Pseudo-Sex and Technical-Virginity

Sexual purity as a moral or ideological value does not equate to sexual purity in practice.

Readership: Christians, especially those who were involved in the Purity Movement;

This post is the fifth in a series of articles that examine several aspects of the Purity Movement.  For an introduction, please read the first post, Picking through the fruit of the Purity Movement (2020-4-20).

A previous post in this series, On the Definition of Virginity (2020-04-22), touched on the difference between technical virginity and true sexual purity.  This post examines this difference in further detail, identifies what was missing, and assesses the damage done.


The Lie: Technical Virginity equals Sexual Purity

One of the biggest lies touted by many of the proponents of the Purity Culture was an idea that was never described in titillating detail in books, nor was it explicitly stated from the pulpit.  But the nuances and implications was clearly understood by naïve, sexually inexperienced adolescents.

The lie was this:

Sex that qualifies as “real sex” must necessarily have all the following characteristics before one can be said to have “lost one’s virginity”.

  • It must be a heterosexual
  • It must be a committed relationship, preferably with another Christian.
  • The female must experience the Tingles with her partner.
  • No form of birth control should be used.
  • The male’s penis must be placed fully into the vagina.
  • The male must ejaculate passionately and unreservedly into the vaginal canal.
  • Body fluids must be delightedly swilled, mixed and mingled.
  • The female must experience an exhilarating satisfaction with the act of sex, i.e. no regrets nor buyer’s remorse.
  • The experience is worthy to claim as an N count, i.e. something to brag about.

Granted, this is a good description of an ideal sexual experience, and this is the partial truth of the lie.

But the problem here is that they had it all boiled down to a set of rules.  That is, as long as you didn’t have sex properly (as described above), you could still claim to be “Pure”, purportedly with a clear conscience, and in the eyes of God.

For those who wholeheartedly bought into this set of rules about purity, and who were successfully able to play by these rules, it wasn’t too difficult for them to sincerely believe they were still pure.

This was wonderful news for randy Churchian teens in the Purity Culture!  Why shouldn’t they go along with the Purity Culture?  It’s all good!

This level of permissiveness no doubt contributed to the popularity of the movement.

You see, it was an unstated assumption that these rules still allowed all of the following sexercises as fair play.  For clarity, I’ll refer to the items on this list as “pseudo-sex”, but to be totally honest, these can be interpreted as nothing less than foreordinations of sexual intercourse.

  • Being naked together
  • Sleeping together
  • Masturbation (using the hands to stimulate one’s self)
  • Mutual masturbation with a partner
  • Light Petting (using the hands to stimulate the erogenous zones of the body)
  • Heavy petting (using the hands to stimulate the genitals to orgasm)
  • Dry humping (rubbing body parts together with the goal of orgasm while wearing clothes or underwear)
  • Body slapping/banging (rubbing body parts together with the goal of orgasm while naked)
  • Cunnilingus
  • Fellatio
  • Facials (stimulation followed by ejaculating on the woman’s face)
  • 69’ing (performing cunnilingus and fellatio simultaneously)
  • Penetration with objects, such as dildos
  • Titty banging (rubbing the penis between the breasts)
  • Glansing (tickling the clitoris with the head of the penis)
  • Fisting (inserting the entire hand into the vagina or anus)
  • Anal sex
  • Water sports*
  • Rimming*

* If you don’t know what this is, then you probably don’t want to know.

In addition, many young collegiate coeds who had easy and convenient access to a large number of potential partners, many of whom lived in the same dormitory building, could also engage in the following.

  • Friends with pseudo-sex Benefits (FWPSB)
  • Polyamorous pseudo-sex relationships (Poly-pseudo)

Of note, cohabitation (living together) and BDSM were not considered acceptable within proper Churchian culture, and this had been true long before the advent of the Purity Culture.  However these were not as common in the 1990’s as they are today, so it was seldom an issue.  But other than that, nearly any form of pseudo-sex was fair game, because, “We’re not going all the way!  The Real Ideal sex is only for my husband/wife!

Portman crown Black Swan

Sexual Discoverie as a Black Swan experience

As you might imagine, this type of thinking kick-started a mindset of denial, even before any interaction with the opposite sex had occurred.  But most young people were somehow not aware that it was denial.  This actually led many young people to become more proactive in exploring pseudo-sex promiscuity, because they assumed it to be “acceptable”.  As long as they didn’t have “Real Ideal sex” they could still sell themselves off as “pure”.

