Mormon The Original Truth

From: "Exposing the Kult of Mormonism was so easy that Christopher did not even need the whole 15 minutes, Mormonism Exposed in only 8 minutes. The perverts and sadomasochists are now exposed!!!!" Source: The National Enquirer of Hebrew Rootadelphia Spin

Brought to Christ by oral sex?

"Brought her husband to Christ by giving him oral sex"?

God's Church in Dallas The true Church of God meets near you. Learn more and participate. TomorrowsWorld.org

Warning: The following column contains sexually explicit language.

For a Truer Christian® Perspective scroll below article

There’s a new form of Christianity sweeping the U.S. Its main focus: sex.

Don’t be surprised. We already have a Christian denomination catering to every other worldview, comfort zone and obsession, so why not sex? As I said in “The Marketing of Evil”:

“No matter what kind of person you are, a form of Christianity has evolved just for you. There’s a politically liberal Christianity and a politically conservative Christianity. There’s an acutely activist Christianity and an utterly apolitical Christianity, a Christianity that holds up a high standard of ethical behavior and service, and a Christianity for which both personal ethics and good works are irrelevant. There’s a raucous, intensely emotional Christianity drenched in high-voltage music, and there’s a quiet, contemplative Christianity. There’s a loving Christianity and a hateful, racist Christianity, a Christianity that honors Jews as God’s chosen people and a Christianity that maligns Jews as Satan’s children.”

So, it was just a matter of time before we got a version of Christianity for people obsessed And while there is a surprising number of preachers, teachers and Christian websites today whose main focus is sex, the most prominent is Mark Driscoll, founding pastor of the wildly popular Seattle mega-church Mars Hill Church. According toMars Hill’s website, Driscoll’s mostly youthful flock has grown from a handful of people in a home Bible study to over 19,000 people meeting across 14 locations in four states.

“One of the world’s most-downloaded and quoted pastors,” says Driscoll’s official bio, “his audience – fans and critics alike – spans the theological and cultural left and right. He was also named one of the ’25 Most Influential Pastors of the Past 25 Years’ by Preaching magazine, and his sermons are consistently No. 1 on iTunes each week for Religion & Spirituality with over 10 million of downloads each year.”

By the way, as runner-up for top mega-church pastor in “The Church of Sex,” I’d nominate Ed Young, senior pastor of Dallas-based Fellowship Church, who recently staged “a 24-hour bed-in with his wife atop his church,” a stunt designed to publicize his just-released New York Times best-seller, “Sexperiment: 7 Days to Lasting Intimacy With Your Spouse.”

But back to Driscoll: I have nothing personal against this popular, hip, tough-talking young pastor in blue jeans, and I totally understand the appeal of his blunt, masculine, passionate style – a refreshing respite from all the stuffy, pretentious and cowardly pastors out there.

However, let’s just state the obvious: Mark Driscoll is utterly obsessed with sex.

He tells, for instance, the following story of one female member of his congregation who – and I quote – “brought her husband to Christ” by giving him oral sex, in accord with Driscoll’s specific pastoral advice to her. Here’s how Driscoll, during a Nov. 18, 2007, sermon in Edinburgh, Scotland, described this particular husband’s “conversion”:

She [the wife] says, “I’ve never performed oral sex on my husband. I’ve refused to.” I said, “You need to go home and tell your husband that you’ve met Jesus and you’ve been studying the Bible, and that you’re convicted of a terrible sin in your life. And then you need to drop his trousers, and you need to serve your husband. And when he asks why, say, ‘Because I’m a repentant woman. God has changed my heart and I’m supposed to be a biblical wife.’” She says, “Really?” I said, “Yeah. First Peter 3 says if your husband is an unbeliever to serve him with deeds of kindness.” [Laughter from audience] How many men would agree, that is a deed of kindness. He doesn’t want tracts. Those won’t do anything. What we’re talking about here could really help.

Really, people? Is this what we now stoop to in our efforts to make the magnificent Christian faith – the moral foundation of Western civilization – more appealing to a rudderless, confused and sex-drenched generation? Is this what now passes for pastoral counseling and preaching the Bible? I call it abuse and exploitation. I would even call it blasphemy (“… tell your husband that you’ve met Jesus … And then you need to drop his trousers …”).

Driscoll was “preaching” the Song of Solomon, which he has said repeatedly is his favorite part of the Bible and about which he preaches often. It’s also a major focus of “Real Marriage,” his brand-new No. 1 New York Times best-seller – which is mostly about sex – co-authored with his wife, Grace.

For Driscoll, the Song of Solomon amounts to a soft-porn sex manual, which inspires him to admonish women – those who aspire to be “biblical wives” – to awaken their husbands each morning by sexually servicing them in the same way the aforementioned wife “converted” her husband “to Christ.” (Actually, I’m not really too sure she converted him to a deep Christian faith, but no doubt he was converted into an enthusiastic member of Driscoll’s fast-growing church.)

