I've been reading Sex and the iWorld, by Dale Kuehne. Kuehne, a pastor and professor of politics, describes the tWorld, in which traditional morality ruled, and the iWorld, in which "the immediate desires of the individual have been deemed paramount." Kuehne says both worlds have failed us, and that we ought to try to move towards the rWorld, in which "a larger web of healthy and nourishing social relationships provides the most personally fulfilling context for sexuality and relational well-being."
The tWorld let us down in some ways—it allowed for slavery and denied many rights to women, for example. As for the iWorld—as Kuehne puts it:
“The driving force in the development of the iWorld was the desire to champion the idea of individual choice. While the focus was not on sexual freedom per se, this has become one of its most cherished freedoms. By challenging and changing our understanding of what it means to be human, the iWorld fundamentally altered our perception of human nature, the self, and the purpose of family relationships, and sexuality.”
One way iWorlders have influenced us all for ill: The idea that sex is an essential component for happiness. Unfortunately, the church has bought into this idea as well. The result: “As this reasoning goes,” Kuehne writes, “if sex is an essential aspect of human fulfillment, then if Christians, or anyone else, are missing out on sex, and if God wishes us to havethe most fulfilling life possible, then that which stands in the way of this fulfillment—divorce, remarriage, or cohabitation—must not be wrong after all.”
Kuehne notes that both heterosexuals and homosexuals use the same rational to justify violating biblical teachings about sexual boundaries: “God wants me to be fulfilled; sex is an essential part of relational fulfillment; therefore the Bible can’t really mean what it ways about sexual boundaries because that would rob me of fulfillment.”
Except that the Bible really DOES mean it. What does real fulfillment look like? Read the book. (And see Chuck Colson's commentary on it here.)
Actually if one is to bother searching for reasons for "the rules" one is that they maintain cohesion within the tribe so to speak. Men will always have the critical advantage, when playing around, of not being able to become pregnant. "The Rules" harness their natural tendencies by making him pay for it with productive means.
Posted by Lee "Old Testament? Oh - Off Topic!" Quod on 2009-10-09 09:18:50
Ben W, you wrote: "I think we're getting pretty far OT.. hope this doesn't bother you Gina! Thanks for putting up with us." Y'know, Ben, if we could have signature lines for posting here like we can have in email, I would put that quote in mine for every posting. With attribution, of course. // Benjamin, you wrote: "Lee, When you put it like that, it sounds like you must definitely be right." Well, yeah - I lampoon the "superiority" of scientific thinking in a comment for Anne's post about the new fossil hominid discovery. You and Ben have a point that in sociology stating absolutes are foolhardy. I was waiting for someone to bring up Hugh Hefner, who appears to be happy. (One former "girlfriend" says he's not, but I did say "appears".) (And I was also waiting for someone to ask how to interview a homicide victim, but this is two parentheticals in a row, which is becoming rather presumptive toward our beloved editor's tolerance. I suspect some comments make her fingers twitch; "Must...control...Blue...Pencil...Of...Death...!!".) Besides, Ben W, this isn't *that* far off-topic, since Anne's original point was about sex outside of marriage, in a quest for happiness, as a supposed necessity. So the real question is not "Can we find someone who found happiness while having casual sex" but rather "Are there examples of people who claim to be very happy yet have never had sex?" And for that, I suppose we could ask the Pope.
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-09 08:24:47
It could be argued that 'happiness' (I think we should use the term 'blessedness' to get away from 'the emotion') - is not really important/central in a sexual relationship that doesn't end in death. i.e. it seems odd that you could qualify as happy with someone who was, basically, only around to satisfy some cravings. But, I think Ben W is right, in that - people can easily be distracted from their own past, and present, (and future) nowadays.
Posted by Rolley “There are exceptions to the rule that all rules have exceptions” Haggard on 2009-10-09 08:11:16
Ben W, while it is true that “we obey God’s laws because He said so” and not “because they are good for us”, it is also true that He says so because they are good for us. That’s true of any good parent/child relationship (Matthew 7:11). God commands our fidelity and obedience not because He is egotistical, but because He loves us and knows what is best for us. As for head coverings, etc, the child may not always readily perceive how a loving father’s commands are good for him/her, but he can safely trust (faith!) that they are.
Posted by Benjamin "All rules have exceptions" Ady on 2009-10-09 00:01:44
Lee,
When you put it like that, it sounds like you must definitely be right.
