Couple discovers the stork doesn't exist

Sl'askia · #1 05-19-2004, 11:58 AM

You won't believe this..

What's sex?

Shell Man · #2 05-19-2004, 12:31 PM

That's just sad, in an amusing sort of way.

oddguy · #3 05-19-2004, 01:31 PM

Ummmm, that is just so hard to believe. FoxNews is a credible source though.

What are the odds of two people that never heard of sex getting together? That's like lightning striking 5 times on the same blade of grass!

-oddguy

Shell Man · #4 05-19-2004, 05:01 PM

The odds of two really religious people getting together aren't that slim though.

TheRaisin · #5 05-19-2004, 06:47 PM

I am at the same time laughing my butt off and seething with rage. THIS is what is wrong with religion. When people are this devout, this fanatical, in their practice of religion, that they are never instructed about sex. That's not just counter-productive-- it's downright insane. This doesn't mean that religion in general is bad, but it does show that 1) some religions just don't work (a lot in fact), and 2) fanatical devotion to one of these religions can be as destructive to one's mind as a sledgehammer to the head. ...But man, is that high-larious!

Shell Man, your sig banner is off the hook. Wherever did you find that image of the animated portrayals of one of my favorite bands, Gorillaz? I would so like to know.

Shell Man · #6 05-19-2004, 07:25 PM

:

Shell Man, your sig banner is off the hook. Wherever did you find that image of the animated portrayals of one of my favorite bands, Gorillaz? I would so like to know.

I've been collecting Jamie Hewlett's art for years, most of the Gorillaz stuff is on the internet. Gorillaz.it has lots of stuff, otherwise try a google search.

***Xavier*** · #7 05-19-2004, 09:39 PM

yes, I read it in the newspaper yesterday, this is umbelievable...
how can this happen?

Codek · #8 05-19-2004, 09:58 PM

This is why religion doesn't work.

DarkHoodness · #9 05-20-2004, 12:07 AM

Oh well, look on the good side. Wrong as it may be, at least it keeps the human population down in a way that is far better then abortion or killing.
- DH

ClaireBear · #10 05-20-2004, 12:15 AM

:

Oh well, look on the good side. Wrong as it may be, at least it keeps the human population down in a way that is far better then abortion or killing.
- DH

And just WHAT is actually wrong with abortion to make it worse than ignorance of a normal animal function!?!

DarkHoodness · #11 05-20-2004, 12:33 AM

Abortion = In my opinion, nothing wrong with it. Stops an unwanted child being born and having an unhappy life, saves a lot of hassle for the parents, and also keeps the human population down. However it is contrivertail, because many people think it's murder. . .
I disagree, though. Up to a certain point, the embryo is just a bunch of cells. . . But what point in the reproduction cycle does an embryo stop being a bunch of cells, and becomes a baby?
. . .
I'm not being clear today, sorry. . . Too tired.
- DH

ClaireBear · #12 05-20-2004, 12:53 AM

:

Abortion = In my opinion, nothing wrong with it. Stops an unwanted child being born and having an unhappy life, saves a lot of hassle for the parents, and also keeps the human population down. However it is contrivertail, because many people think it's murder. . .
I disagree, though. Up to a certain point, the embryo is just a bunch of cells. . . But what point in the reproduction cycle does an embryo stop being a bunch of cells, and becomes a baby?
. . .
I'm not being clear today, sorry. . . Too tired.
- DH

Good! *CB retracts claws*

My thoughts on the matter... kinda... ish... but I can't be bothered to argue the toss!

Now... lets move on...we have had far too many disaterous abortion discssions in here already!

Codek · #13 05-20-2004, 01:18 AM

I see nothing wrong with what Dark Hood is saying. In fact I quite agree with him. Yes, there is nothing wrong with abortion, but no baby being born at all is much better than a baby being destroyed through abortion.

But that doesn't apply to this. The couple were actually TRYING for a baby, they wanted one. So I must ask that you keep your posting related to the subject matter to avoid confusion.

ClaireBear · #14 05-20-2004, 01:23 AM

:

I see nothing wrong with what Dark Hood is saying. In fact I quite agree with him. Yes, there is nothing wrong with abortion, but no baby being born at all is much better than a baby being destroyed through abortion.

Ahhhh! You b*stard!!!!

*SHING - CB's claws spring back into action*

Don't be so f**king immature Death!

*CB retracts claws!*

Codek · #15 05-20-2004, 01:25 AM

:

Ahhhh! You b*stard!!!!

*SHING - CB's claws spring back into action*

Don't be so f**king immature Death!

*CB retracts claws!*

Eh, what is so preferrable about abortion? Surely you would rather not have a baby at all than go through the trauma and emotional distress of an abortion?

ClaireBear · #16 05-20-2004, 01:48 AM

:

Eh, what is so preferrable about abortion? Surely you would rather not have a baby at all than go through the trauma and emotional distress of an abortion?

Yes you're right in that sense... but the whole stigma attached to abortion... even your post is treating it negatively as a very last resort.. something to be never contemplated... makes me understand why this country has europe's highest number of teenage mothers!!!!

Anyway.. end of... this isn't the time not the thread! Move over to spam if you wanna continue this!

Codek · #17 05-20-2004, 03:26 AM

:

Yes you're right in that sense... but the whole stigma attached to abortion... even your post is treating it negatively as a very last resort.. something to be never contemplated... makes me understand why this country has europe's highest number of teenage mothers!!!!

Anyway.. end of... this isn't the time not the thread! Move over to spam if you wanna continue this!

