[Used to be: How these little fingers please a woman every night]
I discovered this secret the other day and was asked to pass it on.
You start by running your fingers over that delicate little thing she wears.
Carefully fold it and put it in a pile. Add other delicates.
Then put the whites in another pile.
Then put the colored clothes in a third pile.
Take them to the laundry room and put them in the laundry.
Then ... well you get the picture.
I swear, if you do the laundry every night, maybe the dishes now and then, even the occasional--dare I say it--vacuuming you will please your woman to no end.
[ August 04, 2008, 09:58 PM: Message edited by: Darth_Mauve ]
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
If you do your laundry every night, that will get very expensive.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
I do it every night.
And yes, that would work for me. Posted by Mike (Member # 55) on :
I'm confused.
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
We do laundry every day.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Do you only have two days worth of clothes?
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
Ha ha! I loved this!
It reminded me of that silly song about the guy on Wednesday night, which is th night for whoopie. (something like that) It cracks me up.
But I will tell you, my husband just went out to buy my daughter shoes, because her flip-flops broke. He is bringing back dinner.
He is so sexy to me right now!
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
Elmer, if you have 20 days worth of clothes do you leave them dirty in the hamper until day 21?
Women like men who wash clothes when they are dirty, not when they are out of clothes and have no other choice.
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote:Women like men who wash clothes when they are dirty, not when they are out of clothes and have no other choice.
It seems more sensible to be a man who washes clothes when his family has accumulated enough dirty clothes of a given type to fill a washing machine.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
You probably have less people in your household than some of us, creating smaller loads. Washing two people's one day worth of laundry every day would indeed be wasteful. But if you have 3 or 4 kids, you easily create a full load or two of dirty clothes every day.
Posted by airmanfour (Member # 6111) on :
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: Ha ha! I loved this!
It reminded me of that silly song about the guy on Wednesday night, which is th night for whoopie. (something like that) It cracks me up.
But I will tell you, my husband just went out to buy my daughter shoes, because her flip-flops broke. He is bringing back dinner.
He is so sexy to me right now!
So I guess it's business time?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
You probably have less people in your household than some of us, creating smaller loads. Washing two people's one day worth of laundry every day would indeed be wasteful. But if you have 3 or 4 kids, you easily create a full load or two of dirty clothes every day.
Obviously the OP was directing his comments toward couples with families, but this was not stated, and single people my age don't assume such things all the time. I immediately wondered why someone would do laundry every day as well.
Posted by rollainm (Member # 8318) on :
quote:Originally posted by airmanfour:
quote:Originally posted by Elizabeth: Ha ha! I loved this!
It reminded me of that silly song about the guy on Wednesday night, which is th night for whoopie. (something like that) It cracks me up.
But I will tell you, my husband just went out to buy my daughter shoes, because her flip-flops broke. He is bringing back dinner.
He is so sexy to me right now!
So I guess it's business time?
You know when I'm down to just my socks it's time for business. That's why they're called business socks.
Posted by JennaDean (Member # 8816) on :
quote: It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
When we were newly married we did laundry once a week. Now (4 kids later) we go through 6 loads a week in summer, about 8 in winter. So it's either spend a whole day and a half doing nothing but laundry, or do one load every day (and two on some days).
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
You probably have less people in your household than some of us, creating smaller loads. Washing two people's one day worth of laundry every day would indeed be wasteful. But if you have 3 or 4 kids, you easily create a full load or two of dirty clothes every day.
Obviously the OP was directing his comments toward couples with families, but this was not stated, and single people my age don't assume such things all the time. I immediately wondered why someone would do laundry every day as well.
There was no judgement attached, I was just pointing it out. Not that I'm assuming you assume there was judgement involved in my clarification, but my assumometer is broken so I'm clarifying my tone of my clarification just in case.
And now my head hurts. Oh well, at least we have home made peach ice cream. *wanders off*
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
quote:Originally posted by ketchupqueen:
quote:Sometimes. It seems like a major waste of time (and water and energy) to do it every day. I can't see doing it more than twice a week.
You probably have less people in your household than some of us, creating smaller loads. Washing two people's one day worth of laundry every day would indeed be wasteful. But if you have 3 or 4 kids, you easily create a full load or two of dirty clothes every day.