To his credit, Driscoll condemns fornication, adultery and homosexuality. But for married folks, Driscoll – citing his chief inspiration Solomon, who had 700 wives – promotes sex toys, imaginary sexual role-playing, cybersex, what used to be called “sodomy” (both oral and anal) and wives becoming strippers for their husbands.

In fact, the wives-should-become-strippers teaching is not only in the Bible, gushes the enthusiastic Driscoll, it’s in his favorite part of the Holy Scriptures.

“This is my favorite chapter in the whole Bible!” Driscoll exclaimed during the same 2007 sermon. “I believe in the resurrection of Jesus. It’s great too. But this is an amazing chapter of the Bible: [Song of Solomon] Chapter 6 verse 13. It’s awesome. It’s awesome. … Now, what do you think the dance of mah haneim is? It’s an ancient strip tease. Stripping is biblical. You’re welcome. [Laughter from audience] It’s biblical.”

I am not a Bible scholar, far from it. But it’s fair to say the Song of Solomon (or Song of Songs) – a short love poem of only eight chapters – is probably the most controversial book in the Bible. It is never quoted in the New Testament. Because of its often erotic language, “ancient Jews and Christians alike rejected its literal interpretation and allegorized it,” explains the editor’s note in my King James Bible: “For the Jews, it referred to God’s dealings with his bride, Israel. The early Christians saw it as representing the relationship between Christ and His bride, the Church.” This spiritual interpretation pretty much held sway for the first 19 centuries after Christ.

But in modern times, of course, we like to think we understand such things much better than those ignorant, superstitious, early Christians who knew Jesus and the apostles. Kind of like the way today’s judges see things in the U.S. Constitution – gay marriage, abortion, banishing the Ten Commandments from courthouses – that jurists in all previous generations somehow missed.

In any event, however you interpret the Song of Solomon, it’s undeniable that weird and sometimes disastrous things happen when you base your worldview and ministry on one or two allegorical and controversial scripture passages. I mean, check out this YouTube video of a room full of “Christian worshipers” ecstatically handling multiple poisonous snakes. That’s right, there are some churches, mostly in the Southeastern U.S., that believe handling venomous snakes and drinking poison are an important biblical test and proof of their faith. Why? Because in the Gospel according to Mark, Jesus said: “And these signs will follow those who believe: In My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay hands on the sick, and they will recover” (Mark 16:17-18).

Common sense tells us – however we interpret Jesus’ actual meaning – that He didn’t intend for the faithful to “tempt God” by drinking strychnine and strutting around on stage with rattlers and cottonmouths, practices that every year result in one or more deaths being reported from these churches. But to proponents of snake-handling and poison-drinking, “it’s biblical.”

In the same way, common sense tells us God did not create women – including married women – to have to compulsively service the needs of oversexed, insecure, angry, egotistical men at all hours of the day and night. And women definitely shouldn’t be psychologically manipulated by authority figures into believing they are disobeying God, Jesus and the Bible if they don’t become sexual Stepford wives.

Which brings me to this question:

Why has Liberty University – a great Christian college, and one of the few schools in the nation that doesn’t infect students with a highly sexualized culture the moment they set foot on campus – agreed tobring Driscoll to its campus in Lynchburg, Va., next month to teach and preach – twice – to all the young Christian students entrusted to that school’s care?

Are the students’ parents cool with making their kids a captive audience for Driscoll’s sex-book tour? And what are the decision-makers at Liberty thinking? It’s not as though I’m the first person to point out Driscoll’s weird overemphasis on sex. The Christian blogosphere has long been fired up over Driscoll. The Baptist Press reported that a major Christian radio network, the Bott Radio Network, canceled Driscoll because of his over-sexed sermons. Even a recent Seattle TV news story about a controversy at Mars Hill Church revolves around – you’ll never guess – sex.

Or check this out: Driscoll tells his congregation he has spiritual visions – which he calls a divine “gift of discernment” – but guess what he spiritually discerns with this sixth sense? Right. As this rather creepyYouTube video reveals, Driscoll has detailed and graphic visions of sexual sins involving his flock, including (in this particular clip) molestation and adultery.

Or how about this story Driscoll told during the same sermon from which I’ve been quoting:

We were in a grocery store recently, and my wife and I were holding hands and just, you know, shopping. I said, “Why don’t you walk ahead of me for awhile.” She said, “What for?” I said, “I just want to watch your butt for a while.” She said, “Watch my butt?” I said, “Yeah, I like your butt. I like you and I like walking with you. But I’d like to watch your butt for a while, at least through the vegetable section. I want to watch your butt.” [Laughter] … Let her know.

Supporters of Mark Driscoll (including the decision-makers at Liberty University), it’s time to wake up. This is not normal. Asking your wife to walk ahead of you in public so you can ogle her rear end is not normal. Having mystical visions of parishioners in sex acts is not normal. Counseling female members of your church to bring their husbands to Jesus through sex acts – that’s not normal. Being pastor of one of the fastest-growing mega-churches in the country and announcing that, out of the entire transcendent Bible – which holds the secrets to heaven and hell and eternal happiness or eternal darkness – your favorite part is about stripping?

