Sexual Satisfaction Survey

So today, in the Dallas Morning News, I read: “Those who worship God weekly have the best sex.” How convenient–and on a Sunday no less. I can hear it now: “Honey, grab the kids and your wallet, we’re going to church!”

This conclusion came from Catholic researcher Patrick Fagan, senior fellow at the Family Research Council, a conservative group of lobbyists who push their views on the rest of America Christian organization. You can check out their site, and you’ll even find that they take prayer requests along with your donation.

In a talk this week,

Fagan told Christians in attendance that they “have to claim a place that’s very different in sexuality – and that by the way is very superior, even in matters sexual.”

Superior, even in sexual matters? How very Christian. I won’t get into every single slide, but if you look at this talk you’ll find some extremely strange and convoluted claims. (And what’s up with the slide that singles out black men and their “retreat from marriage?”)

Who determines what a stable marriage is? And why the hell is this researcher basing his conclusions <a href="” target=”_blank”>on a survey of 2,500 Christians from 1992? (This is a “high quality face-to-face survey with approximately 2,500 adults, aged 18 to 44 years (the most sexually active part of the population).”

The thing with statistics is that you can bend them into all sorts of shapes. This just seems to me like a bit of Christian propaganda. Attend Catholic Church on a weekly basis, and you will have a strong marriage and a great sex life. It’s a win-win for the church and the members (no pun intended).

In the very, very old days, there were men and women, rutting just like men and women today. There were no engagements or weddings or divorces.

One day, man started acquiring property, and he wanted to ensure that his property was being properly passed along blood lines. Since there was no such thing as paternity testing, a vow before god was the next best solution. Marriage made us artificially (or perhaps superficially) monogamous until death. As a secondary, and no doubt unintended, benefit, marriage also protected women in their most vulnerable state.

I’m just not sure how marriage and religious attendance relate to coital happiness, and Fagan offers no theories about that. How does God figure into all this? I mean, wasn’t he the one that got angry with Eve for her curiosity? Wasn’t he the one that made us all wear clothes, for godssake?

I noticed that no one in the course of this research bothered to ask the nones, the atheists, the agnostics–only believers. Isn’t it obvious that it’s better not to attend church on Sunday so that you can have more time for sex. Since no one asked us, I’ve made up my own survey. Don’t try this at home by asking your friends and family. They may not appreciate the humor:

1. Do you feel ashamed when you take off your clothes or do you feel “freed”?
2. Do you think sex is for procreation or recreation?
3. Do you think you enjoy sex more than your religious neighbors? Can you prove it? (If not, no worries.)
4. Would you enjoy sex more if you thought God, Jesus or angels were watching you get busy? (Wait, isn’t this spiritual voyeurism?)
5. Do you feel guilty after you have sex, as if you’ve let someone down, or are you just happy that you had the whole experience?

I’m not seriously taking a survey, but I am serious about the silliness of Fagan’s report. This scantily-clad “research” is really a sales pitch for Catholicism.

About these ads

54 responses to “Sexual Satisfaction Survey

  1. “Those who worship God weekly have the best sex.”
    Well, Debbie, I guess it’s true, I have a good time every time with my husband. After all, he is an Adonis!

  2. “Those who worship God weekly have the best sex.”

    Well, of course, we know that is true. We can tell because they have far lower divorce rates.
    </sarcasm>

    I’m doubting that it is even possible to test the claim. Maybe religious people talk different about sex, and if no adjustment is made for that it would bias any polling.

    I share your skepticism.

  3. Patrick Fagan.

    I knew his name sounded familiar. As did the group of jibbering lunatics over at the Family “Research” Council. As soon as I see anything that is called a “study” released by these people, I grab some popcorn, do a shot of something I could use to either mix with coke or remove the paint off my car, and settle in for a good read.

    I am never ever disappointed.

    None of this is about presenting facts. This is about telling the people who already believe that they are just awesome they are for doing so. They’re happier, more prosperous, and their nether regions are so disproportionately large that Fruit of the Loom has to make a special “husky” size just to accommodate them.

    Oh, you didn’t hear about those?

    Guess you lack faith.

    • @Senator Jason. Spot on. Did you know the FRC was designated as a hate group?

    • This “study” once again shows how honest and moral the pious are…not. I guess they in flocks live by the ideal written by Martin Luther (sans King) – lying for God is okay if doing so bolsters His agenda.

