 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Family Forum / Marriage / Marriage / June 2006Homosexuality as a "mental disorder"
I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the APA was correct in refusing to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. Here is a brief history: Prior to the 1973 publishing of the DSM-II, committees of the APA met to discuss this issue. A compromise was reached -- a diagnosis of "sexual orientation disturbance". The defining characteristic of this diagnosis was that the person was unhappy with their sexual orientation -- and it caused them psychological impairment (depression, anxiety, etc.). The committee recognized that, while some people experienced such impairment, others did not. Since the APA is in the business of identifying psychiatric disorders (i.e., those behaviors and thought patterns that either cause the identified patient distress or causes problems in social effectivenss or functioning. Since a goodly number of homosexuals were neither distressed about their sexual orientation *and* demonstrated high levels of social functioning (i.e., maintaining significant relationship, being responsible members of society, etc.) the decision was made to take homosexuality, per se, out of the manual, and to include a category for those people who were, indeed, distressed about their orientation. In the 1980 revision, the category was newly labelled at "Ego-Dystonic Homosexuality". This was actually in deference to an increasing small, but vocal group of (primarily classically-trained) psychotherapists who insisted that it be included. But, the weight of the research had led most of the membership to believe that homosexuality was not a mental disorder (as defined above). The Ego-Dystonic Diagnosis was there to address those who didn't want to be homosexual, and were *seeking treatment to change their sexual orientation*. By 1986 (with publishing of the DSM-III-R), the members of the committee no longer felt that there was a need for that category either. Ego-dystonic homosexuality seemed to be a normal phase of a person declaring his/her homosexuality -- most people don't willingly choose to be different in a way that many members of society deem inappropriate or "sinful", so it was normal that they would be anxious/depressed upon dealing with the ramification of this, and wish to change it. What the vast majority of therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally healthy was not in trying to change their sexual orientation, but in changing their thought processes to be accepting of their natural orientation and learning to deal more effectively with their (less than supportive) environments. These mental health issues fall under the non-sexual-orientation-specific categories of "depression", "anxiety" and "adjustment disorders". If anything, the "lobbying" that occurred during this process came, IMO, from the biased minority of those hold-outs who, for years, insisted on ignoring the data in favor of "it just isn't right, and therefore, it should be a mental disorder". Yes, Gay Rights advocates weighed in on the decision, but they, at least, had data supporting their opinions, not just blind prejudice. Sheila > I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the APA was > correct in refusing to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Sheila Hey Sheila, TY. That was pretty much where I was going to begin on that other thread (Hi, Bill). I love the words "ego syntonic" and "ego dystonic." We use them all the time at our house for all kinds of discussions. The thing is, DSM-IV and similar manuals are based on the statistics clinicians collect from people who come in to see them. That means either a person feels something is wrong with them or they need help. or their family does, or the courts do. Lots and lots of gay people exist without seeking treatment - something that began to be addressed in the 1980's. Besides the Ego dystonic phase, and the adjustment disorder phase, some also noticed that sexual identity confusion and gender identity confusion are parts of what are often called the "borderline" disorders, in between what Freud thought of as neurosis and outright psychosis. Longterm confusion over sexual identity whether ego dystonic or syntonic is usually counted as a symptom of being borderline, especially when it increases the "relationship brittleness" feature of the borderline diagnosis. At the time DSM-IV was developed, it wasn't clear (and still may not be) how many truly bisexual folks are out there (and now we have our asexual folks as well). If a person were confused about whether they wanted to have sex at all, etc., I think most clinicians would write that down as a symptom. So, a person who knows they are gay and never sees a practitioner has no diagnosis - nor does anyone else. The DSM-IV isn't for US to use diagnose each other, it's for clinicians and researchers to use. Normal personalities do exist! So you can't go around telling all the people you know who you think fit a diagnostic pattern "you're sick by DSM-IV standards," as some people tried to do with earlier versions in the past. Myself, I believe being gay is complex and largely biologic, which is not to say strictly controlled by one gene or two genes, but definitely within the purview of genetics. A. . > So, a person who knows they are gay and never sees a practitioner > has no diagnosis - nor does anyone else. Right. That was something I think the practitioners in the 70's and 80's finally started figuring out, as more and more people became openly gay. If homosexuality is only talked about in the context of therapy, one might surmise that it is a component only of pathology. As more and more mentally healthy people who happened to be gay started talking openly about themselves, it became apparent that it simply was not a pathological state, in and of itself. <snip> > Myself, I believe being gay is complex and largely biologic, which > is not to say strictly controlled by one gene or two genes, but > definitely within the purview of genetics. > > A. I agree. Sheila >> I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the APA was >> correct in refusing to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. [quoted text clipped - 90 lines] > > A. Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all know homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. You want to call that prejudice? If you do, I'd say you're (whoever) just as bigoted, albeit in a different way. So the question becomes, do we accept that is abnormal, and that it may give rise to some abnormal role modeling or abnormal child rearing problems in society (thinking of marriages here), or do we try to deny that, just because it may hurt someone's feelings? (Which seems to be all we ever do in this new age generation). I'm not advocating deliberately hurting people. But OTOH, I do think things should be stated and looked at more objectively, and often they are not, these days. And if you don't believe that, then you haven't been around on this planet long enough to have seen the sea change. > Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all know > homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. No, Bill, we don't know that. Any more than we know "in the final analysis, women are dumber than men, or blacks are no better than animals." > You want to call that prejudice? I sure do. > If you do, I'd say you're (whoever) just as bigoted, > albeit in a different way. You're free to say that if you want. Sadly, it doesn't mean much for you to say that. >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all know >> homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. > > No, Bill, we don't know that. Yes it is. It deviates from the norm, and the way the body was designed. Do you need a course in human physiology, and about how male and female compl-e-ment each other's anatomy, and most often, psychology? And that's the way it's supposed to be. > Any more than we know "in the final analysis, women are dumber than > men, or blacks are no better than animals." I never said that. Nice hyperbole, Doug. You're really reaching now. >> You want to call that prejudice? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > You're free to say that if you want. Sadly, it doesn't mean much for you to > say that. It doesn't say much for you to deny basic human physiology either, just because it suits your fancy. > >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > know [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > compl-e-ment each other's anatomy, and most often, psychology? And that's > the way it's supposed to be. Hahaha. People do lots of different things for sexual pleasure, not always involving those particular body parts. In fact, back in the days before birth control...and psychology? Oh dear. You'd be hardpressed to find any psychological instruments that would tell you I'm a woman - and that my DH is clearly a man. We're both all mixed up. It's pheromones, anyway - or something like it. In studies where college students blow their breath through screens, other students can almost unfailingly pick out whether it's a male or female on the other side (I know - ewwww). Most people have a kind of "ew" feeling about same-sex sexuality - gay people have the opposite. They are set differently, than us. And, well, with far too many people on the planet, perhaps it's part of nature's way of telling us to SLOW DOWN. There are interesting things about gay people in addition to what I just typed - but, well, it isn't "natural" to be celibate either - is it? You wouldn't demand that people use those body parts if they didn't want to, would you? Let them use them as they wish. Nature? Define it. I don't know what it is. There are plenty of species with same-sex sexuality (and very good survival reasons for it, too - sexuality and sexual readiness are interesting to read about). Different human cultures have very different views on this. Each person is designed differently and there's no way you're going to tell me what's "natural" for me - or for the whole planet. I think it's unnatural for all kinds of sexual things to take place - and part of my list would overlap with most people's lists, part of it would not. I get to call it as I see it, in terms of nature. There were strong arguments made (and still made) that it isn't "natural" for women to learn how to read and write either (different brains, you know). Or that it's "natural" for men to want sex more than women (maybe, maybe not - how would we quantify it? there are surely cultures where the stats are backwards from ours). It is natural, btw, for people to want sex the most about 2 years after puberty (called menarche in girls). You want to say that it's therefore "natural" for 13 year olds to be sexual? It is - but it isn't something I'm going to endorse. It's natural to crave fat, sugar and protein - not fiber. So? > > Any more than we know "in the final analysis, women are dumber than > > men, or blacks are no better than animals." > > I never said that. Nice hyperbole, Doug. You're really reaching now. These statements can easily be based on "nature," if one wants to impose their view. There is no unified view of nature. I have my nature, everyone else has theirs. > >> You want to call that prejudice? > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > It doesn't say much for you to deny basic human physiology either, just > because it suits your fancy. So - are you saying that because most women aren't satisfied after just one orgasm, and most men have a refractory period that lasts at least several hours - that women should have multiple sexual partners all the time? Hmmm. I'm beginning to like this "physiology only" approach to things. Anyway, that seems to be the "natural" case for human sexuality all over the world - many if not most women are capable of an incredible degree of continuous sexuality, pre and post-orgasmic, with multiple orgasms for many of us. Men just can't do that. It's obvious we're desired to screw around - right? We wimmen. Always makin' ze trouble. Interestingly, the male refractory period is an average of 24 hours for all ages post-pubescent, just about the time it takes to get a goodly number of sperm ready again. Women, paradoxically, are sexually receptive even when not ovulating. Go figure. A. >>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >>>> know homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Do you need a course in human physiology, and about how male and female >> compl-e-ment each other's anatomy, and most often, psychology? And that's >> the way it's supposed to be! > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you I'm a woman - and that my DH is clearly a man. We're both > all mixed up. Well, I did say in most cases (in reference to the psychology part). And the physiological part is self-evident. For ALL cases - and just as nature intended it to be. Now, if you want to go off on some tangent by saying I'm not subscribing to the "everything is best when it's natural" principle, that may well be, but that doesn't necessarily diminish the other part. It doesn't have to be all or nothing (except in (some of your) minds out there. > >>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > >>>> know homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that doesn't necessarily diminish the other part. It doesn't have to be > all or nothing (except in (some of your) minds out there. Then what in heck is your point, if any? You bring in details of people's sexual lives - to make the point of...what? Some of it's "natural" and some of it's "not natural," Bill decides, but it's irrelevant and we all see it different anyway? No, physiology is not self-evident, especially when you're speaking of females. It's hilarious you should say so. Anyway, I'm not going to get into a discussion group discussion of female vs. male sexual responses, not in any more depth than I have. But surely you know that there are differences? Now, your view (unsubstantiated but often made) is that: all men are alike in relationship to their genitalia and what they want to do with it (by nature). That's odd, because I can tell you with certainty the same isn't true for women. And I'm not the only person who has ever said, observed, or talked about that - in fact, it's rather a truism at this point. A. > >>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > >>>> know homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > that doesn't necessarily diminish the other part. It doesn't have to be > all or nothing (except in (some of your) minds out there. Yet you have not indicated the differentiation for instance in which being non-natural results in aberation and when it does not. > >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > know [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > compl-e-ment each other's anatomy, and most often, psychology? And that's > the way it's supposed to be. Your assertion doesn't make this true. Why do you think you have so much invested in denigration of homosexuality? You blame homosexuality for deterioration in marriage. Though you can't say way, and it surely played no role in the deterioration of your marriage. You call it deviant and abormal (like left-handedness). If someone questions you, you go on a long harangue about all of society's ills without being able to connect a single one of them to homosexuality. You call it unnatural when not only does it occur in nature, it has occurred in humankind for all of recorded history. Etc. What makes it so important to you, when you can't present a shred of evidence to support it, to label homosexuality a deviant mental disorder? >>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >>>> know homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Your assertion doesn't make this true. Nor does your "diss-assertion" of this make it untrue. > Why do you think you have so much invested in denigration of > homosexuality? > > You blame homosexuality for deterioration in marriage. Well now, that's being a bit simplistic. (Even for you, that's a bit hyperbolic). > Though you can't say way, I've already discussed the importance of natural role modeling for families with children in society today, since (it seems) marriage is becoming almost meaningless today. I don't think we have to go over the essentials of Soc 101 (or maybe Soc 201 - Marriage and The Family?) again here, do we? > and it surely played no role in the deterioration of your marriage. Of course not. We were talking about society at large - as a group. The sociology of families, and what's best for them in bringing up children, with good role modeling. > You call it deviant and abormal (like left-handedness). > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You call it unnatural when not only does it occur in nature, it has > occurred in humankind for all of recorded history. So what?? It's an exception - an aberration. And there are all kinds of exceptions and aberrations in nature. Big deal. That's not news. > Etc. No, there is no "etc". > What makes it so important to you, when you can't present a shred of > evidence to support it, to label homosexuality a deviant mental > disorder? Actually I might by deferring to the Authorities on that (perhaps most easily by referring to all the DSM's written prior to 1973 (i.e., before Disco came in). But then again, I'd have to agree with you, and admit those older versions were probably written by Neatherthals, who were totally unenlightened, like (some of us think we are) today. >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >> know [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Your assertion doesn't make this true. Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were designed to fit into vaginas. The vast majority of modern humanity "gets" that, and they have desires which are *ordered* toward that natural design. Others don't have desires that are ordered toward that natural design. They would prefer to do things a different way. Is their mind wrong, or their body? > Why do you think you have so much invested in denigration of > homosexuality? Sheila started this discussion. Bill is just involved in it (as are you). > You blame homosexuality for deterioration in marriage. Though you > can't say way, and it surely played no role in the deterioration of > your marriage. Actually, homosexual "marriage" is just a side effect of the breakdown of marriage as a whole among heterosexuals. If marriage in society were truly seen as an indissoluable covenant binding a man and a woman together for the purposed of producing children and raising a family, nobody in their right mind would entertain the idea of a homosexual "marriage". However, marriages have become easily entered into partnerships of convenience where it lasts exactly as long as it takes one of the partners to get bored. If that is the current marriage paradigm, of course homosexuals would want to be involved in that. And how could you refuse them? > You call it deviant and abormal (like left-handedness). > > If someone questions you, you go on a long harangue about all of > society's ills without being able to connect a single one of them to > homosexuality. Homosexual "marriage" will not be the cause of the end of marriage. It will be the signal that marriage as we know it is finished. It'll be the final nail in marriage's coffin. You'll have to excuse me if I don't want to see that particular nail driven, and want to work for a turnaround in how marriage is handled in our society. > You call it unnatural when not only does it occur in nature, it has > occurred in humankind for all of recorded history. Lots of things occur in nature, like parents killing their young. Does that make it right... uhhh... never mind. > Etc. > > What makes it so important to you, when you can't present a shred of > evidence to support it, to label homosexuality a deviant mental > disorder? Human sexuality is ordered to the joining of a man and a woman. Were it not ordered thus, humanity would have died out eons ago. If you mentally don't subscribe to ordered human sexuality, what would *you* call it? DISordered, maybe? >> Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill > mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were designed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > They would prefer to do things a different way. Is their mind wrong, or > their body? Hmmmmm.....where do mouthes and penises fall within your interpretation of who "gets it"? Are penises designed to fit into mouthes? Hands? Breasts? I was unaware that they were designed for only one place on the body. How deviant are those of us in heterosexual marriages, who allow penises anywhere other than our vaginas? Is my mind wrong or is my body wrong if I, or my husband, desires or enjoys oral sex? >>> Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill >> mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were designed [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Breasts? I was unaware that they were designed for only one place on > the body. That's ok, Caren. Stick around, and we'll enlighten you some more. But first, ya got to have an open mind. > How deviant are those of us in heterosexual marriages, who allow > penises anywhere other than our vaginas? Is my mind wrong or is my > body wrong if I, or my husband, desires or enjoys oral sex? > >> Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill > > mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were designed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > penises anywhere other than our vaginas? Is my mind wrong or is my > body wrong if I, or my husband, desires or enjoys oral sex? Just thinking back to last night.... dayum..... if all those things are indicative of mental disorders, I should probably be in an in-patient setting today. ;-))) Of course, I rather doubt that DH would be willing to sign on the commitment papers.... heheheh. Sheila > >> Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill > > mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were designed [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > penises anywhere other than our vaginas? Is my mind wrong or is my > body wrong if I, or my husband, desires or enjoys oral sex? Or that significant subset of women who don't like penetrative sex except as a way of donating pleasure to their husbands - they want something else (by nature) which their husbands give back them. Deviants, all, I guess. In fact, using the "reasoning" already in place with Tony and Bill, we'd get (I guess) 90% of men going after sheer vaginal penetration by nature (the rest are deviants, 10% are gay and deviant), and a whole slew of unhappy women. That's because: 10% of women are gay (and don't want penises near their vaginas) 5-10% of women say they'd prefer no type of sexual activity at all (the low figure is pretty constant for the 20th century, the high figure is newer - and is supported by all manner of recent polling, research - no one knows what it means). Of the remaining 85% of women, depending on which studies you read, half do not enjoy penetrative intercourse at all or as much as "other activities." So we get 42% of the women happy, and 90% of the men happy with this paradigm of sexuality. Something seems rather "unnatural" about this - particularly as women go on to form and produce the offspring. Is it natural, therefore, for women as a group to have sex at all? Perhaps we're designed not to (Are we back to THAT old paradigm?) Real modern, that. A. - hoping intelligent readers can sense some of irony in these posts >> >> Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill >> > mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were designed [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > want something else (by nature) which their husbands give back > them. Deviants, all, I guess. They don't find PIV sex so repugnant, they would never engage it it, do they? If so, I'd imagine they would be disordered also. > In fact, using the "reasoning" already in place with Tony and Bill, > we'd get (I guess) 90% of men going after sheer vaginal penetration > by nature (the rest are deviants, 10% are gay and deviant), and a > whole slew of unhappy women. That's because: No, finding PIV sex repugnant, and preferring sex with the same sex is disordered. > 10% of women are gay (and don't want penises near their vaginas) > 5-10% of women say they'd prefer no type of sexual activity at > all (the low figure is pretty constant for the 20th century, the high > figure is newer - and is supported by all manner of recent polling, > research - no one knows what it means). It means that 10% of people are disordered. > Of the remaining 85% of women, depending on which studies > you read, half do not enjoy penetrative intercourse at all or as much > as "other activities." But they don't find penetrative intercourse repugnant. Sometimes I like "other activities" too. > So we get 42% of the women happy, and 90% of the men happy > with this paradigm of sexuality. Something seems rather "unnatural" > about this - particularly as women go on to form and produce the > offspring. In in modern, technological society, they are producing less than replacement level of children. Those cultures which celebrate men and women marrying and producing children are producing substantially higher than replacement level of offspring. Those that celebrate contraception, abortion and gay marriage are not producing sufficient children to replace themselves. In a democratic society, this doesn't bode well for their pet issues, does it, when they aren't producing the voters (or are killing them in the womb). > Is it natural, therefore, for women as a group to have sex at all? > Perhaps we're designed not to (Are we back to THAT old paradigm?) > Real modern, that. It better be. If not, society is finished. > A. > - hoping intelligent readers can sense some of irony in these posts Hoping the same for you. >>> Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill >> mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were designed [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Breasts? I was unaware that they were designed for only one place on > the body. Caren, I'm surprised at you. I thought you had me killfiled. Oh well. Mouths were designed to allow us to breathe, eat our food, and speak. They were not designed as sexual organs. > How deviant are those of us in heterosexual marriages, who allow > penises anywhere other than our vaginas? Is my mind wrong or is my > body wrong if I, or my husband, desires or enjoys oral sex? If *all* you desired were oral sex and you found PIV sex repugnant, yes, you would be disordered. > Mouths were designed to allow us to breathe, eat our food, and speak. > They were not designed as sexual organs. Oh, wow, you must have been on the design committee! That's awesome! I have something of a gripe about some prominent features of the reproductive design of women, can I email them to you or is there a complaint form or what? It's always nice to talk to an authority. Sarah >> Mouths were designed to allow us to breathe, eat our food, and speak. >> They were not designed as sexual organs. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >It's always nice to talk to an authority. I was just about to ask who designed what Tony was talking about! I would like a few 'change orders'. >I was just about to ask who designed what Tony was talking about! >I would like a few 'change orders'. I'd really like to hear what you and Sarah would change. :-) Aside from periods, which is not the vagina's fault, vaginas are great! They are self lubricating, self cleaning, one size fits all, and they are very popular everywhere [except in combat zones, and then only because they're attached to a woman]. ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. >>I was just about to ask who designed what Tony was talking about! >>I would like a few 'change orders'. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >popular everywhere [except in combat zones, and then only because >they're attached to a woman]. I'd do away with PMS, excessive emotions, propensity to store extra fat, and boobs are very inconvenient if you like sports. Little more strength would be nice too. And as someone who often has to go to the bathroom, I think I have a major penis envy. You guys can almost flip it out the window or stick it in a bottle and pee, I have to go though a whole production to find a suitable bathroom. And can't just shake it off and stay relatively clean. > >I was just about to ask who designed what Tony was talking about! > >I would like a few 'change orders'. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > popular everywhere [except in combat zones, and then only because > they're attached to a woman]. I did say 'reproductive system', which definitely includes the uterus and all the trouble it causes. :-) As for the vagina, the most obvious problem is that it's not big enough to let the damn baby out half the time without incurring damage! On a purely sexual basis it's okay, although positioning relative to the clitoris seems sub-optimal - if I were designing the system, the vagina would be as responsive to sexual stimulation as the clitoris is, just as Freud thought it should be, or they'd be contiguous or something. Sarah > >I was just about to ask who designed what Tony was talking about! > >I would like a few 'change orders'. > > I'd really like to hear what you and Sarah would change. :-) I'm happy the way I am, but I'd really love to petition for penises to extend from their chins. ;-)))) Sheila >I'm happy the way I am, but I'd really love to petition for penises to >extend from their chins. > ;-)))) Gosh, I admire an honest woman! :-) Until that feature evolves, get your partner to manipulate a vibrator with his chin, while the rest of his face is busy. There might be a market for strapons for the chin. _______________________ Play with fire! Zildjan drum sticks > > >I was just about to ask who designed what Tony was talking about! > > >I would like a few 'change orders'. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > extend from their chins. > ;-)))) LOL My dad used to have some sort of a saying back home (it doesn't translate to english well) but it has to do with penises attached to men's foreheads. > > > >I was just about to ask who designed what Tony was talking about! > > > >I would like a few 'change orders'. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > translate to english well) but it has to do with penises attached to > men's foreheads. That would work too. Just have to shift positions. ;-)) Sheila >> but it has to do with penises attached to >> men's foreheads. Lie to me, Pinocchio... lie to me...... ;-) >> I'm happy the way I am, but I'd really love to petition for penises to >> extend from their chins. >> ;-)))) i've seen those on the internet somewhere, they strap on. >>> Mouths were designed to allow us to breathe, eat our food, and speak. >>> They were not designed as sexual organs. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >I was just about to ask who designed what Tony was talking about! >I would like a few 'change orders'. Yikes. Ok, if Tony's on the design committee, some change orders: * Make it possible, as is the case for other species, for us to inhale and eat through separate pipes. That cost-cutting move of using the same one kills many of us every year. * On the sexual apparatus, well, I'll let the women speak to theirs. For the guys, fix that idiocy of dangling very delicate parts outside the body! * Fix the shoulder. Whichever of you designed that deserves an F. Darn thing looks like a legacy from a quadruped and you forget to make it a joint after taking away some of the more obvious quadrupedal features. Instead you have just dangled the arm off the torso trusting a few little muscles to keep everything together. After two torn rotator cuffs, I'm not amused. * Overhaul the back. That thing is just a mess from a design perspective. 3 of us were out last week from work due to back problems, and something like a quarter of the population can look forward to serious problems long before 70. * The knee is almost a good joint. Redesign it so that you're not trying to do so many different things, and then do the remaining things _well_. As it is, though, darn things fail at an alarming rate. * Quit turning off the self-repair processes as we age! Muscles don't _have_ to lose their elasticity, immune system its responsiveness, blood vessel elasticity, ... with age. It's just that you designers thought nobody would check in on how your projects were doing after the first few years.  SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences Tony Miller wrote: > Mouths were designed to allow us to breathe, eat our food, and speak. > They were not designed as sexual organs. Do you kiss your wife? Is that a sexual act? Would you object to your wife kissing another man? Why or why not? * Song of Solomon 4:10-16 comes to mind: Awake, north wind, and come, south wind! Blow on my garden, that its fragrance may spread abroad. Let my lover come into his garden and taste its choice fruits. * > * Overhaul the back. That thing is just a mess from a design > perspective. 3 of us were out last week from work due to back > problems, and something like a quarter of the population can look > forward to serious problems long before 70. Many back problems could be solved by going around on all fours. 8-) Darren Provine ! kilroy@elvis.rowan.edu ! http://www.rowan.edu/~kilroy "I believe in the Word of God. I am just not mad about it." -- Frank Page, President, Southern Baptist Convention >. > > Caren, I'm surprised at you. I thought you had me killfiled. Oh well. I've never killfiled anyone in my history of usenet. As in real life, I use my common sense filter. Oh well. > Mouths were designed to allow us to breathe, eat our food, and speak. > They were not designed as sexual organs. And what school did you go to when you majored in the human mouth and what it was designed for? At least you have a sense of humor :-)) > > How deviant are those of us in heterosexual marriages, who allow > > penises anywhere other than our vaginas? Is my mind wrong or is my > > body wrong if I, or my husband, desires or enjoys oral sex? > > If *all* you desired were oral sex and you found PIV sex repugnant, yes, > you would be disordered. What if I liked oral sex more than PIV but did not find PIV repugnant? What if oral sex results in more orgasms for me than PIV (not uncommon for many women) So it's okay to use the mouth for oral sex if it's not too frequent? (despite the fact that according to your research, mouthes are to breathe, eat and speak) Is there a specific ratio, say, per month that you could share with this group so that we know if we're "normal"? Is one oral sex for every 3 penis in vagina, okay? Two hand jobs per 4 PIV? Would you mind making a spreadsheet (no pun intended) for us and maybe Tai could include it in the ASM welcome page? >What if I liked oral sex more than PIV but did not find PIV repugnant? >What if oral sex results in more orgasms for me than PIV (not uncommon [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Two hand jobs per 4 PIV? Would you mind making a spreadsheet (no pun >intended) for us and maybe Tai could include it in the ASM welcome page? :-) I just HAD to crawl out of the WOODwork for this one... (pun intended) What about a hand job, then oral, then PIV for awhile, then oral again, all in one session? > What about a hand job, then oral, then PIV for awhile, then oral again, all > in one session? sounds good to me--where's the signup sheet? > > What about a hand job, then oral, then PIV for awhile, then oral again, all > > in one session? > > sounds good to me--where's the signup sheet? We first need approval from the expert on what a mouth is for, hopefully he'll agree to set up a spreadsheet. And with any luck, a signup sheet will be available by the end of the week. No approval without an advanced degree from MU. (Mouth University) >>What if I liked oral sex more than PIV but did not find PIV repugnant? >>What if oral sex results in more orgasms for me than PIV (not uncommon [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > all > in one session? Maybe they think it depends on where the money shot ends up?? > >>What if I liked oral sex more than PIV but did not find PIV repugnant? > >>What if oral sex results in more orgasms for me than PIV (not uncommon [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Maybe they think it depends on where the money shot ends up?? You shoot money? Wow..... that's a nice bonus... although picking the bits of paper out of some places could be a problem..... :-O Sheila >> >>What if I liked oral sex more than PIV but did not find PIV repugnant? >> >>What if oral sex results in more orgasms for me than PIV (not uncommon [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >You shoot money? Wow..... that's a nice bonus... although picking the bits >of paper out of some places could be a problem..... Maybe he shoots coins... > >> >>What if I liked oral sex more than PIV but did not find PIV repugnant? > >> >>What if oral sex results in more orgasms for me than PIV (not uncommon [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > Maybe he shoots coins... ouchie... Sheila >>> >>What if I liked oral sex more than PIV but did not find PIV repugnant? >>> >>What if oral sex results in more orgasms for me than PIV (not uncommon [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > >Maybe he shoots coins... If I have to deal with a round of that size, I'd prefer it to be a roll of hundred dollar bills ;) >>>What if I liked oral sex more than PIV but did not find PIV repugnant? >>>What if oral sex results in more orgasms for me than PIV (not uncommon [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Maybe they think it depends on where the money shot ends up?? Bingo!! :) >>. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > Two hand jobs per 4 PIV? Would you mind making a spreadsheet (no pun > intended) for us and maybe Tai could include it in the ASM welcome page? Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official Catholic teaching as far as I know. You can verify this if you'd like :)) > Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as > your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official > Catholic teaching as far as I know. You can verify this if you'd like :)) So it doesn't matter if the woman only orgasms through oral? She can come anytime she likes? Or is she supposed to finish up while penetrated? jen >> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as >> your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >come anytime she likes? Or is she supposed to finish up while >penetrated? I think catholic church might say, what, women have orgasms? *gasp* we have to put a stop to that blasphemy! >>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as >>> your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think catholic church might say, what, women have orgasms? > *gasp* we have to put a stop to that blasphemy! You can almost cut the cluelessness in this newsgroup with a knife. >> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as >> your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > come anytime she likes? Or is she supposed to finish up while > penetrated? I don't believe it matters how many, or whether. It only matters *where* the husband finishes. >>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as >>> long as your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > I don't believe it matters how many, or whether. It only matters > *where* the husband finishes. My RC friend tells me that her husband is allowed to finish anywhere else as long as he finishes in her vagina often enough that she could get pregnant if chance dictated that but her priest interprets that to mean that they can't use the elsewheres during her fertile times (abstinence only), restricting them to the safe/non fertile times only. Which seems to me that he's using modern scientific knowledge to split hairs! Tai > My RC friend tells me that her husband is allowed to finish anywhere else as > long as he finishes in her vagina often enough that she could get pregnant > if chance dictated that but her priest interprets that to mean that they > can't use the elsewheres during her fertile times (abstinence only), > restricting them to the safe/non fertile times only. Talk about aberrant and unnatural...the desire to micromanage someone else's sex life to such a degree is just...weird. >> My RC friend tells me that her husband is allowed to finish anywhere else as >> long as he finishes in her vagina often enough that she could get pregnant [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Talk about aberrant and unnatural...the desire to micromanage someone > else's sex life to such a degree is just...weird. You're just weirded out by a lot of things lately, it seems! >>> My RC friend tells me that her husband is allowed to finish anywhere...times only. >> >> Talk about aberrant and unnatural...the desire to micromanage someone >> else's sex life to such a degree is just...weird. > >You're just weirded out by a lot of things lately, it seems! Surely you'll agree that the information Tai provided depicts a disgusting intrusion into what should be a private matter--by an outdated set of dictatorial religious guides. Maybe Vatican III, or maybe Vatican 30, will see the abolition of such pathetic intrusions and condoning, by cover-up, of perversion in the priesthood. ________________________ You have to love the sound of the line, more than you love the sound of your own drum.--Drumline >>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as >>>> long as your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Which seems to me that he's using modern scientific knowledge to split > hairs! No, it tells me that your RC friend needs a little refresher course on Catholic doctrine. Namely the Theology of the Body stuff. > My RC friend tells me that her husband is allowed to finish anywhere else as > long as he finishes in her vagina often enough that she could get pregnant [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Tai >From what I understand this is an accurate discription of The Rythum Method. it works best when the woman has a very regular cycle. But....since I haven't moved in those circles in a really long time I would be intersted to know if the RCC now allows married couples to use the pill or the diaphram. I really would like to know. Thanks Grace >> My RC friend tells me that her husband is allowed to finish anywhere else as >> long as he finishes in her vagina often enough that she could get pregnant [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > would be intersted to know if the RCC now allows married couples to use > the pill or the diaphram. I really would like to know. Grace, nice to hear from you again. And no, neither pill nor diaphragm are licit. As a matter of fact, they came out against the use of a condom for married couples where one was HIV positive. > >> My RC friend tells me that her husband is allowed to finish anywhere else as > >> long as he finishes in her vagina often enough that she could get pregnant [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > are licit. As a matter of fact, they came out against the use of a condom > for married couples where one was HIV positive. Wow. Is the expectation, then, that the couple would no longer have sex, or that it will be G-d's will whether or not the partner becomes infected? Sheila >> >> My RC friend tells me that her husband is allowed to finish anywhere > else as [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Wow. Is the expectation, then, that the couple would no longer have sex, or > that it will be G-d's will whether or not the partner becomes infected? Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my beloved for my personal satisfaction. > >> >> My RC friend tells me that her husband is allowed to finish anywhere > > else as [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my > beloved for my personal satisfaction. And, I may well do the same. But, would that be the expectation of the church? I mean.... I dunno... I'm just wondering the rationale behind the proclamation. Sheila > Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my > beloved for my personal satisfaction. What does this mean exactly? That you'd find a hooker instead? Or become a eunuch? or? Bo >> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my >> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > or? Not have sex. I guess people who are controlled by their dick don't understand that. >>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my >>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Not have sex. I guess people who are controlled by their dick don't > understand that. Although I'm tempted to respond in kind to your jab in kind--I will not. But there is another aspect that is real that you are not dealing with by simply saying you would not have sex... ie... what about your beloved? Would you expect her to lead a sexless life too? Would you have an issue with her finding a non HIV partner to meet her needs? If so, would it be the right thing for you to do to expect (demand?) her to lead a celibate life too? Or would it be better to divorce and free her to have a new relationship that would not be celibate? or could you remain married and give her a 'license' to meet her sexual needs? I have a feeling that after a period of time, even though condoms aren't 100% safe, you'd be having relations with your wife--in spite of the risk.... Bo > >>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my > >>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Although I'm tempted to respond in kind to your jab in kind--I will not. I think you are mistaking him. He is very literally serious. > But there is another aspect that is real that you are not dealing with by > simply saying you would not have sex... [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Bo >> >>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my >> >>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> > I think you are mistaking him. He is very literally serious. You mean he meant to be an a.shole by that comment? If he wants to say I'm controlled by my dick--that's fine with me. I don't necessarily agree with that assessment--although I know that God has not given me the gift to live celibate. His phrase to me means that one cannot keep it in his pants and is unfaithful to his spouse. He seems to think he could zip it up for eternity and frankly, I think there's little or no chance that he could follow through with it. (ie being celibate 'for his beloved's sake). Am I wrong in thinking that anyone with any sense/realization that God created them as *sexual beings* will inevitably not be able to deny their sexuality? I'm not saying that some can't--because the Bible clearly teaches that some are given that 'gift'---but for those to whom it is not given (ie anyone who has already been married), it is futile to try to deny one's sexuality. The Catholic church priest child molestations should be enough to convince anyone that denying one's sexuality will in the end not work and likely cause more pain and damage to their cause than simply living as a sexual being that God created..... I bet many of them thought they could keep it in their pants too... Bo >> But there is another aspect that is real that you are not dealing with by >> simply saying you would not have sex... [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> Bo > >> >>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my > >> >>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > celibate. His phrase to me means that one cannot keep it in his pants and is > unfaithful to his spouse. I don't know if he was intending to be an ahole or not. But I think he meant that celibacy IS the answer to that dillema. > He seems to think he could zip it up for eternity and frankly, I think > there's little or no chance that he could follow through with it. (ie being > celibate 'for his beloved's sake). Am I wrong in thinking that anyone with > any sense/realization that God created them as *sexual beings* will > inevitably not be able to deny their sexuality? Denying sexuality is not even part of the equation. But one needn't act on it. The idea of life without sex does not sound awsome to me. But it sounds possible. > I'm not saying that some > can't--because the Bible clearly teaches that some are given that [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > >> > >> Bo > > >> >>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my > > >> >>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > it. The idea of life without sex does not sound awsome to me. But it sounds > possible. Maybe I'm just having hallucinations, but wasn't it Tony who believes that it's the wife's job to fulfill her husband's needs even if she's not in the mood? And does this not work reciprocally, or is his belief that it's just the man whose needs take presidence? I'm not at all being sarcastic, I just seem to have some recollection of this issue. Tony, you around to answer? >> > >> >>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my >> > >> >>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > being sarcastic, I just seem to have some recollection of this issue. > Tony, you around to answer? There is a very subtle twist on my views. It is not the wife's "job" to fulfill her husband's needs. She should want to. Just like it's not a husband's "job" to fulfill his wife's needs, he should want to. > >> > >> >>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my > >> > >> >>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > fulfill her husband's needs. She should want to. Just like it's not a > husband's "job" to fulfill his wife's needs, he should want to. This is the reason why I have no trouble with you views, aside from any conversation of legalization of these kinds of things (as it relates nto things like same-sex marriage). The trouble is that most of us take time to come to this level of ... I guess I would call it maturity. For us, we married young-ish. In my opinion, it was a combination of pure dumb luck that we decided to grow up on sort of the same time line. We were lucky in that we both came from in tact families, and had some really good examples of real giving. Both of our parents are (were in my parents case since my father has passed) bot merely together byut excellent examples of marital reciprocity, honestly striving for the well being of their spouses. The troubling thing in communicating on usenet is that this formula is hard to achieve and explain for people who are already in turmoil, as is so often the case when they come here. She should want; he should want. That and 15 million dollars will get you a coffee at Starbucks. Inflation is a bitch. I'm glad you are back. > > >> >>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my > > >> >>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > it. The idea of life without sex does not sound awsome to me. But it sounds > possible. Maybe I'm just having hallucinations, but wasn't it Tony who believes that it's the wife's job to fulfill her husband's needs even if she's not in the mood? And does this not work reciprocally, or is his belief that it's just the man whose needs take presidence? I'm not at all being sarcastic, I just seem to have some recollection of this issue. Tony, you around to answer? > Maybe I'm just having hallucinations, but wasn't it Tony who believes > that it's the wife's job to fulfill her husband's needs even if she's > not in the mood? And does this not work reciprocally, or is his belief > that it's just the man whose needs take presidence? I'm not at all > being sarcastic, I just seem to have some recollection of this issue. > Tony, you around to answer? I have a recollection of this exact issue coming up in your marriage a few years ago. Perhaps you'd like to share your opinions and experience on this issue. As i recall physical health was ot an issue at that time. Grace > > Maybe I'm just having hallucinations, but wasn't it Tony who believes > > that it's the wife's job to fulfill her husband's needs even if she's [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > few years ago. > Perhaps you'd like to share your opinions and experience on this issue. I have no recollection of that being an issue in my marriage at any time. Either I have amnesia or you have me mixed up with someone else. I actually think it's funny that you have a recollection of this!!! I do not believe that either spouse should feel obligated to have sex nor engage in sex unless they want to. Whatever it is you're remembering, you have me curious now :-) > As i recall physical health was ot an issue at that time. My husband and I have switched gears over our 14 years of being together, where I had the higher sex drive in the beginning. Then it was he. I have never felt like I had to have sex with him because he's my spouse. As far as I know, he does not feel that way either. What I recall is that Tony has been a believer in the obligatory sex...but I'm not sure if it was Tony which is why I asked. > Grace > I have no recollection of that being an issue in my marriage at any > time. No, but it a long time ago, probably in the early days of me posting/reding here. You and your husband were going through a particularly rough patch and you were thinking of leaving him and coming back to LA. Does this ring a bell? But the good news is that you two came through it and things seem to be so much more positive now. Grace > > I have no recollection of that being an issue in my marriage at any > > time. