until I have a committment. It's been 30 years, so I'm living proof that one doesn't need sex to survive. However, I do recognize that sex is a very strong urge. I'm not a prude. I just think that being intimate with someone requires a level of trust. I don't think of sex as a casual, contact sport, like many of my generation, but I don't go shake my finger in the face of those who have chosed differently.

Hmm well the first half of your last sentence is nice to see anyway. I don't think it is really compatible with the second though.

Peter.

Juli, I think it defeats the purpose of marriage because I believe God intended marriage for something a little more than simple natural reproduction and success. Adam received a mate because he was lonely and was receiving no satisfaction, not because he needed to reproduce. My statements about sex can co-exist. Sex is beautiful and great (intended to be), but if you're breaking up a marriage because the sex isn't quite good enough for you, I think you're really not getting the point of marriage. Sex is merely a facet of it, not the whole thing.

Okay, Mike, I see where you're coming from with regards to sex, and I agree, but I still don't understand what you're saying about arranged marriage. I didn't say that arranged marriages are just for reproduction and success. I also mentioned companionship, and my whole message implied (I hope) the creation of a new family. Anyway, it sounds to me like Adam's was the ULTIMATE arranged marriage....

Peter, Let me ask you this. If you could sum up all of God's instructions for us in one sentence or one phrase, something that you could say takes in the whole of God's instructions for us, what would that be? Merry

::Peter: Oral sex is a sin I have no plans to practise.::

Damnn!!

Merry: Where in the Bible does it say that oral sex is a sin?

Luigi Novi: I don't think it is explicitly categorized as a sin, but people have inferred as much indirectly by association. The behavior of the people at Sodom & Gomorrah--correct me if I'm wrong here--included anal/or oral sex, which is where the word sodomy comes from. I don't know if the Bible specifically said that the behavior in those cities included these acts, or if it simply mentioned homosexuality, with which people associate such sex acts, but one way or the other, such sex acts came to be associated with those two cities, and therefore, sin.

Merry, I can't see any purpose to turning a long set of instructions into one sentence.

I would say the main difference between my outlook and that of most people here is that for me liberty is just a means to an end - the opportunity to do good. For them, liberty is the ultimate end. Whether that stems from religious or political convictions I am not sure, but I despise their notion that all views are equally valid and no one is ever really right.

Peter.

Peter: ***... but I despise their notion that all views are equally valid and no one is ever really right. ***

You realize this goes against all claims by you that it is the "liberal" point of view that is intolerant of other perspectives? (Personally, I hate categorizing people's thoughts as liberal or conservative or whatever. Because the label suggests that everyone considered one must believe in everything the others do.)

But this very statement is what defines you as intolerant.

I do consider oral or anal sex disgusting and perverted, and do not desire it,

So you wouldn't perform it on a woman? You cheap bastard!

"...but I despise their notion that all views are equally valid and no one is ever really right." - Peter

Y'know, I had started to post a rant on that statement, but know what? I don't care. What I will say, Peter, is that I'm tired of your playing God, or God's favorite pet human, and pronouncing such sweeping judgments against us. I'm tired of hearing you whine about how much you despise us, or what it is you despise about us. I'm tired of your pretense to civility, yet you are continuously rude to anyone who does not share your beliefs. I'm tired of your sanctimonious, holier-than-thou attitude. I'm tired of reading posts where you talk about how bad NitCentral is, what morons most of us are. If we're so goddamned bad, one would think that you'd leave. Yet, no matter how many negative opinions you express about this website and the people here, and how much you despise us, you claim you "like it here."

There's an old saying, "If you don't have anything nice to say, don't say anything at all."

We can only hope that Peter never engages in sex of any sort at all, married or not. Otherwise, just imagine what he could sire.

Amen to that, Benn.

Um, whoever "Dude" is, can we knock off with the cheap shots and language? We don't need the extreme Peter and the extremen anti-Peter here, thanks.

