Re: Biblical Gender Roles

1

A husband has the right to confront his wife's sexual refusal as a sin not only against him, but also against God.


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
2

The advice I am about to give you will require you to show your wife tough love.

This seems like a particularly bad phrase to be using given the context.


Posted by: MHPH | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:35 AM
horizontal rule
3

I'll be sure use that "sin against God" line next time my wife isn't in the mood.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:38 AM
horizontal rule
4

If that doesn't work, call sex milk and her a cow.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:40 AM
horizontal rule
5

Oh, are you referencing his other post, 'Christian Husbands - You don't pay for the milk when you own the cow!'?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:42 AM
horizontal rule
6

Yes, I am. It's linked in right there in the link.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:43 AM
horizontal rule
7

Hang on, snippy-pants. It sounded like you were referencing the regular old adage, not the jaw-dropping corollary.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
8

Another post says, "You should NEVER, EVER feel guilty for initiating sex with your wife." It doesn't even add, "except when you are in the Target."


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:46 AM
horizontal rule
9

Because there were no Targets in the pre-Roman Near East.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:48 AM
horizontal rule
10

Leaving aside the sexism and strange determination to point out that men can still have concubines despite the fact that there's no New Testament support for it at all, what struck me most was that this guy must have a huge budget for stock photos.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:54 AM
horizontal rule
11

His page on "Why did God make woman?" is a real winner. Some choice excerpts:

A woman's body purposefully retains more fat than a man's body does. Her body does this for several reasons. Her fat is first distributed to her breasts, buttocks, hips and legs. This gives a woman that "curvy" look that God intended her to have. Scientists have recently discovered a special fat called DHA that is the crucial building block for infant brain development. A woman's body pulls heavily from the fat in her hips, buttocks and legs to help her baby develop and after the baby is born the body continues pulling from this fat storage to produce breast milk. This also gives a woman's body a more "cushy" feel than a man's more typically muscular body. So this fat extra fat storage serves two purposes, one for reproduction and child rearing, and at the same time God has wired men to find the curvy look and cushy feel of a woman attractive.
Human females are the only mammals whose breasts stay large (relatively speaking) even when not pregnant or nursing. Most other female mammals only have protruding breasts when they are filled with milk for nursing, human female breasts however are mostly filled with fat. The human female breasts always being present serves God's intended design for them to be a place of comfort for children as well as place of comfort and sexual pleasure for husbands.

Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:55 AM
horizontal rule
12

My favorite bit is how women aren't allowed to say no to sex, because they don't own their bodies -- their husbands own their bodies. It says so in the BIBLE, y'all.

To be fair, he adds that the woman owns the husband's body; but then he makes it clear that while the husband is allow to "discipline" the wife if she says no to sex, the wife can't discipline the husband. Because God has put her over him, and not v.v.

By "discipline" he doesn't mean hit, at least. But he does mean things like taking way her access to money -- he speaks of changing the ATM code so that she can't access their bank account -- and limiting her access to food and society. You have to feed her, he says, but you don't have to feed her every little thing she wants; you don't have to take her out on "treats," by which he seems to mean at all.

A woman can't say no to sex. A woman doesn't own her body. A woman who won't have sex with you can be isolated by controlling her finances, her food, and her mobility.



Posted by: delagar | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:56 AM
horizontal rule
13

That must be a nice worldview to have, God intends for things to be the way that I like them to be.

"Because God has put her over him"
Isn't that position forbidden by the Bible?


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
14

his wife's sexual refusal as a sin not only against him, but also against God.

I guess what I want to know is how popular a sentiment this is among "Christians" (of which type? I don't know).

Is the linked blog a popular thing?


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
15

It's big in Arkansas.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
16

They're coming for you, P.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
17

This is pretty choice, too.

And somebody had best be ready with the nitroglycerine capsule when Hillary is elected President.


