Quote of the Day — May 27, 2009

Nine comments on this post so far. Add yours!

• 

  JeanieSpokane on May 27 at 8:40 a.m.

  “I would have lost my virginity earlier than I did, at 22, (because) I would have been much more in touch with myself. To me, that’s a health regret.”

  um, ok, I think she just said that if she had it to do over again, she would have been more in touch with herself and she would have lost her virginity much earlier than 22, a missed experience she regrets????

  Or, she regrets that she didn’t lose her virginity earlier?

  Believe it or not - I was 21 and it was with my future husband - so I was just a little bad.

• 

  lewis8457 on May 27 at 9:45 a.m.

  I lost my innocents at 10 years old by a neighbor man that abused me for 4 years.

  He totally screwed me up. It is no wonder I have not went out on a date since my wife was killed 12 years ago.

• 

  George_Sands on May 27 at 12:10 p.m.

  I would have waited for Brooke if she had just given me a call.

  At least Brooke wasn’t a Ho like Britney, or Paris Hilton or Madonna. (eww just the thought of Dennis Rodman makes me sick want to vomit).

  IOOF huh? Isn’t 21 a little young to be in a old folks home, or were you “just visiting”?

• 

  Dave Laird on May 27 at 1:56 p.m.

  Good afternoon, George…

  I was an employee while I was in attending college. ;-)

  Dave

• 

  Diana on May 27 at 3:20 p.m.

  I can’t imagine why anyone would care when Brooke Shields started putting out.

  Virginity or lack therof - what a silly marker to judge young women by (see above, where some women are judged to be “Ho’s”, based on I don’t know what). Are the men who were lucky enough to take theses women’s purity, deflower them and take away their right to wear white wedding dresses also considered to be ho’s? How would you label them?

  Dave, you’re asking the wrong question. How about - since you have God-given sexuality, did you “lose” your viginity or did you give it up willingly?

• 

  lewis8457 on May 28 at 12:44 a.m.

  It must be sad to be beautiful and rich, i will trade places with her any day of the week.

• 

  Dave Laird on May 28 at 4:51 a.m.

  Good morning, lovely Diana…

  Before I respond to your pointed comments about virginity, I will state with absolute certainty that you (and a handful of others) are among the reasons why I persist in this Blog. When I ask a .40 cent question, I nearly always get a 14 dollar reply, particularly in this case.

  You wrote in part and I quote:

  I can’t imagine why anyone would care when Brooke Shields started putting out.
  Virginity or lack therof - what a silly marker to judge young women by (see above, where some women are judged to be “Ho’s”, based on I don’t know what). Are the men who were lucky enough to take theses women’s purity, deflower them and take away their right to wear white wedding dresses also considered to be ho’s? How would you label them?
  Dave, you’re asking the wrong question. How about - since you have God-given sexuality, did you “lose” your viginity or did you give it up willingly?
  Unquote:

  First, I didn’t really care when Brooke Shields began “putting out” as you stated above. I was more fascinated with her response to a loaded question from a pack of reporters than I was with her personal life.

  Up the street from the Virtual Ballroom there is a mother who wisely counseled her daughters, both attractive and very intelligent young women of marrying age, to remain virginal until they marry. Since both young women in question appear to have male suitors who sometimes annoy me with their borderline crude behavior, I have spent a considerable amount of time this long winter last interviewing them both. One daughter decided her mother was “out of touch” and is now living with (and ostensibly cohabiting with) her boyfriend. The elder of the two is still in college, and has discussed her views on modern sexuality with surprising candor.

  Now to answer your more difficult question, any young men who takes the innocence of a young woman by deflowering them and thus deny them the historical right to wear a white wedding gown are treading on morally and legally dangerous ground. If the act is by mutual consent, my first comment would be they both need to seek out counseling, as they cannot begin to understand (at that age) how the future may unfold for them both.

  Of course, if the deflowering of a virgin is not by mutual consent, ie., forced or implied sex forced on a woman, it is a direct violation of both moral and judicial laws and should result in the responsible party being tossed into jail to consider his actions. I will be observing closely the recent case between a couple who were having sex in Riverfront Park recently, where he is charged with first-degree rape when, on the outset, it does appear the sexual act was initially a joint action. They were both, according to the police reports, very intoxicated, which may come into play during the trial.

  Now as to the use of the term “ho”, having known and admired a number of “working women” up from the streets, they have earned special places in my heart, for they lead tragic lives, often not of their independent choosing, and in some cases pay with their lives for their painful choices. Is a woman a “ho” because she has been deflowered? I do not use that term regarding any woman, regardless of how she leads her life. Men? Men are sometimes incapable of thinking logically, choosing to think with the equipment God gave them to procreate.

  Now, as to my choices made those many years ago about the loss of my virginity, if it were not for the son whom I dearly love, and the many wonderful things he has brought to my life, I would say my choices back then were poor choices, indeed.

  Dave

• 

  George_Sands on May 28 at 1:41 p.m.

  Well since I dropped the “Ho” bomb, I feel responsible for quantifying it.

  Every guy wants to date a bed surfer, hey why not get the milk free? On the other hand no guy wants to take one home to mom and the family. On the other hand one cant change there past and if they were a bed surfer and no longer are and committed to a long relationship, so be it.

  Paris Hilton has no claim to notoriety except her notoriety. She cant sing, dance, write, or think her way out of a paper bag. To engage in dope induced sex that gets displayed all over the internet displays to me a lack of judgement and personal worth. Britney Spears has also frittered away any respect due to her public behavior also.

  Obviously with great money/wealth and talent comes great responsibility to use them wisely for the good of all.

  Just as there are “ho’s” there are man-ho’s. If thats your bag, then so be it. However I think a committed loving relationship is worth a lot more than 5 minutes of grunting and then figuring out how fast you can get out of her place without leaving your phone number or even your name.

  The rise of aids/hiv/std’s and whatever are often obviously a result of non commited relationships. If one wants to date the cheerleader/football player whom have spread their DNA all over town, then fine. I would rather have someone of character and self worth than someone that would drop their panties at the first sight of a restaurant/dinner check.

  As Dave mentions. the Ladies of the Evening are a whole nother column and a historical event. I wonder if there will be a correlation between that activity and the economy?

  You’all dont forget the Ombudsman Light grill fest tomorrow night and this weekend. You get the Ombudsman the Guild wants….

• 

  Diana on May 28 at 9:18 p.m.

  Well, hey, that’s some hefty puritanical masculinity you got going on there, George.

« Back to Community Comment