I don't think it is explicitly categorized as a sin, but people have inferred as much indirectly by association. The behavior of the people at Sodom & Gomorrah--correct me if I'm wrong here--included anal/or oral sex, which is where the word sodomy comes from. I don't know if the Bible specifically said that the behavior in those cities included these acts, or if it simply mentioned homosexuality, with which people associate such sex acts, but one way or the other, such sex acts came to be associated with those two cities, and therefore, sin. Luigi

Actually it is a double inferrence that "sodomy" was practiced in Sodom. The Bible simply states that the Sodomites wanted to "know" Lot's visitors. The word "know" in certain contexts means "have (sexual) intercourse with (hence the phrase "I want to get to know her -- know in the Biblical sense."), and the fact that Lot offered his virgin daughters to the mob definitely seems to imply what they were after, but the Bible is not any more explicit than that until after the destruction of the cities when those two daughters, thinking they and Lot, their father, are the last humans on Earth, get him drunk and seduce him so they can become pregnant.

Also the tone of the story seems to indicate that the sin of "the cities on the plain" was a disregard for the rules of hospitality, rather than their sexual orientation. lot's offering of his daughters was not to "turn them straight," but partly to shame them and partly to bribe them into treating the visitors with the respect they desrve, or at least to leave them alone.

The Bible at least indicates that the sin of Sodom was sexual in nature.

"There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel." (Deuteronomy 23:17)

This suggests a Sodomite is analogous to a whore.

"Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire." (Jude 1:7)

Fornication is mentioned specifically. So is "going after strange flesh". I interpret that to be a reference to homosexuality, (albeit, it's a rather "strange" way of describing it... )

And no, I don't think my pathetic puns are very funny...

"strange flesh" could also be a reference to a different "genetic clan"

The Deuteronomy passage is not really helpful here, because "sodomite" and" whore" were just the words used by the King James translators for the male and female versions of the same word "qadesh," or "temple prostitute."

The Jude passage does seem to confirm Sodom's penchant for homosexuality, since "heteros*" the word tranlated as "strange" means "the other [of two choices]." But as I said, homosexuality is definitely implied in the original passage in Genesis, but it does not seem to be the main issue.

*(Odd, isn't it that the Bible uses the word "heteros" to refer to homosexuality as an alternative to "normal" sex, whereas we use it to refer to "normal" sex as an alternative to homosexuality.)

Juli, point taken. Arranged marriages are all right, in my mind, if they are accepted and approved by both parties involved. Adam/Eve WAS an arranged marriage, sure, but it was a perfect arranged marriage as they were literally "made for each other."

Merry: Where in the Bible does it say that oral sex is a sin?

Luigi Novi: I don't think it is explicitly categorized as a sin, but people have inferred as much indirectly by association. The behavior of the people at Sodom & Gomorrah--correct me if I'm wrong here--included anal/or oral sex, which is where the word sodomy comes from. I don't know if the Bible specifically said that the behavior in those cities included these acts, or if it simply mentioned homosexuality, with which people associate such sex acts, but one way or the other, such sex acts came to be associated with those two cities, and therefore, sin.

As I understand it some christians who believe that sex is only for procreation object to oral sex because you are wasting seed (since it will never have even a chance to fertalize an egg). Of course by that logic a woman getting he tubes tied so that she and her husband can have sex without worrying about having another kid would be a sin. And in fact the Cathlic church does consider any form of birth control to be a sin because it goes aginst God's command to be fruitful and multiply.

I don't think sex is only for procreation. Birth control--depends on the form.

Uh...wasn't Eve "made" for Adam? And the punk just got lucky?

"Strange flesh" could also possibly refer to someone of a different colour (for example, the Snow Clan is all white people who just don't tan, while the Sand Clans are made of darker skinned people who tan like there's no tomorrow).

It could also be a reference to non-humans (aka: animals).

I don't think sex is only for procreation. Birth control--depends on the form.

Funny I was told that the cathlic church was aginst all forms of birth control.

