It's an interesting time to study American Studies. (I still blame the Puritans)

Repeat-comment: I'd find more interesting if this is bribery, not the puritanical: "Oh noes, people have sex!"

I'd find more interesting if this is bribery, not the puritanical: "Oh noes, people have sex!"

Awww, why so shy? We live in a puritan age indeed

>> ^direpickle:

>> ^DerHasisttot:
Having had to study Puritans, reading 1000+ pages of and about Puritans, written a paper, tests, and passing two oral exams involving Puritans, I think I can say with a measure of informed certainty that Puritans are in essence what we call today right-wing fundamentalist fascists.
They were persecuted for what they believed because they wanted to make it the standard; and what they believed was idiotic. For example, one woman drowned her child because it became unbearable to her to not know if she was going to heaven or hell, wanting the certainty of hell, which technically wasn't even certain for her under puritan belief even after the murder. If even other 17th-century christians don't want anything to do with your ideas, your ideas aren't good.
And if I have to read one more text about "grace vs. works" I'm gonna cut a bitch (figuratively).

Grace taste!
Works filling!


*Not sure* *slighty scratches a bitch*

>> ^DerHasisttot:

Having had to study Puritans, reading 1000+ pages of and about Puritans, written a paper, tests, and passing two oral exams involving Puritans, I think I can say with a measure of informed certainty that Puritans are in essence what we call today right-wing fundamentalist fascists.
They were persecuted for what they believed because they wanted to make it the standard; and what they believed was idiotic. For example, one woman drowned her child because it became unbearable to her to not know if she was going to heaven or hell, wanting the certainty of hell, which technically wasn't even certain for her under puritan belief even after the murder. If even other 17th-century christians don't want anything to do with your ideas, your ideas aren't good.
And if I have to read one more text about "grace vs. works" I'm gonna cut a bitch (figuratively).


Grace taste!

Works filling!

Having had to study Puritans, reading 1000+ pages of and about Puritans, written a paper, tests, and passing two oral exams involving Puritans, I think I can say with a measure of informed certainty that Puritans are in essence what we call today right-wing fundamentalist fascists.
They were persecuted for what they believed because they wanted to make it the standard; and what they believed was idiotic. For example, one woman drowned her child because it became unbearable to her to not know if she was going to heaven or hell, wanting the certainty of hell, which technically wasn't even certain for her under puritan belief even after the murder. If even other 17th-century christians don't want anything to do with your ideas, your ideas aren't good.

And if I have to read one more text about "grace vs. works" I'm gonna cut a bitch (figuratively).

I'm gonna step out here and defend the Puritans. In the early 17th century the Puritans in England were not happy with the Church of England (which they were a part of at the time). They saw that its reformation had not gone far enough, meaning, it was still way too close to Catholicism. Above all else, Puritans despised Catholicism, the Pope, and everything the Catholic Church did and they didn't want the Church of England to be anything close to it. When they tried to further the reforms within the Church of England, they were blocked. Though protestant, King James I refused to allow the reforms and told the Hampton Court that he preferred the status quo and that the monarch should rule the church through the bishops. The Puritans felt alienated by this move. In 1625, Charles I became king and he tried to dissolve Parliament entirely to neutralize his enemies, which included plenty of Puritans. This, coupled with the Thirty-Years War (Catholics vs. Protestants), which had over 8 million casualties, now being in full-swing prompted the Puritans to flee to the New World.

The Puritans weren't trying to establish a religiously free society. Roger Williams, who wanted separation of Church & State, was banished and founded Rhode Island. However, the Puritans did want their own society where they weren't underneath the authority of the monarch, the Church of England and where they didn't fear for their lives because of what they believed.