That’s not normal.

Modesty, moderation, self-denial, humility, patient endurance – remember that old stuff? Those are the spiritual qualities of a Christian, which are consistently extolled throughout the entire New Testament. “For to be carnally minded is death,” warns Paul; “but to be spiritually minded is life and peace” (Romans 8:6 KJV). The apostles constantly admonish believers not to get too caught up with “the lusts of the flesh.”

In “real marriage” – that is, a marriage made in heaven between sincere and spiritually seeking men and women – wives actually appreciate a little nobility, patience and self-restraint on the part of their husbands. Without the manly virtue of self-control and even a little self-denial in their relationship, women can feel trapped – like they have no choice but to become seductive sexpots to keep their husband happy. And if perchance this creates conflict within her own conscience – conflict with a part of her that is not so sensuous, but more angelic and childlike and innocent – her husband has no clue what is happening. But she suffers the conflict nevertheless, perhaps dealing with it by pleasing him more and more, in the vain hope it will relieve her conflict. It doesn’t.

Friends, one of life’s great challenges for fallen, broken beings like each of us is that we somehow, through God’s grace, eventually rise above all the various temptations and pulls of “the world” and live solely unto Him. It would really be nice if our pastors and other spiritual authorities, who claim to represent God, would exemplify and exhort us along this high road – rather than lead us in the opposite direction. source:

Oral Sex: A Dangerous New Trend!

If you are living in a defiled marriage, meaning unequally yoked (wedded to a non-Baptist), and your unsaved spouse burns with lustful curiosity about oral sexual gratification, read this important article!

Freehold, Iowa - Creation Science teaches us that a thousand years to human beings is like a light burp to the Lord.  So, it isn't any wonder that God is just now finding out that His most sinful creatures (humans) have become very keen on slithering their tongues like a serpent of Satan into disgusting places on other folks' bodies that they can't reach on their own. 

Creation Scientists are beginning to believe that the talk around the water coolers in Heaven is that God's creatures on Earth are using their mouths for a lot more than simply eating food and preaching the Gospel.

Recent studies in Creation Science show us that oral sex can be extremely dangerous! We know this to be a fact.  For those of you young people who have not yet been to Bible College, and are reading this article, "oral sex," means the placement of a hoochie or a tallywhacker into a human mouth. Creation research indicates that Satan is using the human tongue to infiltrate the soul by way of the vagina, anus, and hole in the tip of the penis (enormous penises have bigger holes, allowing for a greater number of demons to gain entrance, which is why black men commit so much crime).  Creation Scientists have not yet determined exactly how thousands of tiny little demons extract themselves from human semen and vaginal excretions, but they are convinced that the human tongue is being used as their makeshift nest. "It is on the palette where the devil's minions spawn and reproduce like a swarms of tiny red maggots." says Landover Baptist Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards. "Once enough of them are bred, an army is assembled. They exit the nesting area and enter the throat.  It is at this point, you are infected, and the battle for your soul begins."   

Creation research on oral sex was started about a year ago when Pastor Horace Wilkins of Freehold, Iowa, through means his son is now reconciled with, once acquired some of his boy's own semen in the middle of the night, and used a tongue-depressor and a large eye-dropper to splash torrents of the gooey liquid down a bullfrog's gullet.  The frog died instantly.  As a follow up experiment, Creation Scientist, Dr. Jonathan Edwards tried the same thing on a cat, using a sample of coagulated secretions he found inside of his mother's vagina. The pussy died within fifteen minutes. Our researchers have come a long way since those first two experiments, but these results alone should be enough to raise the hair on the back of your neck and make you think twice about committing oral sex. Oral sex is like playing Russian roulette, but instead of holding a steel gun to your head, you are placing a gun made of skin into your mouth.

For about two thousand years now, married Christian couples didn't think twice about embracing the luxury afforded them in the 13th Chapter of Hebrews, verse 4 ("Marriage is honorable in all, and the bed undefiled"), as a free ticket to act like a pair of coked-up San Fernando Valley porn stars whenever they jumped in bed together.   Although the Bible clearly gives married couples a license to male on female sodomy, the freedom to bring whips,  French maid outfits, clippers, scat play, and in dozens of cases - outright murder!* into the wedding bed, we are beginning to understand, through the miracle of Creation Science that the Lord feels a need to draw the line somewhere.  At Landover Baptist, we are honored to be on the cutting edge of Christendom by openly discouraging oral gratification, even among married couples!

