Friday, August 24, 2007

Mark 4: Parable Of The Sower

Recently, Steven has too much time and nothing much to do, so he posted his wonderful thoughts on the parable of the sower and asked me to join him in the discussion. He made good points on the parable:

1) In the historical context, the parable is eschatologically laden. That means it has to do with YHWH judging and restoring Israel.

2) The difficult-est verses in the parable, Mark 4.11-12, paraphasing Isaiah 6 is about 'those on the outside' (probably those who were not in Jesus' circle, sharing his aspirations) are doomed to ignorant of the sower's parable, which is also the 'secret of the kingdom of god'.

3) The parable is about YHWH sowing his words, instead of the usual contemporary reading that the sower represents Christian evangelists.

I dont understand why did Steven say that this parable to Luke 19.11-27.

Anyway, after reading through the parable of the sower and isaiah 6 several time, i commented something. Not sure it makes sense but it does sounds 'fresh':

(Copied and pasted from from Steven's blog. So it has to be read as in the context of our discussion)

...my(Joshua Woo's) comment on your(Steven Sim's) view on the difficult-est passage is that i think you are right. Jesus was refering to 'the inauguration of the kingdom of god' as the 'secret of the kingdom of god'. He is clearly, as you had observed, incarnating Isaiah when he said that. But one difference between Jesus and Isaiah is that Jesus go further than Isaiah in his proclamation of judgement on Israel. He not only judge Israel but bring about the 'eschatological renewal' to Israel from an unthinkable perspective to the Jews (your term: eschatological sowing). Why is that so?

Look at Isa 6.13, the end of god's conversation with Isaiah. Although god proclaimed judgement to and reveal that he will punish Israel, nonetheless, god's word will remain and can still be found in Jerusalem (And though a tenth remains in the land, it will again be laid waste. But as the terebinth and oak leave stumps when they are cut down, so the *holy seed* will be the stump in *the land*.)

Whereas when Jesus revealed the secret of god's kingdom, he was proclaiming judgement and prophecising the punishement on Israel, but only this time, the seed appear to be everywhere (path, rocky places, thorns, good soil). It's not as Isaiah's generation to which salvation and renewal only happen in Jerusalem. This time, it is not 'land' anymore. It's on the various conditions of any places.

That means Jesus wasnt saying, like Isaiah said centuries earlier, that eschatological renewal happen only in Jerusalem. He is saying that, this time, god is sowing seeds at any places! Not that Jerusalem doesn't matter, but god has extend his kingdom beyond any particular place. God's kingdom is not in places but the condition of any places.

And this trans-Isaiah-nic proclaimation is the 'secret' to which many who has eyes to see but cant see, who has ears to hear, but can't hear.

In other words, the parable of sower is not merely on the restoration of Israel (or Jerusalem. I used Israel and Jerusalem interchangbly meaning the geographical nation). It comes together with the revelation that god had scattered his 'seed' differently this time; the restoration being extended beyond Jerusalem.

In that particular socio-religious context, this news was an exploding bomb that would had Jesus killed if it's not being broken in parables!

Not sure if anyone else attempt to read this parable in other ways, if do, pls de-freeze your fingers and start typing :)

Monday, August 20, 2007

Watched: Stranger Than Fiction


Stranger Than Fiction: He’s not crazy. He’s just written that way.

This is a story about the life of a dull tax-audit agent Harold Crick. He lived his life with nothing but numbers. He counts his brushstrokes, the number of steps from his apartment to the bus stop, the time of his lunch and tea break. His constant life came to a halt when he began hearing a voice that narrates about his routine existence. The voice keeps talking about him, telling the action and thought that he made. It describes, with precision, about his life. This is as if Harold’s life is a story written by someone to which he doesn’t have control over. One day he was told by the voice about his imminent death.

