Savage Love

A First


LateBloomer@105, I don't think it's super complicated. If you're making out and she's moaning and making happy noises, just do what you enjoy. If she stops making happy noises for a while, try something else and see if the happy noises start again. If she asks for something specific, be agreeable and give it a try. If she goes silent, no happy noises, no requests, then it's okay to:
a) ask if she'd like something specific;
b) get up for more lube (or whatever), giving her a chance to breathe, sit up, get her head together, and figure out what she wants
c) stop the sex and move on to cuddling/sleep/whatever was going to happen next.

Are there a lot of women who are silent in bed when they're enjoying themselves?
@107 (EricaP): Spot on! Although some women may be quieter. But I would suggest that they give non-vocal signals of approval, like hip-thrusting, etc.
@106 (alguna rubia): Thank you for kindly addressing my frothing rant; I appreciate those with your attitude.
I don't know about other women, but I know that some men are frighteningly quiet when enjoying themselves.
@107 EricaP: A lot of women? Hell if I know, you're asking the wrong guy. My screen name was not chosen randomly. I do know there is at least one woman in this world who enjoys sex mostly silently, yes.
Dear men;

Stop trying to figure out "what women want" and then bitch and moan that we're not all identical so being one way doesn't work universally. Be yourself and get what you get.
105- Late Bloomer-- I'm not suggesting an experiment, but I believe that if we, as a society, suggested that it was okay for men to take the lead and be selfish sexually in consenting situations, we wouldn't see that spike in date rape. Granted my sample set is small, but I'd say that the vast majority of men don't really want to rape anyone and have a pretty good idea of the difference between a woman passively enjoying herself and one struggling to get up while he holds her down.
Ms. Cute has articulated the assertive partner issue very well. The only thing I would add is that not only does it require the confidence that when the person in the submissive role says stop that will be respected, it also requires the assertive partner's confidence that you will TELL THEM when something is wrong or not working for you. There really is no paradox, communication and trust run both ways.
Crinoline--that's a pretty optimistic view. A superficial search turns up the same (old) stats of 1 in 4 college women in the US being victims of assault/attempted assault, and 85% of guys who've committed the assault not knowing that's what it was. So how does that happen? I agree that most guys have no desire to rape anyone. I like to think it's tied to socialization and is not some inherent flaw in male sexuality. If that's so, then there is going to be a social consequence to telling a lot of inexperienced guys to be assertive because that's hot. Assertiveness easily becomes entitlement, and notions of consent might get a little fuzzy. More than they already are, I mean.

@nocutename, EricaP: speaking of fuzzy, I think I might be imagining something different than you when I use the word "assertive". To me it is synonymous with "pushy". Or "dickhead". What you both describe just sounds normal to me.

And Mydriasis @111, sounds great in theory, but what if you've realized that who you are isn't very attractive? Either you accept your lot in life or you try to improve yourself, for which you'll need some general guidelines. Like what women find attractive.
I believe that if we, as a society, suggested that it was okay for men to take the lead and be selfish sexually in consenting situations, we wouldn't see that spike in date rape.

I reject that that has ANYTHING to do with date rape.…
That "God Loves You" letter to Dan was just priceless and I had to respond.

As a rule, if you want to convince someone of something, it is generally not a good idea to dismiss their core beliefs as irrelevant. It's like this person was saying, "This thing that is extremely important to you? It is not important. This thing that you've dedicated your life to talking about, educating people about, helping people with that has had fulfilling and joyful results for many many people? You should not be spending your time on it. You should do my thing instead."

Also, I would like to believe that this person could be a gender other than male, but because they said, "All men are created in the image of God..." You left out some gender possibilities there.

Some people who aren't smart enough to get As, cheat to get As. Trying to engineer a fake persona to appeal to women who wouldn't be interested in you otherwise... gotta tell you, not behind it.

And unlike a multiple choice test, there is no one right answer.

Some men find smart women sexy, while others find intelligence intimidating. Some men like petite pixie types while others go for the glamazon. And yet, you don't hear women saying "men can't make up their minds!!".

Sorry but that article says nothing even close to supporting the "yes means yes" paradigm.

If anything it's further evidence that maybe instead of getting the whole world to have sex in this limited feminist-approved manor, we might *gasp* teach women to stand up for themselves.