Ah! but Mike isn't the "cathlic church" (sic). If I recall correctly, he isn't a Catholic at all, but a Baptist. (Sorry, Mike, if I mis-remembered.) There are a lot of people who are against abortion on religious grounds who do not necessarily condemn all birth control. But there are birth control methods that are closer to abortion than to prevention. (I haven't heard much about IUDs in a long time, are they still used? and even if they aren't, there's the "morning-after" pill

Well, here's my point. The churches who consider oral sex to be a sin are usually the ones who insist on a strict intepretation of the Bible. Yet, dancing, which took place in the Bible and has no clear Biblical injunction against it, and drinking, see above, and oral sex, are all condemed strongly. They can't have it both ways, to me. YOu can't claim strict literal word for word, unless I need to intrepet it a different way and broaden its meaning to prove a point.

The book of Genesis--literal, word for word description of how God created the world. Song of Solomon--allegorical description of Christ's love for his church.

Merry

It's the same logic that allows people to use a strict interpretation of the bible to condem homosexuality, birth control, whatever but ignore the part about not having great welth. "It is easier for a camle to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven"

As I'm not wealthy, I don't feel I'm guilty of being too rich to ignore God. I do believe no matter a person's financial state, tithing is an important part of one's contribution to God.

I would prefer to be called "non-denominational" Christian, but I do attend a Baptist church and generally agree with the teachings.

Merry, I am not against dancing (the biblical FORM of dancing, that is). Drinking I believe can be done within limitations, but I prefer to abstain (in one of Paul's letters, he tells the church to drink a little wine now and then). Oral sex, well, I've expressed my opinion on that already.

Where? What is it?

Peter.

Check Tuesday's posts.

Hmm. Anyone here use ICQ? If for some crazy reason someone wants to contact me, my UIN is 94640960.

Peter.

I use ICQ. Talking with MarkN right now as a matter of fact. What exactly are you looking to talk about anyway?

I use Morgan's ICQ. Mine's in the hock until I get my own computer again.

But my email is still perfectly valid.

Hmm I don't know really, Benn. I just want some more names to add to my contact list! :D

Peter.

I assume ICQ is some type of real-time chat thingie, right? I have AIM. Anyway I can get ICQ on the net to chat with you guys, Machiko?

Didn't know if had a definite agenda or not, Peter. (I should be asleep, but now I'm chatting with MJ.)

ICQ is the other version of AIM, for non AOL users. I prefer it over AIM anyway.

Last I knew, ICQ is on www.icq.com - just download and register a new UIN.

Morgan's UIN is listed somewhere on his website - go take a peek there.

Voices Of Unreason

Luigi, ICQ originally was an independently owned and operated chat system till AOL made them an offer they couldn't refuse. It is much easier to use than AIM, cuz you can search for anyone to talk to and add them to your list. Some people let you add them to your list right away, but others, like me, will need to authorize you first. AIM doesn't let you search for people, that I can tell. I think you can only find and add people if you already know their nickname. ICQ has tons more to it than AIM does, which is surprising, since AOL owns both now. BTW, if you're put on MarkM's and MJ's lists they have my permission to give you my nick and number so you can find me. Just let me know it's you, unless you use "Luigi Novi" as your nickname, then I'll pretty much assume that it's you.

ICQ is the other version of AIM, for non AOL users.

Luigi: Well, my ISP is Earthlink, but my friend Chris, who handles my computer problems, put AIM on my I-MAC.

Thanks, Mark. I'll try and get ISQ. BTW, my AIM name, and I guess I'll make it my ISQ name too, is nightscreamnovi.

ISQ? What ISQ? Never heard of it. I'm talking ICQ. And when you get ICQ then I'll look you up. And you're welcome, too.

So. Is there a dayscreamnovi too?

Why did I have the feeling someone would make a joke about my email address name?