The voice shocked and prompted Harold to search for answers for his experience. He came to Prof. Jules Hilbert, a literary theorist, for help. After several sessions, Hilbert suggested to Harold to find out is he in a comedy or tragedy. Hilbert is like the theologian or philosopher who tries to figure out the meaning and implication of human’s experience. He would ask Harold question, which helps to discover what genre of story is Harold in.

What I find most interesting in the movie are the conversations between Harold and Hilbert. Their simple chit-chat sessions often dwells on topics which we take granted but to which determine our identity, for instance:

Hilbert: The only way to find out what story you are in is to determine what stories you’re not in…[after asking some questions, I can] determined conclusively that you are not King Hamlet, Scout Finch, Miss Marple, Frankenstein’s monster, or a Golemn… Aren’t you relieved to know that you’re not a Golemn?

Harold: [feeling odd and a little impatient] Yes, I’m relieved to know that I’m not a Golemn.

Hilbert: Good…

How many of us take granted that we are not Golemn? I did. I have never thought that it’s such a fortune that I’m not a Golemn. Or in other case, aren’t we consider ourselves fortunate that we don’t conspire to cheat, betray, and murder others to get what is precious to us?

On other hand, isn’t the way to find out our story is by determining which stories we are not in? Many people thought that when they arrived at a story or religion, they have found THE story or religion. There are very good reasons why meta-narrative is incredible. On the top, is our confined finitude to comprehend, to read, the interpret reality. We know something is out there, yet we know we are too easily distracted by our context from knowing that something. Perhaps, the only credulous meta-narrative is the story of our arriving to the current suspicious milieu of our ability (inability) to read meta-narrative. So how do we know which stories are we in? How does Harold knows which story is he in?

Hilbert: The last thing to determine conclusively is whether you are in a comedy or a tragedy. To quote Italo Calvino, ‘the ultimate meaning to which all stories refer has two faces: The continuity of life, the inevitability of death.’ Tragedy, you die. Comedy, you get hitched. Most comic heroes fall in love with people who are introduced after the story has begun. Usually people who hate the hero initially. Although I can’t imagine anyone hating you, Harold.

Harold: Professor Hilbert, I’m an IRS agent. Everyone hates me.

Hilbert: Right, right. Good. Have you met anyone recently who might loathe the very core of you?

Harold: I just started auditing a woman who told me to get bent.

Hilbert: Well, that sounds like a comedy. Try to develop that.

‘…That sounds like a comedy. Try to develop that’. This phrase pushes hope through our current incredulity-towards-meta-narrative tragedy. Since meta-narrative could turn out to be tragedy, why should we keep ourselves stoned in it?

We can’t know for sure are we in a comedy or tragedy. But we can develop a comedy of our own. Each of us gets hitched. But what if our stories turn out to be a tragedy? What if Harold’s story is not a comedy?

Hilbert: …This narrator might very well kill you…so I humbly suggest that you just forget all this and go live your life.

Harold: Go live my life? I’m living my life. I’d like to continue to live my life.

Hilbert: I know. Of course. I mean all of it. However long you have left. You know, I mean, Howard (Harold), you could use it to have an adventure. You know, invent something, or just finish reading Crime and Punishment. Hell, Harold, you could just eat nothing but pancakes if you wanted.

Harold: What’s wrong with you? Hey, I don’t wanna eat nothing but pancakes. I wanna live. I mean, who in their right mind in a choice between pancakes and living, chooses pancakes?

Hilbert: Harold, if you’d pause to think, I believe you’d realize that that answer’s inextricably contingent upon the type of life being led…and, of course, the quality of the pancakes. You don’t understand what I’m saying?

Harold: Yes, I do. But you have to understand that this isn’t a philosophy or a literary theory or a story to me. It’s my life.

Hilbert: Absolutely. So just go make it the one you’ve always wanted.



