Meet For Sex

I had a dream:

It was a warm summer day.

Cute-and-shapely, non-ponytailed mopheaded, sleeveslessly nude-armed and naked-legged in short shorts, soxless flip-flops-flapping, near-tween, Caucasian-skin-color Jill was biking along the roadside, ignorantly presuming that her misattired exposed body parts were "normal" style and fashion for summerwear.

Jack did not know that she was heading to the local library to explore the possibility of committing and not performing [so-called] "medical"-exam-appointment erotic interplay with a male dentist, male chiropractor, male spa masseur, and male gynecologist.

He was almost late driving to his business appointment at the company.

The reason why Jill was so doing was motivated by the fornication-promoting NIV anti-marriage mistranslation of First Corinthians 7:1 forbidden men to marry, and the RSV/NASV/NIV/etc. mistranslation of First Timothy 5:14 instructing only young widows to remarry, PLUS the pro-creation advocating:

Genesis 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth."
Genesis 9:1 And God blessed Noah and his sons, and said to them, "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth.

Besides, they both figured that there apparently was no marriage involved in the Biblically-recorded previous cases of:

Genesis 19:31 And the first-born said to the younger, "Our father is old, and there is not a man on earth to come in to us after the manner of all the earth.
Genesis 19:32 Come, let us make our father drink wine, and we will lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
Genesis 19:33 So they made their father drink wine that night; and the first-born went in, and lay with her father; he did not know when she lay down or when she get up.
Genesis 19:34 And on the next day, the first-born said to the younger, "Hey, I lay last night with my father; let us make him drink wine tonight also; then you go in and lie with him, that we may preserve offspring through our father."
Genesis 19:35 So they made their father drink wine that night also; and the younger got up, and lay with him; and he did not know when she lay down or when she got up.
Genesis 19:36 Thus both the daughters of Lot were with child by their father.
Genesis 19:37 The first-born bore a son, and called his name Moab; he is the father of the Moabites to this day.
Genesis 19:38 The younger also bore a son, and called his name Benammi; he is the father of the Ammonites to this day.

Thus, with the NIV and even the RSV/NASV/etc. not advocating never-before-married Jill to get married, Jill figured that her only recourse was regretfully-necessary even-only-one-night-stand harlotry:

Genesis 38:14 [Tamar] put off her widow's garments, and put on a veil, wrapping herself up, and sat [as an available prostitute] at the entrance to Enaim, which is on the road to Timnah; for she saw that Shelah was grown up, and she had not been given to him in marriage.

Jill was already biologically desperate in her youthful hunger for sexual satisfaction:

Ruth 1:13 Would you therefore wait till they were grown? Would you therefore refrain from marrying? No, my daughters, for it is exceedingly bitter to me for your sake that the hand of the LORD has gone forth against me."

A few days later, Jack (recollecting Jill's partial indecent-exposure public immodesty which she had imposed against his victim-like accidental view) had some free time and was doing an afternoon stroll, and again saw Jill -- this time wearing in even shorter shorts, and walking barefoot with no socks on.

Jack followed her at a distance, because she had on a T-shirt reading: "I NEED SEX."

When she turned onto a side street, Jack followed her to her apartment after she went in, then cautiously went inside the door himself.

As Jill was getting her mail in the apartment entrance box, Jack carefully approached her, and gently commented that he liked her T-shirt with the name "I Need Sex" on it.

Jill told him that she had prayed about it, and the Lord put it into her mind to openly solicit anyone who might respond positively and decently to her about that, and then she could follow up or courteously dismiss further inquiries from whoever.

Jack remarked that she had taken quite a chance almost presumptuously and rather dangerously advertising herself to anyone who happened to pass by, then asked her to tell him her name.

She responded with a: "I'm Jill," said a "Thank You" in response to Jack's positive comment about her T-shirt sign, then said "Wow! What a coincidence that a handsome guy like you saw my sign under these providential circumstances! Let's go into my apartment about your request for sex regarding my T-shirt sign, and we'll talk about it."

Inside her apartment, Jack asked her if she knew that the priest of RSV's/NASV's Numbers 5:18 had been instructed to unbind the hair of a woman suspected of adultery, and that such a tradition of a woman presuming that her [mopheaded] long hair was insufficient as a prayer covering according to the KJV rendition of First Corinthians 11:14-16.