I still don't think it's inevitable. Inevitable, as I said before, sounds a lot like "All, "None", "Always", "Never", etc. It allows for no exceptions to the general rule, which is generally not how things shake down, in my experience.
I'm totally nitpicking here. It's contrarian Benjamin speaking. For some reason these things ... seem important to me.
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-08 22:31:42
Hmm. But I know people who have had many sexual short-term relationships (or open long/short-term relationships) who were quite happy with it while it lasted. Most of them eventually decided to settle down, but they've told me they don't have much regrets about their former days. // This is also one of those issues where anecdotal experience is subject to selection bias - many of us are most likely to talk to people who have the same beliefs as us for stuff like this. Until I left for college, I don't think I knew anyone who was happy in non-exclusive or short-term relationships, since all my friends were from the church. // And lest anyone worry that I'm arguing against God's laws, I'll remind them that we obey God's laws because He said so, not because we see that they're beneficial to us. At least.. I think so (let's ignore headcoverings for the moment). // I think we're getting pretty far OT.. hope this doesn't bother you Gina! Thanks for putting up with us.
Posted by Lee "indubitably inevitably, mathematically and logically" Quod on 2009-10-08 18:49:24
Brilliant, Benjamin! Let's approach this with math and logic tools. First, create a grid with exclusive/non-exclusive labels on one axis, and long-term/short-term on the other. In the cell for non-exclusive and short-term, write "one night stand". In non-exclusive and long-term, write "cheating on spouse". In exclusive and short-term, write "serial monogamy". In exclusive and long-term, write "till death do us part". Now, assign values based on readings of, say, Hillary Clinton's reactions to Monica Lewinsky, or any other politician's wife of your choosing. Interview a few people whose sex life consists of picking up strangers in bars. (Include homicide victims.) And find several people who have been married four or more times. Then go to a 35th or 40th wedding anniversary celebration. Add relative happiness coefficients, say on a scale of 1 to 10, to each cell. Lastly, find some rankings of "infidelity" versus other causes of divorce. If you can approach this dispassionately (i.e., avoiding all that messy emotional stuff about relationships), I think you'll come to a fascinating conclusion. In fact, I think your conclusion is inevitable, my friend.
Posted by Benjamin "boundaries" Ady on 2009-10-08 18:18:14
Lee "inevitably" Quod
You said
"Sex without exclusive and long-term commitment eventually but inevitably leads to great *un*happiness in relationships, and God knows that, so the boundaries exist to make us fulfilled."
So I'm thinking inevitably is a pretty big word here--a sort of mathematical word. P implies Q. Sex without exclusive and long-term commitment implies unhappiness in relationships.
That feels like something that one has to believe by faith. It feels too hard to operationalize--too many confounding factors.
Which is to say that I'm thinking that I could come up with a longish list of things that are more sure to cause unhappiness in relationships than this particular P
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-08 14:53:51
"Is sex a need or a desire?"
You don't die without sex the way you do without water. Of course strictly speaking the distinction between "need" and "desire" is vague. One doesn't "need" to live, either. Then too it depends a lot as some people just happen to have stronger impulses then others.
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-08 14:31:20
I think, as Ben W. has pointed to, relationships are key to our happiness (and that, as an aside, sex is a good part of the relevant, if applicable, relationship). /// I would hypothesize that, physically, sex is not a need, but that our psychological needs are malleable (to the point where they can be wrong), and we live in a culture where sex (or at the very least, 'physical sexiness') is pushed as something that will make us better, happier people. Perhaps there are levels though, where we come to believe something will make us happy, but when it doesn't, we see that really, our true needs have not changed.
Posted by Rolley “Simul justus et peccator” Haggard on 2009-10-08 13:36:59
Now that you mention it, LeeQuod, “Blessed and HAPPY and to be envied are those whose iniquities are forgiven and whose sins are covered up and completely buried.” –Romans 4:7, Amplified
Posted by Lee "You can hide a lot behind a serious demeanor" Quod on 2009-10-08 13:20:09
Gina, you wrote: "Is sex a need or a desire?" If I recall correctly, Freud drew some of his ideas from the technology of his day, particularly the steam locomotive. So we today have this idea that desires build up like steam in a boiler, producing an explosion if not released. Yet, we are not railroad engines. (Queue yet another fun Rolley riff on "loco" in 3,2,1...) I believe studies have been done on celibate monks and nuns that have established this, and that those individuals could be classed as "happy". So take a hike, Sigmund. // Rolley, would it not leave us in need of imputed righteousness? If so, I'm...uh, happy...to report...