      Did they ask these precious christians whether the ungodly have besides the place in hell also worse sex life? Confirmation bias, anyone?

      Even though the study was properly conducted (which I strongly doubt), the US in 1992 was a bit different than what it is in 2013.

      I cannot bring myself to hate any group on individual but I can wholeheartedly loath both FRC and Mr Fagan. Hopefully someday even the xians see what lies among their midst.

  4. 1. Freed, but then I usually think to myself that I need to workout. :p
    2. Recreation and stress relief. I am so mean if I go too long without it.
    3. I think that I can somewhat confidently attest that I enjoy sex more than my neighbors because they always look pissy.
    4. I think the only time I invoke God is during orgasm, but it is not because I am really calling him.
    5. The only time I feel that I have let someone down is if my husband and I have to stop because all of a sudden we hear our children calling us or something. But, guilt? No way. Only when we have been too long without it. :)

    • @Isabel took all my answers. I want a do over.
      (Just replace husband with boyfriend. Maybe I have the best sex of them all…since I’m living in sin….)

  5. This is just part of their sales job. It’s all a big sales job. And when you’re probably not the sharpest knife in the drawer, you’ll buy this stuff! The idea that God has nothing better to do than to make sure that the Haney’s in their single-wide aren’t having oral sex is gross. And if they DO believe it, they ought to be pissed that their God isn’t watching over the starving children in Africa who have flies laying eggs in their eyes. Seriously? People buy this. No wonder we can’t get our act together as a species.

  6. Again, a video is worth a billion words. Here’s Ted Haggart, disgraced Evangelical pastor, claiming that how Evangelicals have the best sex life and how homosexuality is immoral. Yeah, that’s we we call hypocrisy, pastor.

    • It’s less hypocrisy, and it’s just more of the old flim-flam men, the old snake oil salesmen, any fraudulent salesperson who would say whatever it took to get you to open your wallet. It is absolutely no different.

    • @deosullivan3 The disgraced Ted Haggard. Ugh. Can’t even stand to hear him talk. His friends are funny–they didn’t convince me that they were getting busy every day/twice a day, even. Funny that Haggard thinks that only evangelicals say things like, “Telling the truth is better than telling a lie.”

  7. Patti OSullivan

    Another religious organization proving that faith is not enough. If they have to entice people with sex, they are admitting that there is something lacking in their core message. Funny too, a Catholic, using sex to sell religion. This is the religion that claims that all the good guys don’t even have sex (starting with Mary and Jesus and down through the popes).

    • Patti, I so agree!! I could not have said it better myself. It’s so obvious that these people are desperate to win people over & will say just about anything to seem “cooler” than they really are. And, yes, the irony of the Catholic church using this when they are the ones who have never let the most “special” people (popes & priests) marry is just hilarious.

    • @Patti OSullivan This is good: “This is the religion that claims that all the good guys don’t even have sex (starting with Mary and Jesus and down through the popes).”

  8. Excellent article! Christians have such a morbid fascination with sexuality. As a friend said: sex with a Catholic is wonderful because they feel so terribly guilty, but also don’t want to have it any other way!

  9. I am not mature enough to have this discussion, but here goes…

    I am not certain yelling out “Oh, God! Oh, God!” constitutes attending service or being religious. The use of this phrase may, of course, be the basis of Mr. Fagan’s claim.

    However, the fact that god may be personally interested in the quality or state of my sexual relations is a little creepy. Wouldn’t that make god the ultimate voyeur?

    Just saying.

  10. Deborah,

    When things like this come out I, like you I think, roll my eyes and skip to the next because it’s clearly agenda driven and a waste of my time and limited brain power. The FRC is an organization of lobbyists/activists with an agenda that is not attached to the Catholic Church so by making the assertion that this is a pitch for Catholicism is bit of a leap. A pitch for the FRC’s desire to promote a Christian world view, I’ll grant you that.

    It does however; provide the benefit of opening the door for good discussion. While responding to your five questions and reading many of the comments associated with it, I recognized that the source of your disdain for the Catholic view of sexuality is rooted in a clear difference in the philosophical view of sex that you, as a group, seem to have regarding sex. This difference comes out most clearly when you ask, “Is sex for procreation or recreation?” but I also see this through the tone of all your questions.