Jill responded by asking Jack if her "flowing locks" (which she said were mentioned in RSV's and NASV's Song of Solomon 7:5) were "captivating" to him as the Text states.

Jack's responded affirmatively, and then asked her if she knew about the RSV and NASV's translations of Second Samuel 13:18 which spoke of Tamar traditionally wearing a long-sleeved full-length robe in the process of her thereafter getting raped, and he asked Jill why she was not wearing anything on her bare arms.

Jill then told Jack that she had figured out that the mention of long sleeves was included in accurately-translated Scripture of RSV's and NASV's Second Samuel 13:18 partially for purposes of conveying arm-cover modesty relating to sexual excitation and consequences.

Jill further informed Jack that she had readily seen the erotic implications of some Babylon virgin to "uncover her legs" so that her "nakedness was exposed" and her "shame seen," according to various translations of Isaiah 47:1-3, and that she was barefooted because she was "lustfully" intent on enticing some available and willing man, "like yourself Jack" who she considered a "stranger" concordant with RSV's and NASV's textually-oriented wording of Jeremiah 2:25.

Jill then informed Jack that she was intrigued by and longed for shamelessly "like Eve in The Garden" doing shameful buttocks-baring display described in RSV's Isaiah chapter 20:4, after which she would allow some man to do the LORD's job of baring her secret parts described in RSV's Isaiah 3:17 as she spread out her legs per KJV's Ezekiel 16:25, and then experience the pleasure of having a decent application of Ezekiel 23:21-described breasts-fondling nipples-squeezing applied to her personally.

Jack then asked Jill if she was playing the harlot while her boyfriend or husband was away as described in Proverbs chapter 7.

Jill quickly informed Jack that she had no boyfriend nor husband, and that RSV's Ezekiel 16:7 described her being birthed naked and bare, that her breasts had formed, her hair was grown, and thus she obviously not "under-aged" and that he was not engaging in forced and involuntary "child molestation."

He asked her what the gold band was on the 3rd and not 4th finger of her left hand, and if it meant that she was married or engaged . . . and if she was pregnant or menstruating. She responded by erotically sticking up only that 3rd finger at him and asking: "You mean this?"

Jack exclaimed that that really turned him on, and said that she got it at some dollar store "to scare off sex offenders."

Jack informed Jill that he already had a primary wife, and taking her as his concubine would be OK, as the Bible puts it:

Genesis 4:19 And Lamech took two wives; the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah.

Genesis 32:22 The same night [Jacob] arose and took his two wives, his two maids, and his eleven children, and crossed the ford of the Jabbok.

Deuteronomy 21:15 "If a man has two wives, the one loved and the other disliked, and they have borne him children, both the loved and the disliked, and if the first-born son is hers that is disliked,
Deuteronomy 21:16 then on the day when he assigns his possessions as an inheritance to his sons, he may not treat the son of the loved as the first-born in preference to the son of the disliked, who is the first-born,
Deuteronomy 21:17 but he shall acknowledge the first-born, the son of the disliked, by giving him a double portion of all that he has, for he is the first issue of his strength; the right of the first-born is his.

First Samuel 1:2 He had two wives; the name of the one was Hannah, and the name of the other Peninnah. And Peninnah had children, but Hannah had no children.

First Samuel 27:3 And David dwelt with Achish at Gath, he and his men, every man with his household, and David with his two wives, Ahinoam of Jezreel, and Abigail of Carmel, Nabal's widow.

First Chronicles 4:5 Ashhur, the father of Tekoa, had two wives, Helah and Naarah.

Second Chronicles 24:3 Jehoiada got for him two wives, and he had sons and daughters.

Jill asked him if he was a bishop, deacon, or elder - in which case he could merely be the monogamous husband of one wife, according to First Timothy 3:2 & 12.

After Jack responded with a emphatic: "No," Jill said "Good!" and that she did not mind being secondary women in his life as a common-law non-State-registered visitation concubine of his, and that she would retain her maiden name in the case of pregnancy and childbirth with some privately-contracted midwife.