Saturday, August 11, 2007

Amezcua Bio Disc

When I reached home (Penang) today, my mom introduced a thing called Bio Disc to me, a product by Amezcua. It's invented by Dr. Ian Lyons in Germany. It's alleged that whenever water flow through the disc, the molecules will be altered and enabled to create positive energy and harmonise body's rhythmus. In short, when i got thirsty, i just need to pour water through the disc before drinking. After a while, detoxification will start happening and your body will get healthier.

She also demonstrates how miraculous the disc is by 4 experiments:

1) Place some salt on the disc. After some moment, i taste the salt which was placed on the disc. Then i tasted the other salt which is in the normal container. The salt in the container is more salty. I thought to myself it's pretty amazing. My mom said that it is due to the disc's energy that neutralizes the saltiness. But my postmodern disposition is too inbuilt that i couldn't stop by just one try. So i took a normal saucer and pour salt on it. Waited for a few minutes, i tasted the salt from the saucer and then followed by the salt from the disc. Then i did this repeatedly only to realize the saltiness from both, the saucer and the disc, is the same.

2) Some slices of lemon being placed on the disc for a while. I tasted the lemon then followed by normal slices of lemon. The slices on the disc are supposed to be less sour than the normal slices. But i didn't feel any differences.

3) 100 plus being pour through the disc into a cup. I drank the 'neutralized' 100 plus before i drank the normal one. The neutralized 100 plus was not as gassier. This is nothing special since pouring through the disc would have eliminated some of the 'gas'.

4) Squeeze some skin lotion on the disc. Then apply them on my left arm and followed by applying the normal lotion on my right arm. The 'neutralized' lotion supposed to absolved faster into the skin. Still, i didn't think and feel so.

After these experiments, i began to worried over my parents. The whole fuss about this disc is quackery. Following my anti-authoritarian postmodern's instinct, i sat down in-front of the computer and start googling.

I found the Amezcua website. The description is impressive:

"Technically engineered natural minerals have been structurally bonded in glass, at molecular level, using several high-heat fusion methods. This combination of techniques causes a catalytic energy conversion which creates a long-lasting, specific natural Nano resonance in the BIO DISC."

I'm not good with physics but I'm aware of some of the advancement in science. Such statement is a big claim. Together with my marketing instinct, I got suspicious of this Bio Disc. I'm really anxious for my parents, relatives, and family friends who are using this product. Yet on the other hand, I do not want my parents to feel cheated. In such ambiguity, the best thing I could do is to find out more about this product.

And true to my suspicion, I came to Discovery Channel discussion page and found people discussing about this disc.

There is this Dr. Stephen Lower, a retired professor of chemistry from Simon Fraser University, who've studied this disc and found it to be a fake. Besides debunking 'energized-water', concerning the Bio disc, he commented:

"[Structure-altered water] mixes new-age "spirituality", pseudoscience, and plain weird goofiness to provide a variety of products for the same kind of suckers who are taken in by Masuro Emoto-style water wonders."

This kind of theory about water seem to had come from Masuro Emoto. I came across his book at Kinokuniya few months ago. He wrote that water can respond to our communication and shaped in hexagonal cluster crystal at molecular level (electron microscope at 20,000x magnification). The fact is that there is no such thing. Water can't respond to our talking nor are they shaped like ice crystals!

Gary Greenberg commented on Emoto's work:

"As a scientist, I was astonished. It didn’t surprise me that I couldn’t find any scientific experiments [Emoto] has performed or any peer-reviewed journal articles that have been published describing controlled studies of Emoto’s work. A further search revealed that Emoto’s degree was from the Open International University in India, where an M.D. degree costs $500 and a Ph.D. costs $350, no classes or tests required."

Kristopher Setchfield has researched on Emoto's work and concluded, "After the lengthy review of Emoto’s research methods and results, I have come to believe that Dr. Emoto is offering pseudoscience to the masses in the guise of defensible research."

I hope such fraud will be exposed to the public so that less people be cheated. That's why this blog. Pass the message around!


