The "what the BIBLE says" people with the concubines and shit are those "gotcha" people. You can also find them asking Christians if they wear mixed fabrics because that's prohibited in Leviticus. You're right in that virginal/monogamous is the status quo of the modern church.

Yeah, I think it's a phase a lot of women go through. I was totally a Cool Girl in high school. I thought that because I like football, video games, comics, and prefer whiskey to vodka I was different from the OTHER girls. I thought I could only get along with my select fellow Cool Girl friends as far as women went…

I am barely Christian in the sense that I was raised "in/around/near" Christian institutions with basic "Christian" values (ie. regular good people shit) so, to me, all this shit about concubines and whatnot means very little to me. My very base perception has always been just virginal and monogamous.

You are a selectively reading, out-of-context stating troll. Neither Phil Robertson or myself argued any such thing.

I had the same point! It makes a lot of sense, especially since he's using "almost zero" and not zero. (There are some exceptions, dirty needle, bad bloodtransfusion, infected at birth etc.)

Seriously?

I take issue with your reference to me as a "horrifyingly ignorant...stupid fucking asshole" not your Phil Robertson diatribe. What's sad about someone like yourself is that instead of encouraging healthy debate and open discussion with intellectual input, you tear people down in a black/white,…

At least your response isn't belligerent, overly aggressive, and downright mean. Oh wait.

How do you define oral "SEX" as not having "SEX"?

HIV/AIDS rates are on the rise at the same time that unprotected sex with both genders are rising. Particularly with the number of males-who-have-sex-with-males who participate in heterosexual relationships as well. Part of the increase is congenital HIV sufferers, but that number is so low it's not even statistically…

so in his words you only have sex with one person for the rest of your life, who is clean and virgin, you should be ok

His claim that virgins who wait until marriage and are faithful are not at risk for STDs is pretty much correct (you could get scabies from a gym towel, I suppose).

However, the message he's tacitly sending with that claim - that people who contract STDs deserve them because God is punishing them for sinful behavior -…

Yeah, sorry to agree with someone from Duck Dynasty, but if two people without STDs get together, stay together and don't mess around with anyone else, they're not gonna contract an STD. All that biblically correct rhetoric is infuriating, but his point is valid.

Yes, but a) marriage has nothing to do with it and b) Actual biblical sex is pretty damn kinky and involves mistresses and lot's of stuff that will absolutely get you an STI. So... his science is right but his religion is wrong, surprisingly.

Oh boy.

There's a lot going on in this story. Rape culture. Male entitlement. The horrifying fact that people are carrying guns around for no damn reason.

"Why do women string men along and make men think they're interested instead of giving us an honest answer?"

The fact that we published this on the same night as the "No Means Yes" frat sign bullshit is sort of haunting me right now.

"Why don't women just tell us when they're not interested????" -Reddit

Don't worry, though, there's no such thing as rape culture, and women should feel totally flattered and not at all threatened when men hit on them.

What a tragic thing to have happened. I hope her family can mourn and find peace.