A Warning to Unwed Saved Young People:

Christian young people today are just as eager as their ancestors were to partake in the Bible-based sexual revolution that the Apostle Paul affords us in his "if you're married you can be as freaky as you want" quip from Hebrews, but it just might be because of countless generations of pre-marital fornicating recklessness that the good Lord saw fit to poison oral pleasure. The talk outside the prayer closets in Bible Colleges across this country used to be, "if you don't put it in, it ain't no sin."  We've all been outside our fair share of prayer closets in our lives, feeling the blood racing, the pulse pounding - believing that we could do anything we wanted but, "it," to that cute little Elementary Education major with the heavenly ankles. Lord knows, most of us are so skilled by the time we get out of Bible college that we can flip flop a music hall recital nook into a rectal depository and without batting our eyes turn the same den of iniquity into an emergency prayer closet to suit the Lord's will.  Well, thanks to modern breakthroughs in Creation Science, we are beginning to understand just a little bit more about what we call, the chemistry of the Lord's will.  To put it quite frankly, Creation Science is teaching us that our loving God in Heaven won't think twice about giving Satan permission to assemble a swarm of tiny little soul eating demons on the tip of your tongue for having oral sex!  Yes! Even if you are married!  So, unwed saved young people, if you value your lives, you need to stop fooling around RIGHT NOW!    As True Christians™, it is our sworn duty to do everything in our power to prevent the Lord from getting irritated. So, young ladies need to wipe the semen from their chins and get right with the Lord! And young men, the only crack your nose needs to be in is the open crack of the Holy Bible! 

*According to Landover Baptist Church records (1646 - Present Time) we were forced by the Lord Jesus to let over 1,400 Christian husbands get off Scott-Free after murdering their wives in bed. Although this might be a troubling statistic for some of us, it is really none of our business. The Good Lord writes the rules and it is our obligation not to question one jot or twiddle of His word, it is simply our duty to follow it. We are to remain obedient to God's Holy Word at all costs, and despite the pull of our carnal conscience, always remain content to have your True Christian™ hands tied by the sacred glory of God's commandments. Unless a breakthrough in Creation Science suggests otherwise. source:

Kirk Cameron Receives More Backlash Rather Than Support

Kirk Cameron Receives More Backlash Rather Than Support From Fellow Celebs

Note: "Rabbinic thinkers in the past did not consider homosexuality a Jewish behavior problem. ...lesbianism does not involve the spilling of seed."

The 'Growing Pains' actor gets no love from his on-screen family and becomes the target of mockery from the likes of Craig Ferguson and Roseanne Barr. 


Alan Thicke, who plays his on-screen father, was also against him, "I'm getting him some new books. The Old Testament simply can't be expected to explain everything." 

---

Kirk Cameron might have been applauded by Piers Morgan for his statement against homosexuality and gay marriage, but the "Growing Pains" star didn't seem to get more support from fellow celebrities than he has already had. Instead, he received more criticisms including the ones from his co-stars.

Kirk's on-screen sister Tracey Gold was quick to declare which side she's on by tweeting, "I am a strong supporter of the #LGBT Community, and I believe in equal rights for all." Alan Thicke, who plays his on-screen father, was also against him, "I'm getting him some new books. The Old Testament simply can't be expected to explain everything."

Jesse Tyler Ferguson, meanwhile, mocked Kirk, "The only unnatural thing about me being gay is that I had a crush on Kirk Cameron until about 24 hours ago." Debra Messing joined the mockery by writing, "I want to thank Piers Morgan for his response to what he wud say to HIS child if (s)he came out: 'Great, as long as you're happy'."

Craig Ferguson shared his thought, "Rush makes me ashamed to be a middleaged white man and Kirk Cameron makes me ashamed to be a failed actor. We don't all think like that NoH8." Roseanne Barr also attacked Kirk, "Kirk or kurt or whatever Cameron is an accomplice to murder with his hate speech. So is rick warren. Their peers r killing gays in Uganda."

Dave Holmes added, "Remember yesterday afternoon, when Kirk Cameron's views were none of our concern? Let's restore America to that golden age." Michael Showalter posted, "Idea for movie: Human Centipede 3 starring Kirk Cameron and Rush Limbaugh." Martha Plimpton wrote, "The word 'equality' shows up too much in our founding documents for anyone to pretend it's not the American way. #usethe19th #equalitynow."

Kirk Cameron set the tongues wagging with his comments on the Friday, March 2 edition of "Piers Morgan Tonight". Opposing the idea of same-sex marriage, he further suggested that he wouldn't be so accepting if one of his sons told him he was gay. "I wouldn't say 'That's great, son, as long as you're happy.'," he said.

source: 

The discussion began when Piers Morgan asked Kirk Cameron his opinion on heated social topics like abortion and gay marriage, and what he would tell his six children about the issues.

Cameron said that he would only instruct his children based on what is written in the Bible. "Marriage is almost as old as dirt, and it was defined in the garden between Adam and Eve," Cameron told to Morgan. "One man, one woman for life till death do you part. So I would never attempt to try to redefine marriage. And I don't think anyone else should either. So do I support the idea of gay marriage? No, I don't."

"[Homosexuality is] unnatural... I think that it's detrimental, and ultimately destructive to so many of the foundations of civilization," the 41-year-old said.

___________________________________________________________

Homosexuality and Halakhah

Traditional sources on homosexuality.