Posted by: knecht ruprecht | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
18

Marriage is like free milk from a cow but you can't make cheese because rennet is something I can work into this metaphor.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
19

isn't


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
20

This reminds me yet again that the folks who are most paranoid about creeping Sharia law would actually agree with most of it, and 99% of the points of disagreement could be fixed by doing a search-and-replace to swap out all instances of "Muhammad" with "Jesus," and one more to replace "Allah" with "God."


Posted by: My Alter Ego | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:20 PM
horizontal rule
21

20: Indeed.

You know, it's been a while since I've seen anyone prominent refer to "Christianists." Maybe we should revive that.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
22

20: Not really. Everything that he points out (except one quote from Matthew about when you can divorce a wife) is from the Old Testament or Paul.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
23

And I didn't see any quoting of Paul's very well known "Love is patient....." chapter that everybody reads at weddings.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
24

17.last link: I almost feel badly for these people. They just seem so .. confused. It must be absolutely bewildering to be faced with a society in which the Patriarchy (capital P, thank you very much) is in question.

Too bad that LaCour study turned out to be bogus (and thank you very much, asshole).


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:30 PM
horizontal rule
25

23 -- "What happens when we swap out the couple's regular priest for a "biblical gender roles" fanatic? Find out next on TLC!"


Posted by: TRO | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:32 PM
horizontal rule
26

TLC would find a guy who took a firmer line against laws against marital rape.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:33 PM
horizontal rule
27

Love is unwilling to forgo sex for more than a day without a doctor's note.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:38 PM
horizontal rule
28

This worldview is very common in Arkansas, sadly enough.

I don't know how big it is elsewhere in the Biblebelt, but this is exactly what the Duggars (for instance) believe; and many of my students were raised within churches that teach a variation of this religion.

This link (for instance) was sent to me by one of my former students, who escaped from a Quiverful family when she was nineteen, married three years, with two kids. She married a lovely young man, by sheer luck -- he was chosen for her by their parents -- and he has left their church with her.


Posted by: delagar | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:39 PM
horizontal rule
29

She tells a story of when she was about fourteen, buying a stereo system with money she had earned herself, saved up for over a year: her father telling her she should spend more money than she wanted to, to get the better system, because otherwise she would be "defrauding" her future husband, who would enjoy listening to music on the higher quality system.


Posted by: delagar | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:43 PM
horizontal rule
30

Her future husband whom she had not even met yet -- who none of them had met yet -- a hypothetical future husband, at this point: he mattered more to her father than she did.


Posted by: delagar | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:44 PM
horizontal rule
31

Wouldn't her future husband, if he were the sort to notice that kind of thing, already have a stereo system? It's in Proverbs.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:45 PM
horizontal rule
32

Her father also seems to have questionable judgment about the best interests of the hypothetical future husband. Grasshopper rather than ant, much?


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:46 PM
horizontal rule
33

28: Thanks for that information. Until the recent Duggar dust-up, I'd never heard of them, or the family or the show.* I hate having that sort of Pauline Kael moment, but there it is.

* 19 kids? Holy fuck I feel sorry for that wife.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:47 PM
horizontal rule
34

Look, a suboptimal Skynyrd experience is going to make it harder to pray. ANd you know we're going to crank the 14-minute live version too.


Posted by: lw | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 12:50 PM
horizontal rule
35

So, delagar, what are the circumstances that led her (your former student) to leave their church along with her husband? If you can say.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
36

So, this one is something else.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 1:44 PM
horizontal rule
37

God is allowed to make exceptions to his own rules.

Yo, check out Saint Jerome over here!


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 2:21 PM
horizontal rule
38

Oh Christ:

Sometimes a woman may not have a very attractive form, but she may have something that is attractive on her, like beautiful breasts, beautiful legs or a beautiful face and for some men that is enough. Sometimes a man will fall head over heels for a woman who would not seem very attractive to most people just because of her personality.

Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 2:27 PM
horizontal rule
39

After I got divorced, and before I met my current wife, I went out just as friends with a woman I went to church with. She was a nice woman to talk to and we had a lot in common because we went to the same church and had the same beliefs and life values. She taught one of my children in Sunday School

He's divorced! Has he even read the Gospels?