Jack then asked Jill if she had VD, and told her that he needed to see her Drivers License before they proceeded any further. Jill did so, then asked him if he had VD, and told him that she needed to see his Driver's License - which he promptly did - and they agreed to immediately walk to her car to make photocopies of each one at the nearest UPS store before (as Jill put it): "we shower together and we do Song of Solomon 1:2-described passionate lip-kissing and RSV's Song-of-Solomon 7:7-8 breasts fonding in preparation for me being vaginally fingering with your dildo-like finger while you do the necking and petting details of Solomon 5:1 after which I rub and suck your Ezekiel 23:20-alluded-to extended penile protuberation in view of sexual implications of RSV's Deuteronomy 25:1."

After they got the photocopies of each other's Drivers License, Jack told Jill that they should both fill out identical copies of an ad-hoc Concubine Certification Form Jack had come up with, before they proceed any further to avoid charges of "fornication" or "adultery" from whoever, whenever, and wherever.

They did so, but before beginning to have sex after all that, Jack said: "You know, we have to be discriminating about certain things. We must distinguish between red and green stoplights, discriminating against those who go through red stoplights and against those who stop at green stoplights."

"And also not discriminate against those who stop at red stoplights and those who go at green stoplights," Jill added.

"I discriminate by not trying to barge into women's occupied lavatory stalls to ask them if I may watch them wipe themselves, AND discriminate against crippling accidents by avoiding collisions with trees and light posts near the highway, rather than running into them," said Jack.

"Me too," Jill replied. I discriminate by not entering the men's lavatories to watch them urinate into the urinals."

"You in your non-questionable discrimination are my kind of driver, for which I would never belligerently tailgate nor impatiently honk at for you to incite road rage which might become fatal," Jack continued.

"There's more. I discriminate - to a large extent - for the King James type translations which are overwhelmingly concordant with the inerrant 1894 Scrivener-Trinitarian Greek Text, but discriminate against the admittedly-nicely-worded-but-translationally-faulty-in-parts RSV and NASV and especially NIV New Testament - being that it is significantly based upon the substantially-corrupt Nestle, UBS, and Westcott-Hort Greek texts, not to mention the Sinaiticus and the Vaticanus."

"And I discriminate for the infallible ben Asher Masoretic Hebrew Text of the Old Testament, edited by Rudolf Kittel and known as Biblia Hebraica based upon the Leningrad-codex manuscript," Jill added.

The end result was that both agreed that it is improper, wicked and evil style or fashion, and immodestly indecent for girls and women, in general-public view, to indiscriminately be seen mopheaded, bare-armed sleevesless, bare-legged slacksless, and soxlessly wearing sandals or other open-toe shoes during seasonably warm weather, and that those who do not agree nor comply with that should be arrested and fined by Iranian, Saudi, or other islamic-fundamentalist anti-vice police officers sporting hijab burkas.

Jack then suggested that he and Jill try out their pro-modesty/anti-immodesty rationale by attempting to convey it to others at large in the hope of them also putting such into practice.

Jack: "Let's single out a person wearing shorts baring their naked legs in general public view, and ask them why they are doing that."

Jill: "Let's select a male at random."

Jack: "No, let's pick a girl. The weaker-sex inferior gender are more gullible, according to First Timothy 2:8-15."

Jill: "OK, superior one."

Jack: [to a woman passerby wearing shorts baring her nude legs in general public view]:
"Hey you, why are you wearing shorts baring your naked legs in general public view?"

Passerby: "Excuse me? Who are YOU - some kind of PERVERT? What's it to YOU what I am wearing? Get LOST, dude! It's a free country! I feel comfortable wearing shorts during seasonably warm weather, or are you some type of SADIST? What's wrong with being comfortable, and what is wrong with YOU? BUZZ off, or I'll call 911 on my cellphone to complain about being sexually harassed!"

Jack: "You have asked me several questions and made several statements in rapid-fire succession. Mention things one at a time, and I'll respond to each one respectively!"

Passerby: "I'm not in any hurry right now, and am in a good mood today, so I'll humor your rude and impolite audacity and play along with you a little, for the heck of it."

First, what's it to you that I am wearing shorts? Would you rather that I go around totally naked as in a nudist park or resort?"

Jack: "The question of nudist-colony quarantine in your case aside, there you go again, asking more than one question at a time. Remember, I asked you to not do that?