But in fact, any of these activities can still create feelings of guilt and shame, as well as soul ties.  Not to mention, pseudo-sex can very easily lead into real sex, and this did happen to many initially sincere adherents to the Purity Culture.

When young people approached sex with this mindset, pseudo-sex became a Black Swan experience – an event having the following characteristics.

  • The event is a surprise (to the observer).
  • The event has a major effect.
  • After the first experience, the event is incorrectly and inappropriately rationalized.

But it might be argued that in the case of the Purity Movement, the eventualities of any sexual liaisons were incorrectly rationalized before the event took place, and may have encouraged the event to unfold.

You see, many young people who were previously unaware of the yet-to-be-explored rages of the feral reproductive nature, and who were oblivious of their individual threshold of temptation, fell into a full grand-mal seizure of consummate desire after once tasting the fortuitous pleasures of pseudo-sex.  Caught in the throes of passion, the urge to merge becomes irresistible, and thus, the humans’ natural design to copulate is commensurately completed.  And since abortion was considered morally wrong and socially verboten, these naïve dalliances led to some unexpected episodes of procreation.

Those who got sucked under the riptide of proliferous passion were forced to bow out of their social participation in Purity Culture.  As a result, their absence prevented others from becoming aware of the carnal risks.  Those who managed to retain their social connections were not taken seriously because of their broken testimony and admission of guilt (or the apparent lack thereof)

Some who fell actually lied and denied, all in order to maintain an air of dignity, as well as social inclusion and relevancy.

We also know how the female hamster tends to discount any sexual experience that was anything less than thrilling, which essentially supports an attitude of denial.

But it was never mentioned that this kind of experience is entirely natural and to be expected as normal, and that when this happens, then it’s time to get married.

“But I say to the unmarried and to the widows: It is good for them if they remain even as I am; but if they cannot exercise self-control, let them marry.  For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.” ~ 1st Corinthians 7:8-9 (NKJV)

Portman Black Swan

Concluding Statements

Maintaining your “virginity” in the Purity culture was the art of walking a fine line.  It emphasized purity as an ideological value, but it didn’t really emphasize purity as a practice.  Purity in practice would require a thorough study of why purity is valuable in maintaining the vitality of the soul, and important in preparing for a strong marriage.  (This is a teaching that has been missing from most churches for decades.)  As a result, many well-intentioned young people were blindsided and lured into forfeiting their sexual purity without ever suspecting the deception.

From a historical perspective, we can see that the Purity Movement was a move in the right direction, because at the very least, young people had gained an authentic reverence for sexual boundaries – a vast improvement over the “Free Love” sexual mores of the previous generation.  But still, the boundaries were too far away from what would be truly pure.  In addition, ignorance, foolishness, and denial abounded.

Image credit: Black Swan (2010) starring Natalie Portman.


About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Education, Models of Failure, Purity Culture, Sanctification & Defilement and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

41 Responses to Pseudo-Sex and Technical-Virginity

  1. okrahead says:

    Okay, from a Gen Xer who was an undergraduate in the late 80’s/early 90’s… Part of this problem is the notion that young Christians will randomly find mates on their own through the dating process. Single boy sees single girl who is attractive, tries to impress her/hopes for a meet cute. They spend months/years going off completely alone to “get to know” one another while in their teens/twenties. All of this with the expectation that “nothing will happen.” This is contrary to all known human history, basic human biology, and the Biblical principal of the father being in control of his daughter’s prospects to wed or not (I Cor. 7:35-38).

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      When you say there was an expectation that “nothing will happen”, do you mean no sex, or no marriage?
      Certainly there must be an expectation of something.


      • okrahead says:

        That there would be no sex, or pseudo-sex, prior to marriage. That you would be the long term (1 year or more) celibate boyfriend, then propose marriage, then spend several more moths as the celibate fiancée, during which time the two of you would spend large amounts of time alone together in secluded locations.

        Liked by 3 people

  2. JPF says:

    Jack’s summary seems unlikely, although I say this as an outsider with little experience with the purity movement.
    [sex does not count as “real sex” unless] …
    The male must ejaculate passionately and unreservedly into the vaginal canal. …
    The female must experience an exhilarating satisfaction with the act of sex, i.e. no regrets nor buyer’s remorse.

    How could any person think that after “bad” sex, that the woman is still a virgin? Deuteronomy 22 seems to give a pretty clear requirement for the hymen to be intact. Sex of any kind would prevent this.