Update 16 Aug 2007:
Check out the Amezcua's disclaimer statement (viewed on 16 Aug 07):

"Should the buyer and/or user experience any contra indication of any nature whatsoever or feel that it may, the buyer and/or user should immediately consult its medical practitioner/ physician and seek professional medical advice. It is the responsibility of the buyer and/or user to ensure that this product’s use is appropriate for any particular application. This product has been used traditionally and has not been scientifically evaluated for its benefits and efficacy.

The information contained herein has been compiled from sources believed to be reliable but no warranty, expressed or implied, is given that the information is complete or accurate nor that it is fit for a particular purpose. All such warranties are expressly disclaimed and excluded. Any opinions, recommendations and forecasts provided are not necessarily the current opinions, recommendations and forecasts of the sources and may be changed without notice at any time. All liability whatsoever arising from any error in or omission herein and for all consequences of relying on it are expressly disclaimed.

This product is sold "as is" without any warranty of any kind. Amezcua hereby disclaims all warranties and conditions with regard to this product including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose."

In other words, the company does not warrant any claim for bio disc, claims includes its benefits:

  • It is known to create positive energy field
  • It can potentially harmonise and balance your body’s rhythmus.

This is like saying, "This $500 disc can improve your health but there is no warranty that it is so." Add to that, there is no scientific claims being warranted as well 'This product has been used traditionally and has not been scientifically evaluated for its benefits and efficacy.'

In the end, it's really an outright fraud! It's like selling hamburgers that can heal your stomach problem!


Update 16 November 2010:
Here is the video evidence of how Ian Lyons used party trick to lie about scalar energy generated from the disc. Do watch and free yourself from Lyons' lie.


Wednesday, August 08, 2007

Finished: Renewing Biblical Interpretation

Finally i managed to eat up all the drydust found in Renewing Biblical Interpretation. I got the book from a flee-book stall last year but didn't had the chance to sit through it in a week or two, like how i treated the others. Nonetheless i'd read it!

Well, actually i didn't finish the whole book. I skipped 2 chapters.

This book is the sort of literature that i dont expect myself full apprehension. Its making involved 18 scholars across the Atlantic together with 4 academic institutions.

The 18 scholars:

Brevard S. Childs
Craig G. Bartholomew
Christopher R. Seitz
Walter Sundberg
John Riches
Al Wolters
Rex Mason
Neil B. MacDonald
Mary B. Hesse
Karl Möller
Thorsten Moritz
Colin J.D. Greene
Stephen I. Wright
Harry Daniel Beeby
Brian D. Ingraffia
Trevor Hart
Nicholas Wolterstorff
Walter Brueggemann

The 4 institutions:

British and Foreign Bible Society
University of Gloucestershire
Baylor University
Redeemer University College

At best, this humble attempt to read the work is to expose myself to conversations that are taking place among the learned community. At worst, it's a collector's item on my shelf.

Looking back, the chapter that i find most interesting and understandable is the concluding essay titled 'A First Retrospect on the Consultation' by Walter Brueggemann. The others are as dry as dust.

Anyway, the major theme that this book is pointing out is that there is a need to re-address the place of Scripture in current scholarships. Since the rise of critical-historical criticism in the 19th century, the Bible had never been examined as vigourous as before. Since then, there are many insights and data being discovered about this religious book. Should i say none of the other books of other faiths has been submitted to this much of scrutiny and yet still retain an intellectual standing of its own. Due to theses extensive research, conducted on the Bible by great critics, there is prevalent skepticism among the informed Bible readers regarding its validity as the authoritative Scripture in the Church. It seems that the more data being discovered, recovered, and formulated in the academia concerning the Bible, the less esteemed it became. In other words, the more we know about the Bible as we are knowing now, the more the Bible became unknowable as it used to be.

