Adequacy front page
Stories Diaries Polls Users

Home About Topics Rejects Abortions
This is an archive site only. It is no longer maintained. You can not post comments. You can not make an account. Your email will not be read. Please read this page if you have questions.
 The Onion imitates Adequacy

 Author:  Topic:  Posted:
May 22, 2002
Compare this article in this week's Onion to Adam Rightmann's insightful comments on the same subject some weeks ago.
Yet another example of how is setting the trend for the so-called "mainstream" media. I expect that CNN will pick up on this story next.


And yet again.... (none / 0) (#1)
by budlite on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 06:26:36 AM PST
...religion shows a complete lack of logical common sense.

Surely it's the priests committing abuse who have sinned rather than the children being abused.

Of course, you'll have noticed my practised idiocy (none / 0) (#2)
by budlite on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 06:28:52 AM PST
My brain left it a bit late to remind me that The Onion is a satire site....

Surely you jest. (none / 0) (#4)
by derek3000 on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 06:35:34 AM PST
I have a friend who is a damned Jewess, complete with oversized breasts, long, curly hair and thick-ass thighs. I've been on the receiving end of her wrath time and time again for my nervous hands, and I'm beginning to wonder when she will see that it is her fault, not mine, that she is so tempting.

"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

dude!!! (none / 0) (#5)
by nathan on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 10:25:04 AM PST
She sounds frickin' hot. What's her name?

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Lauren. (none / 0) (#6)
by derek3000 on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 10:42:27 AM PST
We were playing basketball one day, and it started to rain, so I took cover under her breasts!

That was back in high school, though. She's changed since she's been to college. She did the football team and then some. She even dated a guy with gold teeth (her dad's a dentist)! She's a damn sex machine, that one. Too bad she's my friend.

"Feel me when I bring it!" --Gay Jamie

Indeed (none / 0) (#7)
by anti filidor on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 03:43:58 PM PST
Jewish girls are incomparably fertile. Makes sense, from a biblical point of view.

I must say (none / 0) (#8)
by nathan on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 02:17:58 AM PST
Despite all my blathering about how there is more to life than sex, the sex option is starting to sound better and better these days.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Really (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by cheetah on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 03:19:21 AM PST
Why? Why do you feel that sex is such an important thing in your life? Why is it more important, than say, eating? Has the western media got to you have they?

Sex was designed by God to take place in the context of a nuclear family, don't you think He knows better than you?

Ooh, another one! (3.00 / 2) (#10)
by SpaceGhoti on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 05:00:44 AM PST
I stand in awe of you for knowing the Infinite Mind of God Almighty. For achieving the impossible feat of knowing the unknowable, I salute you.

Sex is not more important than eating. Sex is as important as eating. Eating is an impulse that becomes an imperative on a frequent basis. Sex is an impulse that becomes an imperative on a less frequent basis. The difference is that the strength of the imperatives (at least for myself and those I know) differ when they become prominent. Most people I know would choose sex over eating when the imperative strikes, particularly if the opportunity presents itself. Of course, most people I know would also have no difficulty in combining sexual communion with the consumption of nourishment.

Humans have these silly biological imperatives written into them. I find attempts to moralize them has to be one of the more silly efforts we have yet come up with. We should endeavor to master these impulses rather than let them master us, but assigning religious significance to them creates very arbitrary and frequently unhealthy controls.

A troll's true colors.

Mr Space dude (none / 0) (#11)
by cheetah on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 06:07:12 AM PST
Nice of you to join in. How's the wife and kids? Great I hope. I was referring specifically to nathan, who I believe is a Christian (?), but hey, welcome aboard!

Yes, I have absolutely no idea about the mind of God. What the Christian canon and careful reading of the Bible will tell you clearly though, is that sex outside of a family context is a sin. Like all sin, it is something which ultimately separates you from your relationship with God. It's no worse than, say, the sin of pride I guess(probably much less of a sin really) but it's still a sin.

Sure, sleeping around may seem harmless, but how do you know what is it turning you into? And if you want to treat women as sex objects (not saying that you do necessarily) then you better expect the same in return (i.e. you better have a fat wallet).

The principles of Christianity are not arbitrary rules, they dictate how the human machine was _meant_ to run, nothing less; even if we can't immediately see the reasons why. Stray from the rules (and we all do), and the human machine gradually deteriorates.