    By saying that sex is for something, you are viewing sex from a Utilitarian principle. Sex in it’s essence should not be viewed as an act FOR accomplishing some goal. It is an act, no question there, but it should not be used in the utilitarian fashion you seemingly describe in your post. It should not because to do so is detrimental to the human person. Apply this utilitarian philosophy to the simple and morally neutral act of chopping wood we see that in order to chop wood, one must use an axe to obtain pieces of chopped wood. This can be broken down such that the…

    the act = chopping
    the object of use = an axe
    the goal = chopped wood

    Looking as the sexual act with this Utilitarian philosophical view we break down the sexual act to be…

    the act = sex
    the object of use = a human being
    the goal = pleasure, procreation, entertainment etc…

    This utilitarian view of the sexual act leads us to using our fellow human as a object to attain our goals. We have seen throughout history how this is detrimental. We see it in third world countries where people are forced to work in mines and sweatshops for a pittance, we saw it in Nazi Germany when the Jews were used as a political scapegoat allowing Hitler to come to power and we see it clearly in abortion clinics when we treat human beings as objects as a barrier to “happiness”. To understand the Catholic view on sex one needs to recognize that sex outside this Utilitarian view one must recognize that sex is an act that is in and of itself THE goal. The fruits that come from it are not the goal, the act itself is the goal.

  11. Patti OSullivan

    Joe K, I agree with you that sex for recreation only is not ideal. However, Catholic teaching, as stated in Humanae Vitae, does not treat sex itself as the goal. The encyclical never uses the word “purpose”, but it concludes that sex is designed to enrich a marriage with fidelity and fecundity. Likewise, the Church teaches that God intended for women either virginity or motherhood, i.e. no sex or sex with children. In Mulieris Dignitatem, Pope John Paul II wrote, “Motherhood implies from the beginning a special openness to the new person: and this is precisely the woman’s “part”. In this openness, in conceiving and giving birth to a child, the woman “discovers herself through a sincere gift of self”. A woman’s part (role, purpose, choose your favorite noun here) is motherhood. The church does not teach this about men. In Laborem Exercens, Pope John Paul II explains that man finds his dignity through work. The very belief in God assumes there is a purpose in everything. The purpose may not be always clear to believers, but that does not mean it does not exist. Call the purpose utilitarian or God’s will or natural law. It doesn’t matter really. By using the word ‘utilitarian’ you seem to want to separate a rational (human) understanding of a thing’s function from a revealed (divine) purpose. All this to say that even the Catholic Church teaches that there is a purpose to sex.

    • Humanae Vitae, is really a document on the regulating the procreation of human life and not so much on the Catholic Doctrine of the sexual act. While it does need to discuss the sexual act to come to a conclusion on the proper methods of regulating birth’s to take doctrine on sexuality out of that would be a little bit of a stretch. If you are looking from somewhere to find the Sexual Teachings of the church the best place to look is JPIIs Theology of the Body, it’s here that one can understand the churches view of the negative aspects of the Utilitarian view of sexuality. For a briefer explanation you can turn to Gadium Et Spes with clearly states, “The actions in marriage by which the couple are united intimately and chastly are noble and worthy”. That is the act of sex itself is noble and worthy.
      As to Mulieris Dignitatum, I’ve never read it but I will in the next day or so. Thanks
      As to Laborem Exercens, If I recall, I havn’t read it in quite a while, JP II is using the overall “man”, as in human, here not specifically male or female. I think thats comes out pretty clear by reading it. I’d be curious as to where sepcificall you think he is taling about men vice women. Thanks for the response.

  12. As some Catholics don’t believe in birth control, how sexy is it for the women if she has to think every time, is this moment of passion worth a lifetime of work at raising a kid. Would be kind of a mood killer for me. So maybe the satisfaction lies in that if you give yourself only one option because of cognitive dissidence you don’t want to believe that your sex life is bad, that would mean you made a bad choice in a partner. My mother in law told me she’s only had sex 2-3 times in her life. Her is gay and he only had sex with her because she begged for a child. She believes in some way she should be punished because she chose a man who couldn’t love her the way a man should love his wife. Two peoples’ lives were ruined because they grew up with the idea through religion that you have to get married and once married, no matter what, don’t get divorced.
    So the Catholic church says no sex or sex with kids? What about people who can’t or shouldn’t have children, do they have to be punished (have no sexual pleasure) for their whole lives? Sounds a bit cruel to me. But isn’t the entire bible cruel, turn or burn.
    I believe truly good sex is one between people who really love and respect each other, mutual satisfaction. Just because someone has a ring on their finger does not mean they really love and respect one another.