It was precisely to this concern that Craig Bartholomew and the other renounced Bible readers gather together in April 1998 for the first Scripture And Hermeneutics Seminar consultation to address this very matter. 'Renewing Biblical Interpretation' is their first fruit. Their first big fruit.

And i think this 'crisis' in biblical interpretation need nothing less than such consultation involving the Who's Who in the field of biblical and philosophical hermeneutic to talk, teach, and learn from one another with shared empathies. And when giants talk to giants, the midget me get to listen.

Ok, good words are off, it's complain time. Although the book is very informing and illuminating, there is one weakness to which i think rather ironic. One of the chapter in the book talks about aesthetic in reading and preaching the Scripture, written by Stephen I. Wright (who i suspect is N.T Wright's brother). But this book's cover lack precisely that. The cover is ugly. Although there are plentiful meaning in the picture as described in the first few pages of the book, but the message is not compatible with the cover. Yes, the message is beautiful, but i think the cover shouldn't be less aesthetically attractive.

Saturday, August 04, 2007

Larry Hurtado@Singapore Bible College

Yesterday me, Nalika, and Zhen Hao attended Ichthus Seminar at Singapore Bible College. This round, Prof. Larry Hurtado from Edinburgh Uni. was here to present his paper titled "Binatarian Monotheism: God and Jesus in the NT".

Actually this seminar was cater to audience ranges from 'pastors, theological students, scholars' as indicated in Ichthus website. Unashamedly, 3 of 'obviously-out-of-place' us were there sitting at most front (2nd row from front) of the conference room (due to my short-sightedness) eagerly awaiting words of wisdom and knowledge being poured out to our portion. Without discrimination to the uncatered audience, the conference began.

Hurtado was given 45 mins to read his paper then followed by Q&A session. If i'm not wrong (hesistate not because i was sleepy but because i didn't want to dominate the Q&A but with only 1 remark and 1 question), his main contention is that the main historical factor that gave rise or prompted the early monotheistic Jewish-Christians to worship Jesus as god is their 'special revelatory experiences' which demands them to do so.

In other words, he was saying that the early Christians, who believe in the one and only god (i supposed Hurtado was refering to YHWH, even though he didn't mention the tetragammaton), devote themselves to Jesus as how they devote themselves to the deity because, through their own religious experiences, they recognize that the one and only god, YHWH, wants them to do so. And i think this is where the paper's jargonistic title derived itself from; Binatarian Monotheism'.
Sidenote: This is the real reason why i attended the seminar: By just paying $10 and spending 1 hour, I can have a 1-sentence summary at the end of the conference to get the gist of Prof. Hurtado's 25-years-of-research findings. If not, the only other alternative that is available to me is to spend about 80 hours reading his 746-page magnum opus which cost $54. Not that i don't have the book (which, after yesterday, being consummated by his signature), but i dont have the time and energy and patience to go through the 80 hours of eating it and then follows the numerous hours of digestion.
In the presentation, he explored and confronted the works of Wilhelm Bousset, Maurice Casey, James Dunn, Timo Eskola, Richard Bauckham and others before concluding with his own approach. I'm not sure about the rest, but having read Bauckham's work, i dont think Hurtado represents Bauckham's view as clear. He categorized Bauckham's approach as 'theological inference' which lack the needed historical analysis. In other words, to Hurtado, Bauckham did not provide the 'how' to the question on the origin of the early Christians' devotion to Jesus: how did the early Christians came to worship Jesus? And it is on this miscategorization i mumbly remarked, "(elegantly & unjustifiably paraphrased here) I think Bauckham did suggest that the resurrection as the historical event that provides the early Christians with a hermeneutical lens to interpret the OT material such as the Deutero-Isaiah as indication that Jesus is god and hence worth worshipping."

And my question was, "do you (Prof. Hurtado) consider the resurrection as a historical event?"