Posted by Gina on 2009-10-08 12:46:25
Those are good ways to look at the question, Rolley. Here's another: Is sex a need or a desire? (This is how the abstinence education group that I've recently joined frames it.)
Posted by Rolley “Succumbing to peer pressure to adopt a serious demeanor….but I will recover” Haggard on 2009-10-08 12:23:21
Two thoughts: 1) God obviously did not design sex for children. Can not children be happy? //
2) Perhaps a better way to frame the question is to ask, did God’s *original* plan for our happiness include sex? Based on the first chapters of Genesis I think we would have to say “yes”. I also think it follows that any alteration or diminution of God’s *original* plan proportionately reduces the full measure of happiness/blessedness/gladness/shalom that God *originally* intended for each of us. So in a sense, EVERYTHING that God originally intended for us – including sex – is essential not for happiness in the abstract, but for the fullness of the happiness He *originally* intended. But this means that absolute sinlessness, too, is essential to such happiness. So where does that put all of us? //
Maybe as others have suggested the question is not, is sex essential to happiness, but is contentment, blessedness, and “joy unspeakable” possible irrespective of the measure of creature comforts enjoyed? Happy is the one who can say, most emphatically yes.
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-07 21:15:13
Lots of things are worth some fuss Ben. Nothing is worth this much fuss. Besides, does making such a big deal about it make it better? It seems to me it manages to make it rather boring to hear more about. The original picture of Aphrodite gave her a sense of humor. At least heathens had some idea of moderation.
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-07 20:59:24
LQ, that's a question I was thinking of asking myself. *Is* anything essential for happiness?
Posted by Lee "85% cacao, 95% cuckoo" Quod on 2009-10-07 18:54:12
Before this whole thread got dipped in chocolate, I was thinking of asking if anything at all is essential for happiness. (I was going to be clever lexically, lopping off the "se" and asking in a mathematical tone "Is x essential to happiness?" But someone might start chuckling, and I'm trying to be serious here.) Since it's true, as Paul said on Mars Hill that "in Him we live and move and have our being", then in fact *nothing else* is essential to happiness. The joy of the Lord is what keeps me going - not in dutiful grimness, but with pleasure. // If labrialumn were here, we'd have spent at least 5 comments arguing in strained tones about whether or not happiness is a nonessential, since the word is etymologically derived from a word meaning "luck" or "fortuitous external circumstances" or somesuch, and all true believers in Christ don't believe in luck, and Gina should have censured anyone - including Anne - for seriously discussing anything approaching luck, or else there's something wrong with the Centurions Program for not teaching that the whole concept of happiness is heretical. But labrialumn isn't here, and for that we can all be... happy. (Actually, I miss him dreadfully; he was such turgid, fanatical entertainment - a noble warrior always starting fights within his own army.) // SBK quoting Kreeft quoting Pascal - I think that's proof that God refuses to let something good be forgotten, so it's passed from one great mind on to another. // Anne's original point has application far outside the current context, of course. If God wants me to be fulfilled, then anything I want is therefore sanctified - which is ludicrous, of course. // Sex without exclusive and long-term commitment eventually but inevitably leads to great *un*happiness in relationships, and God knows that, so the boundaries exist to make us fulfilled. It's almost Satanic how the iWorlders start with the right premises and work to the wrong conclusion, like the Devil and Jesus in the Wilderness. // Gina, you tease, you! Doing the Dance of the Seven Typepads, in public no less - for shame!! :-)
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-07 17:50:39
Jason, it is my belief that sex can magnify the happiness in a healthy romantic relationship. Sex and happiness aren't as separated as you might suppose. When you consider the emotional, relational, and physical pleasure that sex can add, I'd say it's quite worth the fuss (and then some). Sex is not a mere physical pleasure, is for sure.
Posted by Rolley “Happiness is a Contented Loch Dweller” Haggard on 2009-10-07 15:52:15
Appearances suggest that right behind sex and chocolate as things essential to happiness would be a user-friendly blog. Some might even argue that the order is reversed. Before I officially weigh in on that question, can someone tell me if Milk Duds qualify as “real chocolate”?
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-07 14:58:16
Ben, it does imply a diminutive toward physical pleasure as compared to it's inordinate veneration. And coffee can have "deep emotional effects" too "particularly in a loving relationship." The extraordinary reverence given to sex by certain elements of the modern world is rather close to being absurd. Now if the question is "are relationships necessary for happiness" at least that is a more dignified hypothesis. But one might point out that sex is not necessary for a relationship. Any more then coffee is, come to think of it.