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > you were thinking of leaving him and coming back to LA. Does this ring > a bell? I've thought about leaving WA and moving to LA for 13 years. Unfortunately, it would be without him, since he loves it here and this is where he works. We do plan to retire elsewhere though. Yes, my dh and I have rough spots. More than I wish we had, but rough spots nonetheless. I'm trying to understand what you're getting at. > But the good news is that you two came through it and things seem to be > so much more positive now. We still have our rough spots and I'd still love to leave this state. I just don't get what my marital issues have to do with asking Tony about (required) sex in a marriage. >> > I have no recollection of that being an issue in my marriage at any >> > time. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I just don't get what my marital issues have to do with asking Tony > about (required) sex in a marriage. I'd tend to think that "rough spots" in a marriage are caused by one partner believing they are being "short changed" in some way in the relationship. A couple who are dedicated to unconditional love and service to each other (which includes supplying sex lovingly to your spouse even when you're not in the mood) results in a marriage without few or no "rough spots". This is the same unconditional desire for the good of the spouse which would allow me to forgo sex should my wife be unable to provide it (whether she was ill and unable, or had a disease which might threaten my health). > "Bo" <bo@cephus.com> wrote in message > > Although I'm tempted to respond in kind to your jab in kind--I will not. > > I think you are mistaking him. He is very literally serious. I'm sure that those are Tony's intentions. As I've said countless times over the years, it's easy to say what we would or would not do when we're not faced with it. It's when "it" really happens that we know. I've eaten my words more than once. I do admire Tony for having good intentions. It's a great place to start. > I'm sure that those are Tony's intentions. As I've said countless > times over the years, it's easy to say what we would or would not do [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I do admire Tony for having good intentions. It's a great place to > start. Indeed. Bo >> "Bo" <bo@cephus.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >I do admire Tony for having good intentions. It's a great place to >start. ... but not to stop. (Not a comment on Tony, but on real life.) SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences >> "Bo" <bo@cephus.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I do admire Tony for having good intentions. It's a great place to > start. Actually, some people do have good intentions and actually do stick by them (meaning, follow thru, come hell or high water). Well, at least for some things. (I know it's a bit of a rarity these days, but it does happen). > >> "Bo" <bo@cephus.com> wrote in message > > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > (meaning, follow thru, come hell or high water). Well, at least for some > things. (I know it's a bit of a rarity these days, but it does happen). Who in here said that some don't stick by their intentions? Who in here said that it's a rarity? I'm talking about projecting into the future how we will/might respond to a situation/crisis. We're talking about looking at situations that have not yet occured. Unless we are psychic, we do not know how we will respond. I'm not talking about morals and ethics here Bill....I'm talking about projecting what we might do if a child dies, if we find out we have cancer, if our partner is dx with aids, if there's a war, if our house burns down. We don't know how we truly will react/respond. We can certainly guess, assume or state what we'll do (which is basically what we think we'll do in situations that have not happened.) You found a way to turn it into how how rare it is is that people stick to their intentions. Either you missed the point OR you didn't miss it but used it as an opportunity to point out people's imperfections. And for whatever it's worth to you...I'm one of those people who accepts those with good intentions even if they don't follow through come hell or high water. > > >>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my > > >>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > I think you are mistaking him. He is very literally serious. I gave my DH the scenerio last night, with both me and him as being the HIV infected partner. He (not surprisingly, to me) had the same thoughts I did -- if the other one of us was the HIV infected person, we'd be inclined to used condoms, and if *we* were the HIV infected partner, we'd both be inclined to say "no intercourse". In other words, we would both be more likely to risk infection for ourselves than our partners. Sheila > I gave my DH the scenerio last night, with both me and him as being the > HIV [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sheila I think many would share that sentiment--but again until actually faced with something, we never really *know* what we are capable of doing/not doing. The real sticking point in the scenario would be if the spouse disagreed--- ie one willing to risk, one not.... then what???? 1) give permission to the willing one to find another outlet 2) divorce to remove the constraints 3) ???? I think it'd me terribly unfair of me to ask or expect my wife to go through life without sex--but whether I could give her permission or acceptance of finding another outlet--I don't know--and hope to never have to find out. Nor do I think she could say for certain today whether she could give me permission.... No easy answers on this one I'm afraid.... Bo > > I gave my DH the scenerio last night, with both me and him as being the > > HIV [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > 1) give permission to the willing one to find another outlet Nope. Not happening. For either of us. Neither of us would *want* it to happen. > 2) divorce to remove the constraints Nope. I don't think that one would happen with us, either. We both said, years ago, if, for some reason, we couldn't have sex, it would not be a reason for divorce. Of course, he could surprise me, but I doubt it. And since I was celibate for seven years (while being married) I can't see myself doing it either. > 3) ???? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > No easy answers on this one I'm afraid.... I expect we would be most likely to end up having "non-invasive" sex (i.e., manual stimulation, mutual masturbation) initially, then we'd probably, over time, add in oral sex, and then, ultimately, figure "Hell, if we are gonna go, we'll go together" and have sex with condoms. That's just the way we are. Sheila > > > I gave my DH the scenerio last night, with both me and him as being the > > > HIV [quoted text clipped - 45 lines] > > Sheila This is kinda the way I think about it, except that our kids are little. That attitude would not be apropriate for the age of our kids. >> I think it'd me terribly unfair of me to ask or expect my wife to go > through [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Sheila My guess is that this is the progression that the vast majority would follow...ie sooner or later the initial intentions would fall by the wayside. Bo > "WhansaMi" <whansami@aol.com> wrote in message >>I gave my DH the scenerio last night, with both me and him as being the >>HIV [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 2) divorce to remove the constraints > 3) ???? Let's see, I am trying to imagine... we're told the my husband has a deadly disease with a side-effect that (for one reason or other) I cannot have sex with him. And my first thought is, "will you give me permission to find another sex partner", or "let's get divorce so I can have sex", or "Ummmm... nothing else comes to my mind"! Are you serious? > I think it'd me terribly unfair of me to ask or expect my wife to go through > life without sex--but whether I could give her permission or acceptance of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > No easy answers on this one I'm afraid.... Speak for yourself. The only difficult thing for us would be how to best deal with the disease and make the sick party most comfortable, secure, and as pain-free as possible. Another "outlet"?! I can't even think about it... > Let's see, I am trying to imagine... we're told the my husband has a > deadly disease with a side-effect that (for one reason or other) I [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > and as pain-free as possible. Another "outlet"?! I can't even think > about it... Well....the AIDS scenario makes it very dramatic, but i doubt that many here are at high risk of getting HIV. However, there's a far more common scenario that can become a reality for a great many couples....watching a spouse die from a noncomunicable disease....get will, waste away and then die. As the hemingway qoute on another topic goes....first gradually and then suddenly. Having been in this situation in my late 30's, and IIRC Jess faced a similar situation.....when my husband was diagnosed with NonHotchkins Lymphoma in his late 40's.....the sexual implications were the last thing on eithr of our minds. In the last 6 months or so...when his health made it pretty much out of the question, I remember him giving me tacit, non spoken but alluded to permission....touching, freightening...some how feeling hurt that he didn't know me better but still touched by his generousity of spirit in caring about how I'd get through it. Now...that's something far more worthy of realistic conversation. Grace > Having been in this situation in my late 30's, and IIRC Jess faced a > similar situation.....when my husband was diagnosed with NonHotchkins > Lymphoma in his late 40's.....the sexual implications were the last > thing on eithr of our minds. Metastatic colon cancer. Diarrhea, vomiting and enough pain that he could take 30mgs of morphine a day and not be fazed by it. Sex life? Let me introduce you to Bob. He's slim, tanned, quiet natured, not interested in dinner and dancing-and runs on batteries > In the last 6 months or so...when his health made it pretty much out > of the question, I remember him giving me tacit, non spoken but alluded > to permission....touching, freightening...some how feeling hurt that > he didn't know me better but still touched by his generousity of spirit > in caring about how I'd get through it. Ditto. But...it didn't even cross my mind. I had other things to worry about. > Now...that's something far more worthy of realistic conversation. Next week, after the witches go home. Jess > > Having been in this situation in my late 30's, and IIRC Jess faced a > > similar situation.....when my husband was diagnosed with NonHotchkins [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > Jess Yup. it's one thing you can't imagine until you go through it and once you'e been through it you'll never forget it. but....we get through and live goes on....something else that's almost impossible to believe at the time. Take care. Grace > Yup. it's one thing you can't imagine until you go through it and once > you'e been through it you'll never forget it. but....we get through > and live goes on....something else that's almost impossible to believe > at the time. My mother's advice at the time actually worked-you change your perspective. You don't think about next week or next month, you think about this minute and what you have to do right now. Really good advice when what you're thinking about is remembering to take that next breath. Jess >> I gave my DH the scenerio last night, with both me and him as being the >> HIV [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > 2) divorce to remove the constraints > 3) ???? You seem to be approaching this in the "modern view" of marriage. I approach it with the covenant view of marriage. We promised to stand by each other in sickness and in health. This would fall under the "sickness" category. Some take marriage vows seriously, especially when taken before God and whatever witnesses are provided. > I think it'd me terribly unfair of me to ask or expect my wife to go through > life without sex--but whether I could give her permission or acceptance of > finding another outlet--I don't know--and hope to never have to find out. > Nor do I think she could say for certain today whether she could give me > permission.... Why do you believe your wife would *want* "another outlet"? Were my wife HIV+, I'd like to think I'd stand by her and not expect another "outlet". > No easy answers on this one I'm afraid.... No, but it's good to be able to visualize what might happen and prepare yourself for it. Few couples do this. > I gave my DH the scenerio last night, with both me and him as being the HIV > infected partner. He (not surprisingly, to me) had the same thoughts I > did -- if the other one of us was the HIV infected person, we'd be inclined > to used condoms, and if *we* were the HIV infected partner, we'd both be > inclined to say "no intercourse". In other words, we would both be more > likely to risk infection for ourselves than our partners. It's hard to nail down exactly what they mean by "extremely effective" when they say that condoms are "extremely effective" in preventing the spread of AIDS. I can really only find concrete reference to one 2-year study on transmittal rates among monogamous couples with one infected partners: 10% transmittal rate for couples not using condoms consistently or not at all, vs. 0% for couples using condoms properly and consistently. N = ~120 for each group. Another 2-year study mentioned in less detail came up with a 2% transmittal rate for couples using condoms consistently. Still, you'd think there'd be a lot more research on this! It's not an easy choice, but I think that's a risk level I could live with (if my partner were HIV-positive), and that I could live with exposing my partner to (if I were HIV-positive). Steph brings up having dependent children, and "there is that, too." But if those numbers are accurate, there's a less than 1% chance annually of getting infected. HIV-positive people are living longer and longer with the virus, esp. when it is detected early on, as I presume it would be in a couple with one HIV-positive partner, since I'd presume the negative partner would get tested frequently! It seems that properly and consistently using condoms would reduce the risk of orphaning minor children to an exceedingly slim chance. > > I gave my DH the scenerio last night, with both me and him as being > > the HIV [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > couples using condoms consistently. Still, you'd think there'd be a > lot more research on this! I think this is probably a difficult topic to research, but certainly an interesting one where the answers would be valuable to know. I suspect that research in this topic may also be made more difficult (as with birth control) for the reason that when people say they use condoms for birth control, what they often mean is _sometimes_ they use condoms for birth control. In terms of "consistently" it would be nice to know what is meant by consistently, and how the researchers verified this... > It's not an easy choice, but I think that's a risk level I could live > with (if my partner were HIV-positive), and that I could live with [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that properly and consistently using condoms would reduce the risk of > orphaning minor children to an exceedingly slim chance. Yes. It changes the flavor of this a little bit (at least for me) that while HIV is no picnic, in the rich world it is also no longer a death sentence. Also, in terms of risks people take: consider surgery. Anyone who goes under general anaesthesia is accepting a small (but not zero) risk of death in exchange for the hoped for benefits of surgery. That risk is very small (maybe 1 in 10,000 - it depends a lot on various circumstances) but it is still real. This is a risk people take all the time. So whether we know it or not, most of us are willing to take certain risks. Though also most of us don't have a very good way of deciding which risks are worthwhile! > Steph brings up having dependent children, and "there is that, too." But > if those numbers are accurate, there's a less than 1% chance annually of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > consistently using condoms would reduce the risk of orphaning minor > children to an exceedingly slim chance. Yes, I agree. My kids are old enough that, if I were to somehow contract HIV, the chances would be great that I would live to see them grown, and still excellent that I would see them established and such. I would probably look at it differently if my kids were still young. Sheila >>>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my >>>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >her to have a new relationship that would not be celibate? or could you >remain married and give her a 'license' to meet her sexual needs? This is an example of one of my pet peeves and a serious objection that I (and probably Tony as well) have to the attitude that current Western society fosters towards sex and the individual's responsibility with regard to sex. We are encouraged and taught by "the world" to believe that sexual urges are "needs"... when in fact they are no more than urges. So, while Tony's comment about "people who are controlled by their dick" is tactless... still it has more than a bit of truth in it. People *do* allow themselves to be controlled by their dick. They do it by telling themselves that those urges are *needs*... and thus absolving from themselves the need to accept responsibility for their own conscious decisions and actions. r "I want... not I *need*... a pony." j > >>>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my > >>>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > r "I want... not I *need*... a pony." j rj, I agree with you. So, just to clarify, when I said that I would end up probably using a condom and having sex with my husband anyway, it wasn't because I'm saying that sex would be a need, it would be because I think we would make the decision that the closeness that sex brings us is worth the risk of sex with a condom. If, as we have discussed in here before, my spouse or I came down with some condition where sex was impossible, I would forego sex, and my husband says he would too (and I believe him). Our relationship is the most important thing to us, and the desire for sex would not come close to our desire to maintain our relationship. Sheila >> We are encouraged and taught by "the world" to believe that sexual >> urges are "needs"... when in fact they are no more than urges. So, [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > Sheila To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or want--- How many sexless marriages are successful that you know of? I am brazen and honest enough to say that sex was one of the primary reasons I married---not the only, but certainly in the top 3. How many of you would have gone into a marriage knowing that the spouse was incapable or totally not interested in sex? Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a marriage--without which marriage is doomed to fail? For me, the 3 key ingredients would be love, commitment, sex--in that order--or perhaps with commitment as #1. I would bet that not a single person in this ng would willingly go into a marriage knowing that one or more of these ingredients were missing. Would you? As to the "people who are controlled by their dick" statement-- I think those persons have an attitude that perverts the need for sex from 'God gives the gift of sex for us to enjoy in marriage' to 'God has given me such a strong need for sex that I can do it whenever, with whoever, I want--regardless of my marital status'. Note too that I believe any relationship with the 3 key ingredients above is marriage in God's eyes--whether or not a piece of paper proves it. Anyone here in a sexless marriage? Care to share how well that is working for you? Bo > Anyone here in a sexless marriage? Care to share how well that is working > for you? > > Bo I'm not, although in the last nine months the number of sexual encounters has fallen to a number that is a small fraction of what it used to be, for health reasons. I am very happy in my marriage. I also have a friend who is in a sexless marriage. I have spoken about her before in this ng. Long story short -- he had heart problems, for a long time they didn't have sex for fear about his health, they tried it a couple of times, he's on meds that make sex difficult, over time, they decided that it was better, for them, to just not make that an issue anymore. She loves her husband very much. He loves her. They are affectionate and loving with each other. They are in their 50's. This process started some years ago. I haven't talked to him about it, but she doesn't expect that sex will happen again, and she is okay with that. She is just happy to be with him, and have him around. Sheila > This process started some years ago. > I haven't talked to him about it, but she doesn't expect that sex will > happen again, Oops, that was supposed to be "will not happen again". Sorry Sheila >>> We are encouraged and taught by "the world" to believe that sexual >>> urges are "needs"... when in fact they are no more than urges. So, [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > How many sexless marriages are successful that you know of? Those in which sex is not the primary component of the marriage. > I am brazen and > honest enough to say that sex was one of the primary reasons I married---not > the only, but certainly in the top 3. How many of you would have gone into > a marriage knowing that the spouse was incapable or totally not interested > in sex? Not only would I have entered into a marriage like that, but my Church would not validate such a marriage. You are mixing two separate issues that I'd like to separate out: 1: Going into a sexless marriage. Sex is a requirement for a marriage in my Church for two reasons. One is procreative, that is the partnering with God in the creation of children. The second is unitive. That is what is meant by "the two shall become one flesh". And that unitive is supposed to have a spiritual component to it, bonding the spouses more closely. It is not simply fitting sex organs together. 2: Finding yourself in a sexless marriage. That depends on the reasoning. (A) I have discussed this ad-nauseum giving people the impression that I believe a wife should agree to sex whenever a husband wants it. That goes both ways. You should lovingly provide release to your spouse even when you are not in the mood. The keyword is "lovingly", not "grudgingly". If you are physically able, you ought to. (B) You become unable to have sex either through impotence, disease, damage to the female sex organs rendering sex painful, etc. There is no obligation at that point to have sex, and it's up to the non-affected partner to be understanding of the situation. One would hope they would still cuddle and do those things that they are able to do, but we were talking about HIV. I would never subject my wife to that danger. My kids would be losing a father prematurely, I would not want them to lose their mother. > Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient > that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a > marriage--without which marriage is doomed to fail? But the key ingredient (In my opinion as all my writings are unless otherwise designated) is the spiritual joining. The rubbing pee-pees is nice, but not *necessary*. Maybe the pee-pee rubbing is important to you, to the extent that you endanger your spouse. I'll let you answer that. > For me, the 3 key ingredients would be love, commitment, sex--in that > order--or perhaps with commitment as #1. I would bet that not a single > person in this ng would willingly go into a marriage knowing that one or > more of these ingredients were missing. Would you? For me, love is not an emotion. Love is a *choice*. When I was married, I was asked if I promised to love, honor and cherish my wife for as long as we both should live. On a day to day basis, I chose once again to love my wife. I do this on a daily basis because I promised to and I take my promises seriously, especially the ones I make before God. If I love my wife, I seek what is best for my beloved. That might mean forgoing sex. It might also mean stepping in front of a bullet for her, or running back into a burning building. My Church teaches that this is the attitude required from husbands. Wives have a different attitude requirement (I may choose to or choose not to continue this particular portion of the discussion. If you respond and I ignore you, that's why.) > As to the "people who are controlled by their dick" statement-- I think > those persons have an attitude that perverts the need for sex from 'God [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > relationship with the 3 key ingredients above is marriage in God's > eyes--whether or not a piece of paper proves it. God gives you free will. He also gives you the grace to handle problems if you ask Him for it. We have become a society accustomed to comfort, with almost a pathological aversion to suffering. What most Christians fail to see is that they are expected to follow Jesus, and they forget that the path of Jesus led to the cross. > Anyone here in a sexless marriage? Care to share how well that is working > for you? Nope, I would hate it. But everything is not about me. If it happens to me I'll be happy to tell you how it's working out. I>> > Not only would I have entered into a marriage like that, but my Church > would not validate such a marriage. You are mixing two separate issues > that I'd like to separate out: So... sex is, and if this is what you are saying--I agree, not a personal need, but rather a marital need. > 1: Going into a sexless marriage. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > bonding the spouses more closely. It is not simply fitting sex organs > together. 100% agree with you. > 2: Finding yourself in a sexless marriage. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > release to your spouse even when you are not in the mood. The keyword is > "lovingly", not "grudgingly". If you are physically able, you ought to. I missed the earlier conversations, but in general I agree with this--- however, not as a hard/fast rule--but rather a continual denial of sex to a spouse is not how it should be. > (B) You become unable to have sex either through impotence, disease, > damage to the female sex organs rendering sex painful, etc. There is no > obligation at that point to have sex, and it's up to the non-affected > partner to be understanding of the situation. I hear you--but I guess in such circumstance I don't think there is a non-affected partner. Non-INfected, sure. Non-AFfected--no. > One would hope they would > still cuddle and do those things that they are able to do, but we were > talking about HIV. I would never subject my wife to that danger. My kids > would be losing a father prematurely, I would not want them to lose their > mother. I agree with the last sentence. However, what if your wife *wanted* you to give her sex--in spite of the risk? Would you? >> Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient >> that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > otherwise designated) is the spiritual joining. The rubbing pee-pees is > nice, but not *necessary*. But, *how* is the spiritual joining exercised? Is it a 1 time thing at the alter? or what? I think 1 Cor 6 and 2 Cor 6 makes a pretty good argument/link for sex/body/soul--'for every other sin is without the body' > Maybe the pee-pee rubbing is important to you, to the extent that you > endanger your spouse. I'll let you answer that. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > my wife. I do this on a daily basis because I promised to and I take my > promises seriously, especially the ones I make before God. Yes and no. In the greater sense it is a choice--but I doubt many marry without the emotional side being there too--at least going into the marriage. > If I love my wife, I seek what is best for my beloved. That might mean > forgoing sex. It might also mean stepping in front of a bullet for her, > or running back into a burning building. My Church teaches that this is > the attitude required from husbands. Wives have a different attitude > requirement (I may choose to or choose not to continue this particular > portion of the discussion. If you respond and I ignore you, that's why.) I totally agree. >> As to the "people who are controlled by their dick" statement-- I think >> those persons have an attitude that perverts the need for sex from 'God [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > fail to see is that they are expected to follow Jesus, and they forget > that the path of Jesus led to the cross. Agreed. >> Anyone here in a sexless marriage? Care to share how well that is working >> for you? > > Nope, I would hate it. But everything is not about me. If it happens to > me I'll be happy to tell you how it's working out. I hope it doesn't happy to you--or anyone else for that matter.... Bo > I>> > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > So... sex is, and if this is what you are saying--I agree, not a personal > need, but rather a marital need. In the context that it is supposed to be *only* engaged in within the bonds of a marital covenant, I'd have to say "yes" :) >> 1: Going into a sexless marriage. >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 100% agree with you. Cool! >> 2: Finding yourself in a sexless marriage. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > however, not as a hard/fast rule--but rather a continual denial of sex to a > spouse is not how it should be. This I will have to agree with also. Another aspect is the use of being the gatekeeper to sex as a weapon. The one who says "yes" or "no" is what I term as the gatekeeper, and that can be either the husband or wife. I think in a loving marriage this is completely and totally verboten. >> (B) You become unable to have sex either through impotence, disease, >> damage to the female sex organs rendering sex painful, etc. There is no [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I hear you--but I guess in such circumstance I don't think there is a > non-affected partner. Non-INfected, sure. Non-AFfected--no. Agreed. But when I said "affected", I meant "affected by the condition or disease". I didn't communicate that well. >> One would hope they would >> still cuddle and do those things that they are able to do, but we were [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I agree with the last sentence. However, what if your wife *wanted* you to > give her sex--in spite of the risk? Would you? There would be a lot of things to take into account. In my case, no. If we were childless? I can't really answer that. I believe having sex with someone who is HIV+ is committing suicide. However, we all die, and we are not required to extend our life to the last possible moment. >>> Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient >>> that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > But, *how* is the spiritual joining exercised? Is it a 1 time thing at the > alter? or what? No, it's a consistent communication, gathering strength from each other, supporting each other, what touching you're able to do. > I think 1 Cor 6 and 2 Cor 6 makes a pretty good argument/link for > sex/body/soul--'for every other sin is without the body' *Nod*. Sexual sins are sins against the temple of God (your body). >> Maybe the pee-pee rubbing is important to you, to the extent that you >> endanger your spouse. I'll let you answer that. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > without the emotional side being there too--at least going into the > marriage. I want to apologize for the "rubbing pee-pees is important to you" comment. That was unnecessary. One of the big problems, especially in our libertine, hypersexualized society, is the fact that there is a unitive aspect to sex. Those who engage in pre-marital sex are, I believe, "victims" of bonding with someone who is no good for them. They believe they are "in love", *because* of the sexual activity (while convincing themselves that they are having sex because they are "in love"). The emotional side nurtured without sexual activity is a critical component of a good marriage (that can also apply to those who can think critically while they are horny for someone :)) >> If I love my wife, I seek what is best for my beloved. That might mean >> forgoing sex. It might also mean stepping in front of a bullet for [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > I totally agree. Cool! >>> As to the "people who are controlled by their dick" statement-- I >>> think those persons have an attitude that perverts the need for sex [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Agreed. Soon we're not going to have much to discuss :) >>> Anyone here in a sexless marriage? Care to share how well that is >>> working for you? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I hope it doesn't happy to you--or anyone else for that matter.... Me too. But if someone is affected by a lack of sexual desire or performance, I would wish the lack of desire for sex on *both* of them. There are too many heartbreaks I've read here regarding mismatched libidos. >>> Not only would I have entered into a marriage like that, but my Church >>> would not validate such a marriage. You are mixing two separate issues [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > Agreed. But when I said "affected", I meant "affected by the condition or > disease". I didn't communicate that well. Well--I wasn't *sure* we were on the same page there or not....thanks for the clarification. >> I agree with the last sentence. However, what if your wife *wanted* you >> to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > someone who is HIV+ is committing suicide. However, we all die, and we > are not required to extend our life to the last possible moment. Do you *really* think having sex with your HIV infected wife would be the same as putting a 38 to your head and pulling the trigger? If so, then perhaps the firefighters going *up* the WTC on 9-11 all committed suicide too? I certainly don't think so--this was a case of 'greater love hath no man...'. >>>> Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key >>>> ingredient [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > I want to apologize for the "rubbing pee-pees is important to you" > comment. That was unnecessary. Apology accepted--though not necessary. > One of the big problems, especially in our libertine, hypersexualized > society, is the fact that there is a unitive aspect to sex. Those who > engage in pre-marital sex are, I believe, "victims" of bonding with > someone who is no good for them. They believe they are "in love", > *because* of the sexual activity (while convincing themselves that they > are having sex because they are "in love"). Indeed. My wife's brother and his wife are a classic example. They've managed to stay together a long time--but its pretty obvious to me they would never have *chose* to marry. The fact they screwed up and got pregnant is the only reason. He's a great Dad--but their marriage leaves much to be desired from what I can see on the outside looking in. > The emotional side nurtured without sexual activity is a critical > component of a good marriage (that can also apply to those who can think [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > Soon we're not going to have much to discuss :) I don't know about that! There's MUCH I'd like to ask a practicing 'good' Catholic that I don't find direct support for in the Bible--but this isn't the place. >>>> Anyone here in a sexless marriage? Care to share how well that is >>>> working for you? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > There are too many heartbreaks I've read here regarding mismatched > libidos. Yes indeed. Perhaps sexless marriage between 2 ultra-low libido persons would be wonderful. Only problem is I've never met a man that had THAT low of a libido.... Bo >>>> Not only would I have entered into a marriage like that, but my Church >>>> would not validate such a marriage. You are mixing two separate issues [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] > committed suicide too? I certainly don't think so--this was a case of > 'greater love hath no man...'. Well, more like putting a 20 cylinder .38 with one loaded chamber to your head and each time you engage in "protected" sex, spinning the cylinder, and pulling the trigger. Until you can show me that lack of sex can cause death, your analogy is flawed. <Snip> >>> Agreed. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Catholic that I don't find direct support for in the Bible--but this isn't > the place. We Catholics have a lot of "extras". We believe the Bible is necessary but not sufficient. A lot of it has to do with 2000 years of theological study by scholars starting with people like Justin the Martyr to the current Pope Benedict XVI. Pope Benedict's ecyclical, Deus Caritas Est, (God is love) is a compelling read. You can find it online at vatican.va. >>>>> Anyone here in a sexless marriage? Care to share how well that is >>>>> working for you? [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > would be wonderful. Only problem is I've never met a man that had THAT low > of a libido.... Been around here long? I've heard from a lot of their wives. :) >>>> I agree with the last sentence. However, what if your wife *wanted* you >>>> to [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > head and each time you engage in "protected" sex, spinning the cylinder, > and pulling the trigger. A better analogy....to be sure. But I still can't classify it as suicide. > Until you can show me that lack of sex can cause death, your analogy is > flawed. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Pope Benedict's ecyclical, Deus Caritas Est, (God is love) is a compelling > read. You can find it online at vatican.va. I'll try to check it out. As a 'fundie' (which means many things to many people), I believe the Bible is necessary and sufficient and the _exclusive_ reference by which believers should live. >>> Me too. But if someone is affected by a lack of sexual desire or >>> performance, I would wish the lack of desire for sex on *both* of them. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Been around here long? I've heard from a lot of their wives. :) I've been here a good while and never seen/heard any complaints from wives that weren't getting enough--perhaps I missed those post(s).... Bo >>>>> I agree with the last sentence. However, what if your wife *wanted* you >>>>> to [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >> > A better analogy....to be sure. But I still can't classify it as suicide. You're probably right, unless each time you spin you're hoping for the bullet. If you're not, then you're playing a dangerous game. >> Until you can show me that lack of sex can cause death, your analogy is >> flawed. [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > people), I believe the Bible is necessary and sufficient and the > _exclusive_ reference by which believers should live. True. And I won't get into an argument with you about this. But the fundamental (oops I made a pun) question you have to ask yourself. Do you believe in the authority of those who chose your Canon? (Since God didn't drop a KJV down, fully bound from heaven, complete with footnotes) :). If you do, then you believe in the authority of those who chose your Canon in addition to the words therein. >>>> Me too. But if someone is affected by a lack of sexual desire or >>>> performance, I would wish the lack of desire for sex on *both* of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >> >> Been around here long? I've heard from a lot of their wives. :) > I've been here a good while and never seen/heard any complaints from > wives that weren't getting enough--perhaps I missed those post(s).... They are much fewer than the men, but they definitely exist. (snip) >> I'll try to check it out. As a 'fundie' (which means many things to many >> people), I believe the Bible is necessary and sufficient and the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >If you do, then you believe in the authority of those who chose your Canon >in addition to the words therein. ROTFLMAO.... Now is *that* ever a loaded statement. (Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic Gospels" is currently amongst my bedside reading...) rj > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Now is *that* ever a loaded statement. (Elaine Pagels' "The Gnostic > Gospels" is currently amongst my bedside reading...) I know. :) Wasn't it Martin Luther that said "every believer has a pope in his belly"? I implicitly trust the Church that gave me my Canon. IOW, the men who decided on what the Canon would be were as inspired by the Holy Spirit as those who *wrote* the Gospels. >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > the men who decided on what the Canon would be were as inspired by the > Holy Spirit as those who *wrote* the Gospels. Sorry--but I disagree....isn't there a verse in Revelation that says whoever adds to/ or takes away from, will be cursed by the plagues contained therein? Bo >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > adds to/ or takes away from, will be cursed by the plagues contained > therein? How can you disagree? How can you even determine what is added or subtracted if you can't figure out what the Bible consists of? From my standpoint, the Protestants "took away" Tobit, Judith, 1 and 2 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus (or, Sirach), and Baruch from the Bible. Does this mean they will be "cursed"? I'm sure you're going to come back with "the Catholics added those books!". This outlines my original assertion. Since God didn't deliver a King James Bible to you from heaven bound and with footnotes, do you trust the *men* who gave you your Canon? I trust the Church who gave me my Canon. > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the men who decided on what the Canon would be were as inspired by the > Holy Spirit as those who *wrote* the Gospels. <smile> Ahhh... but what is "the Church"? Anyhow, it might be right about there (your faith in the inspiration of those early "church fathers") that we Protestants start to part company with Roman Catholics (and probably most Orthodox as well). I mentioned Elain Pagels' work... It seems to me that the theological positions taken by many of the less radical Gnostics (eg. the Valentinians) were not far at all from the positions later taken by the early Protestants. rj >> > (snip) >> > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Ahhh... but what is "the Church"? Is this a trick question? :) <Snip> (snip) > > <smile> > > > > Ahhh... but what is "the Church"? > > Is this a trick question? :) Wasn't intended to be... rj > >> > (snip) > >> > [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > <Snip> It shouldn't be. Not with scholarship from various different "churches" recently revealing what it has about how "scripture" was collected and coaxed into being a "Bible." Go ye therefore and "tell the world" doesn't sound a lot like "go write some stuff down," just for starters. And when it gets to the study of the actual texts, their fragments, whether the earliest forms extant are in Aramaic or Greek, whether the Aramaic is from the proper time period, whether the Greek is from the proper time period, we see fragmentary documents evolving through the insertion of "what should have been there" as was the custom in much writing at the time. Most people would feel a lot better about the claims of ANY church if each church recognized that the first few centuries A.D. were troubled times, it isn't clear who was "inspired" by whom to write what, and the essential message of the Christ is "Love one another, Love your enemies, Love your neighbor, Judge not," - you know - the part that occurs in all the writings about him. Not the "Tell everyone how to run their lives" part, the "You're going to hell for sure," part, the "Second Coming to Judge Sinners" part - because that isn't in there. Revelations, for example, was an egregious inclusion into the NT, you can research for yourself what recent Catholic scholarship has said about that particular problem. Will it ever be addressed? Doubtful. Not in our lifetimes. A. >> >> > (snip) >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > "churches" recently revealing what it has about how "scripture" > was collected and coaxed into being a "Bible." Exactly, only I'd term it the scholarship of saints guided by the Holy Spirit. You have to trust not only the story, but the teller of the story, the writer of the story, the translators of the writer of the story. To me, 2000 years of unbroken apostolic succession insures that. That is why the word "imprimatur" is extremely important to me when pursuing Christian texts. This means that the particular translation of the Bible, book of prayers, or other document has met with the approval of the Church. > Go ye therefore and "tell the world" doesn't sound a lot like "go write > some stuff down," just for starters. Jesus instituted a community, not a book club. ;) > And when it gets to the study of the actual texts, their fragments, > whether the earliest forms extant are in Aramaic or Greek, whether the > Aramaic is from the proper time period, whether the Greek is from the > proper time period, we see fragmentary documents evolving through the > insertion of "what should have been there" as was the custom in much > writing at the time. You're right on target. Any biblical scholarship needs to be done with the customs of the times in mind. One example is the poor man invited to the wedding feast who was thrown out into the street for hot having the proper dress for the wedding. For most of my life I felt bad for that man, and thought that the lord of the manor was incredibly unfair. Out pastor explained that it was the custom to supply wedding robes for the guests who neglected to bring one or could not afford one. This man was simply being obstinate for not donning one of the robes. Sheds whole new light on the story. How many Bibles, I wonder, contain that info in the footnotes or elsewhere? > Most people would feel a lot better about the claims of ANY church if > each church recognized that the first few centuries A.D. were troubled > times, it isn't clear who was "inspired" by whom to write what, and the > essential message of the Christ is "Love one another, Love your enemies, > Love your neighbor, Judge not," - you know - the part that occurs in all > the writings about him. So does go forth and sin no more. :) Also, the who phrase is "Judge not, lest ye be judged". Many people neglect to include the second part. Basically it says that if you judge people, you will be held to the same standards (don't be a hypocrite). Saint Paul gives a whole letter on how to correct a wayward brother. > Not the "Tell everyone how to run their lives" part, the "You're going > to hell for sure," part, the "Second Coming to Judge Sinners" part - > because that isn't in there. If you believed a certain set of behaviors would condemn someone to an eternity of pain and suffering, wouldn't love dictate that you try to turn your brother to the path of righteousness? In more secular terms, if you saw someone walking toward an open manhole, wouldn't you warn him that he might fall? Would it be loving to do otherwise? > Revelations, for example, was an egregious inclusion into the NT, you > can research for yourself what recent Catholic scholarship has said > about that particular problem. Will it ever be addressed? Doubtful. > Not in our lifetimes. Hard to say. But as we move forward in our understanding, more things will become clear. We see through the glass darkly, and I look for illumination from those who God has placed in a position to supply it. Nice conversation by the way. > >> >> > (snip) > >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > "churches" recently revealing what it has about how "scripture" > > was collected and coaxed into being a "Bible." My point exactly, A.... Thank you! > Exactly, only I'd term it the scholarship of saints guided by the Holy > Spirit. You have to trust not only the story, but the teller of the > story, the writer of the story, the translators of the writer of the story. > > To me, 2000 years of unbroken apostolic succession insures that. You are making the assumption here that *you* (or more exactly, the network of RC clergy that has existed through time and clear up to the present) are "the Church". For one thing, and as I'm sure you know, the legitimacy of that "apostolic succession" of yours has been in dispute for a *long* time. There are those who would dispute your assumption, including many/most Orthodox and all Protestants.... that is, pretty nearly *every* Christian who is not Roman Catholic. > That is why the word "imprimatur" is extremely important to me when > pursuing Christian texts. This means that the particular translation of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Jesus instituted a community, not a book club. ;) LOL.... Tony, Tony, Tony... This is a glib evasion that simply substitutes the word "community" for the "the Church". <grin> But I suspect that you know that. (snip) rj >> >> >> > (snip) >> >> >> > [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > assumption, including many/most Orthodox and all Protestants.... that > is, pretty nearly *every* Christian who is not Roman Catholic. Of course it is. That's why they call it faith. I trust "my guys'" judgment and you trust "your guys'" judgment. Please don't try and convince me that "your guys" had nothing to do with the Bible, and it dropped, leather bound and pristine directly from heaven. >> That is why the word "imprimatur" is extremely important to me when >> pursuing Christian texts. This means that the particular translation of [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > This is a glib evasion that simply substitutes the word "community" for > the "the Church". <grin> But I suspect that you know that. There's no evasion. When Jesus said: "You are Peter and upon this rock I build my community", that's what he was talking about. It's something I figured you'd get :) (snip) > >> Jesus instituted a community, not a book club. ;) > > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > build my community", that's what he was talking about. It's something I > figured you'd get :) ROTFLMAO! Wellll.... Even if Peter the First really *was* the first Pope (not something that everyone accepts as true...), you know damned well that things got pretty murky shortly after that.... fwiw... I suspect that I would accept that you are as much a member of "the Church" as I am... though I wonder if you'd grant me the same courtesy. <grin> I have a good friend from college days who left Methodism and became an Orthodox priest. Haven't seen him in dogs years, but I suspect he'd have a bit of a problem accepting either of us in *his* "the Church". But I think that this thread has drifted pretty far away from the "need" thing... rj > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > something that everyone accepts as true...), you know damned well that > things got pretty murky shortly after that.... That's true not everyone accepts that Peter (the *only* so far) was the first Pope. Those people are called... well... Protestants. :) > fwiw... I suspect that I would accept that you are as much a member of > "the Church" as I am... though I wonder if you'd grant me the same > courtesy. <grin> I have a good friend from college days who left > Methodism and became an Orthodox priest. Haven't seen him in dogs > years, but I suspect he'd have a bit of a problem accepting either of > us in *his* "the Church". Of course I do. You are a member of the catholic (small "c" meaning "universal" Church). You are my brother in Christ. Your baptism and marriages are considered valid in the Catholic church. I would be happy to attend a prayer service with you, where both of us could sing hymns to our God. There are still some sticky and fundamental differences that keep our churches from being in communion with each other. The Lutherans are *really* close. I think the only thing separating us now is married clergy, and that isn't a biggie. > But I think that this thread has drifted pretty far away from the > "need" thing... Me too :) >Anyone here in a sexless marriage? Care to share how well that is working >for you? The last few years of my past marriage we lived as roommates in a lot of ways. It was lonely for us both. > To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or > want--- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > a marriage knowing that the spouse was incapable or totally not interested > in sex? No clue how to respond to that since I wasn't in that position when I married. And, to be truthful, unless someone *has* fallen in love with such a person, no one else will really know either. > Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient > that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a > marriage--without which marriage is doomed to fail? Depends on each person, IMO. What the key ingredients are, I mean. And how those ingredients are defined are also dependent on each individual. > For me, the 3 key ingredients would be love, commitment, sex--in that > order--or perhaps with commitment as #1. I would bet that not a single > person in this ng would willingly go into a marriage knowing that one or > more of these ingredients were missing. Would you? Again, depends. Many people around the world *do* end up in marriages where love is not a factor at all. (I'm thinking of arranged marriages here.) See, you're assuming that everyone shares your belief about the 3 key ingredients of a marriage. Not everyone does or will. Tracey >> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or >> want--- [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > married. And, to be truthful, unless someone *has* fallen in love with > such a person, no one else will really know either. Sure... it is a conjecture question--ie what do you *think* you would have done?.... >> Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient >> that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > Tracey Of course not everyone does or will.... but it's an interesting topic and I would venture a guess that many or most here agree with them. Regulars, what are the 3 key ingredients for your marriage or a happy marriage in your view? >>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or >>> want--- >>> >>> How many sexless marriages are successful that you know of? How many sexful marriages are truly successful, that you know of? >>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or >>>> want--- >>>> >>>> How many sexless marriages are successful that you know of? > > How many sexful marriages are truly successful, that you know of? Number of successful sexless marriage I know of = 0 Number of successful sexful marriages I know of ~ 100 Ratio => 0/100 .... I'd say the probability of sexless successful marriage would be in 6 sigma-land.... Bo >>>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or >>>>> want--- [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Bo "Successful" is measured thru the lens of time. Not one year out, not five years out, but let's be more realistic and go for the silver: 25 years out. Perhaps now the ratio is closer to 1:1? > "Successful" is measured thru the lens of time. Not one year out, not > five > years out, but let's be more realistic and go for the silver: 25 years > out. > Perhaps now the ratio is closer to 1:1? So you're saying that anyone whose marriage for any reason whatsoever before that marker had an unsuccessful marriage? Jess >> "Successful" is measured thru the lens of time. Not one year out, not >> five years out, but let's be more realistic and go for the silver: 25 years >> out. Perhaps now the ratio is closer to 1:1? > > So you're saying that anyone whose marriage for any reason whatsoever before > that marker had an unsuccessful marriage? > > Jess How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my marriage only lasted for one month, but, that's kinda irrelevant). > How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a > month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my > marriage only lasted for one month, but, that's kinda irrelevant). My marriage ended in his death after less than three years-are you going to tell me (or Grace) that we had unsuccessful marriages because our marriages didn't last for 25 years? And let me point out (without intending to insult anyone else) that I fulfilled my vows-I *still* love him, and he's been dead for three years. Are you going to propose that your marriage was more successful than mine simply because it lasted longer? Or how about someone else's relationship that lasted for 25 years but involved copious trips to the ER? Or how about a couple married for 50 years out of convenience? Are those more successful because they've lasted for 50 years? I intently hope your only marker for a successful relationship isn't the duration of the relationship. Jess >> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a >> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > tell me (or Grace) that we had unsuccessful marriages because our marriages > didn't last for 25 years? No, I said I thought as necessary, but not sufficient, if you read what I said. I never said that JUST being together for 25 years meant success. Although I'm beginning to wonder now, with retrospect, what time frame really is significant here, in the context of qualifying success, per se. > And let me point out (without intending to insult anyone else) that I > fulfilled my vows-I *still* love him, and he's been dead for three years. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Or how about a couple married for 50 years out of convenience? Are those > more successful because they've lasted for 50 years? No, per above. > I intently hope your only marker for a successful relationship isn't the > duration of the relationship. It wasn't, Jess. In retrospect, it's getting somewhat more fuzzy to me now! > No, I said I thought as necessary, but not sufficient, if you read what I > said. I never said that JUST being together for 25 years meant success. > > Although I'm beginning to wonder now, with retrospect, what time frame > really is significant here, in the context of qualifying success, per se. It's interesting - is five good years more significant than 30 so-so ones? We're at seven years now, it's been a wonderful seven years, and seems to be getting better. I'd like to think we're successfully married, especially since we're extremely happy and stable. I'm pretty certain we will make it for the duration (till death), but of course, I can't be 100% sure (nobody can). >> No, I said I thought as necessary, but not sufficient, if you read what I >> said. I never said that JUST being together for 25 years meant success. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > for the duration (till death), but of course, I can't be 100% sure (nobody > can). I don't know anymore. If I listen to A, one (good) day may be sufficient! :-) Seriously, I'm a bit more confused about it now, in retrospect. >> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a >> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > I intently hope your only marker for a successful relationship isn't the > duration of the relationship. Any marriage that lasts until the death of one of the spouses (not caused intentionally by the other) was a successful marriage. > >> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a > >> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > Any marriage that lasts until the death of one of the spouses (not caused > intentionally by the other) was a successful marriage. Not in my view - not if either one or both of them was miserable. Or abused. A lifetime of abuse that doesn't directly result in the death of one party isn't a success. When both parties are miserable, it's certainly not a successful marriage, not as I define marriage. A. >>>> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a >>>> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > Not in my view - not if either one or both of them was miserable. Or abused. > A lifetime of abuse that doesn't directly result in the death of one party isn't > a success. When both parties are miserable, it's certainly not a successful > marriage, not as I define marriage. > > A. Well, obviously this is coming down to how we define it.... In retrospect, maybe the most accurate thing would be to say something like this: "I had a successful marriage for xx years" - instead of trying to use the time element to define it. Of course, by "successful" here, one would expect in the marriage the good things you just mentioned here and before, A. (Love, respect, trust, etc). (snip) > > Any marriage that lasts until the death of one of the spouses (not caused > > intentionally by the other) was a successful marriage. <grin> Tony, I suspect that you *know* that this statement of yours is gonna draw some flack... > Not in my view - not if either one or both of them was miserable. Or > abused. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > A. <evil grin ON> So, then... It sounds as though to you, part of the *reason* for marriage is the pursuit of your own happiness. And that if you don't catch it (happiness), then the marriage is not successful. If I'm correct in what I'm inferring here, then it would appear to me that a fundamental objective of marriage (as you seem to define it) is simply self-gratification. To me, the pursuit of self-gratification seems to be one of the very worst reasons to get married... and a receipe for a disasterous marriage. <evil grin OFF> Seriously, though, I'd also have difficulty in characterizing a marriage marked by physical abuse and consequent misery as being "successful". However, I tend to approach marriage from a Christian perspective; in that context, personal happiness is not the most important criterion of success. rj > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Tony, I suspect that you *know* that this statement of yours is gonna > draw some flack... Of course. :) >> Not in my view - not if either one or both of them was miserable. Or >> abused. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > <evil grin OFF> Oh my. Now it's *you* who are going to be drawing flack. :) > Seriously, though, I'd also have difficulty in characterizing a > marriage marked by physical abuse and consequent misery as being > "successful". However, I tend to approach marriage from a Christian > perspective; in that context, personal happiness is not the most > important criterion of success. As definition of marriage as two becoming one, I'd say that I have to agree with you. Two single people living in the same house, hating each other, is not the definition of a successful marriage. I guess it's how you define "success". Words are slippery things, and we could be arguing with other people while completely agreeing with their viewpoints simply because we don't understand their definition of specific words. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > be one of the very worst reasons to get married... and a receipe for a > disasterous marriage. Actually - and I don't find it particularly funny, as my first marriage was abusive, the avoidance of being MISERABLE is not the same thing as being happy. For example, I would have liked to have had no broken ribs and no huge contusions to hide from friends. I was severely depressed and so was he. For me, the depression lifted almost instantaneously upon our separation, for him, it lasted much longer. But no - marriage isn't about self-gratification. But I frankly wouldn't want anyone to live with me when I'm miserable. Marriage is about finding happiness together, and doing what one can to enhance the life and happiness of another person. And, finally - for your information - there's no way I'd confuse genuine happiness with "self-gratification." I have very little idea what "self-gratification" means, except as applied to masturbation. What other content does it have? Happiness is much more profound, and related to peace, contentment, spiritual growth, awareness - most especially awareness. If a person is walking around disassociated most of the time, has amnesia for big parts of their life, etc., - that's not even remotely a basis for happiness. > <evil grin OFF> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > perspective; in that context, personal happiness is not the most > important criterion of success. Ah, well, then - here we differ. I do believe happiness (not personal) is essential to a marriage - especially if you're going to bring children into it. Raising children in an environment where no one is happy is cruel, in my belief system. I also believe that Christianity has nothing to do with whether you select happiness as value. Interesting that you'd pull "personal happiness" out of the mix as a contrasting value. How about familial happiness? Everyone in my family agrees that unless we're all happy, we're not individually happy. It hasn't been that hard to achieve, and I know lots of happy families. Sure, there's pain and grief (we're dealing with some right now), but we're still happy. In fact, when she was four, my daughter translated the words "I love you" as "I'm happy at you" and she still uses that phrase today - we all do. "I'm happy at you." That's one of our most important expressions. We smile a lot, too. And by the way, I come from a very long line of Christians - including many ministers. My parents have been married for 65 years, they emphasize that happiness is a crucial ingredient to marriage - and they are Christian. My aunt, who died Sunday, had just celebrated her 60th wedding anniversary, and she and my uncle are both in Christian ministry. In fact, they claim their happy marriage is a keystone of their ministry, and hundreds of young couples sought them out as lay counselors on just this issue. My uncle's eulogy for his wife emphasizes that without her contributions to their happy marriage, his own life would not have taken shape and he would not have had the wherewithal to continue the ministry he is in. So how you could emphasize "Christianity" and not include "marital happiness" is beyond me - and none of us in my family can make sense of that. Perhaps you could explain your version of Christianity to us. A. > rj >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > was abusive, the avoidance of being MISERABLE is not the same > thing as being happy. One who stays true to his promise to love does not abuse his beloved. > For example, I would have liked to have had no broken ribs and > no huge contusions to hide from friends. I was severely depressed > and so was he. For me, the depression lifted almost instantaneously > upon our separation, for him, it lasted much longer. A man of any kind does not hit a woman. (A man, as opposed to a male. A man espouses the manly virtues. The male simply has a penis.) > But no - marriage isn't about self-gratification. But I frankly > wouldn't > want anyone to live with me when I'm miserable. Marriage is about > finding happiness together, and doing what one can to enhance the > life and happiness of another person. If you are true to your promise to love you will not be miserable toward your beloved. > And, finally - for your information - there's no way I'd confuse > genuine happiness with "self-gratification." I have very little idea > what "self-gratification" means, except as applied to masturbation. > What other content does it have? > Happiness is much more profound, and related to peace, contentment, > spiritual growth, awareness - most especially awareness. If a person > is walking around disassociated most of the time, has amnesia for > big parts of their life, etc., - that's not even remotely a basis for > happiness. Happiness is simply having your desires met. There are two ways to handle that, either get your spouse to do what you want, or lower your expectations. #2 is much easier as a general rule, but #1 becomes easy if you begin to put your husband's welfare before your own. Unless he's a real schmuck, he'll respond to it, and start doing what you want. >> <evil grin OFF> >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > into it. Raising children in an environment where no one is happy > is cruel, in my belief system. No, raising children in an environment where they *know* nobody is happy is cruel. > I also believe that Christianity has nothing to do with whether you > select happiness as value. Interesting that you'd pull "personal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > you" as "I'm happy at you" and she still uses that phrase today - > we all do. Oh, for crying out loud! What a way to get a child to get entirely the wrong impression of what love it. "I'm happy at you". Gag me with a spoon. When your daughter said it it was cute. You propagating it is just silly. > "I'm happy at you." That's one of our most important expressions. > We smile a lot, too. And by the way, I come from a very long line [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > "marital happiness" is beyond me - and none of us in my family > can make sense of that. If your happiness is dependent on "what have you done for me lately" you will be unhappy most of the time. You will make demand on what you want your spouse to do to keep the level of "happiness" at an appropriate level. > Perhaps you could explain your version of Christianity to us. I know I wasn't asked. But here's my "version of Christianity". "Husbands, love your wives, as Christ loved the Church". Look up at a crucifix when you read those words. That is the level of love I'm called to as a Christian. I won't get into the first part of it... "Wives, be submissive to your husbands" ;) >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] >was abusive, the avoidance of being MISERABLE is not the same >thing as being happy. True enough. My appologies for having made an incorrect implicit assumption. >For example, I would have liked to have had no broken ribs and >no huge contusions to hide from friends. I was severely depressed >and so was he. For me, the depression lifted almost instantaneously >upon our separation, for him, it lasted much longer. > >But no - marriage isn't about self-gratification. Which, of course, begs the question "What *is* marriage about?" Personlly, I think that one of the major things that Christian marriage is "about" is self-sacrifice. <grin> My wife got a real chuckle in a Sunday School class once by referring to me as her "cross". She was correct, too. In our view, I *am* her cross. Just as she's my cross. >But I frankly >wouldn't [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >what "self-gratification" means, except as applied to masturbation. >What other content does it have? I don't think I'm alone in using "self-gratification", as I did here, in the sense of pursuing personal pleasure of any sort, not just the sexual sort. >Happiness is much more profound, and related to peace, contentment, >spiritual growth, awareness - most especially awareness. If a person >is walking around disassociated most of the time, has amnesia for >big parts of their life, etc., - that's not even remotely a basis for >happiness. I think I'd agree with that. >> <evil grin OFF> >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Ah, well, then - here we differ. I do believe happiness (not personal) >is essential to a marriage I don't know that I'd agree with that, exactly. I *do* believe that happiness does tend to be a natural outgrowth of a *successful* marriage... but not for everyone *all* of the time. And personal happiness is certainly not the *objective* of marriage... or at least it shouldn't be. And when personal happiness is *made* to be the objective of marriage, then the marriage is likely doomed. > - especially if you're going to bring >children >into it. Raising children in an environment where no one is happy >is cruel, in my belief system. I believe I'd agree with that. >I also believe that Christianity has nothing to do with whether you >select happiness as value. Interesting that you'd pull "personal [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >you" as "I'm happy at you" and she still uses that phrase today - >we all do. Cute, but irrelevant. And in my view, an incorrect conflation of the word "love" with "happy". >"I'm happy at you." That's one of our most important expressions. >We smile a lot, too. And by the way, I come from a very long line [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >So how you could emphasize "Christianity" and not include >"marital happiness" is beyond me - Hmmm.... Don't know where this came from. One can be a Christian without even *being* married... happily or otherwise. >and none of us in my family >can make sense of that. > >Perhaps you could explain your version of Christianity to us. LOL... Now that *that* would likely take a while. Suffice it to say that I was raised in a mainline Protestant denomination (Methodist). rj >> >> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a >> >> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > successful > marriage, not as I define marriage. I guess you might need to adjust your definition of marriage. a lifetime of faithfulness to another, as promised, even in the face of a lack of personal "happiness" is a successful marriage. You stayed the course, you ran the race and you kept your promise. Counting 7 "happy" happy years of a 12 year marriage that ended in divorce as a success, is a lot like a race car driver who was ahead for 7 laps before the crash calling the race a "win" for him. It may or may not have been his fault, but it certainly was not a win. In the era of no-fault divorce, I'd imagine there are a lot of people who are divorced who really don't want to be. They could have been perfect spouses, but I can't count their marriage as having been a "success" (in my opinion, or course). > >> >> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a > >> >> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > lack of personal "happiness" is a successful marriage. You stayed the > course, you ran the race and you kept your promise. You seem to be missing the point that, for many people, a partner's faithfulness is ESSENTIAL to personal happiness - so that goes without saying. Under the subject of "personal happiness," who here - who is married - would NOT include "partner being faithful?" As well as a host of other things, not just performances of duties by partners. But certainly including many expectations being met. Merely being faithful, however, is not a measure of marital happiness. Again, if you are constantly belittled, frightened, rejected, insulted, ignored, harmed, brainwashed, broken down, neglected by your spouse - no matter how FAITHFUL they are, it's not - in my view - a happy marriage. In fact, I'd say you need to admire and love your partner, and until that's done, mere faithfulness isn't enough. > Counting 7 "happy" happy years of a 12 year marriage that ended in divorce > as a success, is a lot like a race car driver who was ahead for 7 laps > before the crash calling the race a "win" for him. It may or may not have > been his fault, but it certainly was not a win. Marriage isn't a competition or a race - neither is life. Divorces are not "successful," either. But there are many circumstances that can cause a good marriage to go bad. It's fine with me, however, if other people want to regard their marriages as disasters for whatever reason. I tend to look on the brighter side of things. The fact that my ex- and I both got out alive is pretty cool - and we're both happy now. > In the era of no-fault divorce, I'd imagine there are a lot of people who > are divorced who really don't want to be. They could have been perfect > spouses, but I can't count their marriage as having been a "success" (in > my opinion, or course). I have no idea what this last paragraph means. There are no perfect spouses. I also don't know what business you (or anyone) has defining or counting someone else's marriage as a success or a failure. Indeed, this very odd intrusive concern about how to calculate OTHER people's successes is quite strange to me and counter to my fundamental value system (which, btw, I also regard as Christian in nature). I'm not alone in this view, btw. IIRC, you're not married, Tony, are you? A. > > >> >> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a > > >> >> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > > IIRC, you're not married, Tony, are you? Happily, actually. (Sorry to butt in, Tony. But all the throwing around of the happiness word got me giggly.) > A. <Snippage> >> IIRC, you're not married, Tony, are you? > > Happily, actually. (Sorry to butt in, Tony. But all the throwing around of > the happiness word got me giggly.) <g> heh. Thanks Steph. Actually I like to use the word "joyful" to define my marriage. >> >> >> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a >> >> >> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > just performances of duties by partners. But certainly including > many expectations being met. "Faithful" is a subset of the promise most people make at their wedding "to love". If I love my spouse, I'm faithful to my beloved. > Merely being faithful, however, is not a measure of marital > happiness. Again, if you are constantly belittled, frightened, > rejected, insulted, ignored, harmed, brainwashed, broken down, > neglected by your spouse - no matter how FAITHFUL they are, > it's not - in my view - a happy marriage. If you love, you will not treat your spouse that way. Since a marriage is made up of two people, and the relationship is always under the control of the one who values it least, then one who treats their spouse like that contributes to the failure of the marriage. Just like a bad pitcher might be at fault, but the whole baseball team loses. > In fact, I'd say you need to admire and love your partner, > and until that's done, mere faithfulness isn't enough. Of course you do. But loving your partner needs to be done until the end. 7 out of 12 years is not a successful marriage. 50 out of 62 years is no a successful marriage. >> Counting 7 "happy" happy years of a 12 year marriage that ended in divorce >> as a success, is a lot like a race car driver who was ahead for 7 laps [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > are not "successful," either. But there are many circumstances > that can cause a good marriage to go bad. Right. Then they are not successful. There are a number of circumstances that can make a baseball team lose a game. > It's fine with me, however, if other people want to regard their > marriages as disasters for whatever reason. I tend to look on the > brighter side of things. The fact that my ex- and I both got out alive > is pretty cool - and we're both happy now. Good, go for it. Your "success" is not the success to which I aspire. >> In the era of no-fault divorce, I'd imagine there are a lot of people >> who are divorced who really don't want to be. They could have been [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > system (which, btw, I also regard as Christian in nature). I'm not > alone in this view, btw. I see, the old fall back on "how dare you judge me". Well, you brought it up. I'm discussing it. It's the nature of usenet. > IIRC, you're not married, Tony, are you? 21 years and counting. > >> >> >> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a > >> >> >> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > > If you love, you will not treat your spouse that way. You'd think not. But I know several spouses who behave or did behave this way and still insist that they "loved" the other party. In fact, the number of times I've heard someone say "But I didn't CHEAT on you" while trying to squirm out of the fact that they did all of the things I listed is far too many. My view on this is that a person who does act this way doesn't LOVE the other person, as you say - and therefore there is no marriage. The central promise is to love. Since a marriage is > made up of two people, and the relationship is always under the control of > the one who values it least, then one who treats their spouse like that > contributes to the failure of the marriage. Just like a bad pitcher might > be at fault, but the whole baseball team loses. Yes, such a person contributes a great deal to the breakdown. It's very hard for the other person to feel as if they had a chance at all. > > In fact, I'd say you need to admire and love your partner, > > and until that's done, mere faithfulness isn't enough. > > Of course you do. But loving your partner needs to be done until the end. > 7 out of 12 years is not a successful marriage. 50 out of 62 years is > no a successful marriage. I agree. But if your partner stops loving you - it's not a marriage any more, no matter what your piece of paper says. And you cannot have a marriage with only one person in it. And there is nothing one person can do if they are the only loving person in the relationship. I still call the marriage successful - up to the point where it failed. The date of the divorce has NOTHING to do with it, for me. The marriage was successful, though, during the years when it was functioning and the two were in love. Marriages can work and then breakdown. Do not believe that because your marriage is wonderful at a certain point in time that it can't still break down. > > Marriage isn't a competition or a race - neither is life. Divorces > > are not "successful," either. But there are many circumstances > > that can cause a good marriage to go bad. > > Right. Then they are not successful. There are a number of circumstances > that can make a baseball team lose a game. Marriage isn't a game. It isn't a race, or a game, or a dance. I don't know why these metaphors are so appealing to people, as to me, they minimize marriage altogether. Having children isn't a game, or a contest or a dance, either. > > It's fine with me, however, if other people want to regard their > > marriages as disasters for whatever reason. I tend to look on the > > brighter side of things. The fact that my ex- and I both got out alive > > is pretty cool - and we're both happy now. > > Good, go for it. Your "success" is not the success to which I aspire. I wouldn't urge anyone to aspire to the "success" that we had. But your point of view is like saying that unless someone is exactly like yourself and believes exactly like you do, that they are not successful at something. And that's just B.S. to me. Selfish, too. For the time in which we married, given who we were when we did, how little information we had about marriage, how different things were back when we married, and the various things that befell us (which we had no clue would happen), we did very well - especially for us. The fact that one of us may never have been in love and certainly was not able to keep the act of being loving going is not something I would think anyone else would aspire to have in their life. So, certainly not as successful as it could have been - but not a complete failure either. If you need to see things in black and white, go ahead. I feel as if that's an affliction, though. > >> In the era of no-fault divorce, I'd imagine there are a lot of people > >> who are divorced who really don't want to be. They could have been [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > I see, the old fall back on "how dare you judge me". Well, you brought it > up. I'm discussing it. It's the nature of usenet. You can judge me all you want - you do, obviously. I still have no clue what you're trying to say. I do think it's odd to feel that you need to be able to judge other people's marriages, it doesn't feel helpful or supportive to me. But you're right - no one can stop you. Not here, anyway. > > IIRC, you're not married, Tony, are you? > > 21 years and counting. Good for you. Of course, you have no idea if it's successful, by your own standard, until one of you is dead. So 21 years of a marriage that may or may not be successful - how odd that sounds to me, like living in limbo. Are you at least happy? (But how can you be? If you do not know yet if your marriage is successful - how can you know if you are happy together?) A. >> >> >> >> How do you measure success? Is it accurately defined .... say for a >> >> >> >> month? As in, "I was "successfully married!" .... but (by the way, my [quoted text clipped - 58 lines] > "But I didn't CHEAT on you" while trying to squirm out of the > fact that they did all of the things I listed is far too many. That is *not* love. "But I didn't shoot you in the head" is not the definition of love. > My view on this is that a person who does act this way doesn't > LOVE the other person, as you say - and therefore there > is no marriage. The central promise is to love. You're right. :) Longevity alone doesn't make a marriage a success. >> Since a marriage is >> made up of two people, and the relationship is always under the control of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > It's very hard for the other person to feel as if they had a chance at > all. And they might not have. I am a HUGE opponent of no-fault marriage. I believe a marriage ought to be harder to get out of than a car lease. >> > In fact, I'd say you need to admire and love your partner, >> > and until that's done, mere faithfulness isn't enough. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > where it failed. The date of the divorce has NOTHING to do with > it, for me. You mean if your partner stop *choosing to love you* don't you? Then they are violating their promise and the covenant is broken. And it's broken just as surely as if they had cheated. > The marriage was successful, though, during the years when > it was functioning and the two were in love. Marriages can work > and then breakdown. Do not believe that because your marriage > is wonderful at a certain point in time that it can't still break down. If both partners are true to their promise to love it will never break down. If one is not true to their promise, it might. >> > Marriage isn't a competition or a race - neither is life. Divorces >> > are not "successful," either. But there are many circumstances [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Having children isn't a game, or a contest or a dance, either. This is simply to try to drive home the concept of what "success" is that you'll be able to understand. Not the concept of marriage. >> > It's fine with me, however, if other people want to regard their >> > marriages as disasters for whatever reason. I tend to look on the [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > like yourself and believes exactly like you do, that they are not > successful at something. And that's just B.S. to me. Selfish, too. Again, this is my opinion only. I tend to believe that my way is the best way, or I would be doing it differently. Why would I suggest something to you that I wouldn't do myself? :) > For the time in which we married, given who we were when we > did, how little information we had about marriage, how different [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > going is not something I would think anyone else would aspire > to have in their life. Ahhhh... I believe this is a huge problem in today's society and even in my Church. It's the lack of comprehensive pre-marital counseling. This is not only to decide if you're ready for marriage, but if you believe your prospective spouse is. > So, certainly not as successful as it could have been - but not > a complete failure either. If you need to see things in black and > white, go ahead. I feel as if that's an affliction, though. Cool, that means that you can have a whole string of "successful" marriages. :) >> >> In the era of no-fault divorce, I'd imagine there are a lot of people >> >> who are divorced who really don't want to be. They could have been [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > a marriage that may or may not be successful - how odd that > sounds to me, like living in limbo. I'm enjoying my journey. Are you enjoying yours? > Are you at least happy? (But how can you be? If you do not > know yet if your marriage is successful - how can you know if > you are happy together?) How can I not be happy (I like the term "joyful" better). I have a spouse who puts me first, as I put her. We'll know if we were "successful" if one of us dies. > successful sexful marriages *Sucksexful* jen >> successful sexful marriages > > *Sucksexful* > > jen I'm not sure exactly what it is you are trying to say here.... marriages full of sex suck? I don't think thats what you meant.... What did you mean--if anything? Bo > >> successful sexful marriages > > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > marriages full of sex suck? I don't think thats what you meant.... Marriages full of suck are successful! > What did you mean--if anything? > > Bo >> >> successful sexful marriages >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Marriages full of suck are successful! AHHHH! Now that I get! (but nowhere NEAR often enough! HAHA!) Bo >>> successful sexful marriages >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > What did you mean--if anything? I got "marriages full of sex that involved sucking" :) (I'm probably wrong, but mi mind goes in that direction :)) > >>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or > >>>> want--- [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I'd say the probability of sexless successful marriage would be in 6 > sigma-land.... I think you're grossly oversimplifying it. >> >>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' >> >>>> or [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > I think you're grossly oversimplifying it. Perhaps... but I did give Bill what he asked for. Bo >>>>>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' >>>>>>> or want--- [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Bo You did? I musta missed it! Damn.... > >>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or > >>> want--- > >>> > >>> How many sexless marriages are successful that you know of? > > How many sexful marriages are truly successful, that you know of? Mine is. I was showing www.marriagebuilders.com to a friend of mine, and she was doing the exercise on the site about which of the "ten emotional needs" of marriage are her top two, her top five - she doesn't know what her husband's are. My DH was only able to prioritize a couple of them - it was an interesting exercise. We sort of discovered on our own that you can't have a happy marriage if both people aren't getting their chief emotional needs met - you can talk a good game, but if something is very important to a human, they WILL find a way to "get" that thing - even if they are only pretending in their heads, or they are using substances to numb their need, etc. At any rate, my DH and I agree that ALL ten of those needs are being comfortably met, mostly at levels beyond what we expect - and that in retrospect, our problems have always come from one of us not getting our main needs met. Each couple is different. There are successful sexless marriages and successful sexful marriages. A successful marriage is one in which each partner is happiest when with the other, and the happiness just seems to increase on its own, as the couple goes through life together. Needs can change over time, as well. They are called "needs" because unless they are met, the person with the "need" will change their personality/behavior and find a way of getting this thing somehow - it's that important to them. Sex is indeed a need for some people, and for some people, financial security is a need. Others need other things. It would be a hard life, indeed, to need absolutely everything all the time. A. - as always, only opinion >>>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or >>>>> want--- [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > happiness just seems to increase on its own, as the couple goes > through life together. And can only be measured thru the lens of time, as I said in the other post. 25+ years out, how many are (successfully) still together, going for the silver? That could {but perhaps somewhat arguably}be classified as a necessary, but not sufficient, condition, for a truly "successful marriage". Meaning, anybody can be "successfully married" for a few years. But is that really "successfully married"? Well, one could call that a fleeting success, I suppose :-) > Needs can change over time, as well. They are called "needs" > because unless they are met, the person with the "need" will [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > A. > - as always, only opinion > >>>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or > >>>>> want--- [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > And can only be measured thru the lens of time, as I said in the other post. That's YOUR view. In fact, we don't have to wait until the FUTURE to be able to tell how we feel or how are lives are going in the PRESENT. Furthermore, I find it impossible to view life as capable of providing a really happy, successful marriage one day - and then a to-hell-in-the-handbasket marriage the next day, barring tragic accidents, sudden illnesses or breakdowns. If a person is past the age where serious mental illness makes its onset - and you have a few years of really happy marriage behind you - and you know that - it's not possible to suddenly have that disappear tomorrow. But it wouldn't matter, if it did. I'd STILL count my years with my DH as SUCCESSFUL. And he says he would, too - even if one of us dies tomorrow. We tell people this all the time - and we don't have to wait 60 years till one of us dies to say that it's a successful marriage. The least successful form of marriage would be one that merely lasts a long time and gimps along or is downright miserable. Bleh. Day to day happiness is success - occasional happiness when there are illnesses, deaths in the family, etc - is success. Unless one proposes that the world is entirely composed of sociopathic liars (and that would include the person doing the proposing), then I am going to say that I think most people are able to figure out whether they are happy or unhappy and to convey that to their partner. If they are not able to do that, then of course it's not a successful marriage. But if both people are happy for years on end - it's not going to change to crap the next minute (barring a brain tumor or something). That attachment survey someone posted - Bill, you really should take it. Were you always this insecure about people and their attachments to each other? A. Here's the link again: http://www.web-research-design.net/cgi-bin/crq/crq.pl I rated a 1.8 (low anxiety, secure in attachments). It's merely a perceptual tool (this survey) but it sure gets at the different attitudes - and how they themselves set up the problem of marital bonding. > 25+ years out, how many are (successfully) still together, going for the > silver? That could {but perhaps somewhat arguably}be classified as a [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > A. > > - as always, only opinion >>>>>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or >>>>>>> want--- [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > to be able to tell how we feel or how are lives are going in the > PRESENT. As I said, anybody can be "successful" for a day. So what does that really mean? > Furthermore, I find it impossible to view life as capable of providing > a really happy, successful marriage one day - and then a [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > DH as SUCCESSFUL. And he says he would, too - even if one of > us dies tomorrow. I was referring to the outrageous (walkaway) divorce rates, not the be-widowed divorced rates! > We tell people this all the time - and we don't have > to wait 60 years till one of us dies to say that it's a successful > marriage. > > The least successful form of marriage would be one that merely > lasts a long time and gimps along or is downright miserable. Bleh. That's a good point too. But it doesn't necessarily contradict mine, either. > Day to day happiness is success - occasional happiness when > there are illnesses, deaths in the family, etc - is success. Success just for a day? Well, ok, but maybe your standards a bit lower than mine. :-) > Unless one proposes that the world is entirely composed of sociopathic > liars (and that would include the person doing the proposing), then [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > A. I'm "insecure" (if you want to call it that - I have a better word) about the "state of humanity" - in general. And as for the 50% (give-or-take) divorce rates in our society these days, I'll let THAT "stat" speak for itself! And - I don't need a link for that - because once again, that stat, in and of itself, speaks volumes about us, the "oh-so-enlightened society". (But I may get off my butt and check it out anyways - :-) > Here's the link again: > [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>> A. >>> - as always, only opinion > >>>>>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' > or [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > As I said, anybody can be "successful" for a day. So what does that > really mean? Are you daft? As I said, no one would define "successful" as "only for a day." That's idiotic. But to put some amount of FUTURE TIME THAT DOES NOT EXIST into a definition of "success" means that the word now has no meaning - and you, Bill, cannot own the meaning of words, no matter how hard you try. >From one perspective, both my ex- and I agree that our first marriage was VERY successful. Had we not married, we would have done the same stupid behaviors with someone else - and possibly, with worse effects. We learned very specific and important things from each other, but the marriage is no more. If a person dies, does that mean their life was not successful? How stupid is that? Things end. Whether they were successful WHILE THEY EXISTED is another question. If you want longevity to be your main measure of whether something is successful - fine. But no wonder you feel lonely. It seems simple enough to me that my current marriage has rewarded me with so much happiness, growth, and betterment that I truly never wished or hoped for more. Was it merely LUCK that I found this? No, it's been work too - but also, we are lucky. If we cease to be lucky (one of us dies or something), it will still have been a successful marriage. Not only that, but my kids say the same thing. I even say this, "Even if the DH pulls away from me and ends up somewhere else, it's STILL successful." It would be crazy to change my views (later on) and say that I never felt this way. It would be crazy to regard a marriage as "successful" after just one day. But I'm not going to get into the old when does a hill become a mountain stuff - I get to know, about my own life, what I know. > > Furthermore, I find it impossible to view life as capable of providing > > a really happy, successful marriage one day - and then a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > I was referring to the outrageous (walkaway) divorce rates, not the > be-widowed divorced rates! If my DH divorced me - I'd STILL regard these years as successful. He says the same. We also say we'd both be devastated and sad. You can be sad and successful at the same time, believe me. > > We tell people this all the time - and we don't have > > to wait 60 years till one of us dies to say that it's a successful [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > That's a good point too. But it doesn't necessarily contradict mine, > either. No, it's additive. I rarely contradict anyone. How could I? Everyone's views of reality are somewhat different. I remark upon your odd definition of success only because I think it makes you feel lonely and unhappy. > > Day to day happiness is success - occasional happiness when > > there are illnesses, deaths in the family, etc - is success. > > Success just for a day? Well, ok, but maybe your standards a bit lower > than mine. :-) Day to day happiness IS success - especially for depressed persons. You should try it. It doesn't make a successful MARRIAGE, but some people feel no happiness at all. Surely you're aware of that??? So, for many people, finding ANY happiness in life is good. Yesterday, my aunt died. We were there when she died. It is very sad. I am not as happy today as I could be. I am about to go and speak with her son, my cousin, because some strange family issues came up during the deathbed scene, and he is feeling the impact of those things - and no one else in the family wants to talk to him about it. He wants to talk to me, I want to talk to him. It will be bittersweet, we will not be happy. That's successful too - that's still a successful day. For both my cousin and myself, merely getting through this conversation will be successful. His mother is dead, coping with the immediacy of it is a kind of success. > > Unless one proposes that the world is entirely composed of sociopathic > > liars (and that would include the person doing the proposing), then [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > I'm "insecure" (if you want to call it that - I have a better word) about > the "state of humanity" - in general. Okay - well, there now, you've got agreement with you. The subtle change in how you stated it is quite interesting. Rather than saying "it's gotten worse," I prefer to say, "Humans have ALWAYS been this way - or WORSE." I think, for example, the mid-20th century was pretty bad (Stalin killed 20 million, WW2 killed how many millions?) The 19th century, with wars, slavery and an average life expectancy of like 60 in the best places, wasn't so hot either (plus there wasn't electricity). Women's pelvic bones were broken to deliver children, as there were no C-sections. Not good. The 18th century was even worse and so on back to prehistory where, I suppose, some people argue it was better. But I personally like modern medical care, electricity, comfort - etc. I just don't like Humans-In-General and distrust much of what they say about themselves. I do like lots of specific people, though. > And as for the 50% (give-or-take) divorce rates in our society these days, > I'll let THAT "stat" speak for itself! And - I don't need a link for > that - because once again, that stat, in and of itself, speaks volumes about > us, the "oh-so-enlightened society". (But I may get off my butt and check > it out anyways - :-) What it speaks to is the essential difficulty of a pair-bonded relationship. While the !Kung bushmen have virtually no divorce, they spend so much of their married lives living apart from each other, there's really no way to compare the situations. If you look at societies (like Old China or contemporary Iran) where there is no divorce, you really can't say that's a good thing. Marriage runs amok when it is forced upon people - and people in America employ highly fanciful ideas about what marriages should be (just read the threads on this group!) I was in despair about the whole institution myself. We are living in the middle of a major revision of how we see humans, 200 plus years out from the declaration of a "free" and "just" society, such as the one most of us live in. Any number of ridiculous points of view have been perpetrated on us by various "agendas" regarding marriage. Fundamentally, though, it's just as Troy says: two people have to be purposefully dedicated to the other person's happiness, that person MUST be regarded as The Beloved, and no other priority can be ahead of it - if we wish to fulfill any of the Romantic ideals that you and I possess. If the divorce rate hadn't gotten so high, perhaps I wouldn't have taken this task as seriously. I know that I worked my butt off to make my first "marriage" "work" (without any clue what marriage meant, or what work to do, really). So the high divorce rate spoke to people like myself and my DH. We both take the relationship very seriously, it's more important than work (and so we don't make as much money as we might), prestige (and so we don't travel to conferences to stick our faces in public as much as we might), or housework. The children are the only other priority in the same category - and they are, I guess, grown now. If, however, you are not truly in love with your partner, you do not admire them more than anyone else, you do not feel yourself more with them than with anyone else, it's not a marriage to begin with - not really. It's a sham. A. >>>>>>>>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or >>>>>>>>> want--- >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Are you daft? Possibly. (The jury is still out....) > As I said, no one would define "successful" as "only > for a day." That's idiotic. But to put some amount of FUTURE TIME > THAT DOES NOT EXIST into a definition of "success" means that > the word now has no meaning - and you, Bill, cannot own the meaning > of words, no matter how hard you try. Rats...! >> From one perspective, both my ex- and I agree that our first marriage > was VERY successful. Had we not married, we would have done the > same stupid behaviors with someone else - and possibly, with worse > effects. We learned very specific and important things from each other, > but the marriage is no more. If a person dies, does that mean their > life was not successful? No, of course not. > How stupid is that? Quite. > Things end. > > Whether they were successful WHILE THEY EXISTED is another question. > > If you want longevity to be your main measure of whether something > is successful - fine. But no wonder you feel lonely. OK, maybe I was wrong here. I can say we had a successful marriage for many years anyway, even if at the end, it wasn't. So what does that mean (talking to myself) > It seems simple enough to me that my current marriage has > rewarded me with so much happiness, growth, and betterment that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >>> have a few years of really happy marriage behind you - and you know >>> that - it's not possible to suddenly have that disappear tomorrow. Not suddenly.... >>> But it wouldn't matter, if it did. I'd STILL count my years with my >>> DH as SUCCESSFUL. And he says he would, too - even if one of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > He says the same. We also say we'd both be devastated and sad. > You can be sad and successful at the same time, believe me. Well yeah, as I said, we had a successful marriage for awhile, so.. I guess by this logic one could theoretically say they had a successful marriage no matter how long it was - 1 day, 1 month, 1 year, or whatever. I don't know. May be, in a certain context. (I'm getting more confused about it now, in retrospect) >>> We tell people this all the time - and we don't have >>> to wait 60 years till one of us dies to say that it's a successful [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > definition of success only because I think it makes you feel lonely > and unhappy. Maybe... >>> Day to day happiness is success - occasional happiness when >>> there are illnesses, deaths in the family, etc - is success. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Day to day happiness IS success - especially for depressed persons. > You should try it. LOL. You're probably right, and I'm still too thick to see it. (Or rather, to truly take it in, and accept it). > It doesn't make a successful MARRIAGE, but some > people feel no happiness at all. Surely you're aware of that??? Yes... (I think I was thinking of it being a necessary, but not sufficient, condition) > So, for many people, finding ANY happiness in life is good. Yesterday, > my aunt died. We were there when she died. It is very sad. I am not [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > successful. His mother is dead, coping with the immediacy of it > is a kind of success. Well, ok.... >>> Unless one proposes that the world is entirely composed of sociopathic >>> liars (and that would include the person doing the proposing), then [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > The 19th century, with wars, slavery and an average life expectancy of > like 60 in the best places, wasn't so hot either (plus there wasn't electricity). > Women's pelvic bones were broken to deliver children, as there were > no C-sections. Not good. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > What it speaks to is the essential difficulty of a pair-bonded > relationship. Only recently, or so it seems. Or rather much more so, in recent times. > While the !Kung bushmen have virtually no divorce, > they spend so much of their married lives living apart from each other, > there's really no way to compare the situations. If you look at > societies (like Old China or contemporary Iran) where there is no > divorce, you really can't say that's a good thing. No, obviously. > Marriage runs amok when it is forced upon people - and people > in America employ highly fanciful ideas about what marriages should [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > ahead of it - if we wish to fulfill any of the Romantic ideals that you > and I possess. Sigh.... yeah.... > If the divorce rate hadn't gotten so high, perhaps I wouldn't have > taken this task as seriously. I know that I worked my butt off to make [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > A. >>> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or >>> want--- [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > are the 3 key ingredients for your marriage or a happy marriage in your > view? Both spouses putting their beloved first. Everything else will fall into place. :) (snip) > Both spouses putting their beloved first. Everything else will fall into > place. :) Hmmmm..... Just one comment (and it's *bound* to be misinterpreted by the seriously Christianity-deprived amongst us): My wife occasionally says to me that she loves me... but that she loves God more. <grin> It startled me a bit the first time I heard it. But she is, of course, correct in her priorities. rj > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > <grin> It startled me a bit the first time I heard it. But she is, of > course, correct in her priorities. But if your vocation is marriage, you are not to deprive your spouse based on your perceived priority to God. There's a fine line there to be drawn :) >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >But if your vocation is marriage, you are not to deprive your spouse based >on your perceived priority to God. There's a fine line there to be drawn :) LOL... I can't say that I feel at all deprived! Not even a little bit... rj > Of course not everyone does or will.... but it's an interesting topic and I > would venture a guess that many or most here agree with them. Regulars, what > are the 3 key ingredients for your marriage or a happy marriage in your > view? Respect, love, and communication. Sheila > > Of course not everyone does or will.... but it's an interesting topic and > I [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Sheila Mine are honesty, trust and respect. > > > Of course not everyone does or will.... but it's an interesting topic and > > I [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Mine are honesty, trust and respect. sh.t. You are right. Trust is probably highest for me (I included "honesty" under "communication"). So.... I guess mine are trust, honesty/communication, and love. I think. Can I do a top ten? With a few ties? ;-) Sheila (who has strep throat and wants to know if anyone got the number of the truck that hit her) > Can I do a top ten? With a few ties? ;-) > > Sheila (who has strep throat and wants to know if anyone got the number of > the truck that hit her) Top ten: Commitment Love Sex rest in no particular order: Same Faith Sense of Humor Good mother/father Dependable Fiscally Responsible Honest Open/Communication Bo The truck, came through our area last week with my DS4. I feel for Sheila.... yuck! >> > > Of course not everyone does or will.... but it's an interesting topic > and [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Can I do a top ten? With a few ties? ;-) Sure, but they will all boil down to a subset of love. If you love you will be trustworthy. If you love you will be honest. If you love you will communicate. If you love you will give your beloved nookie anytime they want it. (Ok, that last one was mine :)) >>>>> Of course not everyone does or will.... but it's an interesting >>>>> topic and I would venture a guess that many or most here agree [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > If you love you will communicate. > If you love you will give your beloved nookie anytime they want it. <gurgle> > (Ok, that last one was mine :)) We do seem to have one or two things in common despite our differences, Tony! Tai > Of course not everyone does or will.... but it's an interesting topic and I > would venture a guess that many or most here agree with them. Regulars, what > are the 3 key ingredients for your marriage or a happy marriage in your > view? I would say that good sex probably comes in toward the bottom of the top ten, for me anyhow. Your other top two are love and commitment, and I would place sex also below respect, communication, affection, honesty, financial responsibility, family responsibility, to be sure, and possibly below sense of humor! I arrive at this ordering by asking myself: would you rather be in a relationship with someone with whom you had great sex but lousy communication? Could you imagine a good relationship without quality X? How long could you go without quality X before your satisfaction with the relationship started to suffer? I can much more easily imagine a good relationship with mediocre or nonexistant sex than I could with mediocre honesty, a partner who does not have a sense of family obligations, etc. And I don't think those traits get subsumed under the umbrella of "love," either; I think you can love someone and still be dishonest with them, for example, or put their financial security knowingly in jeopardy. > Your other top two are love > and commitment, and I would place sex > also below respect, communication, > affection, honesty, It is odd how sexual contact, I believe, is a powerful facilitator of all of the above. A partner showing a sexual interest in me *is* reflecting respect, affection, honesty and providing open communication. Well, at least, *I* think so. > financial > responsibility, family responsibility, > to be sure, and possibly below sense of > humor! I hope your partner also finds sex at least as unimportant to them, otherwise there is a mismatch where one is gritting their teeth and bearing it. SignatureJack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "HMOs: saving money one DOA at a time." - me "When a unified theory of human personality is finally published it will consist entirely of exceptions" - me >> Your other top two are love >>and commitment, and I would place sex [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Well, at least, *I* think so. If you'd been in a relationship that is sexually active but lacking respect, honest, or open communication, you might feel otherwise. >> financial >>responsibility, family responsibility, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > there is a mismatch where one is gritting > their teeth and bearing it. I never said that I "grit my teeth and bear it," and it pisses me off when people make such distortions of what has actually been said. My husband and I both enjoy sex quite a bit (you can read that two ways, and both would be correct). You and I probably come at this from opposite experiences. You look at your marriage and think, "I am very deprived in the sex department, and this is a really shitty way to live. If I had a chance to do it all over again, I certainly would not compromise in this deparment the way I have had to." I look at my first marriage and think, I was very deprived in the honesty, communication, fidelity, responsibility, and respect departments (to name just the most obvious few), and that was a really shitty way to live. If I had a chance to do it all over again (and being happily remarried, I have), I would not compromise on those things. I find sex to be less crucial to a satisfying relationship than, say, a sense of financial responsibility or, more fundamentally, a sense of respect. I've been in a relationship with plenty of sex but also plenty of lying, disrespect, etc. etc...If I had only two choices: plenty of sex but no honesty, or plenty of honesty but no sex--I would definitely go for the latter. If you had only two choices, which would you pick: a woman who gives you lots of sex (but also gives it to other blokes), or a woman who doesn't give you any at all? It is only through such an exercise that you can sort out the stuff that you really, really can't do without, vs. the stuff that is great to have but somewhat lower on your list of needs. Saying that it is a lower priority does not mean that it isn't a priority at all. I don't happen to believe that there are only 3 most-important qualities in a marriage. If I've got a top 10 (and sex is on it), I deserve and can expect everything on that list! [snip] >Saying that it is a lower priority does not mean that it isn't a >priority at all. I don't happen to believe that there are only 3 >most-important qualities in a marriage. If I've got a top 10 (and sex is >on it), I deserve and can expect everything on that list! Reminds me of one of my favorite Lucinda Williams songs: Shouldn't I have this Shouldn't I have this Shouldn't I have all of this, and Passionate kisses Passionate kisses from you Barb > [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Barb She does have an interesting voice. How would you describe it? Kinda deep, and.western-countryish? [snip] >> Reminds me of one of my favorite Lucinda Williams songs: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >She does have an interesting voice. How would you describe it? Kinda >deep, and.western-countryish? Yeah-ish. Her voice has grown on me -- I didn't much like it at first. Barb > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yeah-ish. Her voice has grown on me -- I didn't much like it at > first. Interesting! That's one of my favorite Mary Chapin Carpenter songs, and by all lights I "should" like Lucinda Williams. I'm very much into alt.country and I like a few other alt.country women who get put into a similar category, like Neko Case, Gillian Welsh, and Kelly Willis. But, I've never really liked Lucinda's voice, and so I don't listen to her much. Maybe I need to give it more of a chance. > > [snip] > > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I've never really liked Lucinda's voice, and so I don't listen to her > much. Maybe I need to give it more of a chance. Do so. (Only by opening some doors can one get a new vision). >>> Your other top two are love >>> and commitment, and I would place sex [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > honest, or open communication, you might > feel otherwise. *ICK* I *think* that is possible... oh, wait, that was probably my wife's first marriage. >>> financial >>> responsibility, family responsibility, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > such distortions of what has actually been > said. In this case I was *not* referring to you personally, just trying to generalize. At the same time I realize that I've got a rather odd dysfunction: I keep trying to be an idealist... and pragmatism seems just beyond my ken. > You and I probably come at this from > opposite experiences. You look at your [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > certainly would not compromise in this > deparment the way I have had to." Actually, in my working out the tangles of my own heart (cognitive behavioral therapy had me paying attention to my own emotions instead of trying to analyze the meaning in what others have said to me, which has been a *help*, but it has helped to put pieces of me up in stories and take a look at *who* I was projecting, too) I realize that my co-dependancy was complicated by a distrust of praise/compliments, so, for me, I obsessed over the sexual aspect of the relationship because I wanted to feel both lovable *and* loved... and most of the other means of getting the message through to "me" were, for the most part, poisoned. Oh, sure, I'm working out the venom, even after so many years of it, so I'm doing better... but that hasn't reduced my apparent dependancy on the sexual part of my identity for affirmation that I am lovable... much less loved. So I'm a pathological specimen, off in the fringes of the bell curve, trying to look at the ideal situation and not wanting to cope with the realities. > If you had only two choices, which would > you pick: a woman who gives you lots of > sex (but also gives it to other blokes), > or a woman who doesn't give you any at all? I already know considered this kind of complication. I'd prefer to opt out completely. I'm not about to write off that part of me quite yet, and, if I had to, well, that about wraps it up for me. (laughs) Sadly I won't be able to vanish in a puff of logic. > It is only through such an exercise that > you can sort out the stuff that you really, > really can't do without, vs. the stuff that > is great to have but somewhat lower on your > list of needs. (sighs) Yes. That being said, my own dysfunctions are NOT helping *me*. I'm working to get around them... which is frustrating because of the time needed to break many of the bad habits I have acquired over decades. (shrugs) The hell of it is that I have already pissed away 52 years of my life so far. Yes, I made the choice to *not* make an early exit about three years ago now, but staying the course in the face of feeling like I have little to offer *anyone* has not been comfortable. No one has a truly "free ride". No one has a monopoly on truth and no one is completely wrong. (sighs) I really need to lower my expectations, don't I? (laughs maniacally) SignatureJack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "HMOs: saving money one DOA at a time." - me "When a unified theory of human personality is finally published it will consist entirely of exceptions" - me >> Of course not everyone does or will.... but it's an interesting topic and >> I would venture a guess that many or most here agree with them. Regulars, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > financial responsibility, family responsibility, to be sure, and possibly > below sense of humor! I think you are subdividing my 'commitment key' into many sub-keys: respect, honesty, responsibility, finance. The thing about commitment is--to me--- without it, if any of the other keys were to wane or disappear, even temporarily, a person would readily leave their spouse. The commitment key means---sticking things out over good times and bad. For example, suppose your marriage had all the keys you deem necessary--but there was no commitment. Then say, you caught them lying to you--or they began to 'shut down' and never communicate. Would you be gone in a flash? or would you stick around and try to overcome those issues? If you do stick around--that to me demonstrates commitment (which you may call by another name ie, 'because you love them' or because you are 'responsible for them'.). > I arrive at this ordering by asking myself: would you rather be in a > relationship with someone with whom you had great sex but lousy > communication? The problem here is I don't think you can have great sex and lousy communication. If the communication is lousy, the sex will be mediocre at best. I think Tony touched on this earlier though perhaps not as directly. Is it possible for YOU to have 'great sex' with a hooker or one night stand? or is that something only possible with your spouse? I'm betting the latter. >Could you imagine a good relationship without quality X? How long could you >go without quality X before your satisfaction with the relationship started >to suffer? I can much more easily imagine a good relationship with mediocre >or nonexistant sex than I could with mediocre honesty, a partner who does >not have a sense of family obligations, etc. How is a 'good relationship' without sex, any different than a 'good friend' or 'good roommate'? Bo > How is a 'good relationship' without sex, any different than a 'good > friend' or 'good roommate'? Well, the commitment thing, for one thing. I feel under no obligation to continue living with a roommate past the end of a 1-year lease, and if my good friend gets a job on the other side of the country--well, I'll miss her, but one can always make new friends. There are a whole slew of expectations of your spouse that you don't hold of your friends (do you expect your roommate to call if s/he's late from work? Do you feel disappointed if you don't get to see your best friend for a few hours every day? etc.) Seriously, the level of--let's call it "interdependence--is an order of magnitude different than that which you'd find in a good friendship or roommate relationship. I've had good roommates. Sometimes you'll sit around chatting or watching a show, maybe plan a party together, but for the most part they come and go as they please, they cook their own meals, they do their own laundry, they pay their own bills....that wouldn't be an acceptible marriage to me, sex or no sex. (snip) >Again, depends. Many people around the world *do* end up in marriages >where love is not a factor at all. (I'm thinking of arranged marriages >here.) See, you're assuming that everyone shares your belief about >the 3 key ingredients of a marriage. Not everyone does or will. > >Tracey Tracy, Thought I'd jump in here on this particular point... Your comment about arranged marriages seems to me to reflect the general Western predjuce *against* arranged marriages, which includes the assumptions that they are without "love", likely to be unhappy, and prone to "failure" (in the sense that they are not likely to bring happiness). I fully admit that my personal observations are just that... anecdotal rather than serious study. Still, I've got a somewhat different perspective because of them. You see, my wife and I have lived in India for the last five years. Many (in fact most) of our Indian acquaintances are married and their marriages were arranged in the traditional fashion. And as far as we can tell, the incidences of happiness, unhappiness, love, etc. in these marriages are not noticeably different that they are back in North America. Also, a key ingredient of the *happy* marriages seems to be the presence of genuine love... in the spiritual sense. And contrariwise, a primary feature of the really unhappy marriages is the lack of such love. But the bottom line is that the *way* the marriage originated (arranged by parents/family or arranged by the principals) does not seem to be relevant. The relevant factor seems to be the way the couple *themselves* approach their marriage. rj > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > that they are without "love", likely to be unhappy, and prone to > "failure" (in the sense that they are not likely to bring happiness). I guess I kinda overshot the mark there. I wasn't meaning to imply that love is never, ever involved in arranged marriages. BUT, from my understanding (as imperfect as it is), love isn't in the most important consideration and isn't even considered essential before marrying. Isn't the intent that the other things that should be in a marriage (commitment, ability to be a good spouse, respect, etc.,) are there so love *should* follow the wedding? Kinda like 'Well, you might not love him/her now, but after a while of them being a good husband/wife, you will end up loving them?' Tracey (snip) > I guess I kinda overshot the mark there. I wasn't meaning to imply > that love is never, ever involved in arranged marriages. BUT, from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'Well, you might not love him/her now, but after a while of them > being a good husband/wife, you will end up loving them?' Hmmm..... I've got my notions but I think I'd better take a pass on trying to answer this one. Even living here, an expat is always very much on the outside looking in. However, there *are* at least a couple of people from this general part of the world who have posted here recently... Razia and Ayesha I believe. Perhaps one or the other of them might have a comment. rj > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > rj Well, my understanding of arranged marriages comes from a mishmash. Living in Japan where it's not uncommon, living in Turkey where it's not uncommon, a few books that are supposedly authentic insofar as they are written by folks from cultures where arranged marriages aren't uncommon, etc., and it's very much from the outside looking in. I *do* remember speaking at some length with a woman from Latvia. Her husband had made one of those trips specifically for men to find wives and found her and within a few months, she moved to the US and they married. (Or they married and she moved to the US.) Anyway, at one point I remember her saying (and this is pretty much verbatim) "I talk to my mother and my aunts. And they say 'He doesn't hit you. You have enough to eat. You have nice clothes to wear. You have a nice house to live in.' But, Tracey, shouldn't there be more than that?" Tracey > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > Tracey <smile> *Should* there be more than that? If so, why? Just how much, and of what, do any of us "deserve" just as a consequence of being lucky enough to be alive and breathing? I think that just maybe I glimpse a bit of where *both* your Latvian friend *and* her Old Country relatives are coming from. As for myself, having had the opportunity to see real poverty "up close and personal", I've not got much sympathy for whiny Westerners who complain about not being "fulfilled" in their lives or their marriages. It seems to me that "afluenza" is one of the very real afflictions of western society. Perhaps your Latvian friend had just come down with her first case of it... rj >>I *do* remember speaking at some length with a woman from Latvia. >>Her husband had made one of those trips specifically for men to [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > what, do any of us "deserve" just as a consequence of being lucky > enough to be alive and breathing? I don't think it has anything to do with just being lucky enough to be alive and breathing and everything to do with what country, what society and what time we live in. I also don't believe the young woman in question was asking if she 'deserved' to have more than she had in her marriage but rather if marriage was only about not being beaten, having enough food and clothing, etc. > I think that just maybe I glimpse a bit of where *both* your Latvian > friend *and* her Old Country relatives are coming from. As for myself, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Perhaps your Latvian friend had just come down with her first case of > it... I don't think that wanting to love your spouse is an affliction. IMO, loving your spouse is a luxury that many in poorer countries can't afford to have. Tracey > >>I *do* remember speaking at some length with a woman from Latvia. > >>Her husband had made one of those trips specifically for men to [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > than she had in her marriage but rather if marriage was only > about not being beaten, having enough food and clothing, etc. If so (and no doubt you're right) then it's a valid question. And my personal response is that marriage is certainly about something *other* than "not being geaten, having enough food and clothing, etc". > > I think that just maybe I glimpse a bit of where *both* your Latvian > > friend *and* her Old Country relatives are coming from. As for myself, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > loving your spouse is a luxury that many in poorer countries can't > afford to have. Y'know, when I first read that I was inclined to agree. But now that I think about it, I think I beg to differ. Seems to me that wealth is a relative thing, both historically over time and at one particular instant of time. I doubt that the average level of domestic bliss 2000 years ago (when the per capita amout of "stuff" was much less than today) was noticeably different than it is now. And similarly, I doubt that marital happiness *today* in the poorest of third world countries is really linked to how much "stuff" an individual family has. <grin> But in spite of all that, I confess that I have this nagging feeling that personally I'm gonna be happier if I've got a fat bank account. Guess I've got my own case of affluenza... rj > But in spite of all that, I confess that I > have this nagging feeling that personally > I'm gonna be happier if I've got a fat bank > account. Guess I've got my own case of > affluenza... It has been said that money cannot buy happiness; it just makes it possible to be unhappy in nice places. The problem with a historical perspective is that it's too easy to try to make blanket statements based upon what we *think* we now know. Until the most recent times in the affluent cultures, women were, I beliefe, for a significant number of marriages, effectively property. Granted, they weren't something to be sold once bought... (laughs) I sometimes wonder if that's part of the Religious wRong's agenda, to return to such a world of authority... (shakes head) SignatureJack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "HMOs: saving money one DOA at a time." - me "When a unified theory of human personality is finally published it will consist entirely of exceptions" - me > I sometimes wonder if that's part of the > Religious wRong's agenda, to return to such > a world of authority... It's funny, Jack. My religion teaches that true joy is not something someone else supplies, but is accomplished by dedicating yourself to the service of others (spouse, children, community), which is basically submitting to the authority of your duty within your family and society. You seem to be one of the more unhappy and bitter people on this newsgroup. Could it be that you are rejecting the very thing that could help end the misery? Just a thought. (snip) > I guess I kinda overshot the mark there. I wasn't meaning to imply > that love is never, ever involved in arranged marriages. BUT, from [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > 'Well, you might not love him/her now, but after a while of them > being a good husband/wife, you will end up loving them?' Hmmm..... I've got my notions but I think I'd better take a pass on trying to answer this one. Even living here, an expat is always very much on the outside looking in. However, there *are* at least a couple of people from this general part of the world who have posted here recently... Razia and Ayesha I believe. Perhaps one or the other of them might have a comment. rj >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > 'Well, you might not love him/her now, but after a while of them > being a good husband/wife, you will end up loving them?' Love is not a "feeling", love is a choice. > >> We are encouraged and taught by "the world" to believe that sexual > >> urges are "needs"... when in fact they are no more than urges. So, [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > a marriage knowing that the spouse was incapable or totally not interested > in sex? That would highly depend on the couple's sex drives and perhaps age (or better yet, health). If there's a significant disparity in sex drives, that is highly likely to create a problem. There *are* people out there that put lower priority on sex then you do, and I'm sure there are those whom put even higher priority on it. > Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient > that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a > marriage--without which marriage is doomed to fail? That depends on people involved, their personalities, and their wants and needs. >> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or >> want--- [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > better yet, health). If there's a significant disparity in sex drives, > that is highly likely to create a problem. Certainly. >There *are* people out there > that put lower priority on sex then you do, and I'm sure there are > those whom put even higher priority on it. No doubt on the former. But the latter????? <grin> >> Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient >> that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a >> marriage--without which marriage is doomed to fail? > > That depends on people involved, their personalities, and their wants > and needs. What would those 3 key ingredients be for _you_? Bo > >> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or > >> want--- [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > What would those 3 key ingredients be for _you_? If I have to narrow it down to three: Compatible life goals and paths. (intelectual copmpatibility) Similar set of morals and values. (I think this may fall under spiritual compatibility) Compatible Temperaments. (perhaps emotional compatibility) I think with those present, a lot of other things can be worked out. Sex is not necesasrily a key ingredient for me. In my experience, over time, sex drive in both partners may come and go for a number of reasons, sometimes for prolonged periods of time. If there was a prolonged disparity in sex drives, that would make it hard to cope with, probably for the partner with the higer drive. For me personally, I can go pretty long time without, and not be bothered by it much. What I would find much harder to cope with would be lack of affection and emotional intimacy. I would end up feeling very disconnected from my partner. Another ingredient in good relationships is physical compatibility. That how ever is not limited to sex. It has to do with energy levels, general health, levels of physical activity etc... Sex, IMO has components of physical and emotional aspects in it, so disparity in sex would cause me to look into what is going on in other areas. I don't see sex as a standalone component in a relationship. Whether I would tolerate a relationship without it or with too much of it would depend on a number of other things that come into play. > > >> To those of you that believe sex is not a need but rather 'an urge' or > > >> want--- [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > I think with those present, a lot of other things can be worked out. I agree, although most of the time, trouble arising because stating things in this way is too vague for the other party involved. To me, all three of the things you mentioned can be summarized as merely "overall compatibility/companionship" which is a top priority for both me and the DH in our relationship. Some couples find it hard to be on the same page with interests, values, politics, etc. We have so many shared interests, etc., we do sometimes take it for granted - but the fact that we have that kind of "glue," to me, is essential. > Sex is not necesasrily a key ingredient for me. In my experience, over > time, sex drive in both partners may come and go for a number of > reasons, sometimes for prolonged periods of time. It is essential for me. There will be NO intimate communication in my life, if sex is absent. I'm not talking actual intercourse all the time - but a generally sexual and lively erotic environment, in which we both partake. My DH likes LOTS of affection - which is a medium priority for me, but the truth is, if I am to be very affectionate with him, there WILL be sexual overtones to it - and that's something we finally figured out how to communicate to each other. The line between the two (sex/affection) is pretty invisible to us at this point. But, without actively experiencing my sexuality, my interest in other things goes down, I do not experience my feelings as sharply (always a problem with me, anyway) and I do not feel spontaneously able to communicate - especially about really intimate things. > If there was a prolonged disparity in sex drives, that would make it > hard to cope with, probably for the partner with the higer drive. For > me personally, I can go pretty long time without, and not be bothered > by it much. My DH SAYS he is the same way - but he'll never really know that for sure, because he simply isn't going to get to experience extended periods without sex or sexuality, unless I'm comatose or the equivalent. > What I would find much harder to cope with would be lack of affection > and emotional intimacy. I would end up feeling very disconnected from > my partner. My DH feels the same way - but for me, the list includes sex as well. They are strongly interconnected. > Another ingredient in good relationships is physical compatibility. > That how ever is not limited to sex. It has to do with energy levels, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > tolerate a relationship without it or with too much of it would depend > on a number of other things that come into play. It's certainly not a standalone ingredient - I don't think there are ANY standalone ingredients. On a common sense level, sex is an important ingredient in most marriages, and many of the women whose marriages I admire the most have told me that "as long as the sex is still going good, there's a strong chance the marriage will recover from all other kinds of problems." Several men have said the same thing to me. For us, I think the central shared ingredient is that "compatibility" thing. I go to www.marriagebuilders.com and look at the "what to do with incompatibility" suggestions and just shake my head. I really have no idea how I'd be able to work through living with someone, much less marrying, who is exceptionally incompatible with me. A. > > If I have to narrow it down to three: > > Compatible life goals and paths. (intelectual copmpatibility) [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I agree, although most of the time, trouble arising because > stating things in this way is too vague for the other party involved. That very well may be true for a lot of people. I was thinking more witin the scope of my BF and myself, with me being sort of overtherapized as some people in here like to say, and with him having a degree in psych, statements like that make perfect sense to us. > To me, all three of the things you mentioned can be summarized > as merely "overall compatibility/companionship" which is a top [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > take it for granted - but the fact that we have that kind of "glue," to > me, is essential. For me as well, I like more commonalities then differences. If I was top guess, I'd say 60-70% commonalities and 30% diferences would be ideal and quite comfortable for me. 50/50 would be a lot of work. Perhaps if we've been together for a very long time and our interests departed, and it got closer to 50/50, it wouldn't be a cause for breaking the relationship, but, on the front end (dating), I'd say it wouldn't be very likely I'd get very excited about someone that's 50/50. > > Sex is not necesasrily a key ingredient for me. In my experience, over > > time, sex drive in both partners may come and go for a number of [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > between the two (sex/affection) is pretty invisible to us at this > point. With us snuggling and affection has sexual overtones as well. I'm actually more driven in that department then him. He's always eager to snuggle and cuddle and toy around etc... but not always up for the full production. What I've noticed that if I get my dose of affection and attention, the actual sex act is not as much of a priority as it would be withoug snuggles and cuddles and affection. > But, without actively experiencing my sexuality, my interest > in other things goes down, I do not experience my feelings as > sharply (always a problem with me, anyway) and I do not feel > spontaneously able to communicate - especially about really > intimate things. There is a bit of an edge that I notice as well. > > If there was a prolonged disparity in sex drives, that would make it > > hard to cope with, probably for the partner with the higer drive. For [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > extended periods without sex or sexuality, unless I'm comatose > or the equivalent. tee hee.... My honey is picky about when and how, so he sort of limits the number of chances he gets. He says he doesn't like quickies and hit-and-runs very much, he likes to have the whole evening/night together, and we don't get as much of a chance for those, so he wants to wait. He says it has something to do with his ADD... if he focuses on it, he'll want it all the time, and we don't have a chance for that yet. So now he saves it up for special occasions. When I get enough affection and snuggles, then I can go either way. When we have a few days alone... wooo hooo.... It's like a honeymoon ;) > > What I would find much harder to cope with would be lack of affection > > and emotional intimacy. I would end up feeling very disconnected from > > my partner. > > My DH feels the same way - but for me, the list includes sex as well. > They are strongly interconnected. I think for us, the antidepressants take the edge of the priority. > > Another ingredient in good relationships is physical compatibility. > > That how ever is not limited to sex. It has to do with energy levels, [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > us, I think the central shared ingredient is that "compatibility" > thing. When I see people say things like that, I think of more then just a sex act. If they're able to connect and enjoy sex, there's an underlying foundation of intimacy and emotional compatibilities that is still pretty healthy. BT (before therapy) most people probably don't dissect sexual encounters into separate components. > I go to www.marriagebuilders.com and look at the "what to do with > incompatibility" suggestions and just shake my head. I really > have no idea how I'd be able to work through living with someone, much > less marrying, who is exceptionally incompatible with me. I don't recall what is in the incompatibility part, I'll have to go look now. I went through that site with a fine tooth comb about a year ago, probably forgot a few things. As for me, yes, I couldn't be with someon where there's lacking significant compatibility in major areas. > How many sexless marriages are successful > that you know of? I am brazen and honest [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > that the spouse was incapable or totally > not interested in sex? Turn it around, a bit, here. How many, who have little or no interest in the friendly frolic (or a phobia against pregnancy, as a what-if) would enter into a marriage with someone who has expressed a strong interest in it? And, if you grit your teeth and "put up" with it, why would you bother to do so? Sex isn't really #1, but, to my thinking, it is a good gap-filling glue! Additionally, it is hopefully a communication channel between the couple that can't be jammed where each can provide comfort and love to the other. Remember, to an LDP, the HDP will usually be perceived as "a pervert". The other side of this coin is that an HDP will see their LDP as a prude. The funny thing I see is that many of religious leaders seem to be saying that prudes are the "normal" ones. SignatureJack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "HMOs: saving money one DOA at a time." - me "When a unified theory of human personality is finally published it will consist entirely of exceptions" - me > Remember, to an LDP, the HDP will usually be > perceived as "a pervert". The other side of > this coin is that an HDP will see their LDP > as a prude. The funny thing I see is that > many of religious leaders seem to be saying > that prudes are the "normal" ones. Jack, I have to ask you not to extrapolate from your own situation to the rest of the world. Even at the time when there was the greatest discreprancy between my DH and my libido, neither of us were percieved by the other as "a pervert" or "a prude". I would guess we are not that uncommon, either. Sheila >>Remember, to an LDP, the HDP will usually be >>perceived as "a pervert". The other side of [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > the other as "a pervert" or "a prude". I would guess we are not that > uncommon, either. What Sheila said. >>Remember, to an LDP, the HDP will usually be >>perceived as "a pervert". The other side of [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > discreprancy between my DH and my libido, neither of us were percieved by > the other as "a pervert" or "a prude". But surely one of you was perceived as "abnormal", right? >> Remember, to an LDP, the HDP will usually be >> perceived as "a pervert". The other side of [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > from your own situation to the rest of the > world. (nods) I *try* to qualify my statements so that it doesn't appear that I am making any kind of blanket statement, but, I guess, I wasn't trying to be so serious. This part of my post was intentionally a bit over-the-top, though, perhaps, this is a sign that I'm more desperate for attention right now. > Even at the time when there was the > greatest discreprancy between my DH and my > libido, neither of us were percieved by the > other as "a pervert" or "a prude". I would > guess we are not that uncommon, either. I would *HOPE* that you are uncommon in this regard, all right? That being said, many of the women I interact with, i.e. "not just my wife", at least at a surface level, are rather, ahem, reserved and humorless, with very little tolerance. Can you pronounce "uptight"??? While it may be a matter of some folks trying to maintain a facade, I also believe that such attitudes may run deep, especially when balanced against the observable dynamics of the couple in question. SignatureJack C Lipton | cupasoup at pele dot cx | http://www.asstr.org/~CupaSoup/ "HMOs: saving money one DOA at a time." - me "When a unified theory of human personality is finally published it will consist entirely of exceptions" - me > I would *HOPE* that you are uncommon in this > regard, all right? That being said, many of [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > very little tolerance. Can you pronounce > "uptight"??? And you shouldn't judge a woman (or anyone for that matter) solely on how they interact with you. I'm not reserved or humorless or intolerant when I am with people that I like or am familiar/ comfortable with. I *am* more reserved with people I'm acquainted with or whom I don't particularly like, I *am* humorless if I find their humor to be the biting, sarcastic, 'bitterness trying to hide in a joke' type and I am *not* tolerant of extremely personal or private subjects being brought up or asked of me by any and everyone. I'll be honest with you. You indicate that many of your posts/comments are meant to be humorous or not to be taken seriously and that you find many things you've written as hysterically funny. I can't remember a single instance of anything I've read in your posts that has been humorous to me. So you would probably think I was humorless be- cause I don't find you funny in the least when being humorless is really very far from the truth. Tracey > Turn it around, a bit, here. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > marriage with someone who has expressed a > strong interest in it? I would hope NONE--- that's a recipe for divorce if I ever saw one. > And, if you grit your teeth and "put up" > with it, why would you bother to do so? > > Sex isn't really #1, but, to my thinking, > it is a good gap-filling glue! Pardon the pun? !!! See Jack can be funny...perhaps unintentionally? <smiling> > Additionally, it is hopefully a communication > channel between the couple that can't be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > many of religious leaders seem to be saying > that prudes are the "normal" ones. Who are these 'many religious leaders'? In my circles of faith, we are taught and encouraged to have active, healthy sex-lives.... Bo > Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient > that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a > marriage--without which marriage is doomed to fail? Well, since I am now on antibiotics (for a strep infection, for those who have not read the other post), and actually feel like writing more that three sentences at a clip, I think I'll address this. The long-timers will have to wade through the history, since Bo doesn't know it. When DH and I first got together, sex was a very, very, very high priority. I've spoken in here about how, for me, the hormones were so strong that I felt, a good deal of the time, like I was in an altered state of consciousness. Didn't need food. Didn't need sleep. Couldn't concentrate on *anything* else. We were having sex multiple times per day (and we weren't exactly spring chickens!). In fact, I teased him a few times that "If your batteries run out, I'm trading you in for a newer model!" Later, I discovered that my saying that caused him a lot of anxiety. He was in his early 40's when we got together, and he knew that he'd never had -- nor really wanted before -- that level of sexual frequency. He feared what would happen when things "got back to normal", and I discovered that he wasn't up to sex as often as we were having it. Some time after we moved in together, I remember going to bed, and me starting to caress him, and him saying "You know, we don't have to have sex *every day*." I felt a little hurt, and a little frustrated. But, our relationship, by that time, was based on much more than sex, so I got over it. Over the course of the next several years, we came to understand that he was interested in sex less than I was, in general. Since I adore him, I made the decision that being with him and having sex less often than I would choose was a million times better than not being with him, and having sex as often as I would choose. He is my love. He is the only person in the whole world I truly trust. He is my best friend. Now, ten years into our relationship, things have changed again. As most of you guys know, in the last year I've been in a lot of pain. Long story short, at this juncture, I have three ruptured discs, all of which are applying significant pressure to the nerves running through them. My hip bones pretty much always feel like they are on fire. The reflexes and muscle tone in one of my arms and one of my legs is being affected, and while they are less likely to be causing me pain, when they do, it is really, really bad nerve pain. Consequently, in the last nine months or so, I have been up for sex less often than my husband. Actually, the problem is that I do actually have windows when it is better, but those typically occur mid-morning, when work and other things tend to get in the way. Anyway, the upshot is that my husband is, after nine or so years of being the LDP, is in the position of desiring more sex than I am in a position of supplying. What an odd turn of events! I have to say, he has been great. We've talked a lot about it, because, for the first time, really, in our relationship, he's had to deal with any level of sexual frustration. But, he says it is not an issue. As I put it the other day on here, he wants sex *with me*, not just sex. Since our sex life has always had a primary emotional component, he cannot see himself wanting sex when he knows I am hurting -- our sex life has always been about mutual pleasure, not pain. As I've read through these posts, I've wondered "Is it possible that he is going to feel less marital satisfaction because of this?" Maybe it is wishful thinking, but I really believe not. Someone (La Mer? DrLith?) mentioned "commitment" as an attribute that was an integral part of their definition of marriage. My DH is like that. He might not be experiencing "sexual pleasure' but, right now, he is excercising his "commitment", to me, and our marriage. And, that is satisfying for him, too. Sheila >> Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient >> that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a [quoted text clipped - 81 lines] > > Sheila It was me that said commitment was a key of marriage--- and your story is a prime example to me of a marriage that would likely have failed wihtout it. I'm glad you and your DH are able to work out things for the better for your marriage--and health. Have you had back surgery? I've had several friends that went through that and surgery made things MUCH better for about 10 years and are now undergoing partial relapses.... I hope you can find a good Dr and get some real healing/help. I'll add you to my prayer group if you desire.... bo > >> Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient > >> that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > undergoing partial relapses.... I hope you can find a good Dr and get some > real healing/help. Yes, I've seen the surgeon. I am absolutely terrified of back surgery, and the recovery period is likely to be months and month, because they'll have to do both cervical and lumbar (the cervical being easier, but the lumbar would be quite difficult). At this point, I've decided to put off doing anything invasive until/unless it gets to the point where we can't do anything about the pain. I have different meds I can take depending on the nature and severity of the pain. Another option was epidural steroid injections, but I had made the decision not to go with that because (1) they are a temporary fix and (2) I am at-risk for developing diabetes, and these can raise blood sugar. So, I'll wait for either another treatment option to come around or, eventually, have the surgery. Sheila > As I've read through these posts, I've wondered "Is it possible that he is > going to feel less marital satisfaction because of this?" Maybe it is [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > "sexual pleasure' but, right now, he is excercising his "commitment", to > me, and our marriage. And, that is satisfying for him, too. Your hub sounds like a peach. Let him know that I think he's a lot more "manly" now that he's not letting a girl get ahead of him :) *Ducking!* (It's a joke!!! it's a joke!!!) :) > > As I've read through these posts, I've wondered "Is it possible that he is > > going to feel less marital satisfaction because of this?" Maybe it is [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > *Ducking!* (It's a joke!!! it's a joke!!!) :) Hehhe. You better run! ;-) Yeah, he's a great guy. We'll get through this like we have gotten through all the other stuff life has thrown at us. But, I guess my point is, our relationship, even though it was *very* sexually charged initially, has developed into something that can handle the lack of sex, and, I, for one, am very grateful for that. Sheila >> > As I've read through these posts, I've wondered "Is it possible that he > is [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > developed into something that can handle the lack of sex, and, I, for one, > am very grateful for that. As long as you love each other that will work out. And I think the best sex-life blessing you can give a couple would be: "May your libidos always match" :) > Sheila > > Without sex, any marriage will be missing *a* (not *the*) key ingredient > > that pulls the couple together. What are the *key* ingredients of a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have not read the other post), and actually feel like writing more that > three sentences at a clip, I think I'll address this. The long-timers will (snip to save bandwidth) > As I've read through these posts, I've wondered "Is it possible that he is > going to feel less marital satisfaction because of this?" Maybe it is [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sheila Sheila... a neat story and new to me, too (as I'm not at all an oldie here...). All in all, you're DH sounds like a truly fine person. Just out of curiosity, did you and he (like The Love and I) first encounter each other in your... uh... "more mature" years? Aspects of what you've related sound familiar... rj > Sheila... a neat story and new to me, too (as I'm not at all an oldie > here...). All in all, you're DH sounds like a truly fine person. Thank you. He *is* a truly fine person. BTW, I realize that I may have sounded like we haven't had sex at all in the last nine months. That is not correct. In the past, however, since I was the HDP and he was the LDP, he never got turned down! That is not the case anymore. Actually.... since he is sensitive to how I am doing, that's not entirely true either... it isn't that he gets turned down, it is that he doesn't ask, even though he'd like to, because he knows I'm hurting. So, he lets me know that I should let him know... if you know what I mean. ;-) > Just out of curiosity, did you and he (like The Love and I) first > encounter each other in your... uh... "more mature" years? Aspects of > what you've related sound familiar... > > rj Well, this was the second time around for both of us. I was 36 when we met, he was 42. If I were a religious type, I'd say we were fated, but, since I'm not, I'll say we were lucky. We met online. We were living 3000 miles apart, and yet.... there were so many coincidences. Where I was living at the time was only a couple of miles from where he grew up as a small child. Twenty-five years later, I lived only about a mile from where he had lived as an adult -- on the other side of the country. I would not have moved my kids away from their father, but he was living in the *one* place where their dad had wanted to come back to, and so we were able to move 'en masse" (me, the kids, and their dad) after he got a job out here. I feel very, very lucky. Sheila >"rj" <rjklutz@hotmail.com> wrote in message (snip) >> Just out of curiosity, did you and he (like The Love and I) first >> encounter each other in your... uh... "more mature" years? Aspects of [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >Sheila Thought so.... <grin> The Love and I met online as well. She was living and working in Taegu (she's Canadian) and I was living and working in Houston. We were both "fourty-something" at the time. If you're interested at all in the details, Google is your friend. Most of it is on asd. rj >>>>> Condoms are not 100%. Were I HIV positive, I would not endanger my >>>>> beloved for my personal satisfaction. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> >> ie... what about your beloved? Would you expect her to lead a sexless life >> too? Would you have an issue with her finding a non HIV partner to meet her >> needs? If so, would it be the right thing for you to do to expect (demand?) >> her to lead a celibate life too? Or would it be better to divorce and free >> her to have a new relationship that would not be celibate? or could you >> remain married and give her a 'license' to meet her sexual needs? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Western society fosters towards sex and the individual's > responsibility with regard to sex. You could have left out the "with regard to sex" limitation, and it would have been even more general - and accurate - for the times. > We are encouraged and taught by "the world" to believe that sexual > urges are "needs"... when in fact they are no more than urges. So, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > from themselves the need to accept responsibility for their own > conscious decisions and actions. Say it again, brother! The understatement of the week. > r "I want... not I *need*... a pony." j Say it again, brother. (ok, done)! The understatement of the times. (snip) > Say it again, brother! The understatement of the week. Damn, Bill... do you *have* keep on agreeing with me? <evil grin> It's embarrassing.... rj > Grace, nice to hear from you again. Thanks, Tony.....you, too. And no, neither pill nor diaphragm > are licit. As a matter of fact, they came out against the use of a condom > for married couples where one was HIV positive. I suspected thing hadn't changed that much since I'd last heard.....a very long time ago. Well, as I've said before, i admire the fact that you are a good Catholic....knowing how hard that can be. Admirable to believe and even more admirable to LIVE what you believe....IMO Grae >From what I understand this is an accurate discription of The Rythum >Method. it works best when the woman has a very regular cycle. No wonder the method is known as Vatican roulette. LOL _______________________ "Only two things are infinite, the Universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former." --Albert Einstein > >> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as > >> your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I don't believe it matters how many, or whether. It only matters *where* > the husband finishes. Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men is all squickish and gross, huh? jen >>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as >>>> your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > jen At least lesbian action doesn't normally spread AIDS and HIV, which helped get us into this mess. > >>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long > as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > At least lesbian action doesn't normally spread AIDS and HIV, which helped > get us into this mess. I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around homosexuality contributed to the high degree of promiscuity that allowed AIDs to spread among the gay community. Had it been more acceptable, there would not have been the need to sneak around, and partnerships would have more easily formed. I have no proof for this whatsoever. Thus the splats around speculation. >> >>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as >long [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >formed. I have no proof for this whatsoever. Thus the splats around >speculation. What you said, and the fact that male gay sexual activity ore often results in some bleeding and tears, which makes it easier to contract the virus, IIRC. >>>>>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long >>>>>>> as your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official >>>>>>> Catholic teaching as far as I know. You can verify this if you'd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>> >>>>> I don't believe it matters how many, or whether. It only matters *where* >>>>> the husband finishes. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around homosexuality >> contributed to the high degree of promiscuity that allowed AIDs to spread >> among the gay community. Had it been more acceptable, there would not have >> been the need to sneak around, and partnerships would have more easily >> formed. I have no proof for this whatsoever. Thus the splats around [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > results in some bleeding and tears, which makes it easier to contract > the virus, IIRC. Plus it's using anatomy in a way for which it was not designed - at all! The fact that it results in bleeding and tears, and is the point of exit for fecal material, should indicate something to anybody with at least half a brain. (But clearly that's too much too expect for mankind). >>>>>>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as >long [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > >Plus it's using anatomy in a way for which it was not designed blah blah blah Bill, it's time to drop it already. > Plus it's using anatomy in a way for which it was not designed - at all! > The fact that it results in bleeding and tears, and is the point of exit for > fecal material, should indicate something to anybody with at least half a > brain. (But clearly that's too much too expect for mankind). A woman's vagina is the point of exit for blood. Should that "indicate something to anybody with at least half a brain"? I'll say this in a kind way Bill and you did ask a few months ago for help. You are slipping. You're making constant digs about mankind and pointing fingers at the posters in this group who don't agree with you. It's not serving you well and I thought you might like to be made aware of this fact. The very thing that you can't stand in people (judgementalism and elitism) is what you do every single time you make digs such as in this post "But clearly that's too much to expect for mankind". Maybe you don't care if you alienate people; however if that's the case, then I"m wondering why you asked for help in here. There's that side of you that seems to care, yet the side that comes out most of the time is the sarcastic, critical, demeaning and finger pointing. I swear, if I hear, "it's psych 101" one more time..................... When you make that comment, all I hear is, "you're so stupid" (you're, in a global sense and no, I do not take it personally). Just thought I'd share. >> Plus it's using anatomy in a way for which it was not designed - at all. And that point is anatomically and physiologically sound, from the nature of the tissues and organs involved. To me, that is sooo important. But I'm gathering (albeit slowly), that to some others, apparently it's completely irrelevant (which I find hard to assimilate). >> The fact that it results in bleeding and tears, and is the point of exit for >> fecal material, should indicate something to anybody with at least half a >> brain. (But clearly that's too much too expect for mankind). > > A woman's vagina is the point of exit for blood. Should that "indicate > something to anybody with at least half a brain"? But it's not the same thing. > I'll say this in a > kind way Bill and you did ask a few months ago for help. You are > slipping. You're making constant digs about mankind and pointing > fingers at the posters in this group who don't agree with you. Well, yes, who don't agree with nature's design - the way it was intended to used. Mother Nature (often) knows best, especially in comparison to soooo many of mankind's follies. You may want to judge me for that belief. Then, go ahead. I admit I have a problem with doing something like that, especially when the practice helped (in large part) contribute to some significant problems for mankind today (in terms of helping to spread AIDS and HIV). > It's not serving you well and I thought you might like to be made aware of > this fact. The very thing that you can't stand in people > (judgementalism and elitism) I don't know - is that really true? I expect people to be judgemental. In fact, I (more often) have a problem with people who think they aren't judgemental, when in reality, they certainly are (which is ALL of us), but they won't admit it. > is what you do every single time you make > digs such as in this post "But clearly that's too much to expect for > mankind". Because it's SO against nature's design, as I said. Call me prudish. This probably sounds strange, but (in some weird sense) I'm trying to look out for the human body and (I guess) protect it, and I seem to take it kind of personally when I read about abuse to it. Anyway, that's how I feel about it, am I'm trying to be open and honest with you here. I swear, if I hear, "it's psych 101" one more > time..................... When you make that comment, all I hear is, > "you're so stupid" (you're, in a global sense and no, I do not take it > personally). Funny--when I hear it, I think "here's a person who either didn't take psych 101, or didn't really pay attention." There are few simple or universal ("that's just how it is"; "it's just that simple") explanations in psychology, to my knowledge. Further, as a discipline that generally aims to be a science (we can debate how successfully certain manifestations succeed!), psychology probably discourages shutting down inquiry with such statement. > I swear, if I hear, "it's psych 101" one more >> time..................... When you make that comment, all I hear is, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > universal ("that's just how it is"; "it's just that simple") > explanations in psychology, to my knowledge. Indeed. And those are the only ones I've been echoing. > Further, as a discipline > that generally aims to be a science (we can debate how successfully > certain manifestations succeed!), psychology probably discourages > shutting down inquiry with such statement. You can inquire all you want. But some things are pretty well accepted. (Well, or used to be, prior to the last two or three decades, when the door was removed from its hinges) > I swear, if I hear, "it's psych 101" one more > > time..................... When you make that comment, all I hear is, [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Funny--when I hear it, I think "here's a person who either didn't take > psych 101, or didn't really pay attention." That's kind of the way I look at it too. Like, oh Bill, you're better off keeping quet here.... >> I swear, if I hear, "it's psych 101" one more >>> time..................... When you make that comment, all I hear is, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > That's kind of the way I look at it too. > Like, oh Bill, you're better off keeping quet here.... I don't think so. Why don't you guys back this up with some actual facts, instead of (apparently) taking some things a bit personally? And if you want to call me prudish in the process, so be it. I don't care. But at least in most cases, when I've made those references, there hasn't been anything wrong with them (with perhaps a touch of prudishness thrown in). And I do notice that nobody has yet explicitly pointed out what was wrong with them, just that you don't like some of the references! So - let's see the facts on what was wrong with some of the references I made. > But at least in most cases, when I've made those references, there > hasn't > been anything wrong with them (with perhaps a touch of prudishness > thrown > in). Prudishness is good. Zorra >> Plus it's using anatomy in a way for which it was not designed - at >> all! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > "indicate > something to anybody with at least half a brain"? And the vagina is the point of exit for that particular source of blood because that particular blood is a byproduct of the reproductive system. Fecal matter has nothing to do with the reproductive system. >> A woman's vagina is the point of exit for blood. And babies! >>> A woman's vagina is the point of exit for blood. > > And babies! I got a zipper installed in my belly, so when I serve the eviction notice, we just open the zipper and fish the kidlet out. *nods* Jess >>>>A woman's vagina is the point of exit for blood. >> >>And babies! > > I got a zipper installed in my belly, so when I serve the eviction notice, > we just open the zipper and fish the kidlet out. *nods* Kewl! > Kewl! I wanted to watch the installation, but they said no. :( Jess >>Kewl! > > I wanted to watch the installation, but they said no. :( It sounds kind of like the fistulated cows they have at UIUC. They do studies on bovine digestion, and to make it easier to observe at various points along the way, they just install these plastic portholes that can also be opened up to remove samples. > It sounds kind of like the fistulated cows they have at UIUC. They do > studies on bovine digestion, and to make it easier to observe at various > points along the way, they just install these plastic portholes that can > also be opened up to remove samples. Hmm. I wonder if they can install viewing ports? That'ud be interesting. Jess >>> Plus it's using anatomy in a way for which it was not designed - at >>> all! [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > blood because that particular blood is a byproduct of the reproductive > system. Fecal matter has nothing to do with the reproductive system. Exactly. Once again, it's just basic anatomy. AllYou! wrote: >>>> Plus it's using anatomy in a way for which it was not designed - at all! >>>> The fact that it results in bleeding and tears, and is the point of exit for >>>> fecal material, should indicate something to anybody with at least >>>> half a brain. (But clearly that's too much too expect for mankind). [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> blood because that particular blood is a byproduct of the reproductive >> system. Fecal matter has nothing to do with the reproductive system. > Exactly. Once again, it's just basic anatomy. Ooops, my retrospective apologies, as I left out the reference to that! (Physiology 101) > Plus it's using anatomy in a way for which it was not designed - at all! > The fact that it results in bleeding and tears, and is the point of exit for > fecal material, should indicate something to anybody with at least half a > brain. (But clearly that's too much too expect for mankind). 1) AIDs is spread through the blood, not fecal matter. 2) Your anus isn't the only orifice that excretes waste; your penis does too. 3) PIV sex can cause tears if the woman is not properly lubricated. jen >> Plus it's using anatomy in a way for which it was not designed - at all! >> The fact that it results in bleeding and tears, and is the point of exit for [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > jen Jen, if you see the two as being equivalent, then more what can I say? (rhetorical) :-) > >> >>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as > >long [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > results in some bleeding and tears, which makes it easier to contract > the virus, IIRC. Why would it lead to bleeding and tears? >>... What you said, and the fact that male gay sexual activity ore often >> results in some bleeding and tears, which makes it easier to contract >> the virus, IIRC. > >Why would it lead to bleeding and tears? For the same reason it happens in heterosexual rape, and with ignorant/inconsiderate male heterosexual lovers: lack of adequate lubrication. [Many/most penises have trouble knowing when an orifice needs lubrication.] ___________________ A dog's life is too short; their only fault really. > >>... What you said, and the fact that male gay sexual activity ore often > >> results in some bleeding and tears, which makes it easier to contract [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lubrication. [Many/most penises have trouble knowing when an orifice > needs lubrication.] Ew. I had never considered doing it that badly. Double ew. > ___________________ > A dog's life is too short; their only fault really. > >>... What you said, and the fact that male gay sexual activity ore often > >> results in some bleeding and tears, which makes it easier to contract [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > lubrication. [Many/most penises have trouble knowing when an orifice > needs lubrication.] Know what? Even with the best lubrication, the vagina can get such microscopic tears. It is just the nature of delicate tissues and friction. Now I'll get gross here, but for those of you who talk about "natural design," did you ever stop to consider that a poop can be bigger than a penis? The anus is *designed* to stretch too. (Okay, if people were trying to cram penises into ears or nostrils, I might be agreeing about the "natural design" thing.... ) jen > (Okay, if people were trying to cram penises into ears or nostrils, I > might be agreeing about the "natural design" thing.... ) A 'snort' seem like the only good response to that line! >Now I'll get gross here, but for those of you who talk about "natural >design," did you ever stop to consider that a poop can be bigger than a >penis? The anus is *designed* to stretch too. ewww! :-) i don't know about other ppl's poop but i've never passed one as large as a penis, without a lot of pain. > >Now I'll get gross here, but for those of you who talk about "natural > >design," did you ever stop to consider that a poop can be bigger than a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > i don't know about other ppl's poop but i've never passed one as large > as a penis, without a lot of pain. I hope you've talked to the doctor about that, because that isn't normal. Pooping isn't supposed to be painful. It's the tiny hard constipated poops that are painful and result in hemorrhoids. And you aren't supposed to have to sit there forever waiting for your anus to stretch out either. And there was a whole thing on Oprah once from some "Dr Poop" that talked about what a normal poop should look like. It's supposed to be about the size and width of the average penis (he didn't compare it to that, but that's what it looked like), all one piece not sections, firm yet soft, etc. and yes, PAINLESS! jen > > >Now I'll get gross here, but for those of you who talk about "natural > > >design," did you ever stop to consider that a poop can be bigger than a [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > aren't supposed to have to sit there forever waiting for your anus to > stretch out either. I can't believe you're actually trying to teach ML how to poop. Don't you think that's a bit patronizing? > And there was a whole thing on Oprah once from some "Dr Poop" that > talked about what a normal poop should look like. It's supposed to be > about the size and width of the average penis (he didn't compare it to > that, but that's what it looked like), all one piece not sections, firm > yet soft, etc. and yes, PAINLESS! Did they talk about it goming in and out few hundred times in the span of 10-15 minutes, and what happens when there's no lubrication? Jen, did you ever notice that when having a bowel movement, body actually produces a small amout of lubrication that goes with it. Unlike vaginal, intestinal tissues don't respond to friction by producing lubrication. it's the lack of lubrication that makes things more prone to tears. Anothe thing to point out is that the anoatomy of the region resembles a flap valve, meaning that it makes it a lot easier to things to travel in one direction (out) instead of the other (in). >I can't believe you're actually trying to teach ML how to poop. LOL, that's what the IBS group is for! :-) > I can't believe you're actually trying to teach ML how to poop. > Don't you think that's a bit patronizing? Well, I hope she didn't take it as patronizing, but rather being as a mother hen clucking with sincere concern for her health. And I thought she'd get a chuckle out of Dr Poop. :-) > Jen, did you ever notice that when having a bowel movement, body > actually produces a small amout of lubrication that goes with it. > Unlike vaginal, intestinal tissues don't respond to friction by > producing lubrication. it's the lack of lubrication that makes things > more prone to tears. Right. And not all vaginas create lubrication, even with a lot of foreplay. Hormonal fluctuations can impact that. > Anothe thing to point out is that the anoatomy of the region resembles > a flap valve, meaning that it makes it a lot easier to things to travel > in one direction (out) instead of the other (in). You have a flap valve? (Picturing those flaps in pajama bottoms... ) jen >> Anothe thing to point out is that the anoatomy of the region resembles >> a flap valve, meaning that it makes it a lot easier to things to travel >> in one direction (out) instead of the other (in). > >You have a flap valve? (Picturing those flaps in pajama bottoms... ) Hey, where are the TMI posts! :-) LOL, now i keep thinking of the old term for women, "flappers" ... i don't think that was what it meant, though. :-) > >> Anothe thing to point out is that the anoatomy of the region resembles > >> a flap valve, meaning that it makes it a lot easier to things to travel [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > LOL, now i keep thinking of the old term for women, "flappers" ... > i don't think that was what it meant, though. :-) Well, I do hope Kitty knew I was joshing with her. The PJ bottom image just flew into my mind for some reason! I think all this discussion (especially all your funny one-liners, ML) is making me kinda loopy today. (hey, loopy rhymes with poopy... lol!) jen > > I can't believe you're actually trying to teach ML how to poop. > > Don't you think that's a bit patronizing? [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Right. And not all vaginas create lubrication, even with a lot of > foreplay. Hormonal fluctuations can impact that. And in other unusual situations there are other vaginal dysfunctions. However, in the context of this discussion I'm not following where you're going with that statement? > > Anothe thing to point out is that the anoatomy of the region resembles > > a flap valve, meaning that it makes it a lot easier to things to travel > > in one direction (out) instead of the other (in). > > You have a flap valve? I forgot, you don't do engineering. > And in other unusual situations there are other vaginal dysfunctions. Exactly. > However, in the context of this discussion I'm not following where > you're going with that statement? I'm going here: that the majority of anuses could handle a penis just fine - without tearing - with proper stimulation, relaxation and foreplay. Sure, not all will (like IBS or hemorrhoid sufferers or sex abuse survivors). It's just like the majority of vaginas can handle a penis just fine with proper stimulation, relaxation and foreplay, but not all will (like sex abuse survivors, those with a too-thick hymen, post-menopausal women who lack lubrication, and those who have vulval vestibulitis or dysaesthetic vulvodynia). At the end of the day, if one is concerned about avoiding tears, then the key is to stop penetratration that one finds painful. If one finds anal sex painful, yeah, either slow waaaayyyy down, or don't do it at all. And if one finds vaginal sex painful, same thing! Because pain is a sign that you are at risk or are tearing. It's not exclusive to anuses. And sex is not really supposed to be painful... (unless pain is your thing, I guess, but it's not mine!). It's supposed to be pleasurable. And the reality is that lots of people, gay and straight, get pleasure out of anal sex. There are lots of nerve endings down there. And for men it stimulates the prostrate, which is why even *straight* men enjoy it too. (Now , I know you were just talking about tears, and I sorta went off on a dissertation above. I am not meaning to patronize you - I'm sure you already know all this yourself. Just trying to balance out the overall thread drift about "natural design" and using your post here to expound on that some more.) > > > Anothe thing to point out is that the anoatomy of the region resembles > > > a flap valve, meaning that it makes it a lot easier to things to travel [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I forgot, you don't do engineering. Nope! jen > > And in other unusual situations there are other vaginal dysfunctions. > [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > a sign that you are at risk or are tearing. It's not exclusive to > anuses. I still think there's a higer degree of voulnerability in anal sex then in vaginal. > And sex is not really supposed to be painful... (unless pain is your > thing, I guess, but it's not mine!). It's supposed to be pleasurable. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > overall thread drift about "natural design" and using your post here to > expound on that some more.) Ah, gotcha. I was just wondering why you were pointing that out in response to me, since I never commented on the whole natural or unnatural thing. I was puzzled, seemed like you were trying to comvince me personally of something that had undertones of opposing Bill's and Tonys' claims, and I was wondering if you were not jumping the gun and coupling what they are saying to be the same as what I was pointing out. My point is that even though there are similarities between uses and capacity of intestinal vs. vaginal piping, I believe that when it comes to external penetration, intestinal piping is little more voulnerable then vaginal. Say if we put it on a 1-10 scale, with 0 being not voulnerable at all, and 10 being most voulnerable, I'd place vaginal at around 4, and anal at about 6. I'm not suggesting that one is a 0 and the other a 10. Anyway, I had a twinge of thought there that my position is being misunderstood, and lately I've been noticing that if I just let it go and don't clarify, it comes back to haunt me. > I still think there's a higer degree of voulnerability in anal sex then > in vaginal. Well, at the end of the day, you are probably right. I don't want to argue that they are exactly the same thing - they aren't. I just wanted to defend against the thread drift here that makes it sound like they are completely night and day and one is good the other bad, one is natural and the other unnatural. They aren't: as far as orifices go, there are actually more similiarities between an anus and vagina, than a vagina and a nostril. :-) > Ah, gotcha. I was just wondering why you were pointing that out in > response to me, since I never commented on the whole natural or [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > coupling what they are saying to be the same as what I was pointing > out. No, I have it clear in my mind that you are not in Bill's camp, or Tony's camp (which as I stated to Doug before, I don't see as the same camp). I'm sure you are your own unique camp. We all are! My camp is more along the lines of "it isn't a moral issue, it isn't a physiological issue, it is really a matter of personal preference and who's to condemn others for what they do in the privacy of their own homes." To set the record straight, long ago when I was a practicing Catholic and AIDs first came out in the news as a "gay disease" I held Tony's view and Bill's view. But then after listening to my gay friends, I started wondering if I wasn't just ignorant. So I started doing my research and reading up on it, and expanding my mind. Following soc.sexuality.general is a real mind opener - LOL! - it was a real surprise to me to discover that even straight men enjoyed anal play. I admit that floored me. Based on all this research, I conclude that it is definetly going to be painful if you are squicked out by the thought, for whatever reason. Cuz then you aren't going to relax enough. But I would not suggest that anyone should try to get past their squickishness, or even that there's something wrong because they're squicked out. It's not a requirement to a good sex life. It also doesn't mean if you like it you have a more open mind. But it's also not something awful, terrible, that only deranged people partake in. So that's my camp! > My point is that even though there are similarities between uses and > capacity of intestinal vs. vaginal piping, I believe that when it comes > to external penetration, intestinal piping is little more voulnerable > then vaginal. Well, to be technical, the penis doesn't make it into the intestinal piping. (Just as the penis doesn't make it all the way up into the cervix). > Say if we put it on a 1-10 scale, with 0 being not > voulnerable at all, and 10 being most voulnerable, I'd place vaginal at > around 4, and anal at about 6. I'm not suggesting that one is a 0 and > the other a 10. I'd place it the same way too. That sounds about right! > Anyway, I had a twinge of thought there that my position is being > misunderstood, and lately I've been noticing that if I just let it go > and don't clarify, it comes back to haunt me. No problem. I've done that before myself. :-) jen > > I still think there's a higer degree of voulnerability in anal sex then > > in vaginal. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > there are actually more similiarities between an anus and vagina, than > a vagina and a nostril. :-) Yup Yup. > > Ah, gotcha. I was just wondering why you were pointing that out in > > response to me, since I never commented on the whole natural or [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Tony's camp (which as I stated to Doug before, I don't see as the same > camp). I'm sure you are your own unique camp. We all are! Yea, yea, yea, but you used what's under my tent to further the agenda of your tent! Shame on you :P~~~ > My camp is more along the lines of "it isn't a moral issue, it isn't a > physiological issue, it is really a matter of personal preference and > who's to condemn others for what they do in the privacy of their own > homes." Yup. > To set the record straight, long ago when I was a practicing Catholic > and AIDs first came out in the news as a "gay disease" I held Tony's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > open mind. But it's also not something awful, terrible, that only > deranged people partake in. No kidding. > > My point is that even though there are similarities between uses and > > capacity of intestinal vs. vaginal piping, I believe that when it comes [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > piping. (Just as the penis doesn't make it all the way up into the > cervix). Sorry, can't comment, LaMer is on my case for sharing TMI. > > Say if we put it on a 1-10 scale, with 0 being not > > voulnerable at all, and 10 being most voulnerable, I'd place vaginal at > > around 4, and anal at about 6. I'm not suggesting that one is a 0 and > > the other a 10. > > I'd place it the same way too. That sounds about right! No way, you mean we agree??? > > Anyway, I had a twinge of thought there that my position is being > > misunderstood, and lately I've been noticing that if I just let it go > > and don't clarify, it comes back to haunt me. > > No problem. I've done that before myself. :-) Come back to haunt me? ;) >> I still think there's a higer degree of voulnerability in anal sex then >> in vaginal. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > there are actually more similiarities between an anus and vagina, than > a vagina and a nostril. :-) But why stop there, with this "logically insightful" "comparison"? Why not say it's more similar than, say, a vagina and Crater Lake? Well, ok, admitedly, Crater Lake has water in it, and that is a difference, so I'll concede that. Oh yeah, and Crater Lake is a lot bigger! >I hope you've talked to the doctor about that, because that isn't >normal. Pooping isn't supposed to be painful. It's the tiny hard >constipated poops that are painful and result in hemorrhoids. And you >aren't supposed to have to sit there forever waiting for your anus to >stretch out either. I've been to dr's, had the barium x-rays and sigmoidoscopies, got the t-shirt. :-) (ok, not really a t-shirt for that but there *should* be!) The doc said i reacted with way more pain than normal to the sigmoid, so they suspected child abuse in my past. Since i do have memories of forceful sodomy, that may have to do with my sexual preferences today. It was amazing how the dr. could tell even tho i had not mentioned it. I would have preferred to forget about it, but they said that even when you repress a memory your body remembers. >And there was a whole thing on Oprah once from some "Dr Poop" that >talked about what a normal poop should look like. It's supposed to be >about the size and width of the average penis (he didn't compare it to >that, but that's what it looked like), all one piece not sections, firm >yet soft, etc. and yes, PAINLESS! That's the ultimate dream of some of us IBS sufferers! :-) We celebrate the days that we have a "normal" one! > I've been to dr's, had the barium x-rays and sigmoidoscopies, got the t-shirt. > :-) (ok, not really a t-shirt for that but there *should* be!) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > preferred to forget about it, but they said that even when you repress a > memory your body remembers. :-( > That's the ultimate dream of some of us IBS sufferers! :-) > We celebrate the days that we have a "normal" one! I just have to think back to after my pregnancies to relate! jen >>>>>>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long >>>>>>>> as your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official >>>>>>>> Catholic teaching as far as I know. You can verify this if you'd [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> I don't believe it matters how many, or whether. It only matters *where* >>>>>> the husband finishes. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> >>>> At least lesbian action doesn't normally spread AIDS and HIV, which helped >>>> get us into this mess. >>> >>> I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around homosexuality >>> contributed to the high degree of promiscuity that allowed AIDs to spread >>> among the gay community. Had it been more acceptable, there would not have >>> been the need to sneak around, and partnerships would have more easily >>> formed. I have no proof for this whatsoever. Thus the splats around [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Why would it lead to bleeding and tears? Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and elasticity of the tissues involved. > Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and elasticity > of the tissues involved. Think of the biggest poop you ever had (normal, not constipated). Now, tell me your anus isn't elastic enough to stretch to accomodate a penis. jen > > Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and elasticity > > of the tissues involved. > > Think of the biggest poop you ever had (normal, not constipated). Now, > tell me your anus isn't elastic enough to stretch to accomodate a > penis. My suggestion is that Tony and Bill (who both seem surprisingly interested in where other people's penises should and shouldn't go) get together for some experimentation. > My suggestion is that Tony and Bill (who both seem surprisingly > interested in where other people's penises should and shouldn't go) > get together for some experimentation. You are so evil. :-) However, while Tony and Bill both seem to be using the term "natural design," I haven't gotten the impression they mean the same thing by that. Tony hasn't said there's anything wrong with anal sex (between a married man and a woman; for him, it's all about where the money shot winds up. Therefore I wouldn't have made the same comment to Tony. jen > > My suggestion is that Tony and Bill (who both seem surprisingly > > interested in where other people's penises should and shouldn't go) > > get together for some experimentation. > > You are so evil. :-) Yep, I've got my own fan club here these days! > However, while Tony and Bill both seem to be using the term "natural > design," I haven't gotten the impression they mean the same thing by > that. Tony hasn't said there's anything wrong with anal sex (between a > married man and a woman; for him, it's all about where the money shot > winds up. Therefore I wouldn't have made the same comment to Tony. Good point. Also Bill (in spite of an engineering background) seems confused about the degree of elasticity required. > > > My suggestion is that Tony and Bill (who both seem surprisingly > > > interested in where other people's penises should and shouldn't go) [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Also Bill (in spite of an engineering background) seems confused about > the degree of elasticity required. You should be the one to talk about anal elsticity! [eyeroll] >> > Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and >> > elasticity [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > interested in where other people's penises should and shouldn't go) > get together for some experimentation. Just because your penis will fit into virtually any hole, this does not mean that's universally true of every male. > > > Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and elasticity > > > of the tissues involved. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > interested in where other people's penises should and shouldn't go) > get together for some experimentation. I thought you only make comments like this when someone is talking about you. I wonder why this topic hits home for you? Hmmmm? > My suggestion is that Tony and Bill (who both seem surprisingly > interested in where other people's penises should and shouldn't go) > get together for some experimentation. *lemonade snort* *ROFL* Jess >> > Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and elasticity >> > of the tissues involved. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >interested in where other people's penises should and shouldn't go) >get together for some experimentation. LOL... Boggles the mind, don't it?? rj >> Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and elasticity >> of the tissues involved. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > jen The anus does that over a period of time, and is not expected to react instantaneously. > >> Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and > elasticity [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The anus does that over a period of time, and is not expected to react > instantaneously. If you're sitting around waiting a lot, then clearly you're not getting enough fiber in your diet. :-) Note that virgins have tighter vaginas than non-virgins. Elasticity is something that the organ (whether anus or vagina) can learn over time. Note also that non-virgins who become celibate (deliberately or not) for a long period can also revert to being tight through lack of, ahem, exercise. jen > >> Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and > elasticity [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > The anus does that over a period of time, and is not expected to react > instantaneously. Oh, and the vagina doesn't react instantaneously anyway. There's a lot of cuddling and kissing and caressing that makes it loosen up and relax to get ready for penetration. Same happens with anal sex, Bill. jen > >>>>>>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as > long [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and elasticity > of the tissues involved. See, my experiences with the elasticity of the tissues involved seem to indicate that what you are talking about is not universally the case. >See, my experiences with the elasticity of the tissues involved seem to >indicate that what you are talking about is not universally the case. Rectal openings, like vaginas or penises or other body parts, vary in size (and capacity). Maybe some are good fits, while others aren't. What may make pleasure for one couple may be painful for another. I don't understand why it matters to anyone what *other* couples do.. ? > >See, my experiences with the elasticity of the tissues involved seem to > >indicate that what you are talking about is not universally the case. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > make pleasure for one couple may be painful for another. > I don't understand why it matters to anyone what *other* couples do.. ? It's Unnatural! > Why would it lead to bleeding and tears? Anal is more likely to do that then vaginal, if not done very carefully. The more one does it in general, and the more one does it with multiple partners, the higher the likelyhood that they'll run into someone who does it too rough, sometimes even just by accident. Just by the fact that the vaginal tissues are little more resilient to friction and poking and proding then intestinal tissues. At least as far as I understand it. > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:58:53 GMT, "Stephanie Stowe" > >I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around homosexuality [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >formed. I have no proof for this whatsoever. Thus the splats around > >speculation. I think it spread fast among the gay community because for the first several years, nobody knew what it was or even that it was going around. Then it took awhile to figure out how it was being spread, and how to protect against infection. Education has made an enormous difference in the gay community. Now it is the heterosexuals who have to worry, because unlike the gays, they continue to engage in risky behavior despite the education. You'd be surprised at the numbers of people who don't bother to ask for HIV status and assume that their partner "looks safe." There are studies showing that heterosexual men are under the misguided impression that sex with a woman is safe. Even lesbians are smart enough to use dental dams with each other. Heteros are far less likely to practice safe sex, whereas gays do. > What you said, and the fact that male gay sexual activity ore often > results in some bleeding and tears, which makes it easier to contract > the virus, IIRC. True that tears in the skin can increase transmission. But this doesn't only happen with anal sex - regular plain jane PIV can cause such microscopic tears too, if a woman is not lubricated enough. Did you know that you should not brush and floss your teeth immediately before engaging in oral sex? Doing so can create minute tears in your gums, which theoretically can transmit the virus. It's theorized that this is why those who give oral sex seem to be more vulnerable than those who receive it. (It's only a theory because it's very hard to prove, since most people do more than just oral sex). At any rate, it is not promiscuity that spreads AIDs, because it only takes unprotected sex with *one* infected partner to get it. A promiscous gay who practices safe sex 100% of the time is going to have less risk than a straight person who has unprotected sex with a single infected person. jen >> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:58:53 GMT, "Stephanie Stowe" >> >I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around homosexuality [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >how to protect against infection. Education has made an enormous >difference in the gay community. >Now it is the heterosexuals who have to worry, because unlike the gays, >they continue to engage in risky behavior despite the education. You'd [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >dams with each other. Heteros are far less likely to practice safe sex, >whereas gays do. My understanding is that in Africa, where HIV/AIDS originated (and is still an enormous problem), it's always been passed along primarily via heterosexuals. Barb > >> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:58:53 GMT, "Stephanie Stowe" > >> >I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around homosexuality [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > still an enormous problem), it's always been passed along primarily > via heterosexuals. What I gather is that one of significant contributing factors which makes certain areas of africa more voulnerable to AIDS is that forced sex and rape are much more common then in western society. heres' a few links that speak of the breadth of the problem: http://www.womensenews.org/article.cfm/dyn/aid/1232/context/archive http://www.aegis.com/news/suntimes/1999/ST990401.html http://www.worldpress.org/Africa/1561.cfm http://www.aegis.com/news/irin/2004/IR040766.html http://www.alertnet.org/thefacts/reliefresources/109093209577.htm >> On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:58:53 GMT, "Stephanie Stowe" >> >I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around homosexuality [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >several years, nobody knew what it was or even that it was going >around. In the US (the gay community). And it was known to be present -- the administration in the early 1980s suppressed knowledge about it for several years. >Then it took awhile to figure out how it was being spread, and >how to protect against infection. Education has made an enormous >difference in the gay community. Much of what was suppressed until 1987 (when Koop pissed off his fellows, and the guy who appointed him, by being honest about what was known) was known years earlier. Those years of suppression of knowledge abetted thousands of deaths, and have left the US as the only non-3rd world country in the top of AIDS infection rates. The administration and its backers viewed it as a divine punishment for sinful behavior. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences >...Even lesbians are smart enough to use dental >dams with each other... I hate being so far behind the times, but what is "a dental dam"? ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. > I hate being so far behind the times, but what is "a dental dam"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_dam Enjoy. :-) jen > > I hate being so far behind the times, but what is "a dental dam"? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > jen And before anyone starts thinking I'm a total slut.... :-) After my divorce, when I started dating again, my gay friends dragged me to safe sex lectures. My brother also got me a book by Savage Love, a columnist who writes about the topic (google if you're interested). I educated myself. Then when I was out there dating, I became apalled at the ignorance of straight men when it came to safe sex. If anything, I would argue that the AIDs lesson is that *promiscuity* is a bad thing. That is different than gay being a bad thing, or anal sex being a bad thing. It's sleeping around unprotected with too many partners that is the problem. If you don't know their last name, you can't even call them up later to tell them they may have been exposed to something. This is how STDs spread - it's not so much about being gay or having anal sex. And this is also why I personally oppose the concept of open marriages, as well as why I would really like to see gay marriage legalized. jen Michael A. Ball wrote: >> I hate being so far behind the times, You really shouldn't. You should count your blessings, while you still have them. >>... I hate being so far behind the times, but what is "a dental dam"? >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_dam > >Enjoy. :-) Thanks, Jen; I didn't look down the page far enough, the first time. Basically, it seems like a condom for the tongue. How sad that something like that is needed these days. Back when I had a partner, I liked to hold her clitoris with my lips, while using my tongue to stimulate it. It was a popular maneuver. :-) I don't think it would be any fun with adequate protective gear. :-( ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. >>> ... I hate being so far behind the times, but what is "a dental dam"? >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dental_dam [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Basically, it seems like a condom for the tongue. How sad that something > like that is needed these days. Nah, I think you're just looking at it the wrong way, Mike. It's just a sign of how much "societal progress" we have made in the past couple of decades. > Thanks, Jen; I didn't look down the page far enough, the first time. > Basically, it seems like a condom for the tongue. How sad that something [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > while using my tongue to stimulate it. It was a popular maneuver. :-) > I don't think it would be any fun with adequate protective gear. :-( Well, the alternative to "adequate protective gear" is "know thy monogamous partner"; this is the same whether one is talking about lesbians and dental dams or straights and condoms. Is needing a condom for the tongue any sadder than needing a condom for the penis? >...Is needing a condom >for the tongue any sadder than needing a condom for the penis? Yes, I think so. My life has been what most people would consider "dull". I've had few sexual partners, and only one {and one time} without a strong emotional attachment. Condoms were required for only one partner, for contraception. So, I've never developed a strong perception of condoms as a disease preventative. ________________________ Whatever it takes. >I hate being so far behind the times, but what is "a dental dam"? It's when the dentist starts drilling before the anesthesia is totally effective and you go "DAMN!" > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:58:53 GMT, "Stephanie Stowe" > > >I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around homosexuality [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think it spread fast among the gay community because for the first > several years, .... By the way, you're responding to something Stephanie wrote, but quoting it so it looks like I wrote it. (Thought I'd clarify that a tad) > > > On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:58:53 GMT, "Stephanie Stowe" > > > >I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around homosexuality [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > By the way, you're responding to something Stephanie wrote, but quoting > it so it looks like I wrote it. (Thought I'd clarify that a tad) Oops, sloppy snippage. Sorry. jen > I have this *speculation* that the social pressures around > homosexuality [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > formed. I have no proof for this whatsoever. Thus the splats around > speculation. How does the issue of sneaking around have anything to do with how HIV is spread? > >>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long > as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > At least lesbian action doesn't normally spread AIDS and HIV, which helped > get us into this mess. One wonders which mess you mean by "this mess." If you mean that spreading HIV helped spread HIV then you're right. However, the primary vector of tranmission (worldwide) seems to be _heterosexual_ sex. >>>>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long >> as [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > One wonders which mess you mean by "this mess." Perhaps you're the only one. It's crystal clear to me. > If you mean that spreading HIV helped spread HIV then you're right. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita > http://www.x-privat.org/join.php > However, the primary vector of tranmission (worldwide) seems to be > _heterosexual_ sex. Damn those impoverished Africans, anyhow! >> However, the primary vector of tranmission (worldwide) seems to be >> _heterosexual_ sex. > > Damn those impoverished Africans, anyhow! That "might" be true today (due the numbers, of course), but that wasn't true back then, when this whole mess got started. > >> However, the primary vector of tranmission (worldwide) seems to be > >> _heterosexual_ sex. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > That "might" be true today (due the numbers, of course), but that wasn't > true back then, when this whole mess got started. Bill - this would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Where and when _do_ you think AIDS started? >>>> However, the primary vector of tranmission (worldwide) seems to be >>>> _heterosexual_ sex. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Bill - this would be hilarious if it wasn't so sad. Where and when > _do_ you think AIDS started? I meant to say "accelerated". That would me the more "accurate" way to put it. > >>>> However, the primary vector of tranmission (worldwide) seems to be > >>>> _heterosexual_ sex. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > I meant to say "accelerated". That would me the more "accurate" way to put > it. Whatever you meant, I think you are mistaken. I believe the majority of AIDS/HIV is in Africa and always has been. And that the main vectors of transmission there have been heterosexual sex, breast-feeding (mother to baby) and re-use of medical equipment in countries too poor to throw away disposable stuff. > > >> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as > > >> your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men is > all squickish and gross, huh? I think two men are way hotter then two women. :P >>>>> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as >>>>> your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official >>>>> Catholic teaching as far as I know. You can verify this if you'd like [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > I think two men are way hotter then two women. :P Ummm, no, two women would be way hotter than two men. >> > >> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like >> > >> as long as [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > I think two men are way hotter then two women. :P YUK! >>... Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men is >> all squickish and gross, huh? > >I think two men are way hotter then two women. :P Hell's bells! You've got to be kidding!? Right!? I thought even women preferred to see two women rather than two men! Men have No beautiful features: women are a visual Disneyland! An erect penis is an amusing organ, in terms of plumbing and hydraulics, but not pretty! Gosh, Kitty, I don't know what to say. On the lighter side: One of the Blue Collar Comedy guys did a bit in which he said, "If it wasn't for the sex, I could be gay; because then, you're just hanging out with you buddies." And that's true. Men probably have better friendships, because we don't care if a buddy is wearing designer shoes or where he gets his hair styled, etc. ________________________ Practice safe eating - always use condiments. > Hell's bells! You've got to be kidding!? Right!? I thought even women > preferred to see two women rather than two men! Men have No beautiful > features: women are a visual Disneyland! An erect penis is an amusing > organ, in terms of plumbing and hydraulics, but not pretty! ... > And that's true. Men probably have better friendships, because we don't > care if a buddy is wearing designer shoes or where he gets his hair > styled, etc. Michael, I certainly hope there's a bit of good-natured kidding here, because otherwise you seem to be under the impression that all women are manifestations of the same person and like more or less the same things. And I can assure you, using only the TMI posts on this newsgroup as evidence, that that is *so* not the case. (Not to mention... designer shoes? Hair styled? What on earth are you talking about?) I never thought I'd find two guys hot - until I saw the movie 'Jeffrey' in which Steven Weber and Michael Weiss kiss in a moment that left even my hetereosexual male companion a little breathless. Generally I'd rather read about two people having sex rather than watch it, because the visuals in my brain are generally better than the ones on screen (and also, I'm a girl, and this is one place I do admit to some broad gender differences). I can find reading about two guys just as hot as a guy and a girl, or two girls. It's all skin. :-) Sarah >> Hell's bells! You've got to be kidding!? Right!? I thought even >> women [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > talking > about?) I'm afraid this might sound a bit condescending, so I apologize, but sometimes Michael seems a bit naive to me. For a while there, I was under the impression that he was quite young and inexperienced, and thus basing most of his opinions on what he'd heard (i.e. stereotypes). Then I read that he was 56, and now I'm not sure what to think. Michael, it's a bit insulting to women to assume that our friendships are based on superficial things like looks or clothes. We form friendships for the same reason that you do -- proximity and shared interests. And we can and often do keep friendships through thick and thin, in good times and in bad. My mom, in her 70s, still keeps in touch with her high school and college friends. Zorra > I'm afraid this might sound a bit condescending, so I apologize, but > sometimes Michael seems a bit naive to me. For a while there, I was [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > thin, in good times and in bad. My mom, in her 70s, still keeps in > touch with her high school and college friends. Well, again, not all women are the same person - some may be having very superficial friendships based on looks and clothes! And some guys may be having very superficial friendships based on sports affiliation, and ditto some women, and so on. But yes, to assume that women are having more superficial friendships overall seems utterly unfounded to me. And I particularly think that it's unlikely that most of the women *here* are basing their friendships on shopping and hairdos, because if we were, we'd be out shopping and getting our hair done, not interacting in a text-based medium in a group devoted to in-depth discussions of relationships! I have a particular dislike of gender-based generalizations, at least partially because so few of them turn out to describe me personally, so I always feel like, "Hey, wait..." when someone says women love shopping and hate computers, or whatever their personal stereotype is. I don't know of a single generalization about women that isn't defied by me or at least one of my female friends. Although that doesn''t make generalizations inappropriate in some contexts (primarily when one is talking about groups) it makes them really useless when applied to individuals, and to express surprise because a particular woman isn't in synch with a generalization seems, as you say, really naive. Sarah (from my own planet, not Mars OR Venus, thankyouverymuch) >... >Sarah (from my own planet, not Mars OR Venus, thankyouverymuch) After reading some additional posts, it occurred to me that I am so out of touch with certain things, that I might as well be from another planet! Then I thought of the line you wrote above. :-) & :-( ________________________ Experience is something you don't get--until just after you need it. >> ... >> Sarah (from my own planet, not Mars OR Venus, thankyouverymuch) > > After reading some additional posts, it occurred to me that I am so out > of touch with certain things, that I might as well be from another > planet! Then I thought of the line you wrote above. :-) & :-( I'm from Pluto. Where are you from? >I'm afraid this might sound a bit condescending, so I apologize, but >sometimes Michael seems a bit naive to me. For a while there, I was >under the impression that he was quite young and inexperienced... No, apology necessary: I welcome constructive criticism. Besides, I admit to being naive. I've always been naive. I am neither proud nor ashamed of it; but I do regret it. I am not "quite young and inexperienced": I'm quite old and inexperienced. >Michael, it's a bit insulting to women to assume that our friendships >are based on superficial things like looks or clothes. We form >friendships for the same reason that you do -- proximity and shared >interests... That's good to learn. I don't recall any experience(s) that would have provided me with that insight. ________________________ Percussion: a masterful mix of speed, force and finesse. >Michael, I certainly hope there's a bit of good-natured kidding here, >because otherwise you seem to be under the impression that all women [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >mention... designer shoes? Hair styled? What on earth are you talking >about?) No, I was serious, and yes, I possibly do have the wrong impression. I reckon I've simply watched to much TV and had too little real life. I did not see the TMI post. Is that the subject line, and who is the author? (I filter a person or two.) Aren't women, even close friends, always scrutinizing one another for the purpose of maintaining a sort of "one up-manship"--and with a considerable degree of concealed resentment? While some men flaunt their latest toy, most seem to let their buddies take notice, before mentioning they latest toy. We don't notice clothes, unless they look like they would be good for a certain task; such as work, motorcycle riding, hunting or other rugged activity. >...I can find reading about two guys just as hot as >a guy and a girl, or two girls. It's all skin. :-) I will try to see Jeffrey. It will be interesting to see Captain Jean Luc Piccard as an interior decorator. I agree that reading is often more stimulating than watching an act. _______________________ When I die, I want to go where dogs go! > >Michael, I certainly hope there's a bit of good-natured kidding here, > >because otherwise you seem to be under the impression that all women [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the purpose of maintaining a sort of "one up-manship"--and with a > considerable degree of concealed resentment? There may be people who do this - perhaps both women and men. None of the women I know well do this. I think most generalizations about men and women are deceptive. Most of the generalizations one can come up with only apply to certain members of the sex and in addition usually apply to certain members of the opposite sex. s > >Michael, I certainly hope there's a bit of good-natured kidding here, > >because otherwise you seem to be under the impression that all women [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the purpose of maintaining a sort of "one up-manship"--and with a > considerable degree of concealed resentment? Not any of my friends. Actually, I find that such an obnoxious and immature behavior that a person that does that is not very likely to be accepted as my friend. > Aren't women, even close friends, always scrutinizing one another for > the purpose of maintaining a sort of "one up-manship"--and with a > considerable degree of concealed resentment? No, we don't do this, especially with our closest friends. It is true that I tend to bond easily with women who like shopping and fashion as much as I do, but I'm definetly not exclusive on that one and have many friends that *hate* shopping. And I don't compete with my shopping buddies: when we go out shopping, it's very much a "oh, this would look SOOO cute on you!" "oh that makes your butt look great - you HAVE to buy it!" "Nooo, you do NOT have fat thighs! Get out! I only wish I had your figure!!" Very supportive. Your perception of males having more friends than women is wrong. I just read some research somewhere (I think on Psychology Today?) that polled men and women and the upshot was that women gravitate to and prefer women for friendship, and men gravitate to and prefer women for friendship. The conclusion was that women simply make better friends because they tend to be more empathetic and unconditional and supportive. jen >> Aren't women, even close friends, always scrutinizing one another for >> the purpose of maintaining a sort of "one up-manship"--and with a [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > jen And at least some of the friends that women have probably tend not to be as superficial, since they can actually talk *with* (and not just to) each other - and about something besides sports, their jobs, and all the one-upmanship crap. Like sharing their feelings. And they are able to support each other. A lot of which is quite often missing for guys. >...Your perception of males having more friends than women is wrong. I >just read some research somewhere (I think on Psychology Today?) that [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >because they tend to be more empathetic and unconditional and >supportive. Not more friends, Jen: more genuine friends. Either way, the article you mentioned shows I was wrong. Being empathetic and supportive, both seem emotion-driven responses; and women are known to be more emotional that men. So, that makes sense. I wonder what, would generally enable women to be more "unconditional" than men. ________________________ "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov > Aren't women, even close friends, always scrutinizing one another for > the purpose of maintaining a sort of "one up-manship"--and with a > considerable degree of concealed resentment? Some women do, as do some men. I, personally, don't make friends with such women. Sheila > >Michael, I certainly hope there's a bit of good-natured kidding here, > >because otherwise you seem to be under the impression that all women [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, I was serious, and yes, I possibly do have the wrong impression. I > reckon I've simply watched to much TV and had too little real life. Yes ... I don't want to be insulting either, but your view of how both genders behave does seem to be drawn fairly heavily from sitcoms. :-) > Aren't women, even close friends, always scrutinizing one another for > the purpose of maintaining a sort of "one up-manship"--and with a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > like they would be good for a certain task; such as work, motorcycle > riding, hunting or other rugged activity. Even your view of *men* seems to have this sitcomish quality to it - as though men's views on things pretty much begin and end with Tim Allen. There's a group of guys I see weekly, who I've known for years, all heterosexual, and I can tell you you're simply wrong if you think guys don't see/comment on each other's clothing except insofar as its utility is concerned. The way the comments are expressed certainly has a gender-specific flavor to it - women in our society are less likely to say, "Dude, that shirt totally rocks," or "Your haircut makes you look like a retarded prison guard" - but they definitely notice and comment. You may not see or notice other men's clothes, but that's you, not all men. As for me, I tend to wear sneakers and jeans pretty much all the time unless there's a specific reason not to, and the last two times my hair was cut it was by me. I also have been known to gently mock my best friend's clothes (she has this weird thing for, like, shirts with little snowmen and such on them which look like grandma clothes to me) but trust me, it's not in a look-at-my-designer-duds kind of way. It's so far from being an area I care about or compete in that it's sort of funny to me to think that you think all female friendships are supposed to be based on this! > >...I can find reading about two guys just as hot as > >a guy and a girl, or two girls. It's all skin. :-) > > I will try to see Jeffrey. It will be interesting to see Captain Jean > Luc Piccard as an interior decorator. I agree that reading is often more > stimulating than watching an act. I really thought it was great. Turned me into a Weber fan. Sarah > Aren't women, even close friends, always scrutinizing one another > for > the purpose of maintaining a sort of "one up-manship"--and with a > considerable degree of concealed resentment? *shakes head* I don't even know what to say to this comment. No, it is not generally true. The women who are my friends are without exception wonderful, kind, caring, and sympathetic. If I have gotten nothing else right in my life, I have *excellent* taste in friends. I would not remain friends long with a woman who I felt was always trying to "one up" me. Zorra > >>... Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men is > >> all squickish and gross, huh? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > features: women are a visual Disneyland! An erect penis is an amusing > organ, in terms of plumbing and hydraulics, but not pretty! I'm not turned on by pretty, I'm turned on by masculine. I'm a woman, I'm turned on by men. If I were turned on by other women and pretty, I'd probably be a bisexual or a lesbian. Seeing two women swapping spit is definately not a turn-on for me. And the thought of kissing another woman, I find kind of gross (perhaps not gross as in I would puke or gag, but gross as in opposite from a sexual turn-on, more like an OBGYN-exam) I can't find the right word at the moment. >> An erect penis is an amusing >> organ, in terms of plumbing and hydraulics, but not pretty! And labia are pretty?? ;-) I think the human body, male or female, is beautiful. I think a naked pretty woman is pleasant to look at just like is a rose, palm tree or a colorful bird. Doesn't excite me sexually, but pleasant to see. Same as a handsome man's body is visually pleasant to me. However, the latter can stir up some arousal in me where a pretty vase or vivid-colored gem won't. Has to do with wiring in the attic, i guess. >>> An erect penis is an amusing >>> organ, in terms of plumbing and hydraulics, but not pretty! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >can stir up some arousal in me where a pretty vase or vivid-colored gem won't. >Has to do with wiring in the attic, i guess. One of my friends, upon seeing how my house was decorated and arranged, having some tall and narrow shelves, and couple up-pointing lamps commented... "yay, you have that phallic symbol decor going on in here" I was floored with her comment, but then looking around, there was a fair amount of furniture and decoration pointing up, in a columnar style. Finally I commented, well, I s'ppose it's a good sign I didn't subliminally decorate my place to look like bunch of boobs! >>>... Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men is >>>all squickish and gross, huh? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > features: women are a visual Disneyland! An erect penis is an amusing > organ, in terms of plumbing and hydraulics, but not pretty! Well, testicles, I'll admit, are an amusing little bit of frippery, but an erect penis is a thing of beauty...as is the bare nekkid male chest, and that delightful pattern of hair from the belly button leading southward that just makes you sing "Happy Trails...to me...." > >>>... Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men is > >>>all squickish and gross, huh? [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Well, testicles, I'll admit, are an amusing little bit of frippery, but > an erect penis is a thing of beauty...as is the bare nekkid male chest, Nekkid? Chest?? Au contraire, my dear.... Hairy chests are much better. And hairy underarms. Hell, I just like hairy men. :-)))) Sheila >>>>>... Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Nekkid? Chest?? Au contraire, my dear.... Hairy chests are much better. > And hairy underarms. Hell, I just like hairy men. :-)))) I mean "barenekkid chest" not "bare, nekkid chest." This will probably go into the TMI bin, too, but DH has some sort of skin fungal thing going on on his torso, and we had to get out the clippers to have any sort of decent shot of applying the prescribed antifungal cream. >>>>>>... Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >going on on his torso, and we had to get out the clippers to have any >sort of decent shot of applying the prescribed antifungal cream. *gasp* you said 'nekkid chest' > *gasp* > you said 'nekkid chest' Oh, hell, kitty, they put nekkid manchests in Disney movies! >> *gasp* >> you said 'nekkid chest' > >Oh, hell, kitty, they put nekkid manchests in Disney movies! I dunno, this stuff is way too hard to figure out for a social 'tard like me. [hey, that almost rhymed, limerick? haiku?] > >>>... Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men is > >>>all squickish and gross, huh? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well, testicles, I'll admit, are an amusing little bit of frippery, Frippery? Frippery?? They are very important frippery to _me_ thank you! And I'd just as soon they not be used for doorbell pulls. >Frippery? Frippery?? > >They are very important frippery to _me_ thank you! > >And I'd just as soon they not be used for doorbell pulls. OT: Here is a post I sent to alt.med.veterinary tonight. The dog I mention is nowhere near the worst dog I met today. :-( I volunteer at an animal shelter. For three days, I've been working with an intact male shepherd that was heavily matted and dirty. Now that I've removed nearly every mat from this very patient dog, I see that his scrotum is red, crusty and has pus visible. I figure the irritation was caused by the dirty matted hair around his scrotum, but that's merely speculation. I've seen him pulling mats away from the area around his scrotum, and he has allowed me to scissor away some mats from the area. He has a lot of potential for adoption because he is getting prettier every day. He will be neutered before going to his new home, but it might take several days before someone adopts him. In the meantime, what can I do to ease his discomfort. Maybe a topical antibiotic ointment? Or maybe zinc oxide? Can he be neutered with his scrotum in this mess? ___________________ A dog's life is too short; their only fault really. > >>>... Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men is > >>>all squickish and gross, huh? [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Well, testicles, I'll admit, are an amusing little bit of frippery, but Them cute little hairballs, purrr :D > an erect penis is a thing of beauty. I like the way it bounces around and changes sizes. Makes it much more fun to play with then couple of little skin flaps with a bump under them. > as is the bare nekkid male chest, > and that delightful pattern of hair from the belly button leading > southward that just makes you sing "Happy Trails...to me...." Can't go down there, I've already been accused of sharing TMI ;) > Well, testicles, I'll admit, are an amusing little bit of frippery, but > an erect penis is a thing of beauty...as is the bare nekkid male chest, > and that delightful pattern of hair from the belly button leading > southward that just makes you sing "Happy Trails...to me...." TMI ! Now I will not get this picture of you singing Happy Trails to a clump of hair out of my mind... hee hee. jen >> >> Actually, you can have as many orgasms via mouth as you'd like as long as >> >> your husband finishes in your vagina. (That's the official [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Oh, so this is why lesbian action is okay and even hot, but two men is > all squickish and gross, huh? No, lesbianism is wrong because there's no husband at all. >>. >> [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >Two hand jobs per 4 PIV? Would you mind making a spreadsheet (no pun >intended) for us and maybe Tai could include it in the ASM welcome page? My bf does this thing where my clit rides on his cock, an he just barely penetrates.... That drives me crazy more then anything else, and he seems to love it too. How do we classify that one? > My bf does this thing where my clit rides on his cock, an he just > barely penetrates.... That drives me crazy more then anything else, > and he seems to love it too. > How do we classify that one? TMI? Jess >> My bf does this thing where my clit rides on his cock, an he just >> barely penetrates.... That drives me crazy more then anything else, >> and he seems to love it too. >> How do we classify that one? > >TMI? LOLOLOL >>> My bf does this thing where my clit rides on his cock, an he just >>> barely penetrates.... That drives me crazy more then anything else, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >LOLOLOL :-) sounds good to me. > > My bf does this thing where my clit rides on his cock, an he just > > barely penetrates.... That drives me crazy more then anything else, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Jess WAY TMI. >> > My bf does this thing where my clit rides on his cock, an he just >> > barely penetrates.... That drives me crazy more then anything else, [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >WAY TMI. I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>>> My bf does this thing where my clit rides on his cock, an he just >>>> barely penetrates.... That drives me crazy more then anything else, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff Sounds like somebody needs a basic refresher course on human physiology, and Nature's Design. Actually, it sounds like somebodies - as in, plural. But then I keep forgetting that some people want to abuse nature's designs. > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff For the love of God, please don't. ;) I do actually have a TMI threshold, and you just hit it. :) Jess >> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jess And don't talk about it for another reason, and that one is based on human anatomy, and what the body parts were designed for. Of course I know many don't care about that, and (I call it) abuse of the body is quite common.. >>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >And don't talk about it for another reason, and that one is based on human >anatomy, and what the body parts were designed for. and also cuz it makes my hemorrhoids yelp just thinking about it! >>>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> >> And don't talk about it for another reason, and that one is based on human >> anatomy, and what the body parts were designed for. > > and also cuz it makes my hemorrhoids yelp just thinking about it! And there is a message there. > >>>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff > >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > And there is a message there. What's the message when PIV is painful in a heterosexual marriage? Or when a woman's breasts are sore from PMS? > What's the message when PIV is painful in a heterosexual marriage? Or > when a woman's breasts are sore from PMS? PMS, hell. How's about breastfeeding? Jess >>>>>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>> >>>> And don't talk about it for another reason, and that one is based on human >>>> anatomy, and what the body parts were designed for. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > What's the message when PIV is painful in a heterosexual marriage? Or > when a woman's breasts are sore from PMS? What do you think? Don't equate the two - what I was talking about was totally different, as you know perfectly well. >>>>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >And there is a message there. Yes. I need more fiber. >>>>>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>> >>>> And don't talk about it for another reason, and that one is based on human >>>> anatomy, and what the body parts were designed for. >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Yes. I need more fiber. That's part of the message, but you're still missing the main one. >> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Jess What is 'TMI'? Bo >>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bo Too Much Information. > > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff > > For the love of God, please don't. ;) I won't, but a number of other people have... Especially in another thread couple of months ago... >> > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >> >> For the love of God, please don't. ;) > >I won't, but a number of other people have... >Especially in another thread couple of months ago... I remember that. I'm not into it but it doesn't bother me what other ppl like to do. >>>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > I remember that. I'm not into it but it doesn't bother me what other ppl > like to do. Really? No matter what??? (Should I run that list of infamy by here again)? >>>>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Really? No matter what??? (Should I run that list of infamy by here >again)? It just doesn't bother me if another couple finds something mutually pleasurable that i'm not particularly interested in doing. Why should it? >>>>>> I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >It just doesn't bother me if another couple finds something mutually >pleasurable that i'm not particularly interested in doing. Why should it? of course, i might not want to SEE it or HEAR it, LOL! >>> > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >I remember that. I'm not into it but it doesn't bother me what other ppl >like to do. It doesn't bother me either. I was baffled though that people would be bothered by a description of more normal intercourse, and not be bothered by an pretty elaborate discussion of the other. I don't get it??? Why is one TMI and the other one isn't ? > >>> > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff > >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > I don't get it??? > Why is one TMI and the other one isn't ? Here's my take on it: When talking about anal sex in a general sense, without talking about who is having it, it doesn't phase me. But when you, or any one else is here, who shares a lot about themselves; giving explicit detail of where your boyfriend's penis sits while you're having intercourse is TMI for me. And it's not because I'm a prude. As close as I am to my sister, we are totally gaggy about sharing sex details. We'll talk about sex openly, but details? Nope. A tmi issue. Which brings up a question that I have for you. You recently criticized Ted for posting in here without his wife's knowledge. I assume that your boyfriend knows that you post here. But, does he know that you give descriptive details of how he has sex with you? Do you think that it might be crossing a boundary in a relationship when that much detail is given? My husband knows that I post in here, but I doubt he'd like it if I shared what size his penis was or the stuff that he does to/for me. Just a hunch. So, where does one draw the line on what's okay in a relationship? You think that Ted should be open to his wife about his posting in here. Yet, is it okay for you to give intimate details of your sex life? >> >>> > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >sister, we are totally gaggy about sharing sex details. We'll talk >about sex openly, but details? Nope. A tmi issue. I remember several people talking about how they do it. There was even one or two wanting to instruct me in few details how to do it, after I said I have little interest in it because I find it painful. >Which brings up a question that I have for you. You recently >criticized Ted for posting in here without his wife's knowledge. I >assume that your boyfriend knows that you post here. But, does he know >that you give descriptive details of how he has sex with you? Do you >think that it might be crossing a boundary in a relationship when that >much detail is given? Depends on a relationship. For example, from what I gather about you it would probably bother you if your husband went into your purse looking for something. It doesn't bother me at all when my BF needs something you of my purse, I'm actually rather grateful that he doesn't insist on getting me out of the spot where I just got comfortable because he needs something that might be in my purse (like my ex used to do). If anything, I find it endearing that he has that comfort level. I think someone that is uncomfortable with going into my purse (and similar things) sends off a vibe that I tend to read, what if I stay with that person... If he can't deal with my purse (after being given permission to go in), how will he deal with it if one of us gets sick and needs some care taking (or similar situations) >My husband knows that I post in here, but I >doubt he'd like it if I shared what size his penis was or the stuff >that he does to/for me. Just a hunch. I'll ask him if he read and minded that post. Judging by his past reactions he might say something to the effect of: "Firs, he'd giggle kind of smugly, then he might act all shy: oh, no, you told them *that*???" Then he'd probably lay a totally deadpan sounding question to me: are they now going to want me to do the same with them, or teach their hubbies how to do it?" Neither of us are particularly squeamish or gaggy about body and bodily functions. >So, where does one draw the line on what's okay in a relationship? That depends on the people involved in the relationship. Not on some observing third party and their values and standards. > You >think that Ted should be open to his wife about his posting in here. >Yet, is it okay for you to give intimate details of your sex life? In my relationship, what's acceptable and what isn't is between my bf and me. In Ted's relationship it's between him and his wife. It is very clear that Ted is going behind his wife's back, by his own admission. I'm not nearly as concerned about what particulars Ted shares, as I am very concerned about the fact that it's all done behind her back. If it's done behind her back, for all I care he could be talking about something as innocent about her hair color. Ted keeps inviting people to help him analyze his relationship, why things aren't going well and so on. Pointing out high level of lack of honesty in his relationship is a part of the feedback he is inviting. I don't recall asking for educational feedback from the group about what may or may not be okay with my Bf, or how to approach him. Our relationship is healthy enough that if I need or want something, I ask *him* >I remember several people talking about how they do it. There was even >one or two wanting to instruct me in few details how to do it, after I >said I have little interest in it because I find it painful. i remember that, too, being pretty specific. > >> >>> > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff > >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >sister, we are totally gaggy about sharing sex details. We'll talk > >about sex openly, but details? Nope. A tmi issue. > I remember several people talking about how they do it. There was even > one or two wanting to instruct me in few details how to do it, after I > said I have little interest in it because I find it painful. I was responding to your question asking why is it TMI...I was giving you a viewpoint. > >Which brings up a question that I have for you. You recently > >criticized Ted for posting in here without his wife's knowledge. I [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > permission to go in), how will he deal with it if one of us gets sick > and needs some care taking (or similar situations) It only bothers me when he goes through my purse, our bills or any other place that I have organized and he messes up my organization. It's not because I have personal things that I don't want him to see. I'll be nice and classify my husband as "messy". And trust me...I'm being very nice in my wording :-) > >My husband knows that I post in here, but I > >doubt he'd like it if I shared what size his penis was or the stuff [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That depends on the people involved in the relationship. Not on some > observing third party and their values and standards. I guess that is where my questioning comes from Kitty. You seemed to feel so strongly that poster's spouses should know that they post in here (and I disagreed). Yet, I'd sooner support Ted's choice to not tell his wife about his postings that I would support a poster sharing very intimate details of sex with their spouse. As you say, it depends on the parties involved...yet you were telling Ted that he was wrong. That's the point I"m trying to make...kind of a double standard issue. > > You > >think that Ted should be open to his wife about his posting in here. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > It is very clear that Ted is going behind his wife's back, by his own > admission. As you see it going behind his wife's back...I view sharing intimate sexual details as going behind a spouse's back. Personally, I'm not terribly invested in what you do with or without your boyfriend...I guess for me, the problem is when you accuse a poster of doing something that you don't approve of, yet, some of what you do in here is certainly questionable at times. Perhaps this is a good thread to start...something like "how much is too much to share in asm" > I'm not nearly as concerned about what particulars Ted shares, as I am > very concerned about the fact that it's all done behind her back. If > it's done behind her back, for all I care he could be talking about > something as innocent about her hair color. Which is all your opinion/interpretation as what happened earlier in this thread today with Doug. Not sure if it was Emma, but I, like she did, interpreted Doug's post as innocent and without the twist that you had on it. I see Ted's posting about his wife as an outlet and a need that he has, not as a malicious intent to be secretive. Again, interpretation. > Ted keeps inviting people to help him analyze his relationship, why > things aren't going well and so on. Pointing out high level of lack of [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > relationship is healthy enough that if I need or want something, I ask > *him* That's great! > > >> >>> > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff > > >> >>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > I was responding to your question asking why is it TMI...I was giving > you a viewpoint. I can understand why it would be TMI for a particular individuals preferences or a certain social setting. What I don't understand is why heterosexual talk details would be protested against as TMI, but anal sex details weren't protested against as TMI??? > It only bothers me when he goes through my purse, our bills or any > other place that I have organized and he messes up my organization. > It's not because I have personal things that I don't want him to see. > I'll be nice and classify my husband as "messy". And trust me...I'm > being very nice in my wording :-) Okay. Maybe I confused you with someone else, I thought I was remembering you and I talking about what one considers too much closeness, and one's need for privacy. What I remember from that conversation was that I was left under the impression that the person I spoke with would find it objectionable, and invasion of privacy. I'm only going from memory here, so maybe it wasn't you I discussed that with. I do remember my impression quite vividly though. > > >My husband knows that I post in here, but I > > >doubt he'd like it if I shared what size his penis was or the stuff [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > tell his wife about his postings that I would support a poster sharing > very intimate details of sex with their spouse. What doesn't sit well with me has very little to do with the issue of privacy or TMI, and everything to do with the fact that he says he wants to improve intimacy and communication in the relationship, but does things that actually undermine it. I know you don't agreee with my view of Ted's posting with respect to his wife being informed. We've dissected that part of the topic before. I really don't care to digress into discussing Ted. > As you say, it depends > on the parties involved...yet you were telling Ted that he was wrong. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > As you see it going behind his wife's back...I view sharing intimate > sexual details as going behind a spouse's back. Not if he's aware of it. Sure, if he was unaware of it, you'd be correct. > Personally, I'm not > terribly invested in what you do with or without your boyfriend...I > guess for me, the problem is when you accuse a poster of doing > something that you don't approve of, yet, some of what you do in here > is certainly questionable at times. Why, thank you for pointing the error of my ways. > Perhaps this is a good thread to > start...something like "how much is too much to share in asm" I really don't care to, as I'm not interested in telling people what to do, unless they ask for feedback. Remeber, Ted keeps asking for feedback, I don't, but yet you can't seem to resist trying to jam it down my throat how you think I should behave. I find someone telling me what to when I *don't* ask for feedback much bigger invasion of privacy then someone talking about how my vagina feels like. > > I'm not nearly as concerned about what particulars Ted shares, as I am > > very concerned about the fact that it's all done behind her back. If [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > that he has, not as a malicious intent to be secretive. Again, > interpretation. Your impressions aren't any less an interpretation then mine. I'm not sure where you;re going with this? Are you suggesting your interpretations are more valid or more correct or more objecive then mine? Even your saying something I said was TMI and a violation of my BF's privacy is your impression of things. Especially considering that you conveniently ignored it when I described you that judging by the patterns in our relationship it is likely not. If you don't like it, and it's not your thing, fine, you're not obligated to like things someone else does. You also need to realize that you don't have a whole lot of influence over what someone else does, especially when they didn't ask for your input in the first place. For example, in your last two posts, you explained all kinds of peripheral things except for addressing the one thing I actually asked. Why is talking about vaginal sex TMI, and talking about anal sex not TMI? All of the peripheral explanations you are giving me make me think more and more that the real point is not *what* is being talked about, but rather *who* is talking about it. You know, it;s okay to just express a personal dislike, like, you could tell me "I don;t like how you treat Ted" without going into big long discussion about the details of why. The big long discussion isn't going to do any more to change my mind then you simply saying "I don't like what you're doing". If anything, a big long discussion where you're trying to convince me to agree with your point of view will just end up feeling rather patronizing, like you're trying to change and influence, me to change my ways to accomodate you. I'm not open to that. I'm open to discussing how other people see thiongs, but if you think that my seeing your point of view will cause change in my behavior, the answer to that is *NO.