Graciously he replied (and at this post, i unjustifiably paraphrase) that the resurrection by itself cannot prompt the early Christians to worship Jesus. The 1st disciples encounter with the risen Jesus do not, by itself, motivate them to worship Jesus as to god. It was through 'special revelatory experiences' of the disciples that they came to understand that it was god, himself, who requires them to do so and therefore they did so.

Though i was (and still not) satisfy with his reply, i have to chained myself, due to my identity as an uncatered audience, from further questioning and clarification so that the real catered audiences be priviledged to correspond as well.

Dr. Phillip Satthethwaite, OT lecturer from BGST, posted a question which i regard as sharing the similar concern as mine "What was that which provides the horse-power for early Christian worship to Jesus?" After him, there were 2 other questions which are very good, applicable, and practical, but i just simply can't recall them now.

Anyway, i think i will get the recorded DVD from Ichthus when it is being released (if that happens) to the public. Until now, I have a bit of uneasy feeling (regret?) that i didn't take the liberty to inquire further with Prof. Hurtado. But the 'uncatered-audience' part of me is glad that i didn't.

Thursday, August 02, 2007

237 Reasons For Sex

This study just came out in the journal of Archieves of Sexual Behaviour. Although there are 237 listed reasons, i have that all of them can be narrowed or categorized into not more than 5 'genus' reasons (acceptance, pleasure etc). Check out reason no. 7, whatver it means.