Posted by: peep | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 2:32 PM
horizontal rule
40

39: Ahem. "God is allowed to make exceptions to his own rules."


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 2:34 PM
horizontal rule
41

If you read the linked post, you'll see that he's got a whole spiel about that. Jesus says you can divorce your wife for "sexual impropriety" (in the translation he was reading) and he says not fucking your husband counts. Hurray for Biblical scholarship conducted in translation and based on very fine nuances of language.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 2:35 PM
horizontal rule
42

As with many of my students, it was that demon education.

Conservative Christians are right to be afraid of it -- once students get into a university, and start reading something besides the books their parents have selected for them, and start meeting people besides those in their Conservative Christian bubble, well, often that's all it takes.

She chronicles the experience on her blog. Basically, once she was able to read texts outside her parents' control, and do her own research, she found out how much of what she had been taught was simply not true. She went -- slowly -- from a End-time Christian (one who believes not just that that the world is 6000 years old, but that we are in the last days) to a wavering Christian (I believe but not in THAT Church) to an agnostic to (finally, now) a straight-up atheist.

Her husband is still agnostic, I believe.

I swear, by the way, that I had almost nothing to do with this. I taught her Comp I, I think, and Fiction Writing. I've made other students into atheists! But not this one!


Posted by: delagar | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 2:38 PM
horizontal rule
43

One never, by which one means "always," tires of these wankers' finite variety of attempts to define themselves out of having to die the death to which man's sinful flesh is heir.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
44

* 19 kids? Holy fuck I feel sorry for that wife.

I feel sorry for her too, but I don't see why you have to buy into their "holy fuck" framing of sex.


Posted by: essear | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 3:47 PM
horizontal rule
45

"not fucking your husband counts"

Yep. Not fucking your husband when he wants to fuck you is exactly as much a sin as fucking the pool boy.

OTOH, if your husband sleeps with his secretary, you need to forgive him. Because that's how men are made. BY GOD. So get over it.

Also if he sleeps with the fourteen year old girl next door, and so on.

(But if he sleeps with the pool boy, well, that's very different, obviously. That's NOT how God made him, and THEREFORE...)


Posted by: delagar | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
46

Insert Dennis Hastert joke here.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 4:14 PM
horizontal rule
47

Insert Dennis Hastert,joke here


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 4:32 PM
horizontal rule
48

Too soon.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 4:45 PM
horizontal rule
49

You know, I hate to say this but the federal Hastert prosecution (as opposed to prosecuting him for molestimg a kid, if that's what he did) is pretty ridiculous. His two crimes were (a) structuring withdrawals of his own money in a way to avoid a reporting requirement, apparently because he'd been asked about larger withdrawals at the bank; (b) lying to federal investigators when they asked him about what he was doing with the money. So, basically, he took out his own money in a way the government doesn't like and then didn't want to tell the FBI he'd been paying a guy to go away. Query whether Hastert should have just admitted that, but (again, assuming he didn't actually molest anyone) that seems like incredibly morally non-culpable behavior; there's no real crime-crime there at all. I'm not saying the prosecution was illegitimate, if you lie to the FBI these days about these kinds of things and fiddle around with your transaction structure it's certainly a crime, but at a deeper level it really is a bullshit charge.


Posted by: TRO | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 4:57 PM
horizontal rule
50

The has been Libertarian Minute with your host, Ripper Owens. Asking how much power we want to give the government to investigate crime is a real question, but this is exactly one of the kinds of things these laws are intended to detect: when you don't see the underlying crime, you can often see the money moving around.

Plus, he totally molested a kid.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:02 PM
horizontal rule
51

I get that but I can't make myself give the slightest shit when the person charged was the head of the body making the laws. I admit I don't understand why anybody in his position would talk to the FBI without a lawyer to tell them to shut up. I learned that from Martha Stewart. (Not directly, but from reading about it>)


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:04 PM
horizontal rule
52

50.2: It's possible he molested an legal adult who was still a student.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:05 PM
horizontal rule
53

Also, 51 to 49.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:05 PM
horizontal rule
54

50.2 Or two.

Probably not a good thing for the Boy Scouts when I read that he was a Scoutmaster and thought "uh oh."