I have six people in my family. I was thinking it was just a couple though, so I guess you could fill a load everyday. I still doubt you could fill an oversize load everyday.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
Yeah. I basically do my laundry when it's down to slim pickings. But then I'm 18, and don't concern myself about my parents' laundry.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We have a two year old who spills on everything and is a heavy wetter, so after every nap her pull-up has soaked through and she needs new pants (and often socks and shirt and crib sheet, too.) We have a three month old who goes through about four to eight outfits a day (depending on how much spitting she's doing that day and how her diapers are holding), and a recently potty trained four year old who still has accidents a few times a week (at least.) Not to mention spit rags, towels, and oh, yeah, we go through sheets at a phenomenal rate. Plus it's summer, so we often go swimming and have swimsuits, towels, and cover-ups to wash. Oh, and my sling, I'm always getting food (and spit up, and baby poop) on my sling.
Yeah. There are days when we go through only maybe a half load, but there are days when we easily make enough laundry to fill 2 large-capacity washers in one day.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
We have a two year old who spills on everything and is a heavy wetter, so after every nap her pull-up has soaked through and she needs new pants (and often socks and shirt and crib sheet, too.) We have a three month old who goes through about four to eight outfits a day (depending on how much spitting she's doing that day and how her diapers are holding), and a recently potty trained four year old who still has accidents a few times a week (at least.) Not to mention spit rags, towels, and oh, yeah, we go through sheets at a phenomenal rate. Plus it's summer, so we often go swimming and have swimsuits, towels, and cover-ups to wash. Oh, and my sling, I'm always getting food (and spit up, and baby poop) on my sling.
Yeah. There are days when we go through only maybe a half load, but there are days when we easily make enough laundry to fill 2 large-capacity washers in one day.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
(Not to mention, most people probably don't have access to a large-capacity washer. I know we didn't, unless we loaded up the car and schlepped it all to the laundromat, until new management bought our apt. complex and they changed out the old washers and driers for newer, bigger ones.)
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't like the title of this thread. It's a joke on the inside, but it still means that the front page of the forum looks like it belongs on a porn site.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Only if porn forums generally only have one thread with a mildly racy title anywhere on their front page, and actually spend most of their time discussing popular (non-porn) movies. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Still. It doesn't belongs here - it is much too crude for a family site. It would be nice if the title were changed.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
quote: quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by airmanfour:
quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Elizabeth: Ha ha! I loved this!
It reminded me of that silly song about the guy on Wednesday night, which is th night for whoopie. (something like that) It cracks me up.
But I will tell you, my husband just went out to buy my daughter shoes, because her flip-flops broke. He is bringing back dinner.
He is so sexy to me right now! --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So I guess it's business time? --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You know when I'm down to just my socks it's time for business. That's why they're called business socks.
I'm quite sleepy, are business hours over?
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
Yep. Go sort out the recycling.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:Still. It doesn't belongs here - it is much too crude for a family site. It would be nice if the title were changed.
I rather vividly remember there being an entire thread devoted to the adult discussion of sexual relations when I first got here. I can't find it now, but I'm rather surprised that you honestly think that title is too racy for Hatrack.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There is a difference between discussing adult topics maturely and pornatastic thread titles like this one.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:There is a difference between discussing adult topics maturely and pornatastic thread titles like this one.
Sure, but this thread is also a joke. The pornatastic thread title is a far bit of what makes the joke so funny.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I know it is a joke. It is an inappropriate joke and the porntastic title.
Not everything is justified by "it is supposed to be funny." There are a number of jokes that are inappropriate.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I know it is a joke. It is an inappropriate joke and the porntastic title.
Not everything is justified by "it is supposed to be funny." There are a number of jokes that are inappropriate.
I strongly disagree that it's inappropriate. I don't think we actually have anyone on this forum who wouldn't get the joke immediately upon entering this thread, and who hasn't already been exposed in one form or another to content such as that in the title.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
"There are worse things out there" is not a good justification for anything.
You don't know who all reads this forum, and you most certainly cannot say that everyone gets the joke immediately and thinks it is great. It isn't, and just because there are worse things out there doesn't make it okay.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:"There are worse things out there" is not a good justification for anything.
You don't know who all reads this forum, and you most certainly cannot say that everyone gets the joke immediately and thinks it is great. It isn't, and just because there are worse things out there doesn't make it okay.
I didn't say that they'd think it was great, I said they would get the joke. Meaning they would understand it. Meaning that the content isn't too mature for them. And therefore that it is not inappropriate.
Where something is or is not appropriate, especially in the realm of off color humor, is based on the maturity level of the consumers. In this case my argument was that the consumers of Hatrack are more than mature enough to handle the content of this joke -- whether or not they think it is a funny or good joke. The "exposure to similar content" comment was a side bit supporting my assertion that the denizens of Hatrack are fully capable of understanding and handling this joke. The fact that you are the only one who finds the joke to be inappropriate so far also supports that assertion. If there are many who join you in decrying it, then I might come to agree with you. Though I would find myself rather disappointed in just how prudish Hatrack would have become then.