By Rabbi Michael Gold

The following article is reprinted with permission from Does God Belong in the Bedroom? Two claims made by Gold in this article are disputable and should be noted. First, is the assertion that Judaism is not concerned with inner feelings. While it is true that in Judaism actions are more often than not privileged over thoughts and feelings, certain manifestations of Judaism, including hasidism and musar (a 19th century movement that focused on the study of Jewish ethics and values), do stress the importance of inner feelings. Second, is Gold’s assertion that natural law is a concept foreign to Judaism. While some scholars have assumed this to be true, others disagree.

An important point to make from the outset is that Jewish law does not teach that it is forbidden to be a homosexual. On the contrary, Jewish law is concerned not with the source of a person’s erotic urges nor with inner feelings, but with acts. The Torah forbids the homosexual act, known as mishkav zakhar, but has nothing to say about homosexuality as a state of being or a personal inclination. 

In other words, traditionally, a person with a homosexual inclination can be an entirely observant Jew as long as he or she does not act out that inclination.

The Biblical Sources

The basis of the prohibition against homosexual acts derives from two biblical verses in Leviticus: “Do not lie with a male as one lies with a woman; it is an abhorrence” (Leviticus 18:22) and “If a man lies with a male as one lies with a woman, the two of them have done an abhorrent thing; they shall be put to death—their bloodguilt is upon them” (Leviticus 20:13). The Torah considers a homosexual act between two men to be an abhorrent thing (to’evah), punishable by death—a strong prohibition.

The Torah gives no reason for this commandment. Some commentators have looked for a rationale in the story of Sodom, in which the men in the town attempt to rape the visitors to Lot’s house. (See Genesis 19; the word “sodomy” comes from this incident.) However, the occurrence in the story was a case of homosex­ual rape, hardly a legitimate precedent for the kind of consensual homosexual acts we are considering. Others see the root of the prohibition in the verse “No Israelite woman shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any Israelite man be a cult prostitute” (Deuteronomy 23:18). Cultic prostitution, both hetero‑ and homosexual, was a common feature of idolatrous worship in the ancient Near East, but, like the story of Sodom, it is no longer a relevant precedent for modern homosexuality.

Various rabbis have tried to come up with other reasons for the biblical prohibition of mishkav zakhar. (Note, however, that a Torah prohibition always stands on its own even if no cogent rationale can be found for it.) Some rabbis have argued that homosexuality is forbidden because procreation is impossible. Others have defined the homosexual act as intrinsically unnatural and therefore opposed to the purposes of creation. There are difficulties, however, with both explanations. Judaism grants sexuality a purpose above and beyond procreation, and natural law, although influential in the Catholic Church, is not an authentic Jewish concept.

A Talmudic Interpretation

A more likely explanation for the ban against homosexual behavior is given in the Talmud by Bar Kapparah, who makes a play on the word to’evah (“abomination”), claiming that it means to’eh atah ba(“you go astray because of it”). Both Tosefot and the Asheri (medieval commentators) comment on this passage that a man will leave his wife and family to pursue a relationship with another man. In other words, homosexuality undermines and threatens the Jewish ideal of family life, of marriage and children, articulated in the Torah. Heterosexuality is the communal norm for Jews; homosexuality, a perversion of that norm.

The Assumption of Heterosexuality

Rabbinic literature assumes that Jews are not homosexual. For example, the Mishnah presents the following disagreement between Rabbi Judah and the Sages: “R. Judah said: A bachelor should not herd animals, nor should two bachelors share a single blanket. The Sages permit it.” The halakhah follows the Sages because the Talmud says, “Israel is not suspected of homosexuality.”

The Shulhan Arukh (a foundational work of Jewish law from the 16th century) never explicitly mentions the prohibition against homosexual acts but mentions the precaution that a male should not be alone with another male because of lewdness “in our times.” However, Rabbi Joel Sirkes ruled about one hundred years later that such precautions were unnecessary because of the rarity of such acts among Polish Jewry.

A more recent responsum was brought by Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook, the first chief rabbi in Palestine. A rumor that a certain shohet (ritual slaughterer) had committed a homosexual act provoked the question of whether he should be disqualified for the position. Rav Kook ruled that the shohet could be retained because, even if the rumor were true, the man might have since repented of his act. It is noteworthy that Rabbi Kook’s responsum considers homosexuality an act of volition for which one can repent.

Lesbianism

Lesbianism is never mentioned in the Torah. One talmudic passage refers to homosexual acts between women: “R. Huna taught, Women who have sex one with the other are forbidden to marry a Kohen(priest).” The halakhah rejects Rav Huna’s opinion and allows a lesbian to marry a Kohen. However, Maimonides ruled that lesbianism is still prohibited and should be punished by flagellation. The prohibition is not as stringent as that against male homosexuality because the Torah does not explicitly prohibit les­bianism, and because lesbianism does not involve the spilling of seed.