Nightscream is a comic book character I created when I was a junior in high school. When I first got an email address long ago in a galaxy far, far away, for some reason, I couldn't use "Luigi Novi," (though at this point I don't remember why), so I used this character's name for my email.

I guess if I ever published Nightscream, I could make up an arch-villain named Dayscream, so thanks for the suggestion, MJ!

I just tried downloading Go!Zilla, and it's also an exe. file, which my computer expert friend Chris told me some time ago was useless on my computer. I'll ask him if he can help me download this thing.

[Shameless plug] If you ever decide to write the adventures of Nightscream and Dayscream (is there a Midafternoonscream too?), you'll want to be cool like everyone else and have it published at Unreason.

You know you want to do it...[/Shameless plug]

What about Firescream? His enemy could be...


WAIT FOR IT...


Icescream!

Personally, Machiko, I've of the mind that the actual book format is still a better medium in which to publish comic books (though perhaps that's just my early 21st century bias), and I don't think I'd choose the Net as the medium for his debut.

Well, hell, Luge, ya gotta start somewhere. Besides, the net's a free forum (somewhat), and if you draw and have any drawings of Nightscream, from way back when and/or more recently, then you could probably post them on Voices of Unreason, since that ability was taken away from NC cuz Peter once posted a very offensive picture of an aborted fetus, which pissed off Phil, who then did away with the graphic posting function altogether.

Of course, we must thank Mark for bringing up that altogether unpleasant incident. It wasn't enough to merely say that Peter posted a picture that fell outside the guidelines that Phil had established.

Nosiree, we had to describe what it was too!

Hey, maybe if you're intrepid enough, we can repost the links too!

Luigi, while I'm the world's biggest fan of actual books, I just don't understand the logic in how I'm going to be able to read the adventures of the Screamers if you don't post them in a format or in such a way that it's easily accessible to me. That's like saying I have this neat picture of Morgan, but I'm a fan of actual photographs, 'cause I just don't like the 'Net as a medium of conveying images. Therefore, you must just suffer.

Yeesh.

You're very welcome, MJ. Really. I only mentioned what type of picture it was cuz I figured that if I'd just said "Peter once posted a very offensive picture.", as I'd originally thought of doing, then Luigi might've possibly asked what sort of picture it was, so it would've had to have been explained anyway. That's all.

I used to have an idea for my own comic book series, too. However, I've given up on it, as my "skills" as an artist have never quite developed as I would have liked them to develop. Of course, given the state the industry's in now, it's just as well.

I used to wanna be a cartoonist when I was a kid, but the ambition slowly died the older I got, till I didn't wanna do it anymore. I used to draw superhero comics as a kid, sometimes alone, sometimes with my best friend.

Yes, well, Mark, when one is trying to bore herself enough to sleep, those images of dismembered fetuses just doesn't do the trick.

Not for this little witch anyway.

>>ScottN: What about Firescream? His enemy could be...


WAIT FOR IT...


Icescream! <<

and if he's in the new Star Wars movie, he'd be an....

Icescream clone!

Machiko: I just don't understand the logic in how I'm going to be able to read the adventures of the Screamers if you don't post them in a format or in such a way that it's easily accessible to me.

Luigi Novi: (The "Screamers"?) In the first place, I never fully developed the character. I'm still trying to break into the business myself, and I'd prefer to go the route of one of the Big Two or Three, as some of my friends from art school did, and to do so, one should focus on their characters. Because developing the character to a degree I'd be proud of, it would require me to do a lot of research into both Asian culture (he was raised by a not-too-friendly Ninja cult half his life the first half of his childhood, and a benevolent group of Shaolin monksthe second half), and detective work/detective fiction (since he's a detective). I don't want to fake it, and want to write it so that it appears I know what I'm writing about. I mean, I still can't decide if it's better for him to be a police detective or a P.I.
---In the second place, comic books aren't accessible to you? Why not? Call 1-800-COMIC BOOK to find a store near you. Besides, to publish it ANYWHERE, I'd have to produce it. Ya can't get around that, regardless of which medium you choose. If and when I did, I'd probably first try to either do so through one of the Big Two, or through one of the independent publishers, like Dark Horse or Image. (But don't worry, MJ. I'm flattered you'd want to read it, and I'd have nothing against posting portions of it at VoU, or at least sending you a free subscription. )

And one more thing....