Your last paragraph was to be expected. "Silly biological imperatives" and "master these impulses." Please. Sorry for my skepticism but we've been betting on the innate human goodness horse for thousands of years now, and it looks like less of a chance of winning to me than ever. But that elusive win is just around the corner, right? What odds ya' giving me?

quite (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by nathan on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 01:08:05 PM PST
Which is why, as desirable as sex sounds right now, I'm not having any. Damned tempting though.

As for 'safely venting our biological imperatives,' Mr 5ish, where exactly has that gotten us? To a world full of failed marriages, child rape, the vilest pornography imaginable, and fetishized narcissism? I don't want any part of your liberalist utopia.

There's a personal side to this, too. Do you remember how, about eight months ago, my then-girlfriend broke up with me, and you couldn't understand how I felt I had any claims on her? I don't buy this hippie free-love paradise crap. People have duties to treat one another with respect, which extends to treating loved ones as more than objects to be manipulated for one's own gratification.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Objectification of women. (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by tkatchev on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 01:25:22 PM PST
Objectification of women is wrong because it basically destroys any chance of you forming a healthy relationship with your family.

I believe that this, by the way, is the root of problems like teenage drug abuse and suicide; sins of the fathers and all that.

Most children grow up with severe psychological problems if they do not have hands-on experience with forming helathy relationships in their family.

P.S. Sorry for painting with such a broad brush...

Peace and much love...

Deletion Notice (none / 0) (#23)
by RobotSlave on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 12:26:37 AM PST
A comment by user "SpaceGhoti" entitled "Mr. Feline dude" has been deleted for violation of copyright held by user "cheetah." It should be noted that the violation in this case was particularly egregious, as it reproduced "cheetah's" work in its entirety. The non-infringing content of "SpaceGhoti's" comment is republished below, in its unbearably dull entirety.

"Thank you for your kind words of welcome. I wouldn't have been gone so long, but Real Life intruded, and I also spent some time indulging in one of my re-awakening addictions.

Congratulations for acknowledging that fact! Thus far you're at least one step ahead of a lot of people who frequent this site. If you're that serious about the Christian canon and the Bible, I suggest you be careful with how you phrase definitions of sin. Careful reading of the Bible will also reveal to you that all sins are weighted equally. The Apostle Paul pointed out that thoughts are counted as much as physical acts.

It is critical in our development that we maintain what a friend of mine terms a "self-examined life." By this he means that it behooves us to regularly take stock of our actions and motivations and consider if we're achieving what we want to be doing and who we want to be. It's one thing to rationalize a personal failure; we're all subject to them whether we like it or not. It's something else to examine ourselves and realize that we're maintaining a pattern of rationalization that blocks our growth and maturity. Sleeping around may be harmless and it may not be, but do you know why you're doing it? Conversely, do you know why you're not doing it? Both questions are equally valid. There are no correct answers. Religious precepts are only one way to arrive at your answers.

Actually, I find that the principles of Christianity are really quite arbitrary. Religion serves a useful purpose, that of social organization and cooperation. The human machine is not necessarily _meant_ to run in any particular way other than some basics involving food, rest, warmth and reproduction. The trick is finding ways to satisfy those basic needs without everyone reverting to all-out free-for-all warfare. Christianity is one way to go about it, but it isn't the only way to succeed and prosper. There are other ways and other rules that work just as well, and some of them have even succeeded better than anything a purely Christian society can boast.

Once people wake up enough to realize the point behind the rules they've been taught, they frequently no longer need the trappings that surround them in order to obey them. For example, the point of cooking food is a matter of hygiene. Almost every religion contains laws governing the proper preparation of food and what foods are forbidden. Once we began to understand the principles of hygiene we no longer needed to worry about religious laws governing food; we even managed to find ways to prepare food properly that might violate those laws without endangering ourselves. Other laws relate in a more social context but follow the same rule: once we recognize the principle behind the laws we can learn how to enjoy variety without endangering ourselves or those around us.

Your skepticism is justified. People on the whole are cattle. Religion is a corral that keeps them from getting out of hand. Individuals have shown the capacity to rise above the level of the group, but changing the group requires a much longer outlook. It can and has been done, but still at a much slower pace than individuals may require. It requires a lot of time, patience and experimenting. Conservative outlooks help keep us from being reckless, and liberal outlooks help keep us from stagnating. Slowly, gradually, we make progress.

Is sexual promiscuity a concept whose time has come? Not necessarily. Not everyone is cut out for it, and not all those who are will be able to avoid persecution for it. But if we can look at the history of human sexual relations and examine the threads that hold us together, I think we can find ways to enjoy variety without endangering ourselves or the people we love."