Posted by: ydnew | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:22 PM
horizontal rule
55

The post linked in 38 is incredible, but I was very disappointed in the one linked from there with six tips on how Christian women should dress. Sadly lacking in detail. (One of them is "To please her husband." Another is "No T-shirts or sweatpants.")


Posted by: ydnew | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:26 PM
horizontal rule
56

My favorite bit is how women aren't allowed to say no to sex, because they don't own their bodies -- their husbands own their bodies.

That's my favorite bit, too! I haven't quite worked out yet how I'm going to make the case to The Missus.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:27 PM
horizontal rule
57

I learned that from Martha Stewart.
"Colorful autumn legal counsel: It's a good thing"


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:28 PM
horizontal rule
58

"No T-shirts or sweatpants.")

Obviously because those all have mixed fibers in them these days, and then you'd have to kill her.


Posted by: Turgid Jacobian | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:30 PM
horizontal rule
59

This was pretty funny/creepy.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:32 PM
horizontal rule
60

51 is a way better answer than 50, and one I basically agree with. Usually the reporting requirements are to prevent financial crimes or transfers to encourage criminal activity. There's nothing actually criminal about paying someone millions to not reveal an embarassing detail about you (assuming, admittedly generously) that the guy was an adult (though the recipient would need to report it for taxes). Like I say, he's being prosecuted for real crimes that are really against the law, and it's hard to feel bad for an ex speaker of the house in this situation, especially if he was dumb enough not to talk to a lawyer about it, but I almost hope for the government's sake that the student involved was a minor because it's a real gotcha prosecution otherwise.


Posted by: TRO | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:43 PM
horizontal rule
61

I learned that from Martha Stewart. (Not directly, but from reading about it>)

True story: The crimes that MS was prosecuted for all took place after she lawyered up. She didn't go to trial for insider trading, but for her interactions with the authorities once they were sniffing around.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:54 PM
horizontal rule
62

If you assume there was no underlying crime, laws that uncover underlying crimes look like gotchas.

Anyway, apparently they started investigating becauset they thought either he was engaged in criminal activity, or the victim of blackmail related to his public life.

Is structuring still illegal if you're the innocent victim of blackmail, or is there some duress exception?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 5:56 PM
horizontal rule
63

If you assume there was no underlying crime, laws that uncover underlying crimes look like gotchas.

If you assume there is no underlying crime, laws that allow wiretapping seem like gotchas, too.

But how much of a procedural liberal do you have to be to sympathize with Hastert! And how much more of a procedural liberal do you have to be to sympathize with Hastert with the understanding that he apparently took advantage of his student(s)?


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 6:01 PM
horizontal rule
64

Why would a procedural liberal sympathize with Hastert? Isn't a procedural liberal precisely someone who wouldn't see any problem with the prosecution?


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-29-15 6:18 PM
horizontal rule
65

Yeah, that's not procedural liberalism, that's procedural libertinism.


Posted by: protoplasm | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 12:00 PM
horizontal rule
66

I love the link in the OP for two things. First, the definition of "manipulation" -- which is what the weak do to the strong. When the strong do it, we say "discipline".
Secondly, the awesome discovery that some Americans today, when they date, have sex as well,. THIS IS NOT BIBLICAL

My friend the bishop with the PhD in church history points out that the way you tell marriage from concubinage in the old testament is that in marriage the woman is paid for. Obviously it's the previous owner/father who gets the money.


Posted by: nworb | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 1:04 PM
horizontal rule
67

64: Hmmm. My take on the procedural liberal is that he or she emphasizes getting the procedure right over getting the right result. So a procedural liberal is a believer in the law in the abstract, but not a believer in any particular law. My contention: Procedural liberals can favor passage of the Civil Rights Act or the abolition of the death penalty, and can defend those beliefs on procedural liberal grounds.