    • Is it not a mood killer for your husband to say, “I want to share this sexual act with you, but not with all your femininw nature?” Contrary to what the popular culture would have you think, the Catholic Church allows married people who have or shouldn’t have kids to have sex.

      • @Joe K absolutely. Don’t get me all fired up on this topic again ;-)

        • Molly, wasn’t trying to get you started again as a sudden jump in work load combined with a 6+ timezone difference made me miss the entire exchange. Just finished reading it though and I empathize with your frustration. Cognitive dissonance is an amazing thing. Two suggestions should the topic come up again.

          1. Point out that the Creighton Model follows biomarkers to track fertility and not old fashioned counting myths.

          2. Read this article. http://articles.washingtonpost.com/2009-03-29/opinions/36866483_1_condom-distribution-aids-experts-epidemics

          • @JoeK And reading this article about condom use is supposed to do what? Does it make sense to you that, if condoms are being used and used properly, that the Pope was right and that AIDS incidences were on the rise? So many other explanations are possible.

            While condom use is not 100% effective at preventing disease or pregnancy, it sure lowers the incidence of both….Many, many studies have shown that. http://www.ip.usp.br/portal/images/stories/Nepaids/condom.pdf http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/byAudience/ForPatientAdvocates/HIVandAIDSAct ivities/ucm126372.htm

            • The point of posting the article was that , somewhere in the 20+ postings on the other discussion someone (probably SenJ, deo or LT) made the assertion that the Catholic Church’s policy on AIDS reduction in Africa (i.e. not promoting condom use) was causing a rise in AIDS and HIV which is factually inaccurate based on the UN study which the author points out was swept under the rug because it didn’t fit the agenda. Additionally, pertinent to the discussion is the reduction of AIDS cases in Uganda, the ONLY country in Africa to promote abstinence education and limited sexual partners.

              I read the abstract of your first link. I’ll read the rest but I’m suspect since the author himself, in the abstract states:

              “In countries like Uganda that have curbed generalized epidemics, reducing numbers of partners appears to have been more important than condoms.”

              and

              “Other countries continue with high HIV transmission despite high condom use.”

              Yet he STILL recommends increasing condom use??? I’m curious as to the mental gymnastics he’s going to use to make that conclusion. Clearly, if you can’t see through your cognitive dissonance to see the connection, I’m not going to be able to help you or anyone else make it.

          • Joe, the Catholic Church had been universally opposed to condom use, regardless of the circumstances, up until a few years ago. It didn’t matter whether we were talking virgin teens in a small Midwest town or sex workers in the slums of Johannesburg. Additionally, as recently as 2003 they were on record stating that condoms have tiny holes through which HIV could pass, making them ineffective for disease prevention. Regardless of what specifically needs to be done in Africa to stop the spread of HIV/AIDS, misinformation like this is dangerous and deadly.

            To Green’s point, there may be other psychological and sociological considerations in Africa that prevent condoms from being effective as a primary prevention measure compared to other places like Thailand and Cambodia, where the existing strategy works well. Admittedly it’s tough to combat HIV when entire regions of the country constitute “high risk groups”. It also becomes a different ball game entirely.

            Despite this, the author himself goes on to say at the end of the article that he is not anti-condom, emphasizing that they should be readily available everywhere, including Africa if only as a secondary measure.

            • Sen Jason,
              I think we are in agreement that the AIDS/HIV thing is a difficult challenge. More importantly, I highly suspect, unless you are a eugenicist, we are in agreement that society should do something about it. It’s the method in which our differences lie.

              A few thoughts…

              Comparing Africa to Cambodia and Thailand is a bit different because the success of condom promotion in those parts of the world have been focused toward the “Sex Workers” profession which, in that part of the world, is regulated by the state and therefore much more controllable.

              I’m not questioning, and the Catholic Church formally does not question (with the exception of your single Cardinals “Reflection”) the objective fact that a single condom used properly during a single act has the ability to significantly reduce transmission of a disease in that single instance. The point that the Church makes against condom use is not the effectiveness of a properly used condom, it’s the mindset established in using such a device. As Mr. Greene states, the Pope is probably right that condom use in Africa has done nothing to reduce AIDS, in fact African incidents continue to rise everywhere while condoms distribution continues to skyrocket. That is, EXCEPT Uganda, the only country that has followed a model closer to the Catholic Church’s model on AIDS Prevention, theirs has dropped.