Clear communication of “no” isn’t primarily going to avoid miscommunication — rather, it’s a meta-message. Clear communication against the undercurrent that “no” is rude and should be softened is a sign of the willingness to fight, to yell, to report.

Amen. I know this very intimately to be true.
The author supports, among much else, the idea that saying "no" more clearly is not actually useless. But the main thrust of the article is "First, the notion that rape results from miscommunication is just wrong. Rape results from a refusal to heed, rather than an inability to understand, a rejection."

Such a situation is NOT EVEN GOING TO ARISE if you are not already dealing with a rapist.

In any case, I seriously doubt that you do not signal consent pretty damn clearly. No one ever said consent always had to be verbal.
@mydriasis: Trying to engineer a fake persona to appeal to women who wouldn't be interested in you otherwise... gotta tell you, not behind it.
I'm imagining you saying this wearing 6 inch heels, Spanx, fake tits and a push up bra, makeup, hair extensions, and while looking slightly leftward because you think your right side looks better, after having downed two quick shots to calm the nerves.

So, yeah, whatever you do, @LateBloomer, for the love of god don't go engineering any fake personas for the sake of hooking up.

@121: Hey, Seandr, I didn't realize that was you I was flirting with last night!

It's not about creating a false persona. Most people have more than just one facet to their persona. There's nothing wrong with showing the more appealing side of your character.
I behave differently with different friends, why not do the same with different men?

Nope, definitely no need (don't even own a pair), no need again, never (don't own any), sure but who doesn't, no need again, and actually my left is my good side.

Also, I don't drink.

I'm trashy as hell... just not in those ways.
but seriously seandr, you must have some shitty experience with women that you think all of us are fat with no breasts and a drinking problem. Good Lord, where do you live?
Phlak @98

It's very nice that you don't hate gay and lesbian people. I will take your word on it although I am often amazed how narrow a definition of hate many Christians have that allows them to dismiss the most hateful of behaviors as something other than hate. But since you are a Catholic I will assume you are being accurate and don't hate gay people. After all, most Catholics in the US and Europe don't pay much attention to the teachings of their church that they find inconvenient, so I just like all the Catholics I know who use birth control, have premarital sex, and snicker at the idea that Mary literally ascended in to heaven bodily, I can easily put you in with the majority who have no problem with gay people and think that same sex marriage falls short of being the work of Satan, unlike your Pope.

That said, the Catholic church is NOT loving towards gay people. Your new Pope has stated that my relationship with my partner is the work of Satan. Sorry, but referring to someone's most important personal relationship as Satan's work is not a loving thing to either think or say.

The Catholic church has opposed same sex marriage around the world. That is NOT loving.

The Catholic church has opposed employment protection for gay people. That is NOT loving.

The Catholic church has fought for the right to deny gay people access to the public, non religious services they provide to the public. That is NOT loving.

The Catholic church opposed a UN resolution to condemn laws punishing people for being gay around the world. That is SO NOT loving.

The problem with many Christians is that they think that so long as they do and say hateful things with a smile on their face that makes it not hate. That if they pepper their condemnation with the word "love", and express sympathy towards other people as they take away their rights and harm them in very real ways, that makes it not hate.

But you don't have to be screaming at someone while foaming at the mouth for your words to be hateful. You don't have to be hitting someone with a baseball bat for your actions to be hateful.

The Catholic church hates gay people. They can say they love gay people all they want, but so long as the fuck with our lives in a negative way that IS hate.

Matthew 12:33 - Either make a tree good and it's fruit is good, or make the tree bad and it's fruit is bad, for the tree is known by it's fruit.

The fruit of the Catholic church regarding gay people is bitter and rotten. No amount of protestations of love will counter the actions they do that harm us.

And as for this:

" If the issue is sex . . . that’s something else. It is not the driving force of life (well, maybe in a biological sense, but only that). It has its purpose and can have beautiful results when it functions in the right context. To allow it to be a controlling influence in one’s life, to be the basis of important thought and decision- making is a mistake."

Does show you are at least a bit biased. Like many when you think of being gay you reduce it to sex.

Sex IS an important part of intimate romantic relationships. To deny that is naive at the least. But being gay isn't just about sex. It's about the romantic connection with someone you love. When ever someone focuses on the sex they miss the point. The fight for marriage rights should be a reminder of that. We aren't fighting for the right to have sex, we already have that. We are fighting for the right for the RELATIONSHIP to be recognized and for the rights AND RESPONSIBILITIES of that relationship be granted to us as they are to straight couples. That has nothing to do with sex and IS what the current SOB in the Vatican calls the work of Satan.