Seriously, an innuendo referencing fingers pleasing a woman is too much for a Hatrack thread title -- that turns out to be about those fingers doing laundry?
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
I think it's worth noting that the joke is naturally selective of an audience with the maturity to make the association necessary to understand the innuendo. If you aren't mature enough, i.e. lack the experience or exposure to the elements of the joke, then you just won't get it. Either way, it's not in itself objectionable to anybody except those who are mature enough to understand, and yet believe that others are not, and yet fail to consider the above.
What I am about to post is very interesting, but please understand that it is *mildly* racey.
What you see in the photo is determined by your experience. Experiments show that children of a certain level of maturity, when shown this picture, see an arrangement of 10 dolphins. By default, the picture exposes your level of experience, rather than, well, anything you haven't seen before.
(If this picture offends you, I offer only that it did appear in my high school psychology book, way back when.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I have considered everything, and in my judgement it is a problem. Of course it contains explicit innuendo of a particularly bombastic type - that's why it was used as a joke in the first place. It does nothing for my opinion of the opening poster.
Posted by Starsnuffer (Member # 8116) on :
I just didn't like the joke that much and before I finally came to the thread I was wondering what somebody was doing posting something with a title like that.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:I just didn't like the joke that much and before I finally came to the thread I was wondering what somebody was doing posting something with a title like that.
Does that warrant censoring it for people who did enjoy it?
Before I saw that it was a joke, I was wondering the same thing. But that was when I thought the thread itself was going to be in the same vein as the title. Now that I know the joke, I find it highly amusing and not at all offensive.
quote:What you see in the photo is determined by your experience. Experiments show that children of a certain level of maturity, when shown this picture, see an arrangement of 10 dolphins. By default, the picture exposes your level of experience, rather than, well, anything you haven't seen before.
It's possible I have a very dirty mind... I had to struggle to see the dolphins Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
once i knew they were there i saw them, but I still see them in the context of the "other" picture, not as a separate or alternate picture.
Posted by Uprooted (Member # 8353) on :
I wasn't offended by the subject line, and I'm generally kind of a prude about stuff like that. Now, if the thread had not been a joke (which I assumed it was), I would have been offended.
I think you'd pretty much have to be a child to see the dolphins first in that picture. It took me a while to see them, and even after I did, it didn't make a lot of sense to my eyes--why are they swimming in a pool of white surrounded by dark?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:It took me a while to see them, and even after I did, it didn't make a lot of sense to my eyes--why are they swimming in a pool of white surrounded by dark?
They're space dolphins.
Posted by Sharpie (Member # 482) on :
I'm not offended whatsoever by the subject line. Porntastic?? Really? I must hang out in dirtier areas of the internet.
I'd add weeding the garden to the list of things I find very attractive in a man, and maybe grout cleaning, although grout is not all that appealing a thing, clean or not.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Possibly, but I'd hate for Hatrack to be in one of the dirtier areas of the internet.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't like the thread title, either. It's just a little too crude to feel appropriate here, and it makes me cringe a little every time I see it. *shrug*
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
Orincoro makes a great point. You'd have to have a certain level of sophistication about what people might mean when they say "please a woman" to even make the association that could lend an "adult" flavor to the thread title. The joke automatically screens out the audience for which it would be inappropriate, IMO.
(If the argument is that it's inappropriate to post anything that might invoke some imagination about mature audiences subject matter, then there really is no difference between this and threads that "maturely" discuss adult subject matter.)
Anyway, one might note that by posting objections on the thread they are keeping it near the top. If they think a line has been crossed it might be more productive to address the concern to the moderators.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
It isn't nearly as sophisticated humor as you think it may be - it doesn't take a wide breadth of knowledge and experience to get the "joke."
And I hate that it is explicit and cluttering up the page of a family forum.
There is definitely a difference between maturely discussing adult subject matter and using macho, sexual bombast in a thread title.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:And I hate that it is explicit and cluttering up the page of a family forum.
The whole point that people are making (and the point of the joke really) is that it isn't explicit.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't think the title violates the terms of service, and as such there's no reason to involve the moderators. I'm not even asking Dan to change it. . . I think it's creepy, but whatever. My purpose in posting is mainly because of Alcon's comment that kat was the only one bothered so far. Just wanted to make sure this didn't devolve into a bunch of people telling her to lighten up.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I'm just the tiniest bit discomfitted by the title. Not really in the "I care about this at all" manner, but more in the "This just doesn't seem to fit here" manner. Just for the record.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
I think it falls quite short of "bombast" and even any real prurient quality whatsoever, except what the reader infers. Sure, I made the association, but it's not like I wouldn't have had a similar thought today anyway.