              One points on an assertion you made…

              1. The Catholic Church still is universally opposed to condom use. I suspect your are referring to the Popes statements in the book “Light of the World” which the press took drastically out of confidence. One must wonder if they were as excited as a pit-bull with a fresh chunk of meat that that lost all ability to act with reason.

              • I didn’t say that the Church is still opposed to condom use; I said they had been, going so far to say back in 2003 or so that they were ineffective in stopping HIV/AIDS altogether.

                I understand comparing Africa to Cambodia and Thailand is different, but Green wanted to point out to the reader that he wasn’t making overgeneralizations and not giving credit to the program where it worked as a primary prevention measure. In Africa where so much of the general population is affected, and where the cultural and sociological mindset is so different from ours, he’s saying we need a behavioral approach, coupled along with condom use as a secondary measure to make a difference.

                That said, it’s always been my position that you need something like that anyway. Just throwing condoms at the problem isn’t going to make it go away, which is why the combination of comprehensive sex education and the availability of birth control are so important here in this country.

          • @JoeK Thanks. I didn’t think it was relevant to explain the biomarkers of the Creighton Method – some people mistakenly think its the Rhythm Method – and clearly its not. The Rhythm Method doesn’t work. My goal was never to promote NFP, although clearly I’m a big fan. Thanks for the article, I will certainly check it out.

    • @Amy B Great insights… And your mother-in-law–what an awful, painful existence. She thinks she deserves this?

  13. @Deb let me respond to these with my Catholic perspective.

    For what its worth, I followed up on the heavily-debated birth-control discussion two posts ago if anyone else still can’t let that go. ;-)

    1. Do you feel ashamed when you take off your clothes or do you feel “freed”?
    I felt confident and great before I endured a twin pregnancy. Now I feel a little ashamed and sad. Things don’t look as good as they used to…. That has nothing to do with God. That has to do with the fact that I gained 50 lbs during my pregnancy.

    2. Do you think sex is for procreation or recreation?
    Agree with @JoeK…. I usually don’t think about the reason. We have had sex trying to get pregnant though, I think most couples with children have. Particularly those of us who have had to put a little effort into getting pregnant. Sometimes I don’t want to have sex at all but my husband unloaded the dishwasher so I feel like he should be rewarded.

    3. Do you think you enjoy sex more than your religious neighbors? Can you prove it? (If not, no worries.)
    Well I am religious. I’ve never thought about whether or not sex is better for religious versus non-religious. I really don’t care. The only sex life I’m concerned about is that of me and my husband. Eventually I will care about my kids’ too but I hope we’re decades away from that.

    4. Would you enjoy sex more if you thought God, Jesus or angels were watching you get busy? (Wait, isn’t this spiritual voyeurism?)
    Again, I’ve never thought of this. Isn’t it funny that some non-religious people think about this and some religious people don’t? God is always present but I don’t feel better or worse having sex knowing that.

    5. Do you feel guilty after you have sex, as if you’ve let someone down, or are you just happy that you had the whole experience?
    Occasionally I feel let down, but that has nothing to do with God. ;-) Usually I feel happy. If I wasn’t in a committed marriage though, I would probably feel a bit anxious or emotionally insecure.

    Maybe you are overthinking this? I’m sure both religious and non-religious have great sex. If the study doesn’t include both populations then the results don’t really prove anything. Regardless, why is this a study anyway? Shouldn’t these researchers be putting their time and effort into something that matters?

  14. I wonder if they took into account the personal bias of the “researchers” (I’m guessing not). And are they SURE they actually talked to Christians about sex? Most of the ones I know don’t talk about it (at all), babies come from storks. ;)

  15. This sex “study” is, like you said, another way for the Catholic church to say “But wait, we’re cool!” All churches are doing it. I’m near some huge nondenominational churches – some have coffee shops and bookstores in them, I hear. They try to disguise their churches, as if someone would walk in there thinking it’s a night club, then realize it was church, but be overcome and stay forever, saved by Jesus! It’s just silly. Be a church, or don’t – quit all the pretending. Few people buy it.