© 2002, RobotSlave. You may not reproduce this material, in whole or in part, without written permission of the owner.

RobotSlave,... (none / 0) (#24)
by The Mad Scientist on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 06:46:15 AM PST're fuckin' annoyin'.

No more annoying... (none / 0) (#25)
by hauntedattics on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 09:49:02 AM PST
than someone who thinks that as long as you're "enlightened" and "well-adjusted" enough, carefully planned adultery is acceptable and even beneficial.

OT (none / 0) (#26)
by nathan on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 11:18:23 AM PST
Behoove me no behooves, vocabulary boy.

Li'l Sis: Yo, that's a real grey area. Even by my lax standards.

Double OT (none / 0) (#27)
by cheetah on Sat May 25th, 2002 at 03:09:43 AM PST
There's some floccinaucinihilipilification going on here! Desuperpollicate I say!

Anatidaephobia or pneumonoultramicroscopicsilicovolcanokoniosis must not take hold!

You are... (none / 0) (#12)
by hauntedattics on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 06:24:11 AM PST
just a glutton for punishment, aren't you?

Yup! (none / 0) (#16)
by SpaceGhoti on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 03:36:11 PM PST
That's why I just keep coming back here.

I just gotta be me.

A troll's true colors.

Take this simple test. (none / 0) (#14)
by tkatchev on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 01:20:59 PM PST
Try to go a month without sex.

Then stop eating for a month, and tell me which is more important, food or sex.

Kill your TV, it's nothing but a demon-box.

Peace and much love...

Here's another test. (none / 0) (#17)
by SpaceGhoti on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 03:40:51 PM PST
Re-read the second paragraph of my post, paying particular attention to the first few sentences. Re-read your post here. Apply critical thinking. Rinse, lather and repeat.

A troll's true colors.

You are an animal (none / 0) (#18)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 07:45:58 PM PST
If you are going to insist on assessing the yourself and the world according to your animal imperatives, you must forgive us for considering you an animal. Men do not use instinct to justify their behaviour. To a man, acting purely on instinct is contemptible. Clearly there are greater issues here.

Instincts (none / 0) (#19)
by SpaceGhoti on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 10:36:17 PM PST
As it happens, I agree with you. Acting purely on instinct is contemptible. Which is why I say that it is necessary to master our impulses so that we control them rather than be controlled by them. I even said so in my earlier statement, although I may have used big words. I sincerely apologize for your confusion.

A troll's true colors.

Glad we agree. (none / 0) (#21)
by tkatchev on Thu May 23rd, 2002 at 11:51:39 PM PST
So, will you stop having indiscriminate sex now?

Peace and much love...

Pardon me (none / 0) (#22)
by T Reginald Gibbons on Fri May 24th, 2002 at 12:14:06 AM PST
Per your instructions in comment number 17, I read only the second paragraph of your prior comment. I withdraw my accusation. You are not an animal. You are, however, guilty of some very fuzzy thinking if you are claiming that we should restrain our animal impulses (presumably by application of some higher set of ideas), while maintaining that the strength, or perhaps the mere existence of our animal impulses is sufficient to determine their importance. How important are the higher-minded ideas governing our animal nature? For example, is there an absolute distinction between a thief who steals out of hunger and a date rapist? Is the crime of one more justifiable than the other? According to your "biological impulse" theory of comparitive morality, the answer is no.

OMG he is blaming the children! (none / 0) (#28)
by Anonymous Reader on Sat May 25th, 2002 at 03:18:30 AM PST
wtf? "That is why, despite the terrible wrongs they have committed, the church must move on and forgive these children for their misdeeds."
"children whose sinful ways have tempted so many of the church's servants into lustful violation of their holy vows of celibacy."
How have their sinful ways tempted the church's servants? arent the kids the ones who cant fight back, and the church's servants who are committing the sins?

Thank you, I think (none / 0) (#3)
by Adam Rightmann on Wed May 22nd, 2002 at 06:33:17 AM PST
though that web page is blocked by my corporate filter (perhaps the filter is anti-Catholic?). I will have to look up the story from my home computer.

A. Rightmann


All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest ® 2001, 2002, 2003 The name, logo, symbol, and taglines "News for Grown-Ups", "Most Controversial Site on the Internet", "Linux Zealot", and "He just loves Open Source Software", and the RGB color value: D7D7D7 are trademarks of No part of this site may be republished or reproduced in whatever form without prior written permission by and, if and when applicable, prior written permission by the contributing author(s), artist(s), or user(s). Any inquiries are directed to