The Internet offers some support and some contradiction of this view, both of which are in links that are incredibly boring to read.

So I guess what I'm saying is: I don't really have any idea whether I'm using the term correctly.


Posted by: politicalfootball | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 1:07 PM
horizontal rule
68

It's the little ways you show your Christian love that make you indistinguishable from someone holding someone hostage.


Posted by: Cala | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 1:31 PM
horizontal rule
69

Sometimes I can't believe it's 2015. This story http://www.thejc.com/news/uk-news/136878/stamford-hill-sect-bans-women-drivers has been all over the news the last couple of days, ffs. Wtf is wrong with people?


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 1:52 PM
horizontal rule
70

69: the has/sidim in North London have been getting away with this kind of shit for years now but no one calls them on it.


Posted by: Nworb Werdna | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 2:13 PM
horizontal rule
71

I know people who've found religion in college too, generally though the more liberal varieties. One of the priests at my church was raised by Yale Professors and got baptized when she was 20.

And sometimes groups like Intervarsity get to people, because they provide a social support network.

I knew one girl in college who got sucked into a cult called the Boston Church of Christ. I saw her at our reunion with kids and a husband. I'm hoping that she escaped.


Posted by: Bostoniangirl | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 3:48 PM
horizontal rule
72

This seems like an appropriate thread to mention a recent experience.

So I'm out to dinner, and seated next to a table of three men. As I sit down, they are mid-meal and mid-conversation. Before long, the loudest of them launches into a monologue about women.

At first it's an ex-wife story, culminating in his glee at having gotten revenge for being ordered to pay $5,000 in legal fees by sending an armored truck with the money in small change.

Then he starts talking about another women he knew. A horrible person, he says, using all the usual slurs. But he got revenge on her -- she needed dental work, and he made sure it was as painful as possible. It took him about four or five minutes to tell this story.

What was most astounding to me was that he narrated the whole thing in stentorian tones. No sense of shame. Just triumph. In the midst of a pretty fancy, upscale restaurant, surrounded by a mixed crowd of men and women.

(Unsurprisingly, he was also taking up a seriously disproportionate amount of room physically, and was dismissive to the waitress.)


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 4:20 PM
horizontal rule
73

Was he a dentist or did he bribe one?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
74

He was a dentist, per other conversation.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
75

Too bad he didn't bribe one; maybe he could have been brought up on federal charges. /s


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
76

I'm pretty sure that if he actually paid his ex in coins, he could have gotten something for contempt o' court.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
77

I'm skeptical about actually doing either of these things instead of bragging about it.

So what did he have against the woman he claims to have tortured in the dentist's chair beyond not liking her?


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 4:47 PM
horizontal rule
78

It wasn't the ex, it was the ex's lawyer. And apparently he was on safe ground (had checked it out with his own lawyer beforehand, who told him it was a stupid* but legal move).

*Obviously he did not actually use this word.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 4:47 PM
horizontal rule
79

He didn't sound like he was bragging. He sounded matter-of-fact. The coins story is so theatrical I thought it was over-the-top, but the following story (and how the other two guys at the table were reacting to it) said to me that he was used to having power of people and exercising it.

He did not name anything the woman had done other than her woman-ness. I have heard a lot of sexist language in my time, but I have rarely heard so many slurs in such a short time, uttered in such a factual way.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
80

Power over people, I mean.

Also, idp, I do know you didn't mean it this way, but it's kind of irritating to react to a story of vicious gendered violence by immediately saying you don't believe it.

I have no idea if the underlying story is true; I DO know that this man felt utterly comfortable in relating it, loudly, to an entire roomful of people, and nobody said a word (including me). That says a lot about bully power, to me.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 4:53 PM
horizontal rule
81

Seems incredibly reckless to me. Doing that and telling people about it seems to me to risk huge, career-destroying legal consequences.