Abortion isn't in question here. Abortion is not a nice procedure for anyone to endure, but I honestly don't think I'm making it sound like an evil evil thing by saying that not having children at all is preferable to ending up getting an abortion.

Not having children at all is only preferable to getting an abortion because an abortion is hard on the mother psychologically and emotionally - not because I beleive that Abortion is wrong or anything. And I honestly don't think Dark Hood meant it like that either.

Fuzzles! · #18 05-20-2004, 03:39 AM

Yes I read this yesterday, and let's just say I couldn't believe my eyes!!!!!

ClaireBear · #19 05-20-2004, 03:45 AM

:

Abortion isn't in question here. Abortion is not a nice procedure for anyone to endure, but I honestly don't think I'm making it sound like an evil evil thing by saying that not having children at all is preferable to ending up getting an abortion.

Not having children at all is only preferable to getting an abortion because an abortion is hard on the mother psychologically and emotionally - not because I beleive that Abortion is wrong or anything. And I honestly don't think Dark Hood meant it like that either.

I know... I know... My apologies DH, Death,... I'm just a little hyper sensitive on that topic... you're right abut the psychological and emotional trauma.

Anyhoo!...

I would have loved to read the article but the damn college network restricts sites and FoxNews must be one of them!!!!

AAAAArgh! Anyone else get that?

Codek · #20 05-20-2004, 04:07 AM

:

I would have loved to read the article but the damn college network restricts sites and FoxNews must be one of them!!!!

AAAAArgh! Anyone else get that?

I'll transcript it for you:

A childless German couple finally found out why they weren't able to conceive — they had never had sex.

Doctors at the Lübeck campus of the University Clinic of Schleswig-Holstein in northern Germany described the case in a medical bulletin, according to Ananova.com.

After eight years of marriage, the 36-year-old man and his 30-year-old wife went to the campus' fertility clinic to figure out what was wrong.

Doctors gave them a battery of tests and were baffled — both husband and wife were healthily fertile.

Then came the important question.

"When we asked them how often they had had sex," said a clinic spokesman, "they looked blank, and said: 'What do you mean?'"

He went on to explain that each of the pair had been brought up extremely religiously and had never heard of the birds and the bees.

"We are not talking retarded people here," the clinic spokesman said. The two "were simply unaware, after eight years of marriage, of the physical requirements necessary to procreate."

The man and wife are now being given sexual therapy. The clinic is trying to find out if there are other couples in the area who could use a refresher course in human biology.

— Thanks to Out There reader Steve G.

ClaireBear · #21 05-20-2004, 04:54 AM

Bloomin Heck! This wasn't written around 1st April was it?

Awwwwe! Thats actually rather sad!

They musn't have owned a television either!!... although pre watershed... would you get the idea where the... in the... and... ?

Probably not actually... I bet they had wonderfully passionate nights rolling around on their bed in flesh colour underwear... strategically covering their own and each others more private parts!!!!

Hobo · #22 05-20-2004, 05:03 AM

Ooooh, PA and Steam finally made Fox News

*runs*

Fez · #23 05-20-2004, 05:44 AM

Cant wait for Lucipher to read this......

oddguy · #24 05-20-2004, 08:27 AM

Okay, for this to happen, these people had to not have...

friends with sexual knowledge

television

proper schooling

How could you sleep in the same bed with a woman and not have nature take over? I just don't understand.
EDIT for Esus: I mean how could you not figure it out? I AM NOT saying, "how can a man sleep with a woman without needing to have sex with her."

Oh, and some people have managed to say that religion doesn't work because of this. I'm not a fanatical religious guy, so those comments have better not been directed towards me.

-oddguy

Fuzzles! · #25 05-20-2004, 08:35 AM

:

How could you sleep in the same bed with a woman and not have nature take over? I just don't understand.

oddguy - I don't know why but this just struck me as really cute. And very basic. You're right, it's so simple when you look at it like that. I mean hey, animals do it just fine and they don't have to have 'the talk' with their parents!!!

Esus · #26 05-20-2004, 09:11 AM

:

How could you sleep in the same bed with a woman and not have nature take over? I just don't understand.

This sounds ridiculous. You're almost saying, how can a man sleep with a woman without needing to have sex with her?
Sure, they were probably very horny on many occassions, but they are sentient people. I highly doubt one could have sex entirely unconsciously whilst not knowing what sex is in the slightest. These people are sentient and in control of their bodies, not animals who unconsciously **** each other.

Fuzzles! · #27 05-20-2004, 09:29 AM

:

This sounds ridiculous. You're almost saying, how can a man sleep with a woman without needing to have sex with her?

I got the impression he meant how could they not figure it out.

Not how could they not control themselves.

Just my interpretation.

oddguy · #28 05-20-2004, 11:41 AM

:

I got the impression he meant how could they not figure it out.

Not how could they not control themselves.

Just my interpretation.

That's exactly what I meant. Should've been more clear. I'll edit my post to make it more understandable.

-oddguy

Shell Man · #29 05-20-2004, 11:50 AM

That's what sets humans apart from animals, we learn alot more from each other than we do nature. I think it's possible to not know exactly how it's done, and if you couple that with other factors, such as religious repression, no tv, private/home schooling, strict parents, I think Murphy's law would say it's quite possible. Just not very commonly.

oddguy · #30 05-20-2004, 11:54 AM

Not to be crude, but when I was 13 or so, I'd never heard of masturbation before at all, yet I found out how to do it. It just happened one day. I thought I'd invented it!

That's a case of nature driven instinct kicking in. Sorry if I offended, just making a point.

-oddguy