So you may not hate gay people, but you still clearly have a bias.

But don't tell me that the Church loves me right after they got done fucking me over and hurting me. It's like a parent beating their child while telling them that it is for their own good and that it hurts the parent more than the child. Just like with that, when you are on the receiving end of it you don't have to work hard to see the lie.
@mydriasis: My point was that there is a billion dollar industry, some of which involves state of the art engineering, catering to the female side of The Game. Not only is this socially acceptable, but in certain circles it's obligatory, even for women who are quite beautiful without the embellishments (Dallas, TX, comes to mind).

Yet women lose their shit at the idea of a guy learning strategies to come off as more confident and assertive and alpha than he actually feels when meeting women.

Anyway, just used you as a hypothetical example - I'm sure all this is quite beneath you.

One question - hypothetically, if by some miracle you were feeling charitable enough to give me a blow job, how do I figure out that you're the sort who likes having her head shoved down, as opposed to the sort who would punch me in the nuts and storm off if I tried that shit? Do I ask, or would that ruin my aura of single-minded, who-gives-a-fuck masculinity? Do I just go for it and hope for the best? I apologize if this comes off as more "bitching and moaning" - I'm sure this is simple stuff and that should be plainly obvious - but maybe you could help out those of us inclined to over-think things.

Also curious - if your sexual preference boils down to "i like what the guy likes", do you express any agency at all during sex? Ever drive the agenda? I have to admit, the whole "Use me, I'm your fuck doll" thing sounds pretty hot, at least to a point. But over time, I could imagine the bed starting to feel a little lonely. Also, I would definitely miss eating pussy, which I have no problem reconciling with traditional caveman masculinity - one deep whiff of a sweet smelling pussy, and I have to restrain myself from snarling and grunting and beating my chest.
@nocutename: Hilarious!
@127--As per EricaP and nocutename above, "selfish lover" actually means "generous, passionate, receptive, communicative and thoughtful." That's where I was getting confused. It does not mean "self-absorbed and entitled" after all. Who knew?
Mr Fortunate - It's the Jesuits. They can "prove" that Hate = Love five times faster than Mr Orwell.
Ms Cute - Now I'm getting a new idea for a Sartre Award.
Allow me to sum up the mythcommunication page mentioned in 116.

He: You want to have sex?
She: Uh, I'm awfully tired.
He: If you don't, you'll hurt my feelings.
She: Oh dear, I wouldn't want that, and, uh, I would feel terrible if you thought I was rude.

(They have sex.)

She: He raped me!
(1:4 college women are raped.)
He: (85% of the rapists don't know they've done it.)


I do know how to porn star it up in a sense when I want to, but when I get up in the morning I put effort into making myself look how I want to look, not how I think "men" want me to look. If I decided to do fake nails or heavy makeup or whatever, sure, there's guys who might look at me who don't look at me now, but there's guys who would stop looking at me, who do look at me now.

How is that a win?

I'd be losing out on guys who like me the way I like me/the way I am, and gain guys who like some faked out version of me that I don't even like.

Also I think there's a big difference between changing superficial aspects of your appearance and faking personality traits. Don't you?

Now on to the rest of the questions...

Honest answer? How assertive a guy is is only round three important. If I'm already at the point where I'm willing to go down on a guy he's already

1. Very attractive
2. Excellent at fooling around thus far

If a guy is already those two things, I won't care so much if he's not macho-assertive. Although it's certainly the cherry on top if he is and if he's REALLY "yes means yes/consenty" then I'll probably tell him to grow a pair stat.

So to answer your more direct question, it's a gamble... sometimes there's no avoiding that. You could certainly ask, no one's ever asked me, they've either done it or not done it. If a guy ever attempts something I don't like, I quickly and directly say it's off the table (cunnilingus) but there's no ball-punching. If a guy did ask me permission... yes, that would ruin the 'aura' but I'd probably just laugh and say it's cool. Again, this is assuming that the guy is a stunner (since he made it through rules one and two) which would distract from the mother-may-I nature of asking permission.