    It also seems completely contrary to “purity” for a person to think they are free to fool around with many people, when there is no intention of marriage.

    I wonder how many people, who were young during that time, would have agreed with Jack’s assessment.

    As I said, I have little experience here, so Jack could be right… just seems this would require large amounts of cognitive dissonance.


    • Lexet Blog says:

      You underestimate how stupid and loop-hole prone many in the church were and still are. (Many Mormons have weird rules about sex not counting unless there is active thrusting or full penetration)

      It’s all bent on preserving a lie- because deep down, there is shame, and they need to cover it up.

      I knew plenty who thought or still think that BJs or anal don’t count as sex.

      I even know people who excuse previous sexual behavior so long as it was with someone “they loved”

      Liked by 2 people

    • Jack says:

      “How could any person think that after “bad” sex, that the woman is still a virgin?

      Surely at some point, the gravity of reality would sink in, but it would have been far too late to remediate any standard of purity by then.

      “It also seems completely contrary to “purity” for a person to think they are free to fool around with many people, when there is no intention of marriage.”

      To a clear thinking person, this should be obvious, but to a naive youngster blinded by desire and the fear of religious expectations, it is not so apparent. In the absence of a formal marriage, fooling around with many people is usually what happens over the course of a few years. In Christian circles, this promiscuity usually takes the form of serial monogamy, or at least that is how it appears and it is what she will admit to. But realistically, it is all too easy for girls to sneak a quickie on the sly here and there, and only the bad guys know.

      “…this would require large amounts of cognitive dissonance.”

      Absolutely, and I suppose this would be necessary for one to believe any lie.

      To clear up some confusion, the lie doesn’t need to have any applicable connection to the real world. It’s just a theoretical construct of what purity is, and how things work. The purpose of the lie is to perpetrate enough deception to allow one to explore one’s sexual desire while being shrouded in social and moral acceptability. The goal is to avert the perception of guilt and shame, either internal or external, while preserving the self-concept of innocence and righteousness. Hence, a false sense of “purity” is achieved, while real purity has been spoiled.

      Liked by 2 people

  3. okrahead says:

    It was real enough. Then there were the “born again virgins.” They’d had sex, but they were really sorry about it, for whatever reason, so they were forgiven and were once again virgins. Even got the purity rings and everything.

    Liked by 3 people

  4. Lexet Blog says:

    The baptist culture promoted a perversion Of purity, which dictates once a person is saved,they not only become pure in the eyes of the lord (and escape judgment), but they magically become pure in their present reality here on earth- both physically and mentally.

    Except for the struggle with sin that can’t be explained.

    Also, this like totally doesn’t apply to prisoners or anyone except formerly impure women.

    This thinking persists in the charismatic and baptist wings of the modern church. See my posts on Calvinism incorporated, and if you study all of the “reformed” people in that chart, you will discover they peddle this bs (which I will term as partial-hypergrace)

    Liked by 3 people

  5. Ed Hurst says:

    Yet another example of how embracing the prevailing culture means the churches will come up with all kinds of wild nonsense. I’m pretty sure the Old Testament rules restricting social interaction between unmarried males and females were based on a solid understanding of how things actually do work. Not that I would ever hope to resurrect a biblical feudal social system again in our world, but at least we can point to why churchianity fails yet again.

    Liked by 2 people

    • okrahead says:

      What’s wrong with Biblical feudalism? Are you suggesting what we have now is better? Because I’ll take that bet.


      • Jack says:

        @ Okrahead,
        You should read Ed’s blog. He’s written about feudalism for years. He presents it as a Biblical social structure which should be understood in order to understand the Bible correctly.


      • Ed Hurst says:

        Agreed with Jack here; you miss the thrust of my comment, okrahead. I avidly promote biblical feudalism as the very fabric of reality itself. For that very reason, I doubt any significant part of the human race would ever willingly adopt it, except by miracle. My prophetic sense tells me that a few scattered souls around the world are being touched by that miracle, but God is not ready to start a real biblical feudal community just yet. There is a period of tribulation coming first.

        Liked by 2 people

  6. JPF says:

    Thanks for the replies from Jack, Lexet and Okrahead.

    It seems there were at least two “streams” of the purity movement. The first is as Jack describes. These people used the “rules” presented to be sexually active while maintaining the pretense of purity by not committing certain acts.
    The second is what I recall Dalrock describing, where the fathers interfered with any social bonding at all with potential suitors. They would have father-daughter dances, so the young woman could dance with daddy, but interaction with actual suitors were being blocked by daddy. In this scenario, there were no relationships at all, so certainly no sexual fooling around.