A Summary

We can now summarize the classical halakhic position:

Judaism is concerned with explicit acts, not inner feelings.
A homosexual act between two men is explicitly forbidden in the Torah.
A homosexual act between two women is forbidden by the rabbis (i.e. it was not forbidden by the Torah, but was in later times forbidden; this type of prohibition is less severe).
Homosexuality is considered an act of volition for which one can repent.
The reason for the prohibitions seems to be that such behavior undermines the Jewish family ideal of marriage and children as set out in the Torah.
Rabbinic thinkers in the past did not consider homosexuality a Jewish behavior problem. source:

Rabbi Michael Gold is the rabbi at Temple Beth Torah, Tamarac Jewish Center in Tamarac, Florida. He is the author of four books, and his articles have appeared inMoment, Judaism, Jewish Spectator, B'nai Brith International Jewish Monthly, and numerous other publications. He also served as co-chair of the Rabbinical Assembly's committee on human sexuality.

Home Based Christian Business Opportunity!Sissy Kits^™, Inc. 

"Opening up a world of hurt,
meant only to heal"
Providing Christian Parents With De-Sissification Tools Since 1909

Our Ad Below (As Seen In Over 200 National Newspapers)

Sissy Kits^™

Mission Statement:  "We are a 100% American Christian company, developed under constant and direct guidance from our CFO, the Lord Jesus Christ from his office in Heaven. Several prominent Pastors along with Freeholders Against Gay Schooling™ were blessed with a fabulously divine vision during a church potluck dinner over 100 years ago.  Our chilling concerns over the "Modernization of the American Family" led us to a very lengthy prayer.  The result of that historic prayer (answered by God just yesterday) culminated in what we believe to be America's first "Home Based Business," Christian or otherwise!

Sissy Kits™ is and always will be (Lord willing) Baptist owned and operated since 1909.  We were instructed by our living maker, Jesus Christ to develop a single package of tools to assist parents in the process of De-Sissification.  If you are interested in participating in our newly ramped up bulk e-mail spam ministry, please contact us at the address below.

Sissy Kits™
Christian Business Partnership Request
218 Soulwinner's Court Warehouse
Freehold, Iowa 89654

If you or your family has a suspected pre-sodomite, please send a certified check in the amount of $149.00 + $473 processing and shipping fees to the following address:

Sissy Kits™ 
Discipline Starter Kit Request
218 Soulwinner's Court Warehouse
Freehold, Iowa 89654

Or e-mail: SissyKits@landoverbaptist.org for more details.

*Note: The tools you see in our advertisement above are included in the updated 2009 version of Sissy Kits™.   If you'd like to see earlier versions of Sissy Kits™ please watch the Antiques Road Show on PBS as it comes to Freehold, Iowa during the last week of October, 2009.

“Georgetown student Sandra Fluke”: She's a seductress, she's a siren, she's a virgin, she's a whore... but a Student?

Obama calls Sandra Fluke, Georgetown law student assailed by Rush Limbaugh

“Georgetown student Sandra Fluke”: She's a seductress, she's a siren, she's a virgin, she's a whore... but a Student? 

Wading further into an escalating contraception battle that has put Republicans on the defensive, President Obama on Friday calledSandra Fluke, the Georgetown University law student who this week wasderided as a “slut” and a “prostitute” by conservative commentator Rush Limbaugh for her defense of rules mandating that employer-provided insurance plans cover the cost of birth control.

The call by Obama -- a rare one from the president to a private individual -- comes amid an intensifying political fight over religious-affiliated institutions and contraception, a battle in which Democrats accuse Republicans of waging a “war on women” and Republicans say that Obama is working to curtail “religious liberty.”

Obama frames issue as fight for women’s rights.

The president’s call is a signal that the White House, like Democrats more broadly, believes it has the upper hand on a hot-button issue that does not appear to be leaving the political spotlight anytime soon.

"Pay up to $1,000 a year for birth control because campus health plans do not include coverage of contraceptives for women who are Rollin' down the street, smokin' endo Sippin' on gin and juice, laid back With my mind on my Rubbers And my Rubbers on my Mind" - Snoop Dog

In an interview with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Friday afternoon, Fluke discussed the call from Obama, which took place shortly before she appeared on the program.

“He encouraged me and supported me and thanked me for speaking out about the concerns of American women,” Fluke told Mitchell of the call with Obama. “And what was really personal for me was that he said to tell my parents that they should be proud. And that meant a lot because Rush Limbaugh questioned whether or not my family would be proud of me. So, I just appreciated that very much.”

White House press secretary Jay Carney said, “The president called Georgetown law student Sandra Fluke because he wanted to offer his support, express his disappointment, that she was the subject of an inappropriate personal attack and thank her for exercising her rights as a citizen to speak out on public policy.”

Carney said they spoke “for several minutes. It was a good conversation. Like a lot of people said the personal attacks directed her way are inappropriate. The fact that political discourse has become debased in many ways is bad enough. It’s worse when directed at a private citizen simply expressing her views on a matter of public policy.”

Asked what Obama thought about Limbaugh’s comments, Carney said, “They were reprehensible. They were disappointing. It is reprehensible that those kinds of personal and crude attacks could be leveled at someone like this young law school student who was simply expressing her opinion on a matter of public policy and doing it with a great deal of poise.”

