Judged:

1

1

1

Jose wrote:

Alert! Warning! Gender discrimination here! Women should not be compared to inanimate objects such as a pair of shoes! Alert! Beep beep beep...

J-Esq wrote:

<quoted text>
I can see how the admittedly crude analogy it subject to charges of gender discrimination. However, it was not meant to be taken literally as a fit between genitals where the man is the feet and the woman the shoes. Nor was it meant to imply that a spouse (whether male or female) is purchased. It was used simply to illustrate the point that sexual compatibility (shoes fitting - in the sense of compatible sexual expectations) is an important issue before committing to marriage (buying a shoe - in the sense it is an investment - an emotional, spiritual and financial commitment to your spouse).
Just to be clear, the issue of sexual compatibility is equally important for both men and women. Women are just as entitled to a healthy and gratifying sex life in marriage as men. Using the same crude analogy, a bad fitting shoe is neither good for the shoes or the feet.

J-Esq wrote:

<quoted text>
I can see how the admittedly crude analogy it subject to charges of gender discrimination. However, it was not meant to be taken literally as a fit between genitals where the man is the feet and the woman the shoes. Nor was it meant to imply that a spouse (whether male or female) is purchased. It was used simply to illustrate the point that sexual compatibility (shoes fitting - in the sense of compatible sexual expectations) is an important issue before committing to marriage (buying a shoe - in the sense it is an investment - an emotional, spiritual and financial commitment to your spouse).
Just to be clear, the issue of sexual compatibility is equally important for both men and women. Women are just as entitled to a healthy and gratifying sex life in marriage as men. Using the same crude analogy, a bad fitting shoe is neither good for the shoes or the feet.

Judged:

1

working girl of brooklyn wrote:

"The greatest gift I can give my husband on our wedding night is my virginity."
It's just a simple statement. If you agree, fine. If you don't, don't even think I said it. But remember, when pregnancy ensues, the biological father will be court-mandated to give 17% of his income to support the child until age 21.

Judged:

1

1

1

KanoSupremo wrote:

<quoted text>
Not everywhere. 17% of nothing = nothing.

Judged:

1

KanoSupremo wrote:

<quoted text>
Not everywhere. 17% of nothing = nothing.

Judged:

1

KanoSupremo wrote:

<quoted text>
Not everywhere. 17% of nothing = nothing.

Judged:

1

1

J-Esq wrote:

Would you buy shoes without first trying it on? Its a crude analogy but, seriously, sexual incompatibility can be very stressful on a marriage and can lead to divorce... I know, there's no such thing as divorce here. So it seems even more prudent to try on the shoes first.

Judged:

2

2

1

J-Esq wrote:

Would you buy shoes without first trying it on? Its a crude analogy but, seriously, sexual incompatibility can be very stressful on a marriage and can lead to divorce... I know, there's no such thing as divorce here. So it seems even more prudent to try on the shoes first.

Judged:

1

1

1

working girl of brooklyn wrote:

<quoted text>
The moral of the story: don't open up your legs to an impoverished man.

Judged:

1

1

1

working girl of brooklyn wrote:

"The greatest gift I can give my husband on our wedding night is my virginity."
It's just a simple statement. If you agree, fine. If you don't, don't even think I said it. But remember, when pregnancy ensues, the biological father will be court-mandated to give 17% of his income to support the child until age 21.