    I did not really see either of the above however. This would have been in the 1990s; maybe I was young in the wrong timeframe. Also, I was never a social butterfly or popular person. Maybe the sexual immorality was rampant but simply hidden from my sight — although I doubt it.

    I did see that many women from my church group seemed uninterested in any of the church men. I think the disinterest was more due to the women assessing the church men as unacceptable/undesirable, rather than due to any purity movement influence however. And of course the lack of desire for a typical man for certain women.

    In my post-high school group at church, there were two couples, who did go on to marry within a year or so. I had high respect for the 2 women that married about age 20. They apparently chose to prioritize marriage over career.
    I was not aware of any other women having relationships with various men in our group, serial or otherwise. They may have been pursuing men outside the group of course.
    But for the most of the women from ages 18 to 24, I saw no romantic relationships with other church men at all.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “It seems there were at least two “streams” of the purity movement. The first is as Jack describes. These people used the “rules” presented to be sexually active while maintaining the pretense of purity by not committing certain acts.

      The second is what I recall Dalrock describing, where the fathers interfered with any social bonding at all with potential suitors. They would have father-daughter dances, so the young woman could dance with daddy, but interaction with actual suitors were being blocked by daddy. In this scenario, there were no relationships at all, so certainly no sexual fooling around.”

      Instead of “streams”, I would call them “waves”. The first happened in the 90s, and the second happened about a decade later or so. I was involved in the first, but not the second.
      This is merely conjecture, but it looks like people reacted to the loopholes that were being exploited in the first wave, and decided that more parental involvement would turn the key in the second wave. But looking back, we can see that although this was probably a good move, it was implemented poorly and it lacked certain important concepts in the education.


  7. lastmod says:

    I was much older (late 30’s) when I found myself back in church. I wanted to form a singles group, was told “we already have a mans group.” (which was a boring bible study with prepared material like a elementary school workbook / study guide).

    I then explained that men and women do need to learn how to speak with each other….get to know each other kind of thing. The answer was “no” because “we didn’t want to put anyone into temptation”

    So their whole purity thing in the Salvation Army (2007 until I left) was this: Go to Holiness (church service). Got to mens group which was named “man up” or if you were a woman to go to “home league” which was the womens group. The mens group was always about being “accountable” and ALWAYS focused on the unspoken but evidently “horrible” porn problem men deal with daily…and if you didn’t have a porn problem……it was viewed that something was wrong with you as a man because no man cannot ever stop thinking about sex….except the Officer (pastor) and the men who were married and the deemed “leaders / big shot guys” in the local Corps (church) because they were married, or had “met cute” a billion times by the time they were 19. Unmarried Salvationists were not allowed to sit next to each other on Sundays during Holiness.

    The Womens Group (home league) had awesome activities and fellowship. They had trips, outings, actual friendships built. The men were told over and over and over and over that they had to “get on their knees and be more like Jesus”

    Through all of this…..through some “divine” action from god himself…..a man was supposed to know how to pursue, chase, flirt, meet cute, gain social skills, and know that god had indeed “put it on a a womans heart” that would maybe….MAYBE allow him to ask her on a date or out. If he did act, and she said no……god didn’t lie……no, no, no……the man was not listening to what god was “really” saying to him.

    It basically closed off dating and marriage unless you were the man who “met cute(s)” were way above average looking, and of course had a great job……….and had been “gited” by god with amazing gifts of leadership.

    So…….most men were single. Most women were single, and the “popular” crowd again got to lecture the masses on how “blessed” they were.

    Liked by 1 person

    • JPF says:

      Sounds like your SA church was even more useless than mine was, for helping the formation of godly families.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Ed Hurst says:

      Oh my, an SA background. That explains a lot.


      • lastmod says:

        Defense of the SA:

        At one time from the slums of Victorian England to the world…..this Holiness Movement did all works in His name. It was an intensity that was lived. I was stupid for thinking that this is what this church still did on a grand scale. Now, monies collected…….yes, they do what they say with it. They do “much good” still. No denying that. For a place that welcomes the addict, the street walker, the homeless, the lost. I’ll give a pass too. When I was looking for a place to find out more about this “jesus” no church welcomed me.