Democrats had originally tapped Fluke to testify at a House hearing earlier this month on the Obama administration’s decision regarding religious-affiliated employers and contraception coverage.

But Republicans had said at the time that Fluke’s name had been submitted too late to appear at the hearing; they also argued that the hearing was about religious freedom more broadly and that Fluke could not testify because she was not a member of the clergy.

Last week, Fluke delivered testimony before a House Democratic-convened panel on Capitol Hill on the cost to female students of birth control that is not covered by health plans provided by some religious-affiliated institutions.

Fluke said in her testimony that some students at Georgetown spend as much as $1,000 per year out-of-pocket on contraception since birth control is not covered by the university’s health care plan.

Then, on his radio show, Limbaugh took aim at Fluke, who he called a “feminazi” and a “slut.”

“If we are going to pay for your contraceptives, and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something for it,” Limbaugh had said. “We want you post the videos online so we can all watch.”

The comments by Limbaugh led to a media firestorm. House Speaker John Boehner (R-Ohio) has called Limbaugh’s remarks “inappropriate,” and Georgetown University President John DeGioia issued a statementon Friday defending Fluke.

“She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse,” DeGioia said of Fluke. “And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.”

In her interview with MSNBC’s Mitchell Friday afternoon, Fluke cited DeGioia’s comments as “an example of what kind of model we should look to in our national discourse, because clearly the president of the university and I disagree about the issues, but we’re both able to handle this in a civil manner.”

“There’s been some highs and some lows,” Fluke said of her past several weeks in the media spotlight. “Yes. So, it’s been quite a journey. And I’m just happy that what seems to be happening in the process is that America is hearing the voices of women affected by lack of contraception coverage and who will benefit from this policy. And that’s what’s really most important to me; that’s why I’ve been working on this for years, honestly.”

Asked by Mitchell how her parents responded to the controversy and Limbaugh’s comments, Fluke said that they were “certainly hurt” but also “very proud of me.”

“They’re actually of a different political persuasion than I am, so I think that is emblematic of the fact that broadly Americans agree that women need access to basic health care that’s important to prevent medical disasters and to prevent pregnancy. ... I would certainly say it’s been a learning experience. I recommend hands-on experience for law students. Not all of this experience I would recommend,” she said.

The 2012 GOP presidential contenders did not immediately weigh in on Obama’s call.

Asked by a reporter about Limbaugh’s comments on Fluke, former Pennsylvania senator Rick Santorum said at a campaign event in Chillicothe, Ohio, that he’s “not for anyone calling someone a bad name.” But he did not elaborate on the controversy.

It wasn't long ago that being called a "slut" meant social death.

 

Rush Limbaugh calls Georgetown student Sandra Fluke a ‘slut’ for advocating contraception

By Maggie Fazeli Fard

Rush Limbaugh. (Win McNamee - GETTY IMAGES)Conservative radio host Rush Limbaugh called a Georgetown Law School student a “slut” and a “prostitute” this week after she argued that birth control should be covered by health insurance at religious institutions.

Sandra Fluke, a third-year law student, testified about Georgetown’s policy on contraception during an unofficial hearing last Thursday that was led by House Minority Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.).

Pelosi arranged for Fluke to testify after she was excluded from an official Congressional hearing on the contraceptive mandate in the nation’s health-care law. Republicans who ran the hearing said Fluke’s name was submitted too late (Democrats disagree). None of the women who testified at the Congressional hearing spoke in favor of the mandate.

At Pelosi’s hearing, Fluke said her fellow students at Georgetown, a Jesuit university, pay up to $1,000 a year for birth control because campus health plans do not include coverage of contraceptives for women.

Pay up to $1,000 a year for birth control because campus health plans do not include coverage of contraceptives for women who are Rollin' down the street, smokin' endo Sippin' on gin and juice, laid back With my mind on my Rubbers And my Rubbers on my Mind

          

Phish - Gin And Juice..

www.youtube.com

 http://youtu.be/bakWKHj051I

“What does that make her?” Limbaugh said on his show Wednesday night. “It makes her a slut, right? It makes her a prostitute.”

“She wants to be paid to have sex,” Limbaugh continued. “She's having so much sex she can't afford the contraception.”

On Thursday, Limbaugh expanded on his thoughts but offered no apology. Referring to controversial remarks by Foster Friess, a supporter of former Sen. Rick Santorum, Limbaugh said, “I will buy all of the women at Georgetown University as much aspirin to put between their knees as they want."

Thursday night, Fluke appeared on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” calling Limbaugh’s comments “outside the bounds of civil discourse.” source:

"women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised".

SlutWalk is not sexual liberation

Women need to take to the streets to condemn violence, but not for the right to be called 'slut'

Gail Dines and Wendy J Murphy

It wasn't long ago that being called a "slut" meant social death. No "nice" boy would take you home to meet his parents and no "good" girl would ever be your friend. At the same time, refusing to submit to sex meant you were a "prude" or "frigid". In short, there was no right way to be. Things have improved a bit in that young women are more insistent on their right to sexual autonomy, but sexually active women remain vulnerable to harsh social judgments even as the mass media celebrate and encourage such behaviour. And research shows that the label "slut" still has long-term negative consequences, especially for younger girls.