Posted by Gina on 2009-10-07 14:36:16
Benjamin, I've just added it to the list of things for our consultants to work on. So we can hope. Actually, there are rumors we might be in for a total comment section revamp. . . . But what do I know, I just work here. :-)
Posted by Benjamin Ady on 2009-10-07 13:47:44
"(unless you ask some to include chocolate)" (or Ben and Jerry's New York Super Fudge Chunk)
(can someone please fix the annoying double quotes double parentheses thing?)
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-07 12:46:41
Jason, I don't think sex should be described as just a "mere physical pleasure". It can have deep emotional effects too, particularly in a loving relationship. And besides that, saying "mere" implies a diminutive towards physical pleasure, even though physical pleasure can be quite profound (and sex is one of the best and easiest to obtain). // But still, maybe a more appropriate question would be "are relationships required for happiness?" To which I would answer "yes, for many people, relationships add to happiness quite significantly".
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-07 11:09:19
Jason, I hope no one thinks sex is "necessary for pleasure". Sex is pleasurable, and so are many other things. To experience pleasure, one need never have sex. And so, is sex necessary for happiness? Even if we define pleasure as happiness, obviously the answer is no. But I hope we all reject the idea that pleasure = happiness. Is sex seen as the easiest way to intense pleasure in a world where more pleasure = more happiness? By many, yes... (unless you ask some to include chocolate...)
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-07 10:45:39
Why is sex necessary for pleasure either?
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-07 10:21:47
Hmmm, my comment from last night seems to be lost in the mists of cyberspace. Well, here's a recap.
Benjamin, Thanks for the kudos, though they are really for Kreeft (as I was quoting him, who was summarizing Pascal).
I think he would distinguish between suffering and 'wretchedness' - as 'refining fire' and 'cancerous', respectively - but not sure. In any event, I think that it is extremely difficult for us moderns to get away from "More pleasure = More happiness". The wretch can have more pleasure than any saint.
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-06 17:58:14
What strikes me is that people are elevating a mere physical pleasure to ridiculous lengths. This seems to me to be a rather crass form of materialism and to threaten a rather base form of idolatry. Why would anyone even dream that sex is necessary for happiness? All pleasures exist on sufference. Third World peasants don't have liberty, order, health or cleanliness or human dignity. Christians in persecuted countries don't have freedom of worship. And while that sounds rather like the "eat your spinach because people are starving" speech, honestly this seems like a rather petty claim to me. ALL pleasures exist on sufferance. Always. And picking the lack of sex as the deprived pleasure to complain about seems to me rather arbitrary.
Posted by Benjamin Ady on 2009-10-06 17:32:02
I don't think Kuehne is giving a fair hearing to those with whom he disagrees when he claims that they justify violating "Biblical teachings" about sexuality with such a lazy argument. I also suspect that his understanding of the aforementioned "Biblical teachings" contains at least a noticeable amount of eisogesis (but I suppose this is inevitable, and thus we perhaps ought to be a bit more hesitant to say things like "Biblical teachings" without reasonable qualifiers..)
Steve,
I liked what you had to say. I'm convinced that happiness can include pain, though perhaps not suffering--but I think of suffering as a specific thing which we add on to pain, and which ... I suppose might be, in your analogy, the spiritual/pshychological analog of disease in the body. I'm currently learning how to be happy--how to move in the direction of objective happiness. =)
In answer to the question at the top, I think sex is brilliant, and it certainly contributes to my happiness.
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-06 14:24:16
I'm currently reading "Christianity for Moder Pagans : Pascal's Pensees" - edited etc. by Peter Kreeft. On page 27 he gives this helpful (I think) explanation on happiness (sorry for bad formatting):
'Pascal uses "wretchedness" (unhappiness) and "happiness" here in their deep, ancient meanings rather than in their shallow, modern meanings. There are three important differences:
1. To us moderns, "happiness" connotes a subjective feeling, not an objective state, like health. To the ancients, happiness was to the soul what health was to the body. The test case is suffering: if happiness is objective, it can include suffering, as in Job and Greek tragedy; if it is merely subjective, then by definition it cannot.
2. Our word "happiness" comes from the Old English "hap" (chance, luck, fortune: it "happens"). It comes from without and from the material world rather than from within our own souls. It comes from what used to be called "the gifts of Fortune", who was traditionally pictured as a whore and a cheat (see, for example, Boethius' The Consolation of Philosophy). Thus happiness is not under our own control - a terrifying and pessimistic conclusion indeed, as it is in Freud.