        They did. Why? Because I was a mess. Your average over-educated and arrogant mainline denom protestent church was a club. The catholic chuch like the anglican and the orthodox you have to be “born into” culturally or you’re not allowed. These new mega churches only like families. The first time I walked into the SA…….no fashion parade. The lost, the broken the misfit filled the pews while most of the “members” were attired in their Uniforms. A outward symbol of an inward change. I donned a Uniform for almost ten years. I took it off not because I “fell off the wagon” but when this Army wanted to get their boots back in the mud and save the lost, the broken, and indeed go for the “worst” of sinners, they could call me. It was the crown jewel and best example of British Chriistianity for a very long time.

        What’s The Problem?

        Lazy. They no longer build, or save, they rely on paid employees to do anything and everything now and even hire mostly non-Christians and non-members to do the mission. Many of the Officer class really have no business there. A shame, it has the potential to really help men or bring men in. Setup on a quasi military structure. Dirty, heavy work for the potential of seeing the results of christianity on the streets in action….

        Ed…..well, sadly I cannot have your background because I am not like you. I know, if I just joined your church everything would be great or lived in the South.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. lastmod says:

    The ironic thing was the leaders and longer members of the local Corps would “lament” on the fact “our Corps has not had a wedding in ten years! Men today I guess don’t want to grow up and lead” they would say shaking their heads.

    Liked by 2 people

  9. lastmod says:

    I don’t know. Even when I was an active Salvationist, 99% of this sphere didn’t accept me a “real christian” (like them) and I was told what we were doing wrong, or how did this and this wrong, and didn’t follow jesus right, or didn’t follow the correct interpetation of the bible…….so it really doesn’t matter what I believe.

    There are some decent folks there. There were moments I suppose when I was on the streets late at night helping the addicts, the homeless and the hungry….I did see “jesus” in the form of giving of myself which in fact helped me get well and not go back to the drink and drugs…..

    But I did learn after many years………my attitude was wrong. I should have “met cute” and “did what I wanted” and then got holy. Would have actually reaped real christian rewards


    • JPF says:

      Even when I was an active Salvationist, 99% of this sphere didn’t accept me a “real christian”

      I think you are hated/excluded/despised far less than you think.
      I can only speak for my own thoughts, but my perception of you, when you were an active Savationist, was one of respect. You were actively helping others, and offering to help more.
      As for the SA itself, my “perception” is mostly one of ignorance — I know very little about it, so I accept their claims to be a Christian church, as I have no reason to dispute. You obviously know vastly more about them than I do.


  10. okrahead says:

    70s Jason…. That has got to be 70s Jason…. Get out of your own head man. Please. The black pill is a killer. And complaining about others met cute and you didn’t sounds like envy. Envy is a drug to…. and drugs are bad, mkay?


    • lastmod says:


      It’s not ‘black pill’ it’s reality. I cannot relate on any level to “meet cute”, but I could have….there was still a sliver of a chance as I entered my forties. I was too busy attempting to follow jesus, while I should have been focusing on the few options that were left to meet the great women that are evidently everywhere / but are not / but are / but you just have to look / just have to be cocky-funny / just have to vett / just have to teach her/ treat her like dogsh*t / justy be alpha…..

      The list goes on.

      The black pill (for lack of a better term) is not a killer. It’s reality. A cold, stark one… doubt…….for sure…..but at least concrete and zero delusions. No “waiting” on god. No workshops. No ‘bible studies’ no ‘classes’ or videos, or podcasts……no changing of the rules to the “new foolproof” method of the week of what “women really want and need in a man”

      this “black pill” is the so-called scales falling away. Vision sharpens. Sad acceptance of what you are, what you are not…………..and never will be is finally accepted. Then the work can begin to chart the next plan as you downshift into full middle and older age.

      After my hardcore two week backpacking trek alone in 2017. Up Mt. Whiteny in 2018, a huge promotion and career change……and then a month in the UK in 2019…………finally understood. I am not envious. More upset at the fact I wasted time over this than actually doing these things when I was younger. Black Pill so to speak at least cleared my mind. Red pill squabbles over what nuance, what shade, and who the “deems” it as such.

      Black Pill seems to be action. Not inaction. Red Pill struts and speaks about how “red piull” they are. Red Pill is high school. Black Pill is living and accepting difficult circumstances that just have to be understood.
      Cocains is a drug. Envy is some sort of emotional brain thing. The envy I have had was caused by men mostly telling me how to be not be envious in reality…..