Edit: and "explicit innuendo" is an oxymoron.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Yeah, I think kat has been pretty out of proportion and even completely inaccurate in some of her descriptions.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
What do you suggest the title be changed to?
The way to a man's heart is through his stomach. The way to a woman's heart is through the appropriate application of fabric softener.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I think that would be lovely.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
The title isn't explicit, no, but the mental image it conjures (for me) is, and it's just not one I care to have when I open hatrack. If it said "How to please a woman every night" I'd have no problem with it, and I think the joke would be the same.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: The title isn't explicit, no, but the mental image it conjures (for me) is, and it's just not one I care to have when I open hatrack.
Bingo.
Posted by Launchywiggin (Member # 9116) on :
I'd like the thread title to be changed, too. "Little fingers" makes me think of small, underdeveloped hands. He also doesn't state (in the title) that it's his wife--it's ambiguous. It could be "How these little fingers please a *different* woman every night"
I'm also tired of the idea that it's rare for men to do laundry/dishes/vacuuming. It was the opposite in the house I grew up in.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
I could see if the title evoked the images that, from their report, I suspect it is for some people, that they'd want it changed. Honestly, it was a pretty lame joke to begin with.
I don't think that it violates the TOS, but I'd like it changed too.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
Perhaps, to those who find some problem with the thread, you should cease posting in it. I believe that your concerns were well heard, but to constantly voice them after every other post only serves to keep the "offending" thread in a most prominent position on the page. If you're are only posting to campaign for a thread title change I urge you to reconsider. There is no honor in badgering a fellow Hatracker over an issue of not policy, but preference. Merely a suggestion.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
You may not realize, Trent, but Dan_Raven is the person who started this thread, under an alternate handle. So the posts on this page, at least, are part of a dialog with the opening poster about what would be a more acceptable thread title.
As for your wider point, if the people who objected didn't respond to the comments their objections raised, it would basically be conceeding the thread to the people responding saying that they don't think the title needs to be changed. So while yes, each post keeps the thread at the top of the page, expecting people not to respond to people answering them on a discussion board is more than a little silly.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by MrSquicky: I'm just the tiniest bit discomfitted by the title. Not really in the "I care about this at all" manner, but more in the "This just doesn't seem to fit here" manner. Just for the record.
Yeah, I agree. I wouldn't post it just because it's out of place.
Posted by Jon Boy (Member # 4284) on :
Count me among those who find the title tasteless and want it changed.
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: You may not realize, Trent, but Dan_Raven is the person who started this thread, under an alternate handle. So the posts on this page, at least, are part of a dialog with the opening poster about what would be a more acceptable thread title.
CAn I just say I don't like the alter-ego business? Why doesn't Dan just post as Dan so the nOObs don't get confused?
Posted by Elmer's Glue (Member # 9313) on :
So does Dan have really small hands?
Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
I don't get the small hands thing. Between that and the general Hatrack vibe, it's a really weird thread title here. Save that for GC.
However, I must point out that it shouldn't matter if it's with a different woman every night, as long as it's all consensual. And, um, safe (I guess).
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
It shouldn't matter?
You're saying that somebody is wrong if it matters to them?
If so, you're wrong. Posted by The Genuine (Member # 11446) on :
You're probably right.
Just tonight I told the girl I've been seeing that she has terrible taste in men.
Posted by Darth_Mauve (Member # 4709) on :
The title has been changed. I hope it fits.
Lots of questions need to be answered, so here goes:
1) The title was changed because people asked. I was not ordered to change it, forced to change it, or in any way manipulated into changing it. Some people call that "self censorship". They are right, and I fully support self censorship.
2) Why so long? I would have changed it sooner, but I have issues with my user-name and password. Basically, I am stuck at Dan_raven at work and Darth Mauve at home. I can't edit titles from work on threads I started as Mauve.
3) Why the two names? Someone hacked into the email account I used for my account here. I had Papa move it to a new account. This meant a new password. I logged in at one computer with the new password. When I tried at my home computer it didn't work. Instead of bothering Papa about this, I switched to an alt with an easy password for my home computer.
4)The joke is Cliche'd. True. But the cliche' rings true no matter how much work you do around the house. Men who do more work around the home make their women happier, and there is always more work to do.
5)My fingers are far from small. Its a visual that adds a tiny bit of humor to the joke.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Thanks for the change, Dan.