Nevertheless, a group of activists organised an event called SlutWalk, that took place on Saturday in Boston. It followed on the heels of a similar event in Toronto earlier this month, where women rallied in response to a comment made by a representative of the police that "women should avoid dressing like sluts in order not to be victimised".

To be sure, such a comment from law enforcement is highly offensive in suggesting that some victims of rape are responsible for the criminal acts of their attackers. Rather than admonishing women to dress a certain way, police should be warning potential offenders that they should "avoid assaulting women in order not to go to prison".

The fact that more than 2,000 turned out to march around Boston Common suggests that women are, indeed, hungry for sexual autonomy. But something else was at work here: many of the banners protested the ubiquity of sexual violence in the lives of women. Signs made by protesters showed that women are angry with being blamed for male violence and fed up with the failure of the culture to hold men accountable. Clearly the theme of the SlutWalk has struck a nerve, with similar events being planned around the world, including one in London in June.

The organisers claim that celebrating the word "slut", and promoting sluttishness in general, will help women achieve full autonomy over their sexuality. But the focus on "reclaiming" the word slut fails to address the real issue. The term slut is so deeply rooted in the patriarchal "madonna/whore" view of women's sexuality that it is beyond redemption. The word is so saturated with the ideology that female sexual energy deserves punishment that trying to change its meaning is a waste of precious feminist resources.

Advocates would be better off exposing the myriad ways in which the law and the culture enable myths about all types of women – sexually active or "chaste" alike. These myths facilitate sexual violence by undermining women's credibility when they report sex crimes. Whether we blame victims by calling them "sluts" (who thus asked to be raped), or by calling them "frigid" (who thus secretly want to be overpowered), the problem is that we're blaming them for their own victimisation no matter what they do. Encouraging women to be even more "sluttish" will not change this ugly reality.

As teachers who travel around the country speaking about sexual violence, pornography and feminism, we hear stories from women students who feel intense pressure to be sexually available "on demand". These students have grown up in a culture in which hypersexualized images of young women are commonplace and where hardcore porn is the major form of sex education for young men. They have been told over and over that in order to be valued in such a culture, they must look and act like sluts, while not being labeled slut because the label has dire consequences including being blamed for rape, depression, anxiety, eating disorders, and self-mutilation.

Women need to find ways to create their own authentic sexuality, outside of male-defined terms like slut. The recent TubeCrush phenomenon, where young women take pictures of men they find attractive on the London tube and post them to a website, illustrates how easily women copy dominant societal norms of sexual objectification rather than exploring something new and creative And it's telling that while these pictures are themselves innocent and largely free of sexual innuendo, one can only imagine the sexually aggressive language that would accompany a site dedicated to secret photos of women.

While the organisers of the SlutWalk might think that proudly calling themselves "sluts" is a way to empower women, they are in fact making life harder for girls who are trying to navigate their way through the tricky terrain of adolescence.

Women need to take to the streets – but not for the right to be called "slut". Women should be fighting for liberation from culturally imposed myths about their sexuality that encourage gendered violence. Our daughters – and our sons – have the right to live in a world that celebrates equally women's sexual freedom and bodily integrity.

source:

Gail Dines, a Professor of Sociology and Women’s Studies at Wheelock College in Boson, has published a sharp critique of Sacha Baron Cohen’s Borat movie.   In CounterPunch magazine, Professor Dines argues:

[W]hen Cohen makes misogynist jokes about rape, prostitution and incest, they feel anything but funny. Okay, so Cohen may well be trying to satirize American sexism by unveiling the dark side of American men but when the audience laughs, I feel rage because I know that some of the men in the audience may well be on the prowl that night ….

Violence against women, unlike violence against Jews, is a major public health issue of our time and the costs to women makes it a very unfunny topic. In recent school shootings, girls were specifically targeted by men, though few newspaper reports highlight this. Had the killer selected only Jews to kill, there would have been a national debate on the resurgence of anti-Semitism in America …. In Borat, the jokes about women dying (his wife), being raped (his sister) or being stalked by a crazed fan (Pamela Anderson) are passed off as business as usual in the life of being a woman….

I do know that the fear I feel in the world is because of my gender, not my religion. This is what separates me, a Jewish woman, from Sasha Baron Cohen, a Jewish man.

Professor Dines’ full article is available here.

source:

Gail Dines is a feminist anti-pornography activist, author, liar, professor, and lecturer. An academic, she has also been described as "The world s leading anti-pornography campaigner" who says "men want to rape women"?

Sexual Health - Women

Masturbation With Pillow

Pillow Sex

Humping Pillows

Humping On Pillow

12 Years Old , Humping Pillows

Humping Pillow

Pillow Humping/Only Way To Orgasm?

Just Tried Pillow Humping!

Body Pillow And Masturbation

Sexual Health - Women Question