Luge?

I mean, really, Mark, Luge?

Ack. I'm no help, then, as my heritage is that of a samurai clan, not ninja.

Although...what do you mean by "ninja cult"?

As for comic books...they rank right up there with finding some Wiccan books I've always wanted. Impossible. Never did figure out why - maybe fundamentalist liberal Arizona thinks comic books are evil.

Yes, well, Mark, when one is trying to bore herself enough to sleep, those images of dismembered fetuses just doesn't do the trick.
And how was I supposed to know that, MJ? I've no idea of your exact sleeping habits. Jeez, girl, I love ya, but get over yourself.

Machiko: Ack. I'm no help, then, as my heritage is that of a samurai clan, not ninja.

Luigi Novi: Are you joking, or are you seriously? My understanding--correct me if I'm wrong--is that neither samurai or ninja are specific martial arts, but that the samurai is an ideal to which one aspires to, and that ninjas, trained in ninjitsu, were used for spying and assassination, often by otherwise honorable samurai, but clandestinely so, and that each was not a discreet group of people, but rather generic things that people aspired to or resorted to when necessary. Am I warm here?

In any case, MJ, I'm always interested in info on such things, and if you can point in the direction of any websites or easy-to-read books on the matter, it would be greatly appreciated.

As for the "ninja cult", I obviously haven't thought out all the premises fully, as I stated before, but I wanted the character to be in a constant struggle between his anger and desire for revenge, derived from his original upbringing by a group of stern ninjas, like the one led by John Lone in The Hunted, who killed his parents when he was infant, and raised him to be an assassin, and the enlightened teachings of the monks who rescued him from the cult later on, who tried to teach him control, tolerance and peace.

As for comics, first, the number above should've been 888-COMIC BOOK, not 800. Second, the beauty of the Internet is that you could probably order them. Plus, there's always book clubs that offer comics, like the Science Fiction Book Club. If there's something you're thinking of getting that I've read, let me know. I'll tell what I thought of it, and scan & send a few pages to you.

Since this is a Religious Musings board, I'd recomend Garth Ennis and Steve Dillon's Preacher. It was a creator-owned supernatural Western book published by DC about a Texas minister losing his faith, who oneday acquires the power of Genesis, the illegitimate offspring of an angel and a demon with some of the powers of God. In terms of motif and theme, think From Dusk til Dawn, but with much better writing, and more heart. Ennis and Dillon took 66 issues to tell all its stories, and while it has its share of violence, profanity and sex, it had well-written characters we cared about, non-predictable plots with twists and consequences....and the ghost of John Wayne. The introduction to the second collected volume was written by Kevin Smith. I was very saddened when it ended.

Machiko: maybe fundamentalist liberal Arizona thinks comic books are evil

Luigi Novi: Well at least you don't live in Oklahoma City. A couple of guys there were totally destroyed by some zealous prosecutors simply because they sold adult comics to adults.

BTW, they're screening Zoolander again at the Sony Lincoln Square at 7:00 pm this coming Wednesday. Any of you nitpickers in the New York City area (Margie, Herbie, Merat) wanna come? I'll be recruiting audience members tomorrow in front of the theater. I'll check back here tomorrow before I leave my house.

"Well at least you don't live in Oklahoma City. A couple of guys there were totally destroyed by some zealous prosecutors simply because they sold adult comics to adults." - Luigi

I read about that in The Comics Journal a few years back.

The online comic shop I like to use is www.milehighcomics.com. I used to order from them back in the late Seventies, so I already knew they were reliable. As a matter of fact, I've got a couple of orders I'm waiting for them to send me.