3. To us, happiness is present and transitory rather than permanent: a momentary "high" rather than the quality of a whole life, as Aristotle defines it.
Like the ancients, Pascal means by "happiness" (1) a state of real perfection (2) of soul (3) in a complete life, including eternity. Aristotle's word for this was eudaimonia: the lasting state (-ia) of true goodness (eu-) of soul (daimon). That is why Pascal offers religion instead of psychology as the way to happiness; for psychology can make us *feel* good, but religion can make us *be* good.'
Thoughts?
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-06 14:20:29
Why can't you say this with anything? Why can't you say fancy food, or fame, or money are necessary for happiness? What is special about sex above any other pleasure?
Posted by Karri Buck on 2009-10-06 13:56:09
Sex is not vital to happiness. Happiness comes from a beautifully intricate relationship with Christ first, our spouse second. Sex is a privilege given to two people through a covenant with God. That's where the world is wrong in my opinion. Sex has become as common as a coke at the grocery store. There is nothing special or divine about it. It needn't be anything so taboo that we can't talk about it either. It needs to be celebrated for the wonder it is.
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-06 13:48:41
ISBtB, one can make a distinction between homosexual attraction and homosexual acts. Temptation and sin are not the same thing. // Jason, what Gina said. Not that it's easy being single for heterosexuals.
Posted by Gina on 2009-10-06 13:33:48
So as not to derail the thread, I'll let that pass. Except to say that, as long as you've been reading this blog, you should know my views better than that.
Posted by IStill BelievetheBible on 2009-10-06 13:23:44
Gina, like I said, I still believe the Bible. You have given evidence over time that you don't on certain topics like giving material aid to intrinsic evil (like voting for Obama), priestesses in the Church, or this matter at hand.
Posted by Gina on 2009-10-06 12:39:04
Not quite, I think. As Roberto has pointed out elsewhere, a Christian facing homosexual temptation has to deal with the fact that, unless that state of things changes (from my own observation, sometimes God takes away that thorn in the flesh, and sometimes He doesn't), he will have to be celibate all his life.
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-06 12:04:31
"Interesting read, thanks. I'd say that while sex isn't *necessary* for fulfillment and happiness, it helps considerably, especially when coupled with a loving relationship. // I can't imagine what it must be like to be a homosexual Christian, celibate, and wanting a relationship."
Rather like being a single Christian, celibate and wanting a relationship?
Posted by IStill BelievetheBible on 2009-10-06 12:01:39
Sex within marriage is indeed a part of shalom, aka 'happiness'.
But 'boundaries' instead of holiness, righteousness, purity?
Homosexuality being a choice, as God says it is, there is no more a homosexual Christian than there is a murderer Christian or a thief Christian. And are not unmarried heterosexual Christians (something of an oxymoron) just as celebate, and wanting a relationship?
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-06 11:44:16
Interesting read, thanks. I'd say that while sex isn't *necessary* for fulfillment and happiness, it helps considerably, especially when coupled with a loving relationship. // I can't imagine what it must be like to be a homosexual Christian, celibate, and wanting a relationship.
Add Comment
Daily roundup
By: Gina Dalfonzo|Published: March 9, 2010 5:20 PM
My family assures me that my sense of smell is both a blessing and curse. My olfactory sense is excellent: I can sniff out the smallest hints of things in the air or food. My summation is that a lot of things are stinky. You want to find out what herbs or spices someone used in a dish, call me. You want to know if food is on the cusp of spoiling, I’m the girl for you.
By: Gina Dalfonzo|Published: March 9, 2010 12:07 PM
If it takes at least three examples to make a trend, as the saying goes, I've been noticing a trend lately that disturbs me. I'm speaking of the video clips that keep popping up online of pastors insulting various groups within the Christian church.
READ FULL ARTICLE »
Follow the Colson Center on Facebook and Twitter!
By: Billy Atwell|Published: March 9, 2010 10:22 AM
The Colson Center has Facebook and Twitter accounts! Make sure you join!
Also, you can subscribe to a number of Colson Center RSS feeds (first box in the lefthand column). This way you can get our newest articles quickly!