Posted by Juxtapose (Member # 8837) on :
quote:Originally posted by Orincoro:
quote:Originally posted by ElJay: You may not realize, Trent, but Dan_Raven is the person who started this thread, under an alternate handle. So the posts on this page, at least, are part of a dialog with the opening poster about what would be a more acceptable thread title.
CAn I just say I don't like the alter-ego business? Why doesn't Dan just post as Dan so the nOObs don't get confused?
I didn't realize until this thread that this was the case. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
Thanks, Dan. Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
*shrug* Okie dokie, when the majority of the population disagrees with you on something like this the majority is right
And I had no clue Dan and Darth Mauve were one and the same... Learn something new every day I guess.
Posted by Trent Destian (Member # 11653) on :
quote: *shrug* Okie dokie, when the majority of the population disagrees with you on something like this the majority is right
No, the majority wins. This was not an issue of right and wrong, but of personal preference.
Posted by Alcon (Member # 6645) on :
quote:No, the majority wins. This was not an issue of right and wrong, but of personal preference.
Well in the context of my argument they are. It's a matter of personal preference, but my argument was that the majority of Hatrack was probably fine with the title. I have just been proved wrong.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I just wish we could get back to the original purpose of the thread, at least for me, which is that everyday kindnesses are sexy.
Posted by Elizabeth (Member # 5218) on :
I just wish we could get back to the original purpose of the thread, at least for me, which is that everyday kindnesses are sexy.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
Yes, they are, Elizabeth.
My husband will mention sometimes that one of the nicest things I ever did for him was make him a sandwich.
He came home one day to pick up something and head out again on a job he was doing. It was lunchtime, I was feeding the kids, so I just naturally made him a sandwich and took it out to his truck to give it to him before he left. I overheard him telling someone else how great it was, because I didn't even ask - I just knew he was probably not going to get a chance to eat and cared enough to take the time to make him something.
A little thing - I mean, it was lunchtime I was feeding the kids anyway - but it was something that said "Hey, I'm thinking about you, and I care enough about you to want to do something for you even without asking you."
Those little things say that you are putting the other person's needs above you own, and they are a mark of a relationship with commitment.
Posted by maui babe (Member # 1894) on :
I don't necessarily think a man helping around the house or doing laundry is especially a "kindness". He lives there and wears clothes too. I think it's more about him showing that he's aware of things that need to be done and does them without being asked (cuz nobody asks me to clean or cook or do laundry, you know).
Posted by Orincoro (Member # 8854) on :
Well, they would ask you if you didn't do it, so I'd say that's a mark on your winning tally.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
quote:Originally posted by maui babe: I don't necessarily think a man helping around the house or doing laundry is especially a "kindness". He lives there and wears clothes too.
So what? His wife's doing laundry, cooking, etc. are kindnesses too. And while sometimes it's hard to see what can so easily feel like drudgery in that way, that doesn't make it any less true.
Someone I know made the point a bit differently. He said, "My wife is a wonderful woman! Every day she provides food, housing, and clean clothing for 10 orphans! Isn't that wonderful?" The audience agreed that it was. Then he corrected himself: "Actually, they're not orphans. They're our children. Why do people not think that is just as wonderful?"
Posted by Flaming Toad on a Stick (Member # 9302) on :
quote:Originally posted by rivka: Someone I know made the point a bit differently. He said, "My wife is a wonderful woman! Every day she provides food, housing, and clean clothing for 10 orphans! Isn't that wonderful?" The audience agreed that it was. Then he corrected himself: "Actually, they're not orphans. They're our children. Why do people not think that is just as wonderful?"
Wonderfulness aside, I think most people would say that parents have an obligation to provide food, housing, and clean clothing to their children, while providing for orphans is seen as being above and beyond the call of duty.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I don't disagree -- morally or legally.
But that rather misses his point.
Posted by scifibum (Member # 7625) on :
His point was that people like orphans better than kids with parents?
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Well, yes. The malnutrition gives them big, cute eyes. Who doesn't love an orphan?
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
Eh. My kids have big, cute eyes just by virtue of being my husband's kids. They're also skinny. They'd make good stage orphans.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
Oh, is THAT why I think my kids are so cute? It's the bones jutting out?
All my kids are on the lean side, but my oldest boy is especially bad. If he took off his shirt and crouched by a gutter he'd be a poster child for Atmit.
And I am NOT naturally a lean person. I wonder if strangers think I steal my kids' food.
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
Just the good stuff.
Posted by Sachiko (Member # 6139) on :
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Blushing]](graemlins/blushing.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Learn something new every day I guess.
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)