You had the internet in the seventies? Jeez, talk about an early adopter!

Noo. Mile High Comics used to have ads in comics where you could send for their catalog and order from that. Strictly snail mail. I didn't think there would be anyone who couldn't have figured that out. Guess I was wrong.

I used to go to Mile High Comics all the time. It got bought out though. I forget the new name, but everything is overpriced.

>BTW, they're screening Zoolander again at the Sony Lincoln Square at 7:00 pm this coming Wednesday. Any of you nitpickers in the New York City area (Margie, Herbie, Merat) wanna come? <

I'd love to, except I have dance class starting at 7. I've had 24 years of perfect attendance, so I can't screw up year #25! But, thank you for asking!

I saw a person the other morning on TV on a talk show who was named, get this......MACHIKO.

::fundamentalist liberal:: My Dear Miss M

That's almost an oxymoron.

Not really, A group of Feminists tried to get all porn banned in Illinois a few years back that showed women in a submissive position. Of course Fundamentalism indicates they must have fundamentals. Chrisitian Fundmedtalists are called so because they cast off all of Christian Theology and use the scripture alone as a source of doctrine and practice.

Matt, I assumed you meant a fundamentalist as in religion, and I don't believe any fundamentalist that is REALLY a fundamentalist would be a liberal.

Well, a fundamentalist would just be someone who adheared to a set of basic beliefs. A fundamental liberal would be someone who refuses to abandon the Port Huron statement, or the NOW charter. Keep in mind William Jennings Bryan was a liberal.

I don't even know who William Jennings Bryan is, Matt.

Bryan was a famous orator and politician of the late eightteenth and early nineteenth centuries. He ran (unsuccessfully) for president on several occassions. Today he is mostly remebered for two battles he fought: He was for opening the economy by switching from a monetary system based on gold to one based on both gold and silver; and he was the prosecutor at the "Scopes Monkey Trial" (While he won the case and Scopes was convicted, it would prove to be a hollow victory.) The play and movie Inherit the Wind recounts the trial fairly accurately (except "the names are changed to protect....)

Actually, Inherit the wind misses several points. The teacher wasn't sure if he ever taught evolution, the town fathers were doing this for publicity, and the ACLU provoked this as a test case. Most importantly are the great southren stereotypes.

The trial, and Clarence Darrow's cross examination of Bryan was so stressful to Bryan that he died a week after the trial ended.

They did a cable movie on the case a few years ago too. Jack Lemmon played Darrow and George C. Scott played Bryan.

The teacher wasn't sure if he ever taught evolution, the town fathers were doing this for publicity, and the ACLU provoked this as a test case. Most importantly are the great southren stereotypes.

As someone who was raised in Georgia I can tell you that southern stereotypes exist for a reason.

Oh, no, Brian. Southern stereotypes exist for many reasons, like for there to always be some drunken, wife/husbandbeating, under-weighted crack addicted white trash lacking a shirt and/or teeth on Cops, to make redneck and inbred jokes about (or is that redundant? ), to make fun of the accents and of course the fact that country music got its start there.

He was for opening the economy by switching from a monetary system based on gold to one based on both gold and silver;

"Thou shalt not crucify mankind upon a cross of gold." Which had something to do with farmers and inflation, but I can't remember what. All I remember is that he made the Cross of Gold speech, which is one of the big things they always ask about on the AP US History exam.

I love history, though I often can't remember details well. It amuses me how random the processes sometimes are.

Funny, we just studied that in AP US history. My teacher said that there wasn't enough money in circulation because all the paper money had to be backed by gold, and there wasn't enough of that to go around. Therefore, there was some deflation, and the price of crops, among other things, went down. The farmers were paying a fixed sum of money on their mortgages, but weren't making as much, so they were losing their farms. Bryan wanted to add the silver to gold so the US could print more money and give those poor farmers some relief.

It really didn't matter after gold was discovered in Alaska, South Africa, and Canada.

My ICQ number is 122154905.