I probably did worse things, but that's the most amusing thing I did that qualifies and both wrong and disgusting, so that's what you get. Here, I will draw you a picture of it so you know how funny it was when I woke up not dead (yay!) with my computer on my lap and a handful of sticky peppermint bark.
** update: Mr. Fab suggested I might look flat chested and naked in my first drawing. Here is a new one.
I want to be extra clear: 1) that's a mini-skirt, 2) I have never been naked in my entire life unless there was a reason; I do not sit around the house naked; maybe someday I'll post about why but the reason has a lot to do with the fact that 3) I have not been flat chested or anything like it since I was 13 and finally 4) If you think it's difficult to draw a shirt over those circles (which I clearly did not even attempt to do), try finding bras and shirts to go over them in real life. (Hint: it's not easy, people). **
In other spiritual news, I scored an 80 out of a 100 on the Catholic Sex Quiz created by Father Joe.
Take a good look and see whose name is right there under Papa-ratzi's? See that? It's my name. Nina. I feel my score should be higher because I had no idea that impotent men could not marry. What idiot who knows anything about the Catholic Church would guess that erections were a requirement for marriage? Not this idiot. Father Joe conceded that the item on divorce is a trick question. Therefore I feel I deserve a 90. At least. Also, should I not also get 5 bonus points for NOT knowing all the precise technical rules about man-parts, considering I am a woman?
I certainly think so.
Happy New Year (almost). And thank you for reading.
15 comments:
I only got a 60
Are you naked in that drawing? I can't tell. You certainly are flatchested.
Liz, I spent 8 years in Catholic school. You did quite well for a person not dipped in melted Catholicism every day for most of her formative years.
Mr. Fabulous, you were right - that drawing was all wrong. Perhaps the new one is a little better.
Well, the only reason to get married is to procreate, under Catholic doctrine, right? So that does make sense.
I went to Catholic school for eight years. That was enough. No more sex.
Avitable, that's a common misconception (no pun intended), but it's not true. And I would question the "erection requirement" as it's phrased, too.
One of the requirements for marriage is an openness to children, which is not the same thing as having them. The actual canon says:
Canon 1084.1 Antecedent and perpetual impotence to have sexual intercourse, whether on the part of the man or on that of the woman, whether absolute or relative, by its very nature invalidates marriage.
Canon 1084.2 If the impediment of impotence is doubtful, whether the doubt be one of law or one of fact, the marriage is not to be prevented nor, while the doubt persists, is it to be declared null.
So the question about an erection was misleading. If he's never going to be able to have one, and this condition has been there for a long time, then no, they can't get married. But if there's any possibility of the old boy standing at attention, then it's just fine.
Happy New Year!
Impotent ppl shouldn't marry because they will only increase divorce rates and increase affairs...
Personal view...
So you had a skirt on. It still looks like you were topless. I DO like the second drawing better. It will be much easier to masturbate to.
I DO like the second drawing better. It will be much easier to masturbate to.
I think I see why you were reluctant to post your photo, Nina.
Wow, Joel.
You're a bit of an asshole.
All,
I have few readers, but the ones I do have tend to comment. They are also VERY different people. Take a look through comments in the last week or two and click on the profiles. (OK, I'll do this for you). One commenter calls herself The Horny Bitch, another runs a radio show that is rarely family friendly programming, yet another runs an overtly conservative Catholic blog - and still another is a recovering alcoholic and another is obsessed with needlework. Oh, and I think there is a train operator in there somewhere. Very different people, very different interests and beliefs, not to say personalities.
These differences are ok with me. I do not expect HB to stop being herself just because she knows that I am a bit of a prude compared to her. I don't expect my reader in recovery to start drinking again because I still do, nor do I expect her to send me emails telling me that I really shouldn't wash a xanax down with wine (even though I know she thinks it and we both know she is right). I don't expect Avitable to stop being, well, Avitable just because he senses (which I know he does) that I am just a shade or two more Catholic than he is. And I don't expect Joel to stop being himself because he senses (which I know he does) that I am just a shade or two less Catholic than he is.
My interpretation of recent comments is as follows: Mr. Fab is married to the beautiful Mrs. Fab, and I know he was kidding. Joel, being a practicing Catholic and all around good guy, finds all sorts of things funny, but not that sort of thing. And he was probably thinking of defending ME when he wrote about me and my picture, and much less of Mr. Fab. And Avitable, being Avitable, was probably thinking of how much he admires Mr. Fab and gets Mr Fab's sense of humor when he said what he said about Joel. Very different people. And that’s ok with me, which is why I say that if you want to point a finger at someone and say "bad!" - then point it at me. It is arguable that I shouldn’t like people who are so different from each other. It could be argued that I ought to take a stand and say whose team I am on. I don’t. And I am the sort of person other people have a right to question. If I am against anything, it is teams. (Unless it matters. And come on, people, this is my internet diary. Does it MATTER? No.)
Facts about chameleon-like me: I am a practicing Catholic, but I am seriously challenged. I have little talent for it, and most days I wake up hoping that God gave me a sarcastic and irreverent personality for a reason, because otherwise I have to believe I am beyond all repair. I take church teaching seriously and I try to follow it, but I often fail. Unlike most Catholics, I make no comment on politics whatsoever and I do not think it reasonable for other people, Catholic or not, to force me to do so. I reveal some things about myself on my blog but not all things, and I don’t think anyone who has a blog would argue that I am in error there. A person is not a blog is not a person.
Finally, I do not require anyone else to like me – or to be like me – or to act like me – or to agree with me. Anyone who finds my swearing, my candy eating, my crimes or my personality or my computer-friends objectionable knows how to find the “delete” key in their bookmarks bar. I like all of you and I hope you come back. Again, if you want to find fault with someone, look at me, not at each other.
Happy New Year. And stop bickering. It upsets me.
Wait, wait, wait.
All that's important is whether or not I can masturbate freely.
:)
Happy New Year, Nina.
Hmm,
I had written a comment, but it seems to have been lost. And now all sorts of things have been said, so no need to post again and echo anything... except for the one really critical observation that seems to be missing...
Peppermint bark is EXCELLENT! Sweet dreams indeed!
(and I also got tricked by the divorce question. And I still think you're a better Catholic than I.)
Kisses, all! Happy 2008!
Avitable, I apologize if I came across rectally. I really was just clearing up what looked like a question; I didn't mean to be pedantic. I'm a Catholic convert, so I've spent a lot of time explaining things like canon law to my Baptist family. It's a hard habit to break.
And my comment to Mr. Fabulous wasn't meant to be nasty, either. If I were in Nina's shoes, I'd probably have found his comment creepy, but it doesn't seem to have bothered her. And I think it's very unlikely he'd be interested in wanking to my picture (for which I'm grateful). Since Nina took it in good fun, I probably should have, too.
Post a Comment