Stepmonster gave me a sex talk that basically ended with "You're going to have to do it even when you don't feel like it."

The priest giving us instructions when I married DH#1 told me it was "my obligation" to have sex with my husband. It really hadn't felt that way.

Don't get me wrong. Even at fifteen, I could guess that every time wasn't going to be a televised-style passionate clinch, but, that combined with other gems such as "You can never really tell a man the truth." left me disinclined to take her advice. Also, now, I think she got molested.

Do any of the crafty Buffistas have a Ravelry account? If so, is it something I should join with my real name, or as Sophia, or as some made up crafty type name?

ETA: I am sorry, I am not sure this is a good type, what with the asshat marital obligation man talk. Sorry!

Sophia, I have one, but I have not done a damn thing on it - let me go see what my username is.

I have the real name there.

Don't forget the leap-second tonight. You set your clocks back one second at 11:59:59 PM.

Or you could just do what I do, and let your atomic clock set itself....

Ew. My office is one block from the parade route. Whole families are camped out on the street.

People pee on those corners, yo!

OK, I just figured out why Denis Prager's name sounded familiar. He's written a few books on Judaism, and gets his name in the Jewish press fairly regularly with ridiculous statements. Which both puts his remarks in better context for me, and makes them absurd -- within Jewish law, sex is an obligation on the husband, not the wife.

within Jewish law, sex is an obligation on the husband, not the wife.

Yeah, has he not seen Yentl?

Timelies all!

I'm really glad I didn't click on that link and read the Prager column.

Anyhow.... we're meeting friends for dinner then probably going to a gaming party. (If it weren't so cold and windy we would have done First Night somewhere)

I think I've just found one of the most illogical statements I've ever encountered. From the Satmar Rebbe (head of an anti-Zionist Chasidic sect):

While the British government still controlled the Holy Land, the Zionists, who the British saw were seeking to establish their state, were the direct reason why they chose to close their doors to prevent a large influx of Jews. Anyone who remembers who these events unfolded knows for a fact that were it not for the Zionists with their heretical ideas of establishing a state, the doors of the Holy Land itself would have remained open to Jewish refugees, and many Jews would have been saved. During Islamic (Turkish) rule in the Holy Land, the reason that the gates of the Land were closed because of the Turks feared Zionist immigration.

The Zionists were bringing in a lot of Jews. The British, fearing a large influx of Jews, limited Jewish immigration. Thus, Jewish refugees couldn't go to Palestine. So if the Zionists hadn't brought in a lot of Jews, then the British wouldn't have limited Jewish immigration, and so a lot of Jewish refugees would have been able to come, which brings us right back to the beginning, since we just said that "lots of Jews" leads to "British restrict immigration" which leads to "not so many Jews."

(Not really relevant to anything. Just found that statement while searching for something else, and had to share the circularity.)