As for expressing agency, sure, I do, it's just that it's typically not in a conflicting direction from what my partner wants. I don't want it because he wants it (although I'm stoked that he does) I just do want it. I think that's the best way to answer that.
@129, did you read Dan's answer to BIB? Dan isn't arguing (and neither am I) that people should be "self-absorbed and entitled." Dan's saying that often it helps if people go for what they want, and it will be hotter than if both sex partners are just trying to find out what the other person wants.

There's a spectrum saying "What do you want for dinner", through "Let's go out for Italian", to "fuck you; I'm going for Italian." Dan's saying that BIB should encourage her partner to aim for the middle position.
Crinoline@132: I completely disagree. I think your summing up is practically opposite of what the article actually says.
@129: "Selfish" can of course mean self-absorbed and entitled. It can also mean that whatever you're doing in bed is largely driven by your own interests. My definition of selfish sex relies heavily on what I call symbiotic sex, and what I've heard referred to as a feedback loop. It means that the knowledge that you are turning your partner on makes you more aroused. That expression of increased arousal is itself very arousing to your partner, who in turn becomes more turned on. And so on.

For me, the way that my partner can indicate his arousal is by acting as though whatever he's doing, even if the act is something that I like or that feels good, is being done primarily for his own sake, to satisfy his own desire. This is because I arouse his desire. Seandr does a very good job of capturing this in his post at 127, when he talked about his love of cunnilingus, which he does for his sake at least as much as for the sake of his partner. When I have had partners who treated that activity as though it was something they wanted to do for themselves, I enjoy it much more than when I've been with men who do it because they want to please me, no matter how much that desire to please me is genuine (I'm not even going to address a partner who clearly doesn't like the act but feels he "must" go through with it, which is a huge turn off).

Now maybe you would enjoy a blow job no matter how enthusiastically or not it was performed; maybe it wouldn't matter to you whatsoever how much your partner was enjoying herself: so long as you had the physical sensation, that's good enough. But I'm willing to bet that you would find the whole experience more fun, more of a turn-on, if you had the distinct feeling that your partner was doing it not so much to pleasure you (though that was a happy collateral result), but because there was nothing else she'd rather be doing at that very moment.

THAT's what I mean when I talk about selfish sex.
Mr. Ven: A Sartre award a la "No Exit," or am I misreading you again?
LateBloomer, to elaborate on EricaP's analogy, there's an even bigger difference.

1): "Honey, what do you want for dinner? Do you want Thai? Burgers? Indian? What do I want?--no, it doesn't matter what I want. Just tell me what to eat and that's what I'll have. Oh. Sushi. No, no, sushi's fine. No, really. Well, it's just that we had it last night and last week, and I kind of was thinking of Mexican food, but whatever you want. You like that, right? Right? I mean, remember I have that allergy? It's okay, I'll just take an antihistamine."

I don't care how much you like that kind of food--it wouldn't be a very enjoyable experience.

2): "Let's get Italian food, okay?

I hadn't necessarily been thinking about Italian food, but sure, why not? I like it.

3): "I'm going to take you to my favorite French restaurant. They have a cassoulet that you'll love. "

Hmm . . . I'd never thought about cassoulet, but your enthusiasm is infectious. I look forward to trying it.

4): "I don't give a hoot that you hate seafood. That's what I feel like having. It makes you break out in hives? Who cares! I'm in the mood for crab. Deal with it."

That's not what I'm talking about. That is indeed, a selfish jerk.
Your problem, BIB, is not that you're bored - it's that you're spoiled.

Guys with all the positive qualities you attribute to your bf, rare birds, my friend.
@nocute and @EricaP I appreciate your heroic patience. I get it, I do. I hope you're not annoyed that I don't actually have a horse in this race since I don't date. But I have a soft spot for the hapless, earnest, well-meaning types like BIB's boyfriend, and I was trying to come at things from his point of view.

I still think "be selfish" is a misleading, incomplete, potentially dangerous piece of advice to give to the wrong person, so I'm glad you took the time to spell out what it really means.

(To answer your question EricaP, yes I did read it, and I notice that Dan actually qualifies the term "selfish": "Be a little more selfish," says Dan. Some of the other comments were not quite as nuanced, which is what made me jump in.)