Gay D.C. Catholics Feel Like They 'Didn’t Belong Anymore'
By: Billy Atwell|Published: March 9, 2010 9:03 AM
This is so annoying. They force an agenda down our throats and win the ability to get married (though no orthodox church recognizes the unions), and now they look at 2000 years of consistent teaching as if it just popped up yesterday? These are fake Catholics. They parade in front of NPR reporters, establish that they live in sin, and sudden feel the Catholic Church suddenly doesn’t want them? Why would the Catholic Church not want them, when the Church believes that forgiveness of sin is their only route to repentance? The Catholic Church sure doesn’t want a person to persist in serious sin, but the person has never been rejected. This misunderstanding of Catholic teaching was my first indication that this person is no “practicing Catholic” (and the fact that she was interviewed by NPR). READ FULL ARTICLE »
A Powerful New Tool for You
The Point Blog gets its wings
By: Alan Eason|Published: March 8, 2010 5:26 PM
I don't usually post on The Point Blog in my official capacity -- Internet Director for Prison Fellowship Ministries -- but I'll do so today. I'd like to tip my hat to our Breakpoint editor, Travis McSherley; our editor for The Point Blog, Gina Dalfonzo; and our developers, Metalake LLC, and Alliant Studios.
The new blog platform you are using today is very exciting. It is much more than just a blog. It is a custom-built dynamic content engine, which can (and will) be used for many types of content across the family of web sites that make up Prison Fellowship, Breakpoint and The Colson Center. It is designed to help build community around great ideas and compelling stories. Besides having much better formatting and style, this module offers two great tools I know you are going to love.
READ FULL ARTICLE »
And the winner is . . .
By: Anne Morse|Published: March 8, 2010 4:26 PM
A few of us were considering drafting, as a joke, a BreakPoint script about Oscar dresses just for the fun of hearing Chuck say words like "taffeta" and "Vera Wang" and "low-cut." But we couldn't think of a worldview angle....
The subject came up when Dave the Swede caught me clicking through pictures of Oscar-nominated actresses in their glittering garb (I was on a break!).
READ FULL ARTICLE »
Hollywood Sinks to (Another) New Low
By: Kathryn Wiley|Published: March 8, 2010 3:44 PM
Chalk up another great moment in Tinseltown’s history: The opening number of the 52nd Oscars featured TV great Neil Patrick Harris singing about prison rape. Well, that’s an exaggeration: Harris is more of a mediocre actor. And the song and dance wasn’t just about prison rape, he only mentioned it once.
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-09 09:23:38
Posted by Lee "Old Testament? Oh - Off Topic!" Quod on 2009-10-09 09:18:50
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-09 08:24:47
Posted by Rolley “There are exceptions to the rule that all rules have exceptions” Haggard on 2009-10-09 08:11:16
Posted by Benjamin "All rules have exceptions" Ady on 2009-10-09 00:01:44
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-08 22:31:42
Posted by Lee "indubitably inevitably, mathematically and logically" Quod on 2009-10-08 18:49:24
Posted by Benjamin "boundaries" Ady on 2009-10-08 18:18:14
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-08 14:53:51
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-08 14:31:20
Posted by Rolley “Simul justus et peccator” Haggard on 2009-10-08 13:36:59
Posted by Lee "You can hide a lot behind a serious demeanor" Quod on 2009-10-08 13:20:09
Posted by Gina on 2009-10-08 12:46:25
Posted by Rolley “Succumbing to peer pressure to adopt a serious demeanor….but I will recover” Haggard on 2009-10-08 12:23:21
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-07 21:15:13
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-07 20:59:24
Posted by Lee "85% cacao, 95% cuckoo" Quod on 2009-10-07 18:54:12
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-07 17:50:39
Posted by Rolley “Happiness is a Contented Loch Dweller” Haggard on 2009-10-07 15:52:15
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-07 14:58:16
Posted by Gina on 2009-10-07 14:36:16
Posted by Benjamin Ady on 2009-10-07 13:47:44
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-07 12:46:41
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-07 11:09:19
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-07 10:45:39
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-07 10:21:47
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-06 17:58:14
Posted by Benjamin Ady on 2009-10-06 17:32:02
Posted by Steve (SBK) on 2009-10-06 14:24:16
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-06 14:20:29
Posted by Karri Buck on 2009-10-06 13:56:09
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-06 13:48:41
Posted by Gina on 2009-10-06 13:33:48
Posted by IStill BelievetheBible on 2009-10-06 13:23:44
Posted by Gina on 2009-10-06 12:39:04
Posted by jason taylor on 2009-10-06 12:04:31
Posted by IStill BelievetheBible on 2009-10-06 12:01:39
Posted by Ben W on 2009-10-06 11:44:16