  11. okrahead says:

    Speaking of which… I know plenty of Catholics and Orthodox who were not “born into” those churches as you put it. Most hilariously, John C. Wright, whose works you should read for a little (Christian) pick me up. Hilarious true story… Wright was an atheist, his wife was (and is) Christian Scientist. She convinces Wright to pray about salvation, which he does purely on a lark. Wright is promptly hit with a heart attack and nearly dies. Wife calls in Christian Scientist prayer guy to pray for his healing. Wright has religious vision of Mary while in coma, has a miraculous recovery with no apparent long term damage after Prayer Warrior prays for him. Tells wife he is now a believer and is converting to Christianity, wife is overjoyed. Wright promptly joins Roman Catholic Church, poor wife still can’t figure this out. Irony is delicious.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      yes…..yes I know everyone knows tons of people who married at 70 for the first time and had a great marriage. Everyone knows someone who was cured from cancer by a few people praying over him……

      Much as I admire the Queen of England……a bit strange that the monarch of the UK is the head of the church “on eath” (Anglican). Every Catholic has told me that never pray or worship Mary….but in every Cathoilc household, shop, church……………..Mary everywhere. Prayers to Mary. Songs to Mary. Talking about Mary nonstop. Books about Mary. Orthodox speak more about saints and who’s “feast” it is instead of learning about god, or what he is (was in an Orthodox wedding in 1998……very, very long service, more importance about the married couple to be dancing around ‘crowns’ the right way and pulling curtains back near the altar and everyone chanting to a piece of painted wood…that wasn’t even jesus…..

      Cultural things I wil never understand. I have asked questions. “Tradition is beautiful” and “You should go to a service and see for yourself” (I have. Orthodox: no one talks to you. Anglican, no one talks to you. Catholic, no one talks to you)


      • okrahead says:

        No one talked to you? Last time I went to an Orthodox wedding tons of people talked to me. They also offered tons of really good food. Sorry Scott, it was Greek Orthodox. Then everybody danced in a circle, and some of the older men drank too much, and everybody was deliriously happy. Jason, maybe you should read Romans 15… Romans 15:13 King James Version (KJV)
        13 Now the God of hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

        Liked by 1 person

  12. lastmod says:

    My cousin married an American-Greek in 1998. Service was in a beautiful church. Lots of ritual and for what? He divorced her five years later. I was in the wedding party. I didn’t have a date, though the invite said I could have brought someone.

    I remember smoking a Cuban cigar with some old Greek relative of the grooms’ behind the church during the reception. I remember during the rehearsal, I was “scolded” for coming into the church while chewing gum by a biddy old lady. I apologized and threw the gum out.

    My side of the family… was me, my cousin, her parents. The rest of the filled church was his family…..a trillion billion relatives…..a few friends of my cousin.

    They all took Communion, and the only people who could not were myself, her parents, and her friends (we were not Greek Orthodox…I was lapsed Anglican, my Aunt was Buddhist (from Thailand) and my uncle was a lapsed Catholic. We then we all given “looks” by her family because we didn’t take Communion (we couldn’t…..the priest said we couldn’t).

    The reception was fine I suppose. All Greek music. All Greek food. My side of the family didn’t really have anything to do. There were so few of us, and she married into this family. The wedding was in southern California (LA / Santa Monica). I remember I said “goodnight” and “goodbye” to all when I left probably a bit after dinner. I left my gift. Thanked the parents of the groom and went out to the Viper Room in LA. I probably got very, very drunk….I remember arriving at this nightclub…..but I don’t remember arriving back in my hotel…..long time ago. I still had a head of nice blonde hair back then. I flew back to San Francisco that evening.

    Read that verse in many times, and I got tired of waiting for this “hope” and then I noticed when I started doing for myself what I actually liked. I realized I owed god none of it. That verse is for people who have favor from god to begin with 🙂


  13. Pingback: The Elimination of the Church | Σ Frame

  14. Pingback: The best enema of all | Σ Frame

  15. Pingback: Only noble born men are qualified to do housework for unicorns | Σ Frame

  16. Pingback: Patheological Weddingsday – Did Purity Culture Undermine Christian Identity? | Σ Frame

  17. Pingback: Patheological Weddingsday – When wanton treachery brings shame, not honor. | Σ Frame

  18. Pingback: The Christian Marriage Dilemma | Σ Frame

  19. Pingback: Does Masturbation improve Preselection? | Σ Frame

  20. Pingback: A blinding obsession | Σ Frame

  21. Pingback: A Clarification on Fornication | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

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

You are commenting using your 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 )

Connecting to %s