Mydriasis--Learning how to dress better, or to talk with enthusiasm and use eye contact, pursuing an interest, flirting more confidently, hitting the gym, finding out what makes a good lover.... That's not being superficial or fake or engineering an identity, that's figuring out how to become a better, more attractive person. And it's done by asking questions and getting advice, and not assuming you're a special pumpkin just the way you are. This is the reality for most of us out there, do I assume you've never had trouble finding a date and are a special pumpkin just the way you are?
@LateBloomer: Hot chicks don't have to do anything to attract men besides show up. I suppose you could call them special pumpkins, but I see them more likely trust funders - working for anything is entirely optional because they can always just coast on their inheritance.

As for guys, if you're an extrovert and not afraid of rejection, you'll do fine, probably even bang a few women who are out of your league. If you're an introvert and haven't trained yourself to act like an extrovert around women you are interested in, best you can hope for is relationships with women who have had some reason to get to know you, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

If you get your style together and develop some pecs and biceps, you'll definitely see more interest from women, but you still need game if things are to go beyond the flirting stage. Well, usually - some women don't mind taking the lead once they have it in their head they want to fuck a guy.
@mydriasis: Also I think there's a big difference between changing superficial aspects of your appearance and faking personality traits. Don't you?

Yes. I once considered breast implants to be a horrible, mendacious way to ruin a nice pair of tits, but thanks to a couple of great lap dances, I've become more open-minded about them.

But I see absolutely nothing wrong with a smart, funny, charming man who suffers from shyness learning strategies to make his smartness, humor, and charm more readily evident to new women he meets. He's simply learning to be his real, genuine self in situations where anxiety might otherwise shut that down. In that sense, it's the opposite of being fake.

I think you're talking about two different things.

If someone has legit social anxiety I do suggest they actually work on solving their problem, but that's an actual positive change, not a mask.

If someone is really a shy, considerate person but he thinks women are attracted to assertive alpha types so he acts like that instead. The fact is that "women" aren't attracted to just one thing. Yes, he may be more attractive to women like me, but when does the act end? Meanwhile some other girl, who would have liked him the way he is, is thinking "man, what a

There is no universal sperm donor :p

If someone doesn't have enough self worth to be swayed by "do you really want someone to like you for something your not?" maybe they'll be swayed by "do you really want to miss out on the real thing for the fake thing?"

I have an atrocious personality, but I've still managed to find people who like me for who I am. A shy, considerate guy may not have panties thrown at him or sign any breasts, but there are plenty of women who will find him very attractive for who he is.
Ms Cute - Well spotted.

I'd use cassoulet as something one made for someone, recalling Simon Foster and the joy in the preparation. But that's just a small expansion of your post, not a disagreement.
The Church has got it wrong before, so why shouldn't it be wrong now? --says anyone, about absolutely every subject the bible touches on, including gays, women, morality, and especially the origin of the universe.

So why not apply that skepticism to the existence of God?
I really don't understand why one needs to "struggle" with the bible in order to "rediscover one's roots."

We all come from pain and suffering. We don't have to like the damn scripture. It's one book out of many. We think we have some sort of obligation to this book because it's old. We think we have the same obligation to our heritage because it's old and we're supposed to. Just because a GGG grandfather that you share with several hundred other people read something and liked it doesn't mean that you have an obligation towards it. Do you feel obligated towards Little Red Riding Hood? Your "heritage" is probably more closely connected with that story, by far, than anything in the bible. It hasn't had enough time to be changed as much as Jewish and Christian biblical scripture has.

No one has ever given me a reason, that does not beg the question, that I shouldn't chuck out the bible. There's plenty of books I could obey or struggle with if I wanted to, but since morality is evolutionarily intuitive, I can use my own mind, thank you very much.
135- It's starting to look like interpretations of the mythcommunication page are as numerous as those of the Bible. All I'm seeing is a bunch of scientific sounding focus groups and non-sequitors that are presented as conclusions.

At one time, a woman needed to show evidence of that she'd resisted for a man to be accused of rape. If he held a gun to her head and she gave in rather than die, that was evidence that she wanted it. Because she had no bruises, or even if it was shown that he had no bruises, she was called the slut, and rapists walked free. That was a bad state of affairs, and I'm glad they're over. (At least in the west. I get the idea our sisters in many parts of the world still live under that horror.)

Next: She has sex with him because he threatens her, blackmails her, doesn't have the weapon on him but promises to use it at a later time-- Still rape.

Next: She has sex with him because she has real reason to fear him even if the threat isn't spelled out. Still rape.