1. I was "in the heat of the moment."
2. It just happened.
3. I was bored.
4. It just seemed like "the thing to do."
5. Someone dared me.
6. I desired emotional closeness (i.e., intimacy).
7. I wanted to feel closer to God.
8. I wanted to gain acceptance from friends.
9. It's exciting, adventurous.
10. I wanted to make up after a fight.
11. I wanted to get rid of aggression.
12. I was under the influence of drugs.
13. I wanted to try to get a better mate than my current mate.
14. I wanted to express my love for the person.
15. I wanted to experience the physical pleasure.
16. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
17. I felt like I owed it to the person.
18. I was attracted to the person.
19. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
20. My friends were having sex and I wanted to fit in.
21. It feels good.
22. My partner kept insisting.
23. The person was famous and I wanted to be able to say I had sex with him/her.
24. I was physically forced to.
25. I was verbally coerced into it.
26. I wanted the person to love me.
27. I wanted to have a child.
28. I wanted to make someone else jealous.
29. I wanted to have more sex than my friends.
30. I was married and you're supposed to.
31. I was tired of being a virgin.
32. I was "horny."
33. I wanted to feel loved.
34. I was feeling lonely.
35. Everyone else was having sex.
36. I wanted the attention.
37. It was easier to "go all the way" than to stop.
38. I wanted to ensure the relationship was "committed."
39. I was competing with someone else to "get the person."
40. I wanted to "gain control" of the person.
41. I was curious about what the person was like in bed.
42. I was curious about sex.
43. I wanted to feel attractive.
44. I wanted to please my partner.
45. I wanted to display submission.
46. I wanted to release anxiety/stress
47. I didn't know how to say "no."
48. I felt like it was my duty.
49. I wanted to end the relationship.
50. My friends pressured me into it.
51. I wanted the adventure/excitement.
52. I wanted the experience.
53. I felt obligated to.
54. It's fun.
55. I wanted to get even with someone (i.e., revenge).
56. I wanted to be popular.
57. It would get me gifts.
58. I wanted to act out a fantasy.
59. I hadn't had sex for a while.
60. The person was "available."
61. I didn't want to "lose" the person.
62. I thought it would help "trap" a new partner.
63. I wanted to capture someone else's mate.
64. I felt sorry for the person.
65. I wanted to feel powerful.
66. I wanted to "possess" the person.
67. I wanted to release tension.
68. I wanted to feel good about myself.
69. I was slumming.
70. I felt rebellious.
71. I wanted to intensify my relationship.
72. It seemed like the natural next step in my relationship.
73. I wanted to be nice.
74. I wanted to feel connected to the person.
75. I wanted to feel young.
76. I wanted to manipulate him/her into doing something for me.
77. I wanted him/her to stop bugging me about sex.
78. I wanted to hurt/humiliate the person.
79. I wanted the person to feel good about himself/herself.
80. I didn't want to disappoint the person.
81. I was trying to "get over" an earlier person/relationship.
82. I wanted to reaffirm my sexual orientation.
83. I wanted to try out new sexual techniques or positions.
84. I felt guilty.
85. My hormones were out of control.
86. It was the only way my partner would spend time with me.
87. It became a habit.
88. I wanted to keep my partner happy.
89. I had no self-control.
90. I wanted to communicate at a "deeper" level.
91. I was afraid my partner would have an affair if I didn't have sex with him/her.
92. I was curious about my sexual abilities.
93. I wanted a "spiritual" experience.
94. It was just part of the relationship "routine."
95. I wanted to lose my inhibitions.
96. I got "carried away."
97. I needed another "notch on my belt."
98. The person demanded that I have sex with him/her.
99. The opportunity presented itself.
100. I wanted to see what it would be like to have sex while stoned (e.g., on marijuana or some other drug).
101. It's considered "taboo" by society.
102. I wanted to increase the number of sex partners I had experienced.
103. The person was too "hot" (sexy) to resist.
104. I thought it would relax me.
105. I thought it would make me feel healthy.
106. I wanted to experiment with new experiences.
107. I wanted to see what it would be like to have sex with another person.
108. I thought it would help me to fall asleep.
109. I could brag to other people about my sexual experience.
110. It would allow me to "get sex out of my system" so that I could focus on other things.
111. I wanted to decrease my partner's desire to have sex with someone else.
112. It would damage my reputation if I said "no."
113. The other person was too physically attractive to resist.
114. I wanted to celebrate something.
115. I was seduced.
116. I wanted to make the person feel better about herself/himself.
117. I wanted to increase the emotional bond by having sex.
118. I wanted to see whether sex with a different partner would feel different or better.
119. I was mad at my partner, so I had sex with someone else.
120. I wanted to fulfill a previous promise to my partner.
121. It was expected of me.
122. I wanted to keep my partner from straying.
123. I wanted the pure pleasure.
124. I wanted to dominate the other person.
125. I wanted to make a conquest.
126. I'm addicted to sex.
127. It was a favor to someone.
128. I wanted to be used or degraded.
129. Someone offered me money to do it.
130. I was drunk.
131. It seemed like good exercise.
132. I was pressured into doing it.
133. The person offered to give me drugs for doing it.
134. I was frustrated and needed relief.