Your first response question is inadequate. You should have asked: "What's it to you that I am wearing shorts so as to expose my naked legs in general public view, particularly to your non-soliciting view?"

Obviously your question "What's it to YOU?" infers that you sense that there might be some problem to be resolved.

Moreover, does "freedom in our country" legitimize your imposing disturbing immodest harassment implied against me? Are you free to stick a realistic toy gun into the face of a nervous cop?
People are free to do all sorts of obnoxious and harmful things against other people, but they have no right to do so - instead merely have a capacity to possibly misuse liberty, like when they voluntarily choose to use it for public indecent exposure of sorts.

And in what ways do you feel "comfortable" wearing shorts which bare your naked legs to others who have not specifically asked for that?"

Passerby: "It's "just" the seasonal style this time of year.

Everybody's doing it.

I will die of heatstroke unless I bare my nude legs wearing shorts to others in general public view.

Besides, they will get tanned, without sweating.

Guys like to see that type of in-motion, life-sized porn . . . or they'll alternatively get on the internet to look for and see it.

Added to that, it is convenient for me to avoid being hatefully chided and judgmentally condemned by pervert exhibitionists who would demonically question and condemn me for not baring my legs to general public view for whatever asinine heretical and apostate excuses and irrationalizations they concoct."

Jack: "NOT "everyone" is doing it - such as nuns, amish, puritans, islamic, and businessmen with or without company suits on, etc.

WHO said that post-1910 bare-legged exposure is presently "the OFFICIALLY-approved" seasonal style and fashion . . . and that you will die of heatstroke if you do not bare your legs with shorts in general public view?

What if you were wearing a burka or hijab like Middle Eastern woman on hot summer days?"

Passerby: "The Devil and his evil-and-adulterous-generation pervert-human liars inferred that I need to mindlessly conform to lewd and licentious demonic body-parts-bared styles and fashions this time of year."

Jack: "Now you're getting somewhere!

Can't you get tanned enough privately in your own fenced and enclosed backyard, within some deserted farm field, nude beach, or tanning booth?

Your legs will sweat anyway, besides getting dirtier and sunburned so as to prematurely age skin without protective clothing on. You will end up looking like a no-tan-areas-here-and-there hideous zebra when in the buff without bra and panties on.

And IS it more comfortable for you to experience the shame and humiliation of going against your conscience by deliberately and willfully exposing the nakedness of your legs with or without soxless toes-exposing feet in flip-flops against the sane and sensible in general public view who neither want to nor ask you to licentiously bare your lasciviously-uncovered legs and feet to them?

Who do you think you are and pretend to be: some pseudo-sacred mopheaded Bible character wandering around in soxless thong sandals which you saw in perverted-artist Sunday-school pictures and drawings, and now imitate in the futile and heretical hope of self-righteously earning holy brownie points to absolve and atone for past sins and insure entrance in Heaven?

Or by your flagrant and arrogant bare-leggedness and NON-cool soxlessless are you in effect thumbing your nose and uplifting your defiant 3rd finger up to and against the righteous God to prove to godless humans that you are rebellious and worldly ass?"

Passerby: 'Sorry about that. I'll go home right now and change into something decent, so as not to cause you and others like you - male strangers - to stumble into lustful sin because of my non-defiant, non-deliberate, ignorantly-imposed deviant immodesty."

***************************************************

Now we move on to a suggested/suggestive? scenario of:

NUDE AWAKENING:

Who would you like to wake up mutually nude with in a no-way-out padded cell containing a single narrow bare mattress without covers in the middle of the cell? You might have seen movies where people have found themselves (though not necessarily nude) in such or similar circumstances for however long or indefinite periods of time (such as in various Twilight Zone episodes and various movies and vids).

Imagine that you were a 55+ male, and some anonymous person who knew what they were doing slyly poured knockout drops into your drink, or gassed you into subconsciousness with chloroform or whatever, or shot you with a non-lethal tranquilizing dart putting you into temporary deep sleep. Suppose also that that same someone who was competent at it also did it to a young and attractive preferably-single teen-aged woman.