>> ^ChaosEngine:

Did you even read the post? Here, I'll highlight it to help you.
>> ^smooman:
>> ^ChaosEngine:
Seriously what kind of insano would get married to someone without having sex with them first? Would you buy a car with taking for a test drive? I'm not even slightly joking here. And I'm not being sexist either, both partners need to know. Nor am I saying it's the end of the relationship if it doesn't work, but if you're committing to a lifelong relationship, you should go into eyes open.
And as for the whole "fornication is a sin" concept, we need to drop that crap. Unprotected sex is just idiocy, but if two consenting adults want to have casual safe sex, it's up to them. Honestly, we load all these expectations onto losing your virginity; "it should be special", "it should be with someone you love", blah blah. Let's face it, it's usually pretty unspectacular and awkward. These attitudes made sense when we didn't have birth control or protection from STDs but these days they're just a holdover from a time when you didn't want to end up diseased or stuck with a kid you didn't want.

women are cars now?

FFS, why is this so hard to understand? The puritanical attitude to sex before marriage is outdated and pointless. If you are making a lifelong commitment to be with someone, you should know about as many aspects of your relationship beforehand as you can. Actually forget sex, I wouldn't marry anyone with living with them for at least a year or two.


i did read your post. its not hard to understand. abstinence before marriage is outdated for sure (the institution of marriage is really recent, while throughout history laying with someone typically served as an act of marriage) but pointless? perhaps to you, but to each their own. to me? sex is sex. thats it. what my grievance is, is with the tired and utterly absurd "car test drive" analogy. its laughable on its face, and anyone who persists with it is just plain silly. women arent cars. sex isnt driving. theyre not even remotely comparable, except for humorous anecdotes exclusively.

its clear that you want to know every single detail you can about your future spouse before committing, and thats fine, that works for you. but i dont know if you knew this.......but we're not all you. some of us prefer the method of discovery. is it smart and recommended to live with someone at the very least for a little bit before you decide if this is someone you want to be with the rest of your life? absolutely. is it mandatory for a successful relationship? absolutely not. is it smart and recommended to have a physically intimate relationship with someone you are courting? depends, but usually ya. is it mandatory in order to have a healthy sex life and a lasting marriage? absolutely not

sidenote: love is not a feeling, it is not an emotion. it is action and commitment. if you want to know every possible detail about the relationship you have with someone before committing to them, if it works for you great! but i feel i need to remind you: we are not you. I would argue that whether you want to know all the details you possibly can, or if you know enough to be pretty sure, in either case if you both are committed to each other then who cares if youve had sex before marriage or waited till after.

Did you even read the post? Here, I'll highlight it to help you.
>> ^smooman:

>> ^ChaosEngine:
Seriously what kind of insano would get married to someone without having sex with them first? Would you buy a car with taking for a test drive? I'm not even slightly joking here. And I'm not being sexist either, both partners need to know. Nor am I saying it's the end of the relationship if it doesn't work, but if you're committing to a lifelong relationship, you should go into eyes open.
And as for the whole "fornication is a sin" concept, we need to drop that crap. Unprotected sex is just idiocy, but if two consenting adults want to have casual safe sex, it's up to them. Honestly, we load all these expectations onto losing your virginity; "it should be special", "it should be with someone you love", blah blah. Let's face it, it's usually pretty unspectacular and awkward. These attitudes made sense when we didn't have birth control or protection from STDs but these days they're just a holdover from a time when you didn't want to end up diseased or stuck with a kid you didn't want.

women are cars now?



FFS, why is this so hard to understand? The puritanical attitude to sex before marriage is outdated and pointless. If you are making a lifelong commitment to be with someone, you should know about as many aspects of your relationship beforehand as you can. Actually forget sex, I wouldn't marry anyone with living with them for at least a year or two.

Oh Puritans, will you never let go of your stranglehold on American society?



Yes daughter, the only reason you are on earth is to have sex with one man and only one man. It will be like he owns you!

And the stupid bitch: Abstinence all over the world bla. It ain't here! German women are ballcrushing harpies too well-educated and independent.

>> ^DerHasisttot:

I blame the Indians. Should've killed all puritans on sight.


But the puritans had smallpox god on their side.

I blame the Indians. Should've killed all puritans on sight.

Haha, way to overreact Issy. I was simply pointing out the absurdity of yanks and their puritanical bullshit laden psychology regarding a fucking four letter word. Take a chill pill sister

Why isn't Leno pixelated when dick is bleeped? Crazy yanky puritans.