Posted by: idp | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 5:01 PM
horizontal rule
82

I don't mean this as a defense of the guy or an attack on victims, but this isn't a story from a victim. It's an asshole talking about how tough he is in a way that is not verifiable and, probably, demeans others in a way that is acceptable for that peer group. Ten to one it's bullshit. If he were demeaning homosexuals, ten to one it's bullshit and five to one he's closeted.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 5:06 PM
horizontal rule
83

It's certainly a sign of being an awful person regardless.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 5:23 PM
horizontal rule
84

Christ, what an asshole.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 5:31 PM
horizontal rule
85

Maybe the Lacour thing has gone to my head.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 5:34 PM
horizontal rule
86

Not every profession is shot through with fraud the way yours is, Moby. At least as far as we know.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 5:53 PM
horizontal rule
87

Just us and banking.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 5:57 PM
horizontal rule
88

The bar has "To Kill A Mocking Bird" on the tv.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 6:08 PM
horizontal rule
89

Also, hockey.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 6:23 PM
horizontal rule
90

I've run into that small change story before! A bank employee told me that a guy had been grossly bragging to him of having done the same thing.


Posted by: redfoxtailshrub | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 7:08 PM
horizontal rule
91

||

Oh, man. Beau Biden is dead at 46 from brain cancer.

I cannot imagine what Joe Biden must be feeling. What an awful loss to suffer twice in one lifetime.

||>


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 7:21 PM
horizontal rule
92

||
Nobody wants to rehash the Columbia rape thing? Does Bollinger's excuse ("the mattress was in the way") hold water?
|>


Posted by: Yawnoc | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 7:26 PM
horizontal rule
93

90: Great assholes think alike.


Posted by: fake accent | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 7:31 PM
horizontal rule
94

92: Jesus, they let her carry it up on stage? I hope they end up having to write Nungesser a huge check.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 8:09 PM
horizontal rule
95

91: Shit. I never even heard he was sick.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 8:14 PM
horizontal rule
96

He had a "mini-stroke" in 2010 and I hadn't heard much after that. I was vaguely aware that he was considering running/had run for some higher office, but I see how that he had not run for another term as Attorney General because he wanted to run for (DE) governor in 2016.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 8:19 PM
horizontal rule
97

How s/b now


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 8:26 PM
horizontal rule
98

This Columbia mattress thing is a real Catch-22. Every now and then someone on my facebook feed discovers it, and if it's a woman she posts it and says "OMG WTF! How can Columbia be so cruel to not throw this guy out of college and ruin his life!" and if it's a man he posts it and says "OMG WTF! How can Columbia be so cruel as to help this girl conduct this ongoing publicity stunt to ruin this guy's life!"


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 8:34 PM
horizontal rule
99

Columbia = safety school.


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 8:39 PM
horizontal rule
100

The mattress was 50 pounds at the end? They should have kept a dust cover on it.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 8:41 PM
horizontal rule
101

Because dust mites?


Posted by: Moby Hick | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 8:46 PM
horizontal rule
102

Think how strong she'll get, as the mites accumulate.


Posted by: Eggplant | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 8:58 PM
horizontal rule
103

As long as she flips which end she's carrying every few months, her back will remain in good condition.


Posted by: SP | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 9:27 PM
horizontal rule
104

I assume lurid has already mentioned the point in her studies where she was reading Walter Benjamin and came across Kant's definition of marriage in The Metaphysics of Morals as "the union of two persons of different sexes for the purpose of lifelong mutual possession of their sexual organs."


Posted by: lourdes kayak | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 10:25 PM
horizontal rule
105

I never even heard he was sick.

Yeah, me neither. It is very sad.


Posted by: Just Plain Jane | Link to this comment | 05-30-15 10:28 PM
horizontal rule
106

He went to the hospital a couple weeks ago and on twitter there were reports of an "undisclosed illness." I'd check on the story every couple of days, but nada, except one that said he'd gone to Walter Reed because it was easier to coordinate security for his dad, who was often visiting, and so I figured it was serious. Poor guy. And Joe burying two kids. My god.


Posted by: ogged | Link to this comment | 05-31-15 4:55 AM
horizontal rule