Further suppose that that someone had removed all your clothes and all her clothes after drugging both of you, so both of you were birthday-suit naked, then that person placed both of you drugged sleepers together into aforementioned no-escape-possible padded cell room at a constant temperature of 75 degrees within which was a single bed with no sheets on it, two empty soft-plastic 2-liter pop bottles which could be used for pillows, 12-0z. cans of pop and juice, a shelf with a couple loaves of non-wrapped whole-wheat bread, some flip-top cans of corn-beef hash, beans, and others similar canned food items, a set of plastic spoons, a trash pit without a lid, a sink and faucet with warm and cool water, toilet and two rolls of toilet paper, and finally a stall-type open-floor-drain shower with no shower curtain nor door having faucets with warm and cool water.

Suppose that when the sleep-causing drugs wore off, both you and her woke up and saw each other buck naked for the first time.

What would your reaction be? What would her reaction be?

A possible dialogue would be:

YOU: What happened? What's all this? What's going on?

HER: You tell me.

YOU: Good thing you can speak English. I wonder how we got in here, and who did this.

HER: I have no idea.

YOU: Looks like there's no way out. I wonder if we're being watched by whoever is responsible for this.

HER: I haven't a clue.

YOU: It looks like we might be here a while. What's your first name?

HER: [She states her Name]. What's yours?

YOU: [You state your name].

YOU: Whoever put us both in her, must have put that bed there for some purpose.

HER: I guess.

YOU: There's a note on the bed.

HER: What does it say?

YOU: This is weird. It says: "You both will get out of the room you're in, and back to where you were, in one week - after you both engage in genital-in-genital sexual intercourse with each other after the gal performs fellatio on the guy. Anonymous letters have been sent to each of the addresses on the Driver's License of you both saying that you both took an emergency vacation and will be back within two weeks."
That's all it says. There's no signature.
The note is typed.

HER: Let me see it.

YOU: What are we going to do about that?

HER: Just find and dandy. We're both going to have a lot of explaining to do to a lot of people as to why we did this and what happened. Why would someone do this to us?
It must be that we are being watched, or monitored in some way.
But I don't see any cameras or microphones anywhere in here.
Sure hope to find out who did all this.

YOU: Maybe there are minicams behind the two air vents in the ceiling. But there's no way we could reach them up there.

HER: Have a plan?

YOU: Well, whoever is doing this has the upper hand, for sure. I wonder if he or she would let us die in here rather than doing the mutual sex they want us to do.

HER: Could be.

OPTION 1 =

YOU: Well, I suppose that we should go along with it as the only sensible recourse, [then as you whisper very softly in her ear]: or at least pretend real good. [Back to regular-volume voice] If we ever meet one another again, we will most likely remember this.

HER: Got that right.

YOU: I see that you're not wearing any rings. You have a boyfriend or husband?

HER: No, I've never been married.

YOU: Super! Good thing whoever did this set me up with an all-around rather attractive young lady. What do you think of Jesus Christ?

HER: I believe that He is the Holy Redeemer who died on a cross to atone for all my sins, was resurrected, and ascended into Heaven.

YOU: Spot on! So do I!

[And as you again whisper very softly closely in her ear]: We might as well start to kiss, hug, then kneel down and suck me, after which we'll climb into bed together, massage each other in various positions, then you lay on your back and spread your legs while I fake insertion with you, and we'll try our best to make it look as convincing as possible.

I wonder if all this is related to that anonymous dating service I signed up with, who got some third party to do all this.

HER: What a coincidence! You too? At least that would bypass charges of kidnapping against them.

[ What occurs next is the foreplay and following operational fulfillment of what was suggested ]

So, if you both were friendly types, you both would first ask each other what happened - probably without senselessly-futile attempts to hide your genitals away from each other's already-saw-you view. Next would be a separate and individual search of how to escape from confinement. After a thoroughly fruitless effort, that bed would be the only reasonable destination for you as a weary couple seemingly conjugating together with neither one sleeping on the cold hard floor.

OPTION 2 = The only other option would be for both you and her (especially if either one of you find something intolerable in the other) to go and sit in separate corners facing the wall, get into fatal catatonic immobility and non-communication, and die within the week.