But now we've got a state of affairs where she's afraid if she doesn't have sex with him she'll hurt his feelings? She doesn't say no because she's trying to soften the blow for him? He doesn't even have to promise that he'll tell his friends that she's a tease, but she does it because she's afraid she'll feel like a charlie? This is what the webpage says.

The non-sequitor is that we've got a bunch of guys in a focus group bragging that if they hear a woman say no, they'll force her. From this, we conclude that a woman doesn't even have to make an effort to get out of the bed or car, she doesn't even have to take steps in the direction of running from her attacker. She expresses a little reticence about seeing him, reticence in the form of never even telling him that she doesn't want to, never says no, never tries to extricate himself from a sexual situation she doesn't want, acquiesces, and it's still rape! Give me a break.

Then the writers say that they don't know what the answer is except to change the culture. Perhaps the way to change the culture is to start with telling women to say and to TAKE ACTION IN THE FORM OF GETTING THE HELL OUT OF THERE WHEN THEY FEEL FORCED. If a man asks her out or asks to have sex with her a hundred times, and all the while she's giving vague answers because she doesn't want to be a prat, he's not bullying. If she says no in a weak way a few times, then gives in, that's not rape.

This is the sort of thing that gives feminists a bad name. No wonder there are folks out there who think we're stupid.
@86 i have to say hunter78 nailed it.
@147 "If a man asks her out or asks to have sex with her a hundred times," and she hasn't smiled and said yes once -- then he's ignoring her obvious disinterest and, yes, he's bullying/harassing her. I wouldn't say that if you changed a hundred to three.

If a woman (or man) isn't enthusiastically participating, her partner should stop holding her down. Encourage her to get on top. Men who don't give her a chance to get up in those circumstances are guilty of being assholes. But I'll agree with you, Crinoline, that they may not be criminally guilty of rape.

I just see you spending a lot more of your energy telling women it's their job to "GET THE HELL OUT OF THERE" rather than telling men it's their job not to hold her down if she does't seem enthusiastic.
@149 EricaP

I prefer the simple and unequivocal "GET THE FUCK OFF OF ME."

That works everytime.
"But now we've got a state of affairs where she's afraid if she doesn't have sex with him she'll hurt his feelings? She doesn't say no because she's trying to soften the blow for him?"

As far as I can see, you're misreading the plain sense of the words on that page. I don't really know what to say.

"Long story short: in conversation, “no” is disfavored, and people [NOTE: THIS SAYS "PEOPLE" ON PURPOSE -- NOT JUST WOMEN -- AND "CONVERSATION" -- NOT JUST IN SEXUAL CONTEXTS] try to say no in ways that soften the rejection, often avoiding the word at all. People issue rejections in softened language, and people hear rejections in softened language, and the notion that anything but a clear “no” can’t be understood is just nonsense. First, the notion that rape results from miscommunication is just wrong. Rape results from a refusal to heed, rather than an inability to understand, a rejection."

It was specifically mentioned later that the men who were interviewed ALSO reported using indirect language (no direct "no") when turning down sex.
We have a boy who is gay and believes that God loves fags, a boy who is gay and sort of believes that God hates fags, a few miscellaneous friends who believe that God hates fags, and a bishop who believes that God loves fags. Not just that--we have billions of different people who not only believe vehemently that God loves or hates fags, but who believe vehemently all kinds of random stuff. Why do they believe this stuff? Either because they've been brainwashed, or because they WANT TO believe this stuff and their religions let them believe whatever tripe they want to. "The Church has gotten things wrong before" is bollocks. The Bible _does_ condemn gays, it _does_ say that God loves gays (and also hates them), it condemns slavery, it endorses slavery, it sure as hell endorses polygamy and stoning your disobedient children to death and whatnot. The Qur'an endorses both exemplary hospitality to everyone and forced conversion of infidels, depending on which bits you're reading. Etc.

So why not ask God what He thinks? Lots of people do, and they get lots of different answers, and they're all not only different but completely incompatible. If God is actually answering, then He's more than a little undecided Himself.

Nobody has ever figured out a way of establishing what God really thinks--if someone had, then we'd all ask Him, get the same answer, and there would be no more religious debate. As it is, most religions can be used to justify most any position you care to take.

Therefore, trying to figure anything out with the aid of religion is moronic.