  16. LanceThruster

    “Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you’re going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love.” ~ Butch Hancock

  17. My experience is anecdotal, and unlike the “study” you mentioned, I know it proves nothing. As a former Catholic (my father is an ordained deacon) I can confindently say my parents, and by association, the Catholic church, made my view of sex horribly negative. Even in my happy marriage, I have severe issues with guilt and anxiety surrounding sex. It is slowly getting better as I’m recovering from the indoctrination and nonsense, but it is hard learning to enjoy sex for the fun that it is.

    So this “study” with its bs conclusion? They can shove it. I don’t need some god to help me have better sex. The therapist I see to deprogram helps the most. (I should send the bill to the church my dad works at.)

  18. Oh…My…GOD……..that was GOOD!!!!! :)

  19. LanceThruster

    Sam Kinison did a bit about a man being asked by his spouse for a 3-some with another woman. He said, “Honey, no matter how sick and disgusting I find this urge, it is because I love you so much that I will go along with this request however much it personally nauseates me.”

  20. In case anyone thought that the Utilitarian view of sexuality didn’t result in humans becoming objects of use. I present you with women used as billboards

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/video/2013/jul/21/tokyo-womens-thighs-advertising-video

    • @JoeK That’s a gimmick. It’s no secret that women have been used as objects, and men, too, to a lesser extent. It’s also no secret that many religions, including the Catholic church, has encouraged a dichotomy in the way women are viewed: they’re either Madonnas or whores.

  21. “…religions, including the Catholic church, has encouraged a dichotomy in the way women are viewed: they’re either Madonnas or whores.”

    Can you show me the documented teaching of the Church has done that?

    • Joe, The Madonna-Whore complex is not new. You can Google for more info. The crux is this: women, who have no place or authority, have been taught through the church–and through the role models they hold up–that they are either Madonnas (pure, virgins) or whores (women who’ve had sex). Of course, Mary was still able to bear a child without having sex.

      • I have always thought the pregnant virgin story was the best con ever. Could you imagine if that were today? a 14 year old pregnant virgin and her 90 year old husband… Good grief.

        Sorry. Not exactly on topic, but it has always been quite an impressive feat to me…

        • @oatmellow I know! I wonder how many young women after that tried to pull that one? When that didn’t work, then they tried to blame it on the swimming pool or toilet seat.

          • The other thing I’ve always wondered is, why is it more believable that God is the father of Jesus, than it is to believe Zeus fathered half the world. He was kinda like the Bill Clinton of his time. Couldn’t keep it in his pants, but everyone seemed to be okay with him as a ruler… I never did understand why it was easier to believe in Christianity than it was to believe in Mythology. Or Wicca. Or Hinduism… or any other older more established religion.

            And there I go again. Asking questions. I need to stop doing that.

            • Oatmellow, OMG, you are such a trouble maker. A damn funny trouble maker.

              It seems that people just needed a more personal god and savior and Jesus fit the bill. Jesus was like you and me. (Kind of.) The previous godly tenants were not as “relatable.”

              • I seem to be in a mood to stir up trouble today. The ex’s wife is quite pissed off at me due to my mouthy blog about dumbass facebook posts. (she should stop reading my blog!) And now I’m comparing Jesus, Zeus and Bill Clinton. FWIW, I’d happily have Bill back as a ruler of the free world. I would even consider worshiping him if he could get our economy back on track
                Amen.

      • Thanks never heard that term before. I did find though that it comes from Freud and that…

        “Freud argued that the Madonna–whore complex is caused by oedipal castration fears which arise when a man experiences the affection he once felt for his mother with women he now sexually desires. In order to manage this anxiety, the man categorizes women into two groups: women he can admire and women he finds sexually attractive. Whereas the man loves women in the former category, he despises and devalues the latter group”

        Seems to me that has nothing to do with the teaching of the Catholic Church. My question still stands…

        Can you show me the documented teaching of the Church has done saying it,”…has encouraged a dichotomy in the way women are viewed: they’re either Madonnas or whores.”

  22. LanceThruster

    I remember a Howard Stern interview with Donny Osmond who admitted to never engaging in any oral sex with the missus in their 20+ years of marriage.

    Seems like a definition of “best sex” I was previously unaware of (maybe the catch is “worship God weekly” as too much or too little skews the results).

I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s