135. It was a romantic setting.
136. I felt insecure.
137. My regular partner is boring, so I had sex with someone else.
138. I was on the "rebound" from another relationship.
139. I wanted to boost my self-esteem
140. I wanted to get my partner to stay with me.
141. Because of a bet.
142. It was a special occasion.
143. It was the next step in the relationship.
144. I wanted to get a special favor from someone.
145. I wanted to get back at my partner for having cheated on me.
146. I wanted to enhance my reputation.
147. I wanted to keep warm.
148. I wanted to punish myself.
149. I wanted to break up a rival's relationship by having sex with his/her partner.
150. I wanted to stop my partners' nagging.
151. I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
152. I wanted to brag to friends about my conquests.
153. I wanted to improve my sexual skills.
154. I wanted to get a job.
155. I wanted to get a raise.
156. I wanted to get a promotion.
157. I wanted to satisfy a compulsion.
158. I wanted to make money.
159. I wanted to keep my partner satisfied.
160. I wanted to change the topic of conversation.
161. I wanted to get out of doing something.
162. I wanted to test my compatibility with a new partner.
163. I wanted to get a partner to express love.
164. I wanted to put passion back into my relationship.
165. I wanted to prevent a breakup.
166. I wanted to become one with another person.
167. I wanted to get a favor from someone.
168. I wanted to breakup my relationship.
169. I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease (e.g., herpes, AIDS).
170. I wanted to breakup another's relationship.
171. I wanted to avoid hurting someone's feelings.
172. I wanted to make myself feel better about myself.
173. I wanted to get rid of a headache.
174. I was afraid to say "no" due to the possibility of physical harm.
175. I wanted to keep my partner from straying.
176. I wanted to burn calories.
177. I wanted to even the score with a cheating partner.
178. I wanted to hurt an enemy.
179. I wanted to feel older.
180. It is my genetic imperative.
181. It was an initiation rite to a club or organization.
182. I wanted to become more focused on work - sexual thoughts are distracting.
183. I wanted to say "I've missed you."
184. I wanted to celebrate a birthday or anniversary or special occasion.
185. I wanted to say "I'm sorry."
186. I wanted to return a favor.
187. I wanted to say "Thank You."
188. I wanted to welcome someone home.
189. I wanted to say "goodbye."
190. I wanted to defy my parents.
191. I wanted to relieve menstrual cramps.
192. I wanted to relieve "blue balls."
193. I wanted to get the most out of life.
194. I wanted to feel feminine.
195. I wanted to feel masculine.
196. I am a sex addict.
197. I wanted to see what all the fuss is about.
198. I thought it would boost my social status.
199. The person had a lot of money.
200. The person's physical appearance turned me on.
201. The person was a good dancer.
202. Someone had told me that this person was good in bed.
203. The person had beautiful eyes.
204. The person made me feel sexy.
205. An erotic movie had turned me on.
206. The person had taken me out to an expensive dinner.
207. The person was a good kisser.
208. The person had bought me jewelry.
209. The person had a great sense of humor.
210. The person seemed self-confident.
211. The person really desired me.
212. The person was really desired by others.
213. I wanted to gain access to that person's friend.
214. I felt jealous.
215. The person flattered me.
216. I wanted to see if I could get the other person into bed.
217. The person had a desirable body.
218. I had not had sex in a long time.
219. The person smelled nice.
220. The person had an attractive face.
221. I saw the person naked and could not resist.
222. I was turned on by the sexual conversation.
223. The person was intelligent.
224. The person caressed me.
225. The person wore revealing clothes.
226. The person had too much to drink and I was able to take advantage of him/her.
227. I knew the person was usually "out of my league."
228. The person was mysterious.
229. I realized I was in love.
230. I wanted to forget about my problems.
231. I wanted to reproduce.
232. I/she was ovulating.
233. I wanted my partner to notice me.
234. I wanted to help my partner forget about his/her problems.
235. I wanted to lift my partner's spirits.
236. I wanted to submit to my partner.
237. I wanted to make my partner feel powerful.


Top 10 reasons men have sex:
1. I was attracted to the person.
2. It feels good.
3. I wanted to experience physical pleasure.
4. It's fun.
5. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
7. I was "horny."
8. I wanted to express my love for the person.
9. I wanted to achieve an orgasm.
10. I wanted to please my partner.


Top 10 reasons women have sex:
1. I was attracted to the person.
2. I wanted to experience physical pleasure.
3. It feels good.
4. I wanted to show my affection to the person.
5. I wanted to express my love for the person.
6. I was sexually aroused and wanted the release.
7. I was "horny."
8. It's fun.
9. I realised I was in love.
10. I was "in the heat of the moment."


Bottom five reason men have sex:
1. The person offered to give me drugs for doing it.
2. I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease.
3. I wanted to punish myself.
4. I wanted to break up my relationship.
5. I wanted to get a job.


Bottom five reasons women have sex:
1. I wanted to give someone else a sexually transmitted disease.
2. Someone offered me money to do it.
3. I wanted to get a raise.
4. It was an initiation rite to a club or organisation.
5. I wanted to get a job.