********************************************************

Let's say that a hopefully-non-tattooed/non-pierced, single? pre-teen [tween] girl (near puberty) is sunbathing "birthday-suit" naked on a deserted beach (therefore perhaps admittedly or non-admittedly bait-casting herself and fly-fishing for men at random - or at least for one "suitable" specimen) she can then either accept or reject at her whims, and a single or already-married fisherman accidentally trolls into view.

What is his logical response to the sight?

He could assume that she is insane (Luke 8:27), and call 911 on his cellphone. But she might then promptly or soon throw a towel over herself and run inside a cabin or tent, OR slip into the water as soon as she detects that he saw her.

The fisherman does not know if she is the daughter of some father or brother or boyfriend or husband nearby or in the cellphone-responsive area. She could be adversely hostile if he approached her, and perhaps call 911 on her cellphone. Or, he could head toward her and remark that she looks nice totally naked, then asks if she wants to him to go ashore so they can both go to some secluded spot nearby to let him rub some suntan lotion on her, or whatever, with either the assumption or presumption that she will not be a hypocritically-seducing undercover decoy cop ready to arrest him.

Usually, a proper and common date-to-mate endeavor is both a man and a woman separately and voluntarily seeking out then commits themself invitationally both giving and receiving RSVP legal-age non-harassive quasi-sexually-oriented solicitations to and from each other through the services of a matchmaking mediator.

Getting back to the nude human female on the beach, if the solicited nude tween consents to the fisherman's suggestion to pull ashore, go to some secluded spot to rub lotion on her, such might proceed to more intimate mutual connections, perhaps even and ultimately those resulting in her getting him messed up ejaculating sperm in her, on her, or wherever and even becoming pregnant by him.

What should first be done is to determine whether or not she has now-belonging-to-no-other-man availability and potential suitability, like presenting her with a Compatibility Questionnaire [ See http://teenplaymate.tripod.com/prepform.htm and http://bedbods.tripod.com/dateform.htm ] after which they both perhaps mutually sign a private Concubinal-Marriage Certification Form [ See http://metfems1.tripod.com/mateform.htm and http://metfems2.tripod.com/mateform.htm ], to prevent them from being mismated with those they should never have solicited and approached in the first place.

Had he not approached her when he first saw her naked, he might suspiciously forego the opportunity to make further use of the highly-erotic sight- realizing that she might again display her goodies to other men at random (as a publicly-accessible-by-anyone female hitchhiker does) when he is not around, and incur his jealous wrath with all sorts of dire consequences.

The man privately encountering the totally-nude girl or younger woman might not want to even begin to think about connecting with her and especially her private parts - not only because the man would be taking a chance of getting her pregnant, resulting him then having to become identified to and with her, but also becoming socially and financially responsible for her and a possible forthcoming child. Added to that, there is the chance of him contracting some venereal disease from her. Finally, there is the Biblical prohibition against fornication, with Hell promised to fornicators and adulterers.

All throughout the Bible, and especially in the New Testament, are admonitions to wait for the Lord, patiently turn the other cheek, look away rather than lust, and simply take the attitude of non-prudishly refusing to do anything about it at the moment (except perhaps pray) and let God work things out in His retributive ways and timing.

Easier is the decision if the tween strips naked or partially-naked on an overhead bridge in view of public traffic along a highway and seen by passing motorists speeding by on the freeway, in which case 911 cellphone calls to the police would likely be immediate responses by hapless motorists visually attacked by such gross indecency who themselves individually are not conveniently able to make use of that particular stimulating nudity imposed on them.

And where is the cutoff pertaining to degrees, stages, types, and intensities of partial-to-complete nudity suggested in the situation above? Would the same responses by a fisherman, fishermen, or freeway drivers be done seeing the sight of a woman merely topless (with bare breasts exposed)? Wearing a buttocks-baring thong-strap bikini, or barefoot with nude-arms-exposing sleeveless tank top and short shorts? With loose long hair, a sleeveless blouse, naked-legs-baring kneecap-length shortened skirt, and no socks under summertime sandals?

It is not reasonably expected for only [human] males to merely exercise sexual self-control while women terroristically and rather anonymously flaunt various degrees of immodesty to and against the visually-attacked men.

Clearly, nude/semi-nude streakerism is clearly another form of accursed non-solicited genocidal-school-shootings-similar terrorism.