* > What I don't understand is why heterosexual talk details would be > protested against as TMI, but anal sex details weren't protested > against as TMI??? Look, I don't care if you talk about the sex your eyeball has with your houseplants-I *do not want* a stroke by stroke description, and that includes knowing where your boyfriend's penis sits on your clit during intercourse. If I'd *ever* talked about my sex life with DB that way you did a few posts back, we wouldn't be having sex until we'd discussed what were considered appropriate details to reveal in public and what weren't. If you want to and can find a way to keep it abstract, I don't give a rat's a.s what you talk about. But stroke by stroke descriptions, even *with* a pair of my closest friends, is not something I want to see, hear, or talk about. At all. It's kinda like vomiting-we can all talk about how we all hate it and what makes us sick, but hearing a heave-by-heave description of the groans and spews is completely rasty. Jess > > What I don't understand is why heterosexual talk details would be > > protested against as TMI, but anal sex details weren't protested [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Jess We must have been writing simulataneously :-) You said it better than I though. I tried last night and missed. Tried again today and probably missed again. Oh well...I think you did the trick and I share your sentiments. Thanks Jess! So, you want to hear about my colonoscopy that I had today? :-) > We must have been writing simulataneously :-) You said it better than > I though. I tried last night and missed. Tried again today and > probably missed again. Oh well...I think you did the trick and I share > your sentiments. Thanks Jess! I guess having my tact pause button broken is sometimes useful. ;) > So, you want to hear about my colonoscopy that I had today? Lived through one of those, so I'll pass. :) As long as the results came back as what you hoped for, then I'm happy. :) Jess > > We must have been writing simulataneously :-) Did you like my spelling of simultaneously??? I hate when that happens! You said it better than > > I though. I tried last night and missed. Tried again today and > > probably missed again. Oh well...I think you did the trick and I share > > your sentiments. Thanks Jess! > > I guess having my tact pause button broken is sometimes useful. ;) > > So, you want to hear about my colonoscopy that I had today? > > Lived through one of those, so I'll pass. :) As long as the results came > back as what you hoped for, then I'm happy. :) I'll know in two weeks. Another flippin wait. I sure do have a flat stomach right now though :-) > Jess > Did you like my spelling of simultaneously??? I hate when that > happens! Oh, I know. I'm having trouble thinking of words and then getting them typed out-if I remember the word, I have trouble typing it and if I start typing it I have to hope I can remember the word long enough. > I'll know in two weeks. Another flippin wait. I sure do have a flat > stomach right now though :-) This is certainly an instance of "no news is good news." :) Jess >> > We must have been writing simulataneously :-) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >I'll know in two weeks. Another flippin wait. I sure do have a flat >stomach right now though :-) At least your condition has some rate of cure and survival. I'd gladly switch with you. > > What I don't understand is why heterosexual talk details would be > > protested against as TMI, but anal sex details weren't protested [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > makes us sick, but hearing a heave-by-heave description of the groans and > spews is completely rasty. I can totally understand your view on this. What I can't understand is that LaMer didn't have a problem with a stroke by stroke description of anal in a thread from several weeks (or couple of months ago). It struck me as peculiar that she never piped up then, and now, shortly after she didn't like something else I was doing, and I didn't tell her, Oh, you're so right, let me kiss butt and change my ways, she's all of a sudden finding additional faults with what I say and do. Even to a point that she manages to work in the previous disagreement in to her current complaint. Also, there's been a lot more sexual talk around here, including the positions etc by a number of other people, and she never piped up that it was TMI, including when someone was trying to give me a play by play on how to do anal, even though I told them I wasn't interested. It just smells double standards kind of fishy on LaMer's part. You on the other hand, with *no* history of trying to correct my behaviors and judgementally pointing the error of my ways way too often, I can definately believe it was just the matter of TMI, since it was a risque statement. > I can totally understand your view on this. > What I can't understand is that LaMer didn't have a problem with a > stroke by stroke description of anal in a thread from several weeks (or > couple of months ago). That's between you and her. I could probably understand and give you a perspective, but I'm not going to assume and put words in her mouth. :) > You on the other hand, with *no* history of trying to correct my > behaviors and judgementally pointing the error of my ways way too > often, I can definately believe it was just the matter of TMI, since it > was a risque statement. Thank you. That's how it was intended. :) Jess >> I can totally understand your view on this. >> What I can't understand is that LaMer didn't have a problem with a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >That's between you and her. I could probably understand and give you a >perspective, but I'm not going to assume and put words in her mouth. :) Maybe another time, I'm all out of perspective today. Since you're here, you seem to ask me or share with me something cad related last week, about remodeling your house or a patio.... I made a mental note to respond in a bit more detail, then got distracted, and now I can't find the post... > Since you're here, you seem to ask me or share with me something cad > related last week, about remodeling your house or a patio.... I made > a mental note to respond in a bit more detail, then got distracted, > and now I can't find the post... I'm looking for either an easy cad program or a non-cad program that'll let me design a house in 3D. I know Broderbund and someone else makes a program like that, but they're spendy and I'm so broke I couldn't afford pay attention even if I was so inclined. And incindentally, yes, we're having an entire room rebuilt. One lesson I learned: never care how sweet the little old lady seems to be, pay the few grand for your own inspector. Jess >> Since you're here, you seem to ask me or share with me something cad >> related last week, about remodeling your house or a patio.... I made [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >like that, but they're spendy and I'm so broke I couldn't afford pay >attention even if I was so inclined. I'll see if I can find something, I usually deal with high end stuff, but I might have an edge on the terminology to dig up something. In the meantime, see how this fits your thinking... it's free for month, if you like it, email me... I tried it and liked it, but couldn't use it for work. http://www.sketchup.com/ this one I hear about a lot, but haven't tried personally http://www.artifice.com/free/dw_lite.html >And incindentally, yes, we're having an entire room rebuilt. One lesson I >learned: never care how sweet the little old lady seems to be, pay the few >grand for your own inspector. Yah, because the sweet old lady was fed the strategy by the realtors and anyone else that got their fingers in... And if they didn't, then she's probably not up to speed on things anyway. ;) > In the meantime, see how this fits your thinking... it's free for > month, if you like it, email me... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > this one I hear about a lot, but haven't tried personally > http://www.artifice.com/free/dw_lite.html Thanks. I'll take a look at them. > Yah, because the sweet old lady was fed the strategy by the realtors > and anyone else that got their fingers in... And if they didn't, then > she's probably not up to speed on things anyway. ;) Half of it was my fault. We used the same agent, and the agent's job was to sell the house. Supposedly the agent didn't know, but it really doesn't matter. I was a gullible 20 year old that fell for the 80 year grandmother crying about her cats and it's costing me quite a few grand. Jess >> For example, in your last two posts, you explained all kinds of > peripheral things except for addressing the one thing I actually asked. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > and more that the real point is not *what* is being talked about, but > rather *who* is talking about it. I guess I'll give it another stab. When the discussion was about anal sex, it wasn't anyone in here talking about their own personal experience with anal sex nor was a description given of how or where the penis lies when it is put into the rectum. Whereas in your case, you gave an explicit description of where your boyfriend's penis sits as he rides you (or something to that effect). My original point was that when it was talked about globally or in general, I couldn't have cared less. However, when it involved someone's personal description, it FELT like TMI to me. It seems that you missed that part. > You know, it;s okay to just express a personal dislike, like, you could > tell me "I don;t like how you treat Ted" without going into big long [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > that my seeing your point of view will cause change in my behavior, the > answer to that is *NO.* I brought up the issue about the possibility of crossing boundaries with our partners in ASM because it seemed related to TMI (TO ME) and it seemed incongruous with your attacks on Ted. I don't see it as a stretch, whereas you seem to. Now if I started telling you how mean I think you're been to Ted, well, that wouldn't go over too well now, would it? I"m pretty sure that you'd tell me to mind my own business. Which I have been :-) I never expect you to change your mind Kitty...you are a strong-willed woman who appears to think that people have it in for you or who don't like you. That's my impression and I suspect you'll disagree. > >> For example, in your last two posts, you explained all kinds of > > peripheral things except for addressing the one thing I actually asked. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > experience with anal sex nor was a description given of how or where > the penis lies when it is put into the rectum. As far as I remember it, it was described in a very graphic detail. > Whereas in your case, > you gave an explicit description of where your boyfriend's penis sits > as he rides you (or something to that effect). My original point was > that when it was talked about globally or in general, I couldn't have > cared less. However, when it involved someone's personal description, > it FELT like TMI to me. It seems that you missed that part. Well, if it feels like TMI for you, then it feels like TMI for you. Now what? > I brought up the issue about the possibility of crossing boundaries > with our partners in ASM because it seemed related to TMI (TO ME) and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > would it? I"m pretty sure that you'd tell me to mind my own business. > Which I have been :-) So you think if you try to tell me the same thing, just in different wourds it will go over well? How is that working for you so far? (I'm hoping the answer to that is would be - not very well). Actually, telling me you don't like how I'm treating Ted would go over much better then beating around the bush like you are now. I find it much more annoying then just telling me you don't like it. Neither will do a thing to 'get me to change what I'm doing", if I'm not open to it, if that's what you're after. > I never expect you to change your mind Kitty... Then why do you keep explaining your point of view over and over again, and worrying about how it is going to go over, if you aren't hoping to change my mind. > you are a strong-willed > woman who appears to think that people have it in for you or who don't > like you. That's my impression and I suspect you'll disagree. Well, you just got done with a lengthy expression about things that I do that you don;t like, then you conclude how my impression of dislike is all in my head. Do you mean to tell me that when you like someone, you go around pointing things about them that you don't like? I find that very peculiar. Maybe it's one of those finer points of socialization that I never caught on... > > >> For example, in your last two posts, you explained all kinds of > > > peripheral things except for addressing the one thing I actually asked. [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > that very peculiar. Maybe it's one of those finer points of > socialization that I never caught on... I'm not really interested in bickering back and forth. I apologize for answering your question and sharing my thoughts. And for what it's worth, I didn't read the detailed anal sex discussion. You mentioned that it was a couple of months ago. I was in the midst of a cancer treatment two months ago and can guarantee that I wasn't reading asm or anal sex discussions. I don't seem to be able to express my thoughts with you in a way that you understand. I'll take half the responsiblity for not expressing myself well enough and leave it at that. >> I guess I'll give it another stab. When the discussion was about anal >> sex, it wasn't anyone in here talking about their own personal >> experience with anal sex nor was a description given of how or where >> the penis lies when it is put into the rectum. > >As far as I remember it, it was described in a very graphic detail. I remember it too, it was around Feb 1-4 of this year. Quite detailed. > >> I guess I'll give it another stab. When the discussion was about anal > >> sex, it wasn't anyone in here talking about their own personal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I remember it too, it was around Feb 1-4 of this year. Quite detailed. I was obsessed with thyroid surgery at that time...not anal sex discussions :-) I can't say I"m sorry I missed it! > >> I guess I'll give it another stab. When the discussion was about anal > >> sex, it wasn't anyone in here talking about their own personal [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I remember it too, it was around Feb 1-4 of this year. Quite detailed. I was obsessed with thyroid surgery at that time...not anal sex discussions :-) I can't say I"m sorry I missed it! > >> For example, in your last two posts, you explained all kinds of > > peripheral things except for addressing the one thing I actually asked. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > cared less. However, when it involved someone's personal description, > it FELT like TMI to me. It seems that you missed that part. Let me summarize what you;re talking about. You're trying to tell me that you'd be just fine with it if I said something to the effect of: If he puts his cock against her clit and barely penetrates as he is working it, it can be a lot of fun. But if I say "MY BF" instead of "him" and say "her" instead of "me" then you're having a big problem? And that you didn't have a problem with the anal thread a wile ago... With things like this: " I wouldn't go straight to "stick my finger....". DH and I have found that it is always best to "build up" to anal play. ..... Let her feel comfortable with that before moving on. Then, move to finger or tongue-play at the rim of the anus, but not inside...." :....if we are going to be licking ANYWHERE, we are showering..." (do I really need to repost more, or do you catch the drift of where it's going?) Puhleeeze! I just don't buy it. > > >> For example, in your last two posts, you explained all kinds of > > > peripheral things except for addressing the one thing I actually asked. [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > > Puhleeeze! I just don't buy it. That's fine. We'll leave it at that. >>>> > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >I don't get it??? >Why is one TMI and the other one isn't ? i have no idea. >>>>> > I thought this would be milder compared to talk about anal stuff >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >i have no idea. I guess then talking about phone sex is out. >>>I don't get it??? >>>Why is one TMI and the other one isn't ? >> >>i have no idea. > >I guess then talking about phone sex is out. If it has to do with marriage/relationships, then it's on-topic as far as i'm concerned. > >>>I don't get it??? > >>>Why is one TMI and the other one isn't ? [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > If it has to do with marriage/relationships, then it's on-topic as far as i'm > concerned. Honestly, I think it has a whole lot to do with *who* is talking about it, rather then what is being talked about. >>>. >>> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > and he seems to love it too. > How do we classify that one? That's easy. It's your *boyfriend* so it's classified as fornication whatever frequency or position. >>>>. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] >That's easy. It's your *boyfriend* so it's classified as fornication >whatever frequency or position. Then it's a good thing I'm not religious :P >>> . >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > and he seems to love it too. > How do we classify that one? <gasp> Clearly the prurience police isn't doing their job at the moment, I don't see a spanking post for you! BTW, that sounds rather nice.... :o)~ My husband came home yesterday but he had a bit of a tummy upset so I've had to hold off from ravishing him. Tai (adding another item to my todo list) Tai >>>> . >>>> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >Clearly the prurience police isn't doing their job at the moment, I don't >see a spanking post for you! uh oh, a spanking, will they tie me up first ;) >BTW, that sounds rather nice.... :o)~ > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >(adding another item to my todo list) >Tai To think I have to wait till wed to see my honey. Why didn't I think of that going into the weekend??? oh, and add a few drops of oil to that and call it done ;) > >>> Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill > >> mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were designed [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Mouths were designed to allow us to breathe, eat our food, and speak. > They were not designed as sexual organs. How do you know? God's wicked smaht. If he can design it to be good at those three things, why not throw in a forth just for fun? > > How deviant are those of us in heterosexual marriages, who allow > > penises anywhere other than our vaginas? Is my mind wrong or is my > > body wrong if I, or my husband, desires or enjoys oral sex? > > If *all* you desired were oral sex and you found PIV sex repugnant, yes, > you would be disordered. > How do you know? God's wicked smaht. If he can design it to be good at those > three things, why not throw in a forth just for fun? "You cannot go against nature, 'cause when you do going against nature is a part of nature, too" This has been an 80s flashback. We now return you to your regularly scheduled decade. >> >>> Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill >> >> mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >How do you know? God's wicked smaht. If he can design it to be good at those >three things, why not throw in a forth just for fun? You know, the way I understand biology, lips are a very sexual organ, it's the teeth that are designed for eating (and not sex). I don't think you'll find many men disagreeing with this, especially the teeth part ;) >>>>>> Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill >>>>> mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Penises were designed >>>>> to fit into vaginas. The vast majority of modern humanity "gets" that, >>>>> and they have desires which are *ordered* toward that natural design. >>>>> >>>>> Others don't have desires that are ordered toward that natural design. >>>>> They would prefer to do things a different way. Is their mind wrong, or >>>>> their body? >>>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> >> How do you know? God's wicked smaht. If he can design it to be good at those >> three things, why not throw in a forth just for fun? > > You know, the way I understand biology, There's still time!!! > How do you know? God's wicked smaht. Your accent is making me homesick! > > How do you know? God's wicked smaht. > > Your accent is making me homesick! Me too! Sarah (snip) >> You blame homosexuality for deterioration in marriage. Though you >> can't say way, and it surely played no role in the deterioration of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >for the purposed of producing children and raising a family, nobody in >their right mind would entertain the idea of a homosexual "marriage". Hmmm.... My wife and I have been "married", both legally and by our own definition of what "marriage" consists of for nearly eight years. We consider our marriage to be a covenental relationship... and that the legal (and societal) definition of "marriage" is largely irrelevant to us. However, we canNOT produce children together, and we knew this when we entered the covenant. So, by your definition of "marriage" are my wife and I not *really* married? Would you denigrate the absolutely serious nature of the covenant we've made, to each other and before God, because of an irreversable biological obstacle to reproduction? >However, marriages have become easily entered into partnerships of >convenience where it lasts exactly as long as it takes one of the partners >to get bored. I believe we'd both agree with you at least on that point. >If that is the current marriage paradigm, of course homosexuals would want >to be involved in that. And how could you refuse them? Not me... personally, I've got no objection at all to civil unions giving homosexual couples the same legal status as "legally married" heterosexual couples. Do *you* object to this? If so, then why? rj > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > covenant we've made, to each other and before God, because of an > irreversable biological obstacle to reproduction? The key is, would you *want* to produce children if you could? If a miracle would occur, would you gladly accept your offspring? If the answer is yes, then yes you're *really* married. If the answer is no, then you're not *really* married (1). >>However, marriages have become easily entered into partnerships of >>convenience where it lasts exactly as long as it takes one of the partners >>to get bored. > > I believe we'd both agree with you at least on that point. Heck, that's a start. :) >>If that is the current marriage paradigm, of course homosexuals would >>want to be involved in that. And how could you refuse them? > > Not me... personally, I've got no objection at all to civil unions > giving homosexual couples the same legal status as "legally married" > heterosexual couples. Do *you* object to this? If so, then why? I have said that I do not personally object to civil unions, per-se. These civil unions would have to be available to any couple who wished to enter into them, be they same sex or other, related by blood, or whatever. In other words, they would have to not be tied to sex in any way. Marriage would have to remain. But marriage would remain now and forever the joining of a man and a woman. It could be defined to "confer exactly the same benefits as a 'civil union'". Would you have a problem with that? (1) Married as in covenantal with religious overtones. > The key is, would you *want* to produce children if you could? If a > miracle would occur, would you gladly accept your offspring? If the > answer is yes, then yes you're *really* married. If the answer is no, > then you're not *really* married (1). Tony, I gotta tell you, by that definition my first husband and I had a "real" marriage, and my current DH and I donn't. Given that my first husband was a drug abuser and adulterer, and my current husband and I have a good, mutual relationship based on trust, love and respect... I'm having a hard time agreeing with you. Sheila >> The key is, would you *want* to produce children if you could? If a >> miracle would occur, would you gladly accept your offspring? If the [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > good, mutual relationship based on trust, love and respect... I'm having a > hard time agreeing with you. If you're having a hard time agreeing with me, you'll have to take a number around here. :) (snip) >> Hmmm.... >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >The key is, would you *want* to produce children if you could? If a >miracle would occur, would you gladly accept your offspring? If such a "miracle" happened, and willy-nilly we found our bantling on our doorstep, we would of course gladly accept our offspring... > If the >answer is yes, then yes you're *really* married. If the answer is no, >then you're not *really* married (1). Maybe not. Like Sheila, I've got a bit of a problem with this definition of yours. Given the *other* realities of our situation when we married, it's entirely likely that even if we could have had children (in the usual sense), we'd have elected not to. For that matter, in a sense, we *did* ellect not to have children. Because *any* couple, hetero or not and including my wfe and I, can have and raise children... given the appropriate medical/biological/social intervention and support. For my wife and I, either adoption or artificial insemination would have gotten around the physical obstacles... so from that point of view, we *could* have had children, but have decided not to. So, are we still "married" from your point of view? >>>However, marriages have become easily entered into partnerships of >>>convenience where it lasts exactly as long as it takes one of the partners [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >the joining of a man and a woman. It could be defined to "confer exactly >the same benefits as a 'civil union'". Even if to "confer exactly the same benefits as a 'civil union'" incudes the "right" to produce and raise children? Keep in mind that this is possible for homosexual couples right now... although it does require medical and/or social intervention of some sort. And don't raise the bar so high as to preclude medical and/or social intervention. Without such intervention, the infant mortality rate would be horrendously high. Also, I'll point out, there are *many* cases of married heterosexual couples who *want* to have children but cannot... without intervention. Would you deny homosexual couples (assuming that they enter into a covenantal relationship) the opportunity to have and raise children (albeit with medical aid) while allowing heterosexual couples to do exactly the same thing... again, *with* medical aid? If so, why? >Would you have a problem with that? I don't believe so. sigh... I suspect that the *real* sticking point here is what *you* would accept as evidence of a "covenantal relationship"... and I suspect that from your point of view, a homosexual couple canNOT (by definition of their homosexuality) enter into such a relationship. So... *can* a gay couple love and honor each other much as a heterosexual couple? I'd say "yes", it's possible. rj > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > > So, are we still "married" from your point of view? If you have the desire for the blessing of children, and you are able to complete the marital act, then *one* of the criteria for a "real" marriage is satisfied. I am not qualified to judge whether you are married or not in that single point. I can only comment when you present a possible impediment. >>>>However, marriages have become easily entered into partnerships of >>>>convenience where it lasts exactly as long as it takes one of the partners [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > intervention. Without such intervention, the infant mortality rate > would be horrendously high. Yes, that is true. Right now, in our society, anyone with the proper amount of cash or a working penis and a willing womb has the right to produce a child. I find that an abomination. But that is a separate discussion. If you'd like to have it, let me know, but change the thread subject. > Also, I'll point out, there are *many* cases of married heterosexual > couples who *want* to have children but cannot... without [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > couples to do exactly the same thing... again, *with* medical aid? If > so, why? Well, I believe bringing a child into the world while *intentionally* denying them either a mother or a father is an *evil* act. This applies to lesbians with turkey basters, Michael Jackson and his latest rent-a-womb, or a single woman who just wants a kid but has no desire for a husband. >>Would you have a problem with that? > > I don't believe so. I think it's a pretty good compromise for a conservative mouth-breathing knuckle-dragger like me. > sigh... > > I suspect that the *real* sticking point here is what *you* would > accept as evidence of a "covenantal relationship"... and I suspect > that from your point of view, a homosexual couple canNOT (by > definition of their homosexuality) enter into such a relationship. Are you talking about a "covanental relationship" or are you talking about a "marriage"? I'd have to ask what you mean by "covanental relationship" because to me the word "covenant" has religious connotations. I'd like us to get our terms straight first. > So... *can* a gay couple love and honor each other much as a > heterosexual couple? I'd say "yes", it's possible. Can a gay couple have great affection for each other? I'd say sure. Infatuation? You bet. But to me, love requires self sacrifice. It is not just a warm, fuzzy feeling. It requires, especially in a man, the willingness to die for the woman you love and your children. It's the putting the needs of your beloved, before yourself. > >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > >> know [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > to fit into vaginas. The vast majority of modern humanity "gets" that, > and they have desires which are *ordered* toward that natural design. So now we're down to "modern" vs "non-modern." Then I'm non-modern. And unnatural. And there are others like me. The "design" of the situation isn't universally self-apparent, even if preferred by many. Since you're now an expert on the design of penises, why is the human female vagina designed the way IT is? What other vaginas are like the human vagina (so that we can have a complete listing of where men's penises are supposed to go). Amazing this thread has gone this far. > Others don't have desires that are ordered toward that natural design. > They would prefer to do things a different way. Is their mind wrong, or > their body? The mind is naturally designed to stimulate the genitals. In fact, without your mind working - no hard-on. Brain-dead individuals do not have sustained erections. On the other hand, they can have orgasms in rare cases - is that natural? > > Why do you think you have so much invested in denigration of > > homosexuality? [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > don't subscribe to ordered human sexuality, what would *you* call it? > DISordered, maybe? There are now too many people - what do you say to that? I think there are FAR too many people. Here are some stats to put into your Universal Sexual History Model: Estimated Population of Earth at various dates: 300 BC. 150,000,000-250,000,000 300 AD 250-350,000,000 (Rome has 70,000 people, Jerusalem may have more, Alexandria is huge: 200,000) 1000 AD 350-450,000,000 (yes, those are MILLIONS) Homosexuality is common in all cities - where it's crowded and breeding women are commodities, carefully tended and locked up in households, disbarred from owning property and in most cases - going to the market without related males or special slaves/peasant attendants (sounding familiar to some of you, right?) 1500 AD 450-500,000,000 (why not much increase? read your history). Some cities are really flourishing though. London now has 25,000! Madrid is up to 250,000 though! There are many Italian towns with populations over 100,000. Rome may be up to a whopping 350,000. Paris is beginning to have urban problems, it has about 250,000-300,000 known residents (probably more) 1800 AD 1.5 BILLION. Look what just happened in a mere 300 years. Yes, after struggling to reproduce for millenia (I'd love Tony's estimate on how long he thinks homo sapiens has been around, because he's right about the struggle to reproduce - but how sad that he thinks these ancient impulses must somehow make for moral rightness - because when we dig into THOSE impulses, they are not all pretty). Anyway, now the population has tripled. Before I go on, consider answers to these questions: When is the first human war? When does the state get involved in building weapons that will kill others - particular males? Which cultures decide to have women as soldiers and send them off in numbers to fight battles? When are the first big battles? Are these battles as big as what's going to happen in the 20th century? What's going to happen in the 20th century? Is it peachy? Is modern really wonderful? How much population is enough? I guess, according to some of you, then, the natural thing is what more and more women are requesting (limited or no sex). It's sure safe birth control. 10% of American women say they prefer to never have sex - and an increasing number of married women are saying the same thing. Men are beginning to join in - I suppose that's "natural" too? Sure argues against the "natural" impulse to stick it in a vagina, though, doesn't it? (Which view is so naive when you look at the history of human sexality, very very naive. Men's desires to place their penises someplace are not disputed - WHERE, though - where does nature "dictate"? Read some of the Chinese literature). 1950 3.0 billion, approximate (no one knows - read the Chinese literature) In just 50 years, it has DOUBLED. 2000 6.0 billion (doubled again in just fifty years). If this kept up, we'd be at 12 billion by 2050 - and we're not gonna be. So, is it "natural" to have as many kids as possible? Or is it natural to avoid sex when there are too many kids? Is it natural to want to have ejaculatory sexual intercourse with a woman who has bone disease from having already had 15 pregnancies? Is it natural to have sex with 13 year old girls? Is it only men's sexual natures that determine what is natural? Is penetrative sex as all- fired important a topic for ALL women? What about women who've just had vaginal births? Are they all into it? Is is natural to have sex with a nursing mother? Is it natural not to nurse? I don't have the answers - and I don't know anyone (except a couple of people on usenet) who claim to - and remarkably, several of those experts have congregated here. I'm waiting for the answers - because I've always wanted to meet the experts on nature, and find out there views on WTF is going on in the "modern" world? While you're at it - go figure out why we're not going to be at 12 billion by 2050. Or are we? What do you nature-experts say? Is anyone going to comment on what would happen if, for example, there were 25 billion of us by 2100 - or does it really not matter a whit to people? It's "natural" to do sex in a particular way, then will it be natural for us to run out of water on to drink as well? What about life expectancies declining as malnutrition and dehydration kill future offspring? Or will it be "natural" for some people to accumulate and defend resources against all comers? Ridiculous set of arguments, but since there are so many experts in one place - let's have some answers. A. - it is in the restraint of many of our biological impulses that we find freedom and humanity - but some people will never get that. >> >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >> >> know [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > situation > isn't universally self-apparent, even if preferred by many. No, I'm discussing modern society because that's what we're involved with. As early as 50 years ago, *everybody* understood that marriage was between a man and a woman and a penis was designed to work with a vagina to produce children. Do you know where babies come from? Or did you go to public school? > Since you're now an expert on the design of penises, why is the > human female vagina designed the way IT is? What other vaginas > are like the human vagina (so that we can have a complete listing > of where men's penises are supposed to go). Let me clue you in to a little basic biology. Penises are designed to deliver semen which contains sperm. Sperm is a haploid cell which contains one half of the chromosomes for a new human being. The egg contains the other half. The "doorway" to the egg is the vagina. In order for the sperm to reach the egg and produce a new human, the easiest and most natural for this to happen is the penis to be inserted into the vagina. No penis in vagina, no natural baby. Oh heck, our Dr. Frankensteins can make this happen in a test tube or petri dish, but that's not the design, since people have been doing it the natural way since time began and there were no petri dishes. > Amazing this thread has gone this far. Amazing I'm still involved in it. But when I'm spoken to in a condescending manner, I have this almost "Tourette's" urge to rub the person's nose in their own stupidity. It's a personality flaw of mine. >> Others don't have desires that are ordered toward that natural design. >> They would prefer to do things a different way. Is their mind wrong, or [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not have sustained erections. On the other hand, they can have > orgasms in rare cases - is that natural? Nope. We men are designed to be aroused by women. Sure, we can be aroused by chemicals, or other things. Doesn't make it natural. But we're looking at the major design of the system, not the little quirky anomalities that don't fit. >> > Why do you think you have so much invested in denigration of >> > homosexuality? [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > are FAR too many people. Here are some stats to put into your > Universal Sexual History Model: Far too many people by *whose* reconing? You? Sure, I'm going trust the optimal level of human population to a faceless person on the internet. > Estimated Population of Earth at various dates: <Irrelevant population information snipped> > Before I go on, consider answers to these questions: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > going to happen in the 20th century? Is it peachy? Is modern really > wonderful? How much population is enough? First human war? When Cain bashed Abel over the head with a rock. How much population is "enough"? Unless you've been promoted to "God" (which a lot of modern people believe they have) it's not for you to decide. > I guess, according to some of you, then, the natural thing is what > more and more women are requesting (limited or no sex). It's sure [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > to place their penises someplace are not disputed - WHERE, though - > where does nature "dictate"? Read some of the Chinese literature). You consider 10% of humanity dictates what's normal? > 1950 3.0 billion, approximate (no one knows - read the Chinese > literature) In just 50 years, it has DOUBLED. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > - it is in the restraint of many of our biological impulses that we > find freedom and humanity - but some people will never get that. I don't have a problem with restraint. Nobody has to "work for as many children as possible". But sex produces babies. That is normal. Were it not normal, our society would have died out a long time ago. Having sex and blocking the possibility of babies is not normal. Like homosexuality, it fails the "what if everybody did it" test. > >> >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > >> >> know [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > between a man and a woman and a penis was designed to work with a vagina > to produce children. Sorry Tony - your ahistorical account of things is absurd. Oral sex, anal sex, and masturbation as well as sex between men and sex between women have been understood for at least all of recorded history. So your limited idea of what "a penis was designed to work with" 50 years ago is just wrong. >> >> >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >> >> >> know [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > history. So your limited idea of what "a penis was designed to work > with" 50 years ago is just wrong. Of course it's not wrong. Stuck their penises in all kings of places like knotholes in trees, in sheep, goats and other assorted wildlife. Was the penis "designed to work with these" just because people have decided to get creative? > Of course it's not wrong. Stuck their penises in all kings of places like > knotholes in trees, in sheep, goats and other assorted wildlife. Was the > penis "designed to work with these" just because people have decided to > get creative? Apparently humans are "designed" to "decide" and get creative, above and beyond everything else. Making decisions and defying nature is fundamental to our design. We can, and do, challenge all aspects of our design, but can't make ourselves uncreative! >> Of course it's not wrong. Stuck their penises in all kings of places like >> knotholes in trees, in sheep, goats and other assorted wildlife. Was the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > beyond everything else. Making decisions and defying nature is > fundamental to our design. Indeed. But sometimes with pretty ill consequences.... so let's not get too proud: Was it so "creative" to have invented the atomic bomb? Was it so "creative" to have created morphine and heroin in the lab? Was it so "creative" to have instigated the (irreversible) global warming? Was it so "creative" to have all but eliminated the rain forests in Brazil? And - I won't even go into WW II, and all the "creativity" displayed there. >> Of course it's not wrong. Stuck their penises in all kings of places like >> knotholes in trees, in sheep, goats and other assorted wildlife. Was the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fundamental to our design. We can, and do, challenge all aspects of our > design, but can't make ourselves uncreative! Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race becomes extinct. > Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If > we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race > becomes extinct. Actually, if you do contiune to stick penises into vaginas, the human race may become extinct because we'll have too many people on the planet and not enough resources to keep them alive. jen >> Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If >> we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > race may become extinct because we'll have too many people on the > planet and not enough resources to keep them alive. I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If I were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at disease, starvation, and global warming as "God's Will" > I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If I > were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at > disease, starvation, and global warming as "God's Will" I wonder if the Catholics ever asked themselves why Jesus never reproduced. jen >>I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If I >>were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at >>disease, starvation, and global warming as "God's Will" > > I wonder if the Catholics ever asked themselves why Jesus never > reproduced. Because we're all of us His children, already? :-) > >>I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If I > >>were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Because we're all of us His children, already? :-) But if reproduction was such a huge big deal, don't you think Jesus would've done it? jen >> >>I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If I >> >>were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >But if reproduction was such a huge big deal, don't you think Jesus >would've done it? They really don't know for sure if he did or not. >> I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If I >> were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at >> disease, starvation, and global warming as "God's Will" > > I wonder if the Catholics ever asked themselves why Jesus never > reproduced. Nope, thought never crossed my mind. > >> I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If I > >> were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nope, thought never crossed my mind. Wouldn't want to ruin a perfect record? It reminds me of hearing the president of Patrick Henry College interviewed. He was at great pains to explain how at Patrick Henry they are truth-seekers, unlike traditional colleges. _But_ every reading must be examined in the light of the literal inerrancy of the bible. Doesn't sound so much like "seeking truth" as "dispensing opinion." But yes, not asking questions can simplify one's life. > >> I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If I > >> were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Nope, thought never crossed my mind. Well, maybe you should question things more. Like my DD... Last night she was doing a homework project and looked up the year the gospels were first written. She came up with between 50 and 70 AD. She came to me all puzzled and said, "But mom, if that's the case, then they had to be written *after* the apostles died, which means they couldn't possibly be accurate, could they? You know, like the game where you whisper something in someone's ear, and pass it down, and by the time it reaches the end, it doesn't resemble anything like when it started????" jen >> >> I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If I >> >> were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > the time it reaches the end, it doesn't resemble anything like when it > started????" So mom, did you explain to her that 50-70 years AD is like 17-37 years after Christ *rose*? Doesn't seem like a whole lot of time (well within the lifespans of most men of that time). (BTW, AD doesn't mean "after death", it means Anno Domini, "Year of our Lord".) Anno Domini (Latin: "In the Year of the Lord"), abbreviated as AD or A.D., defines an epoch based on the traditionally-reckoned year of the birth of Jesus of Nazareth. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anno_Domini > So mom, did you explain to her that 50-70 years AD is like 17-37 years > after Christ *rose*? Doesn't seem like a whole lot of time (well within > the lifespans of most men of that time). (BTW, AD doesn't mean "after > death", it means Anno Domini, "Year of our Lord".) She wanted to know why it took so darn long to write it all down. She lives in a modern world with newspapers that report events as they happen. She has a point: wait 17-37 years and there's huge room for error and revision of the facts. jen >> So mom, did you explain to her that 50-70 years AD is like 17-37 years >> after Christ *rose*? Doesn't seem like a whole lot of time (well within [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >happen. She has a point: wait 17-37 years and there's huge room for >error and revision of the facts. 37 years ago was 1969. By 17 years post moon landing, there was a sizeable group saying that there had never been a moon landing (Capricorn One followed this, not created it) and it was all faked. That group is much larger now, to the point that I ran across a note mentioning that among the current HS population something like 30% don't believe we ever did land (and most of the rest don't care whether we did or not). This is the case with masses of contemporary documents in paper, on film, masses of hardware, and scientific results. It's true with hundreds of millions of people having known about the events contemporaneously and still being alive to talk to. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences >>> So mom, did you explain to her that 50-70 years AD is like 17-37 years >>> after Christ *rose*? Doesn't seem like a whole lot of time (well within [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > don't believe we ever did land (and most of the rest don't care whether > we did or not). Ah yes, Viva Le Nouveau Age De Enlightenmente, once again!! The "progress" we've made is so outstanding, isn't it! > This is the case with masses of contemporary documents in paper, > on film, masses of hardware, and scientific results. It's true with [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these > recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes > them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more > abstruse manner." Two New Sciences Jen, > She wanted to know why it took so darn long to write it all down. She > lives in a modern world with newspapers that report events as they > happen. She has a point: wait 17-37 years and there's huge room for > error and revision of the facts. The delay in *selecting* those books is even more interesting than the delay in writing them. Many other books were written, and the Council of Nicea decided which books were to be part of the canonical Christian writings -- the New Testament. This was in A. D. 325 (yup, Anno Domini -- best evidence shows the crucifixion was around A.D. 27, if I remember my history). So, there are two questions: (1) how accurate were the writings; and (2) were the ones the Council selected the most accurate ones ("accurate" here meaning not simply factual, but also true to the faith)? When I read some books about the Council, I thought pretty clearly a *lot* of politics were involved. In particular, the presiders wanted to stop Arianism, which was very widely accepted then. A good book: "When Jesus Became God" by Richard Rubenstein. If you're interested in the origins of early Christianity, and how Christians and Jews got along in the early days of Christianity, it's a must-read. Yours for understanding how faith evolves, as much as for the beliefs that faith gives, SignatureAllen the Ancient Remove "nospamplease." to reply > The delay in *selecting* those books is even more interesting than the > delay in writing them. Many other books were written, and the Council of > Nicea decided which books were to be part of the canonical Christian > writings -- the New Testament. This was in A. D. 325 You might want to know that this idea that the canon was decided at Nicaea is just a myth, of doubtful origin. The earliest reference to any such idea is in the 9th century Vetus Synodicon, but the full idea does not appear until the renaissance, and is spread by Voltaire as a piece of anti-Christian propaganda (although he really had only the self-serving catholic clergy of the ancien regime in mind when he wrote, so a certain amount can be forgiven him). We find very much the same NT as today in use by Tertullian ca. 200 AD, but since the church was an illegal organisation it was hard to harmonise the last few letters. In the end it looks as if anything with any real claim to apostolic authorship was included rather than excluded, more or less by drift, during the 4th century. The idea that the early church had lots of other books (i.e. gospels that it considered canonical) is also a mistake, which is advanced today by some real scholars under cover of a category confusion. In the second century on (and even today) groups which wished to introduce some fashionable idea (often a pagan idea) into church teaching would forge gospels in the name of one apostle or another. Such texts are easy to recognise because of the strange ideas that they contain, far removed from the NT, and were always fairly easy to spot. The confusion is created by including all these semi-Christian or non-Christian groups as if they were Christian, and then asserting that this proves that the early church was 'diverse.' Some people would call this process playing with words, or even fraud; I myself think it pretty unhelpful. At all events there is very little evidence of any gospel text surviving today which ever enjoyed canonical status in the church other than the four; and Irenaeus, who was taught by John's disciple Polycarp, even makes a point of this, ca. 180 AD. > When I read some books about the Council, I thought pretty clearly a > *lot* of politics were involved. In particular, the presiders wanted to > stop Arianism, which was very widely accepted then. I'm not sure why we should consider the council political, since it did not seem to be. (Since Arianism was an attempt to modify church teaching, it was quite legitimately rejected). Unfortunately the same cannot be said of all later councils, and Chalcedon in particular. > A good book: "When Jesus Became God" by Richard Rubenstein. If you're > interested in the origins of early Christianity, and how Christians and > Jews got along in the early days of Christianity, it's a must-read. I've not read it, but such a title tells you that it's a piece of modern propaganda. In antiquity the heresies mostly did not deny the divinity of Christ (which is the characteristic modern error) but the humanity: docetism, etc. Different times have different 'fingerprint' errors. Thus Mr Rubenstein proclaims himself to be anachronistic, if one read no further. All the best, Roger Pearse > > So mom, did you explain to her that 50-70 years AD is like 17-37 years > > after Christ *rose*? Doesn't seem like a whole lot of time (well within [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > happen. She has a point: wait 17-37 years and there's huge room for > error and revision of the facts. She's right. But this is an interesting opportunity to point out how flawed _contemporary_ accounts of most events are too. Recent examples including our rapid triumph in Iraq, and the heavily reported (and it turns out heavily invented) accounts of rape and mayhem in the wake of Katrina. We just get things wrong, for various interesting reasons, even when based on contemporary eyewitness accounts. > >> Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If > >> we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > were religious (which I'm not), I'd probably keep breeding while looking at > disease, starvation, and global warming as "God's Will" Which would of course indicate to me that you worship a different Jesus than the one I was brought up with, and that you are in fact some version of the anti-Christ. This can go on ad nauseum. My very conservative religious part of the family still believes heavily in birth control (mainly abstinence) for everyone. No sticking anything anywhere once you have your 1-2 kids. So, actually, their God tells them to NOT stick it in - just like the God of the OT did from time to time (and not to waste your seed, either - so none of that other playing around). A> >> I don't think that argument works as a counter to what Tony believes. If >> I [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Jesus than the one I was brought up with, and that you are in > fact some version of the anti-Christ. I didn't know I carried that kind of clout :) >So, actually, their God tells them to NOT stick it in - just like the >God of the OT did from time to time (and not to waste your seed, >either - so none of that other playing around). No more wet dreams, people! > > >> Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If > > >> we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > God of the OT did from time to time (and not to waste your seed, > either - so none of that other playing around). What I find very disturbing about Tony's point of view...is not his point of view :-) It's his view that everyone should be thinking the way that he thinks. The fact remains that for many of us, Jesus Christ plays no role in our lives. The world is not made up of one religion as much as Tony and other Christians would like to believe. My sexual preferences have nothing to do with Jesus. My faith does not tell me how to have sex. Despite how hard Christians want to dictate how I live my life, I'm not a Christian, never was and never will be. If I suddenly decided to becomea Christian, I will contact you Tony and get all the information I ever wanted about becoming a Christian. Until then, it matters not one iota what Jesus Christ believes is right and wrong nor what the church believes is right or wrong FOR ME. Believe what you want; I have no right whatsoever to take that from you. Nor do you have the right to tell me or others who do not share your belief system how we should conduct our lives. Seriously Tony, I have no problem with how you live your life. Honestly, I don't care how you live your life. Where you have your orgasms or how your raise your children or where you pray is absolutely your business and should be no conern of mine or anyone else. I just wish that you'd recognize that we don't all live your life or share your beliefs and that does not make us any less than you. I find the issue of tolerance far more respectable in a person than where he shoots his sperm. I see that taking a break from asm has not increased your ability to see that despite our differences, we are all members of the human race. I find that very sad. You seem to be an intelligent man, capable of understanding that it's okay to disagree. What troubles me is how you believe in what you believe so deeply that you have no room for respecting those who believe differently. Is that how good Christians want to be viewed? >>>>> Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If >>>>> we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race >>>>> becomes extinct. [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > your ability to see that despite our differences, we are all members of > the human race. Well now, wait a minute here. ALL of us????? I am curious here, with SUCH a sweeping statement on your part......I'll take you to task on that one.... So - does that also include child molesters, serial killers, and rapists? (as all "being members of the "human race"). (Better come down a notch from that mountain). > I find that very sad. You seem to be an intelligent > man, capable of understanding that it's okay to disagree. What > troubles me is how you believe in what you believe so deeply that you > have no room for respecting those who believe differently. Is that how > good Christians want to be viewed? > >>>>> Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). > If [quoted text clipped - 55 lines] > SUCH a sweeping statement on your part......I'll take you to task on that > one.... For God's sake Bill, not all posts are about you. I was speaking to Tony about his religious beliefs. > So - does that also include child molesters, serial killers, and rapists? > (as all "being members of the "human race"). (Better come down a notch > from that mountain). There is NO friggin mountain and it has nothing to do with the tangent that you just went off on. > > I find that very sad. You seem to be an intelligent > > man, capable of understanding that it's okay to disagree. What > > troubles me is how you believe in what you believe so deeply that you > > have no room for respecting those who believe differently. Is that how > > good Christians want to be viewed? Does the above paragraph have you or anyone besides Tony in mind? > What I find very disturbing about Tony's point of view...is not his > point of view :-) It's his view that everyone should be thinking the [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > have no room for respecting those who believe differently. Is that how > good Christians want to be viewed? La Mer, Pardon my interruption.... you say a few things that I want to explore... Particularly the last two lines.... As I perceive it--and correct me if I am wrong-- is that you think that I, as a 'good' Christian, am supposed to be respectful of all others regardless of their beliefs/actions/words--and I try to do that---but, you believe I am being disrespectful of person X, if I share my faith with them that for example, would disapprove of some particular behavior (sexual or otherwise) that they engage in. If I didn't share my faith with person X, would that not be MORE disrespectful of my religion/God? I'm confused. I don't think any Christian should be beating non-believers over their heads with condemnation and judgment---John 3:_17_ not 16, is enough to convince me that adding _my_ judgment to a person is an utter waste of time---- A Christian should be only concerned with what *God* thinks of his/his actions---not what or how the world views him. And if he does so, the world will see the love of God in him---not hatred and condemnation. ( is that what you see in Tony?) I've missed parts of this thread--so I'm not sure what Tony said to prompt your post above. I think there is also a big perception problem between Christians and non-Christians---Christians are (or at least IMHO) not supposed to be decreeing how others live their lives, have sex, etc---they are supposed to be expressing God's infinite love to the world---God will take care of the other things how/when and where He chooses once that person accepts the love of God--manifest in His son Jesus. That does not mean I believe Christians should sit on their hands while their govt/society oppose the teachings of their faith. I'm rambling somewhat today---so perhaps I should take a breath and see if you think I am making any sense at all.... BO >> What I find very disturbing about Tony's point of view...is not his >> point of view :-) It's his view that everyone should be thinking the [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > as a 'good' Christian, am supposed to be respectful of all others > regardless of their beliefs/actions/words--and I try to do that---but, you Just out of curiosity, for those who think they are so high up on this Mountain, does that also extend to serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and abusers? That you're supposed to be "respectful of all others" - which includes them? (Yeah, right!) > believe I am being disrespectful of person X, if I share my faith with them > that for example, would disapprove of some particular behavior (sexual or [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > BO "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message news:mzEjg.5342 > Just out of curiosity, for those who think they are so high up on > this [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > others" - > which includes them? (Yeah, right!) I'm not sure why you keep bringing killers, rapists, and child molesters into conversations. I hope there is no one here who would condone that kind of behavior. Obviously, you would want to lock them up and prevent them from ever doing it again. However, I don't see why you would feel the need to be disrespectful to them. In what way? And to what purpose? Zorra > "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message > news:mzEjg.5342 >> Just out of curiosity, for those who think they are so high up on this >> Mountain, does that also extend to serial killers, rapists, child molesters, >> and abusers? That you're supposed to be "respectful of all others" - >> which includes them? (Yeah, right!) > > I'm not sure why you keep bringing killers, rapists, and child > molesters into conversations. I hope there is no one here who would > condone that kind of behavior. I did it because someone starting touting how we're all supposed to accept everybody (as the Higher Good), and not be judgemental about anybody, ever. Or at least that's how I read it. So, I was putting that "logic" to the test. That's all. > Obviously, you would want to lock them > up and prevent them from ever doing it again. However, I don't see > why you would feel the need to be disrespectful to them. In what way? > And to what purpose? > > Zorra If one can "accept" killers, rapists, child molesters, and abusers, what does that really say about that person? >> "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message >> news:mzEjg.5342 [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > to the > test. That's all. Show me where anyone has ever said we should accept *everybody* or condone all things? I don't believe anyone has. Are you trying to equate homosexuals with those people you've listed above? Did you ever watch Sesame Street? "Which of these things is not like the others? Which of these things just doesn't belong?" >> Obviously, you would want to lock them >> up and prevent them from ever doing it again. However, I don't see [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > what > does that really say about that person? What do you mean by "accept"? Killers, rapists, and child molesters are a danger to others. Unless a homosexual just happens to also be one of the above, he's a danger to no one. Zorra >>> "Bill in Co." <surly_curmudgeon@earthlink.net> wrote in message >>> news:mzEjg.5342 >>>> Just out of curiosity, for those who think they are so high up on this >>>> Mountain, does that also extend to serial killers, rapists, child >>>> molesters, and abusers? That you're supposed to be "respectful of all >>>> others" - which includes them? (Yeah, right!) >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > condone all things? I don't believe anyone has. Are you trying to > equate homosexuals with those people you've listed above? Absolutely not. And I have to say that's quite a leap on your part! > Did you ever watch Sesame Street? "Which of these things is not like the > others? Which of these things just doesn't belong?" [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Zorra I was talking about serial killers, rapists, child molesters, and abusers. >> Pardon my interruption.... you say a few things that I want to explore... >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > and abusers? That you're supposed to be "respectful of all others" - > which includes them? (Yeah, right!) Bill, I think you misunderstood me. Regarding killers, rapists, child molesters, etc--- I *don't* think that 1) they need me to tell them what they are doing is wrong--they already know it. So telling them "you're going to hell...." would serve no purpose 2) it is me or any other Christian (or anyone else for that matter) who will decide their eternal fate (only God) I think you projected too far as to what I meant by my being respectful. Make no mistake, I would be first in line to turn on the electric chair for a convicted child molester, murderer, etc. The only respect is would show these persons is sharing my faith with them and if they said 'not interested'--I would respect that, and not try to force them to believe anything.... Hope that clarifies... Bo > > What I find very disturbing about Tony's point of view...is not his > > point of view :-) It's his view that everyone should be thinking the [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > > BO I have no interest in getting into any type of religious debate. I just wish that people like Tony would just believe in what they believe and not expect the rest of the world to be on board. I don't care how others live. I don't care about what people eat for dinner or how often they have sex. I don't care where they worship or who they worship. I don't care if you're same sex or heterosexual. I don't have enough time in the day to worry about what everyone else is doing. Nor is it my right to preach, assume, or tell others what they should be doing and how to do it. I just wish that others would give me the same respect. Why anyone else cares what god I pray to, what position I have sex in or if my vagina is used more than my mouth is simply beyond my comprehension. I can't describe to you how insane that concept of anyone caring what _I_ do in my own home, that affects no one else on the planet. I'm shaking my head as I type this. This has gone on for a few years with Tony and it's not his religion or his beliefs that trouble me. It's the fact that he assumes to know what is best for everyone else. At times I can barely figure out what is best for me and my family; never mind the rest of the world! If Jesus Christ rocks your boat; go for it. Don't assume that Jesus Christ rocks everyone else's boat. > I have no interest in getting into any type of religious debate. I > just wish that people like Tony would just believe in what they believe [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > concept of anyone caring what _I_ do in my own home, that affects no > one else on the planet. I'm shaking my head as I type this. Well, in principle, I agree with you. However.... My father's religion was such that he believed it was a mandate from G-d to proselytize. It was many years before I realized he wasn't doing it because he didn't respect me. He wasn't doing it because he didn't understand that I had the right to believe my own way. He was doing it because he felt that he would be going against the will of G-d if he knew that I was an unbeliever, and he didn't try to "save" me. OTOH, it didn't have anything to do with me, or what he thought about me, it had to do with *him* and his fear of facing G-d not having done what he believed G-d's will was. Once I understood this, it was a lot easier to deal with him. Sheila > > I have no interest in getting into any type of religious debate. I > > just wish that people like Tony would just believe in what they believe [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > he would be going against the will of G-d if he knew that I was an > unbeliever, and he didn't try to "save" me. I'm not condoning your father...but _at least_ it was your father and not the man down the street, the owner of the local drug store or your food server. In other words, it's a person who was involved in your life and who (allegedly) cared about and loved you. Sorry if I don't know any of your history and I"m off on that one! > OTOH, it didn't have anything to do with me, or what he thought about me, it > had to do with *him* and his fear of facing G-d not having done what he > believed G-d's will was. Now this I can wrap my hands around. I've never looked at it from this point of view. When someone's life is fear-based, it's easier to understand some of their ways that don't seem normal to a person whose life is not based on fear. > Once I understood this, it was a lot easier to deal with him. > > > I have no interest in getting into any type of religious debate. I > > > just wish that people like Tony would just believe in what they believe [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > life and who (allegedly) cared about and loved you. Sorry if I don't > know any of your history and I"m off on that one! Well, yeah, except my dad *did* believe that G-d wanted him to proselytize to the food server! Of course, he'd be a bit more subtle with the waitress than me, but still, he saw himself as soldier of G-d. > > OTOH, it didn't have anything to do with me, or what he thought about me, it > > had to do with *him* and his fear of facing G-d not having done what he [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > understand some of their ways that don't seem normal to a person whose > life is not based on fear. My father's church had a large component of fear to it. As a child, it was overwhelming for me. I was once told my someone there that my mother (my parents were estranged at the time) was going to hell, and it was my fault, because I 'knew' the word, and had not shared it with her. So, as I got older, and my father kept pushing, I came to the point where I finally realized that it wasn't that he wasn't hearing me, it wasn't that he didn't respect my thoughts or my decisions. He was *scared*. He was scared for me (that I would be cast into the pit of darkness) and he was scared that G-d would not see him as a good servant, for allowing it to happen. Sheila > > Once I understood this, it was a lot easier to deal with him. (snip) > So, as I got older, and my father kept pushing, I came to the point where I > finally realized that it wasn't that he wasn't hearing me, it wasn't that he > didn't respect my thoughts or my decisions. He was *scared*. He was scared > for me (that I would be cast into the pit of darkness) and he was scared > that G-d would not see him as a good servant, for allowing it to > happen. That's a terrible but quite believable insight into how he must have been thinking. Not _just_ the "scared for himself" but also the "scared for you" part. It is an example of how, as parents, we are capable of doing very damaging things exactly when we're sure we are doing our best. How old were you when you gained this insight? It doesn't sound like an easy insight to have as a young person. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > That's a terrible but quite believable insight into how he must have > been thinking. Well, it helped that he confirmed it -- both parts of it. :-) > Not _just_ the "scared for himself" but also the "scared for you" > part. > > It is an example of how, as parents, we are capable of doing very > damaging things exactly when we're sure we are doing our best. Absolutely. I was "saved" no fewer than four or five times by the time I was 16. I'm sure he thought he was doing the right thing - sending me to Bible camp, having me go to revival meetings. The problem was, I didn't believe in any of the stuff I was professing to believe in, I wanted to please my father. And, I got caught up in the mass hysteria that occurs in those situations (I don't know if you've ever gone to one, but the group dynamics there are *fascinating*). Later I felt guilty and confused, because I didn't feel the way I was supposed to feel afterward. > How old were you when you gained this insight? It doesn't sound like > an easy insight to have as a young person. Actually, it began to occur to me relatively early on. I remember a conversation with my father when I was 16, during which he pulled out the old "can't you just believe, in case you are wrong?" I could hear the desperation and fear in his voice. Also, when you have a church where you hear about hell all the time... well, let's just say that "fear" is not under the surface --- it is right there! But, I was probably in my 20's when I could hear him going on, and *feel* okay about it, i.e., I didn't feel that he was badgering me or anything, I just understood it as something he felt compelled to do. I didn't need to climb under the table when he invited the waitress to the Wednesday night Bible study, and I didn't need to argue with him anymore. Sheila > Actually, it began to occur to me relatively early on. I remember a > conversation with my father when I was 16, during which he pulled out the > old "can't you just believe, in case you are wrong?" Amazing. > I could hear the > desperation and fear in his voice. Also, when you have a church where you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > feel that he was badgering me or anything, I just understood it as something > he felt compelled to do. Lucky for him (and you) that you were able to get to this point. > I didn't need to climb under the table when he > invited the waitress to the Wednesday night Bible study, Well, that's sort of cute. As long as you aren't his daughter! > and I didn't need > to argue with him anymore. >> I have no interest in getting into any type of religious debate. I >> just wish that people like Tony would just believe in what they believe [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Sheila Bingo! Bo [snip] >I have no interest in getting into any type of religious debate. I >just wish that people like Tony would just believe in what they believe [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >concept of anyone caring what _I_ do in my own home, that affects no >one else on the planet. I'm shaking my head as I type this. I went to see Holly Near sing the other night. I go see her whenever she appears in my city. The lyrics to this song -- "I Ain't Afraid" -- reminds me of what you say above: http://www.hollynear.com/lyrics/i.aint.afraid.html Barb > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > The lyrics to this song -- "I Ain't Afraid" -- reminds me of what you > say above: http://www.hollynear.com/lyrics/i.aint.afraid.html Yes...same message, different words. Interesting, Sheila's post mentioned fear also. It's making sense now. > I have no interest in getting into any type of religious debate. I > just wish that people like Tony would just believe in what they believe > and not expect the rest of the world to be on board. I don't care how > others live. Really? You would not care if your child ended up as a drug addict or prostitute? I find that hard to believe. > I don't care about what people eat for dinner or how > often they have sex. I don't care where they worship or who they [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > be doing and how to do it. I just wish that others would give me the > same respect. I hear you--but again, I bet you don't feel this way about your kids or DH....??? >Why anyone else cares what god I pray to, what position > I have sex in or if my vagina is used more than my mouth is simply > beyond my comprehension. I can't describe to you how insane that > concept of anyone caring what _I_ do in my own home, that affects no > one else on the planet. I'm shaking my head as I type this. I whole heartedly agree with you on this. > This has gone on for a few years with Tony and it's not his religion or > his beliefs that trouble me. It's the fact that he assumes to know > what is best for everyone else. At times I can barely figure out what > is best for me and my family; never mind the rest of the world! If > Jesus Christ rocks your boat; go for it. Don't assume that Jesus > Christ rocks everyone else's boat. I understand.... Bo (snip) > As I perceive it--and correct me if I am wrong-- is that you think that I, > as a 'good' Christian, am supposed to be respectful of all others [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > otherwise) that they engage in. If I didn't share my faith with person X, > would that not be MORE disrespectful of my religion/God? Bo - there are ways of sharing your faith and ways of sharing your faith. One way would be to say "my religion disapproves of gay sex." Another would be to say "gay sex is wrong." In general a surprising number of Christians seem to forget John 8:7. Even I know that quote, and I'm not nor have I ever been a Christian. Given Christ's attitude toward men judging others, and given the many different interpretations of the NT, I'd think it takes a lot of chutzpah for people to set themselves up to judge consenting behavior between other adults. > I'm confused. I don't think any Christian should be beating non-believers > over their heads with condemnation and judgment---John 3:_17_ not 16, is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > what you see in Tony?) I've missed parts of this thread--so I'm not sure > what Tony said to prompt your post above. I can't speak for La Mer. We've been getting a kindler gentler Tony this time around. In the past, Tony has come here with a lot of anger and condemnation. Happily that seems less true. But his behavior in the past still probably has an influence over the way some of us perceive him. > I think there is also a big perception problem between Christians and > non-Christians---Christians are (or at least IMHO) not supposed to be > decreeing how others live their lives, have sex, etc---they are supposed to > be expressing God's infinite love to the world---God will take care of the > other things how/when and where He chooses once that person accepts the love > of God--manifest in His son Jesus. I like that interpretation of Christians are supposed to do. But it is clear that not all people who call themselves Christians subscribe to that interpretation. > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Bo - there are ways of sharing your faith and ways of sharing your > faith. Indeed. > One way would be to say "my religion disapproves of gay sex." Another > would be to say "gay sex is wrong." And that's why I stated...I don't care what Tony believes is right and wrong in his home, his family, his life. I do care when he makes it his business to decide what is right and wrong for everyone else. > In general a surprising number of Christians seem to forget John 8:7. > Even I know that quote, and I'm not nor have I ever been a Christian. [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > the past still probably has an influence over the way some of us > perceive him. I thought the newer and improved version of Tony has returned also, but it seems to be quickly turning into the preaching stuff again, which is what turned me off in the first place. I even contemplated emailing him a few days ago to update him on my life and my health and request that he use his religious belief to pray for me. It appears that that's not terribly likely at this point. I suppose it's silly of me to think that because Tony disappeared for a while that his return will change the way he treats asm posters who think differently than he. > > I think there is also a big perception problem between Christians and > > non-Christians---Christians are (or at least IMHO) not supposed to be [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > But it is clear that not all people who call themselves Christians > subscribe to that interpretation. Without a doubt. And sadly for those Christians who live their lives without decreeing how others live, they often pay for those who spend their waking hours telling everyone else how to live. > Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > to think that because Tony disappeared for a while that his return will > change the way he treats asm posters who think differently than he. Of course it's likely. I can generically pray, or I can lay your specific intention on the prayer network. Your choice. >> > I think there is also a big perception problem between Christians and >> > non-Christians---Christians are (or at least IMHO) not supposed to be [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > without decreeing how others live, they often pay for those who spend > their waking hours telling everyone else how to live. Like I said before. You can reject that advice that doesn't work for you. Hmmm.... An interesting thread. I hope no one minds if I put a few comments in here to both Bo and Doug... >(snip) > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> otherwise) that they engage in. If I didn't share my faith with person X, >> would that not be MORE disrespectful of my religion/God? Y'know, I believe I would agree with that... it *would* be more disrespecful. However I'd stipulate that when I "share my faith with person X" that I neet to do it as tactfully as possible. >Bo - there are ways of sharing your faith and ways of sharing your >faith. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >chutzpah for people to set themselves up to judge consenting behavior >between other adults. Right on. Tact and a modicum of humility are necessary. First of all, it is dangerously easy to fall into the trap of actually *judging* another human being when one (as a Christian) has neither the right nor the responsibility to do so. And next, even if one is *not* intentionally passing judgement on another person, it's quite easy for that other person to perceive that judgement is indeed being passed. All things considered, it's remarkably difficult for most Christians, including me, to "share the faith" in a way that isn't counterproductive. >> I'm confused. I don't think any Christian should be beating non-believers >> over their heads with condemnation and judgment---John 3:_17_ not 16, is [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> what you see in Tony?) I've missed parts of this thread--so I'm not sure >> what Tony said to prompt your post above. I think that this gets to the core of what Christians are *supposed* to do: to me, we are supposed to be living our lives in such a spiritually *successful* way that others would want to join us. We are to offer to "the world" an alternative (and visibly better) way of living. To me, the fact that people are NOT flocking to sign up speaks volumes about how poorly most "Christians" do Christianity. >I can't speak for La Mer. We've been getting a kindler gentler Tony >this time around. In the past, Tony has come here with a lot of anger [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >I like that interpretation of Christians are supposed to do. So do I. >But it is clear that not all people who call themselves Christians >subscribe to that interpretation. Unfortunately true. rj <Snip> >>In general a surprising number of Christians seem to forget John 8:7. >>Even I know that quote, and I'm not nor have I ever been a Christian. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Christians, including me, to "share the faith" in a way that isn't > counterproductive. Actually you can do it like St. Francis of Assisi suggested: "Preach the Gospel always, use words if you have to" :) The absolute best way to share the faith, is to live your life in a way that makes other people want what you have. Your harmony, joy, a peaceful existence and a genuine love of people. When people want what you have, they'll come to you and ask you about it. >>> I'm confused. I don't think any Christian should be beating non-believers >>> over their heads with condemnation and judgment---John 3:_17_ not 16, is [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > are to offer to "the world" an alternative (and visibly better) way of > living. Heh, I didn't read that part before I posted. :) > To me, the fact that people are NOT flocking to sign up speaks volumes > about how poorly most "Christians" do Christianity. This is agreed. (snip) > The absolute best way to share the faith, is to live your life in a way > that makes other people want what you have. Your harmony, joy, a peaceful > existence and a genuine love of people. > > When people want what you have, they'll come to you and ask you about it. So, Tony... <evil grin ON> Do you have 'em flocking to *your* banner? <evil grin OFF> But, seriously... IMO, there are elements of RC dogma that I find *highly* problematic. That thing about procreation and marriage, for instance. Well... I *was* raised as a Protestant... rj > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > *highly* problematic. That thing about procreation and marriage, for > instance. Well... I *was* raised as a Protestant... You know, there are quite a few Protestant denominations who are beginning to come on board with Pope Paul VI's Humanae Vitae. They are starting to understand how prophetic he was with regard to the social problems caused by the contraceptive mentality. >(snip) > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >chutzpah for people to set themselves up to judge consenting behavior >between other adults. Actually Doug, John 8:7 is more about not judging too harshly rather then not judging at all. If you take john 8:7 and put it back into context, you'll see that it's talking bout stoning someone for adultery, which introduces a notion of a cruel and unusual punishment for one's sins rather then no judgment at all. You should note that the same John you quoted, just few lines below, at John 8:11 tells the woman to "go and sin no more", which is very much still judging someone, but judging more appropriately, rather then condemning her to death by stoning for adultery. > >(snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > much still judging someone, but judging more appropriately, rather > then condemning her to death by stoning for adultery. You need to read the whole thing so you know who is saying what to whom. Jesus is telling people _not_ to condemn the women "caught in adultery." Then he adds something to the effect (depending on translation) of "I do not condemn you, go forth and sin no more." Further down Jesus (speaking to the Pharisees) says "you judge by appearances, but I do not judge." (Though he pulls his punches in a way I've always found humorous in the next line where he says "even if I do judge, it's OK because _I'm_ God.") So I think my reading of the passage is reasonable, and relevant to the use I made of it. >So I think my reading of the passage is reasonable, and relevant to >the use I made of it. I never doubted that you think you're right. > >So I think my reading of the passage is reasonable, and relevant to > >the use I made of it. > > I never doubted that you think you're right. Ah. Then you would have noticed where you wrote: > Actually Doug, John 8:7 is more about not judging too harshly rather > then not judging at all. but that in John 8 Jesus says: "You judge by appearances, but I do not judge." I take that as about not judging at all, and wonder where you get the interpretation that it is about "not judging to harshly." >> >So I think my reading of the passage is reasonable, and relevant to >> >the use I made of it. >> >> I never doubted that you think you're right. > >Ah. Then you would have noticed balh blah blah blah blh You really are that arrogant and self centered that after all that you dished out lately you think I would actually want to attempt an intelligent conversation with the likes of you? What on earth is wrong with you? Are you nukkin futts? [eyeroll] You've lost it Doug. Take a chill pill and go to sleep. > >> >So I think my reading of the passage is reasonable, and relevant to > >> >the use I made of it. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > dished out lately you think I would actually want to attempt an > intelligent conversation with the likes of you? No, just noticed that you _did_ attempt an intelligent conversation with me. Although possibly only for the purpose of trying to show me up. >>So I think my reading of the passage is reasonable, and relevant to >>the use I made of it. > > I never doubted that you think you're right. ROFL!!!!!!!! >> > >> Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If >> > >> we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > have no room for respecting those who believe differently. Is that how > good Christians want to be viewed? I can respect you, while believing that your viewpoints are entirely wrong. You seem to be a "tolerant" person. The only thing you don't tolerate is a person espousing religious views in public. Let me ask you the same thing I asked "A". Why are you letting an anonymous guy on usenet get you all worked up? We have always told those with marriage trouble to accept what you can use, and reject the rest. So, reject me. I won't have hurt feelings, honest. >> Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If >> we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > jen We're already "there". Where have you been hiding out? :-) >> Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If >> we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > race may become extinct because we'll have too many people on the > planet and not enough resources to keep them alive. No, we'll lose enough of us so that the rest will be able to be supported by the available resources. > >> Absolutely, but there are some hard and fast rules (excuse the pun). If > >> we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > No, we'll lose enough of us so that the rest will be able to be supported > by the available resources. Hmm, well my bets are on the homosexuals, with no children to drag around, and piles of money to defend themselves from all you poor suffering Catholics scraping at the door begging for food. :-) jen > >> Of course it's not wrong. Stuck their penises in all kings of places like > >> knotholes in trees, in sheep, goats and other assorted wildlife. Was the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race > becomes extinct. Don't need many of us doing that though, do we? There will always be guys who will do it, I imagine, without complaining. But most guys are going to want sex more than the few times in their lives it requires to keep the species going. In the past, a man who got his wife pregnant when they'd already had a couple of kids and the wife didn't want more was considered highly undisciplined and over-sexed. Lots of older couples stopped having sex in their late twenties or early thirties back then - and the world didn't stop spinning. Or they sought out alternate routes for their sexuality - if ya know what I mean. >>> Of course it's not wrong. Stuck their penises in all kings of places like >>> knotholes in trees, in sheep, goats and other assorted wildlife. Was the [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >we don't continue to stick our penises into vaginas, the human race >becomes extinct. I don't think we're in danger of that stopping any time soon. But, if we don't do what the church tells us we should, then the church is in danger of becoming extinct - long before the human race becomes extinct. > >> >> >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > >> >> >> know [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > penis "designed to work with these" just because people have decided to > get creative? Hey, you're the one who said "50 years ago everybody understood that a penis was designe to work with a vagine to produce children." I pointed out why that is obviously incorrect (people didn't understand that 50 years ago any more than they understand it now). Accept it or not, as you will, but all the things you decry were around 50 years ago too (and 200 years ago and 3000 years ago). >> >> >> >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >> >> >> >> know [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] > Hey, you're the one who said "50 years ago everybody understood that a > penis was designe to work with a vagine to produce children." My assertion still stands. What people decide to do with something can have absolutely no bearing on what it was originally designed for. In other words, I can pound a screw into a piece of wood with a hammer, but that's not the tool that was designed for the screw. > I pointed out why that is obviously incorrect (people didn't > understand that 50 years ago any more than they understand it now). > Accept it or not, as you will, but all the things you decry were > around 50 years ago too (and 200 years ago and 3000 years ago). And they were just as disordered then as they are now. (snip) > > Hey, you're the one who said "50 years ago everybody understood that a > > penis was designe to work with a vagine to produce children." [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > other words, I can pound a screw into a piece of wood with a hammer, but > that's not the tool that was designed for the screw. I wasn't arguing with your assertion about what things are designed for. That assertion is too absurd to merit arguing with. I was arguing with your assertion that everyone agreed with your point of view about genital design 50 years ago. Even _that_ is probaby too absurd to merit arguing about, but none of the uses to which body parts are being put today are less than thousands of years old. > > I pointed out why that is obviously incorrect (people didn't > > understand that 50 years ago any more than they understand it now). > > Accept it or not, as you will, but all the things you decry were > > around 50 years ago too (and 200 years ago and 3000 years ago). > > And they were just as disordered then as they are now. In your opinion, I understand. But not everyone agrees with that, nor did they (despite your assertion) 50 years ago. . > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > I wasn't arguing with your assertion about what things are designed > for. Sure you were. He made an assertion as to what certain body parts were intended for, and you responded to those to claim that they've been used for other things. So if that's not a counter-argument to his assertion, then why did you waste the time to reply on that basis? > That assertion is too absurd to merit arguing with. Translation......*you've made an excellent point which totally defeats mine, and so I'm gonna pretend like I never tried to make the point in the first place, and I'm gonna claim that pursuing it further is beneath me.* > I was arguing with your assertion that everyone agreed with your > point > of view about genital design 50 years ago. Even _that_ is probaby > too > absurd to merit arguing about, but none of the uses to which body > parts are being put today are less than thousands of years old. LOL! Now THAT's absurd. >> > I pointed out why that is obviously incorrect (people didn't >> > understand that 50 years ago any more than they understand it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > nor > did they (despite your assertion) 50 years ago. So you hold the truth, and everyone else just has an opinion, is that it, Doug? >> (snip) >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > been used for other things. So if that's not a counter-argument to > his assertion, then why did you waste the time to reply on that basis? Heh, heh, heh. :) >>> (snip) >>> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Heh, heh, heh. :) Once again, ole Dougie is nowhere to be found. >>>> (snip) >>>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > Once again, ole Dougie is nowhere to be found. So, can I collect on my bet now? Whose minding the till today? >>>>> (snip) >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > So, can I collect on my bet now? Whose minding the till today? Dougie. >>>>>> (snip) >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > > Dougie. I think he bailed out. No big surprise there. When the going gets tough, many, and perhaps most, bail these days, it seems. The old school values of perseverance (etc etc) were evidently "lost in translation". [snip] >Of course it doesn't. It's true because it's true, not because Bill >mentioned it. It seems such a self evident thing. Ah, well, self-evident. Everyone can shut down their brains and quit looking at the world. Something is self-evident to Tony. DF and I have a comment we use when we know that we have no real evidence. We just say 'It's obvious that ...' or 'Obviously, ...' We do it for humor. Somehow I don't think that's your reason. >Penises were designed to fit into vaginas. They do, or at least most do, at least within a species. Of course penises fit in to vaginas from some different species. And the vast majority of humanity 'gets' that as well. So ok by you? But penises (remember the joke which finishes 'who else would run a sewage line through a recreational area?') also have an obligatory use for waste elimination. Not eliminating waste will kill you in a matter of days. So that's probably the more primary purpose. Now there are peculiarities here. One doesn't need a penis to eliminate waste. So _obviously_ there is a further purpose to the shape. _Obviously_ it is so that men can write their names in the snow while urinating. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences >... Now there are peculiarities here. One doesn't need a penis >to eliminate waste. So _obviously_ there is a further purpose >to the shape. _Obviously_ it is so that men can write their >names in the snow while urinating. That reminds me of a joke: Jake and Zeb had been farm neighbors for a long time. Jake's teenage son, Josh, was close friends with Zeb's teenage daughter, Jenny. One day Zeb stopped Jake as they were passing on the road. Zeb mentioned that his daughter, Jenny had been spending a lot of time with Josh; but he reckoned that's what young people do. Zeb and Jake met on the road a few days later. Zeb said, "I had to call Jenny two times, to come in last night. She said she had just been talking with Josh." Jake told Zeb not to worry because they were just enjoying one another's company. The very next morning, bright and early, Zeb knocked on Jake's door. Jake could see Zeb was very upset, and asked him to come inside. "Zeb, what's wrong?" He said, "Your boy Josh was outside my house late last night!" Jake said, "Well, you know, young boys stay out late some time." "Yeah, but I found where he had taken a leak outside Jenny's bedroom. It said 'Jenny loves Josh!" said Zeb. Jake said, "Well, all of us boys have done that sort thing, some time or other. Why are you so upset about a little love note?" Zeb, nearly exploding, yelled, "Because it was written IN JENNY'S HANDWRITING!" _________________________ Some trees are ever green. >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we >> all know [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Any more than we know "in the final analysis, women are dumber than > men, or blacks are no better than animals." Or that those who oppose gay marriage are necessarily trying to avoid legitimizing homosexuality. There's lots of things like that we don't know, right Doug? > >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we > >> all know [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > legitimizing homosexuality. There's lots of things like that we don't > know, right Doug? If you are going to take every opportunity to try to get a rise out of me, you could actually read what I write. Otherwise you are just setting up straw men. I realize they are easier to knock down then real men, so if that is what you are after, by all means continue. >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, >> >> we [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > of > me, you could actually read what I write. I did, and I reposted it word for word. Wanna see it again? "The opposition to gay marriage is about trying to avoid legitimizing homosexuality." Did I mischaracterize what you said? Did I take it out of context? > Otherwise you are just setting up straw men. I realize they are > easier to knock down then real men, so if that is what you are > after, > by all means continue. You're not claiming to be a real man, now are you Doug? How is what I posted any sort of a straw man? The fact is that I've showed quite definitively both by what you said before, and now by what you're claiming on the whole "trailer trash" issue that not only do you have a definite predisposition to prejudice, but that you must be aware of it because you spend an inordinate amount of time lecturing others about what you mistakenly perceive as their's. And now you must also have a phobia about whether or not you're a real man for you to have to claim as much. Defend away, Doug. > >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, > >> >> we [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > Did I mischaracterize what you said? Did I take it out of context? Yep, you did. It was specifically related to people who claim gay marriage is a "threat to marriage." Since those people are uniformly unable to justify that claim, that indicates that their avowed basis for an objection is a cover for something they aren't willing to say publicly. >>>>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, >>>>>> we [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > indicates that their avowed basis for an objection is a cover for > something they aren't willing to say publicly. It's been said before, but you've chosen not to hear it. Which isn't too surprising - you choose to hear what you want to hear, Doug, and ignore the rest in your "responses". So no wonder you don't get it. Of course, that probably applies to some others in here too. Might even apply to me. Just don't be disingenuous about it - it makes you look bad, to those that can see past the surface. >> Since those people are uniformly unable to justify that claim, that >> indicates that their avowed basis for an objection is a cover for [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > look bad, > to those that can see past the surface. It's amazing to me how so many people all see the same things in Doug (e.g., pretending that certain arguments were never made, stalking those who've shown his arguments to be invalid, the inability to admit he's wrong, etc..), and yet he still doesn't get how transparent he's become. > >> Since those people are uniformly unable to justify that claim, that > >> indicates that their avowed basis for an objection is a cover for [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > he's wrong, etc..), and yet he still doesn't get how transparent he's > become. I don't know. You claim to make arguments all the time that you have not really made. He often calls you on the holes, and you ignore him. >> >> Since those people are uniformly unable to justify that claim, >> >> that [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > not > really made. He often calls you on the holes, and you ignore him. OK, please support this claim by giving me a couple of examples. Where have I ever said that I made an argument that I've not really made, and where has he called me on it only for me to ignore him? Now, are you a hit and run artist, or can you substantiate your claims? Examples here---------> > >> >> Since those people are uniformly unable to justify that claim, > >> >> that [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > Now, are you a hit and run artist, or can you substantiate your > claims? Can't. I thought I was responding to Bill. My Bad. I rarely read your posts. > Examples here---------> >> >> >> Since those people are uniformly unable to justify that >> >> >> claim, [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Can't. I thought I was responding to Bill. My Bad. I rarely read > your posts. Just as I thought, a hit & run artist. >> >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final >> >> >> analysis, [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > Yep, you did. It was specifically related to people who claim gay > marriage is a "threat to marriage." To which your reply was that anyone who opposes gay marriage is trying to avoid legitimizing it. It's right there in black and white, and whereas you've provided no logical argument for how what you said could possibly have been taken out of context, it stands as is. > Since those people are uniformly unable to justify that claim, that > indicates that their avowed basis for an objection is a cover for > something they aren't willing to say publicly. So now you've got to make up your mind. On one hand, you're claiming that I took what you said out of context, but now on the other, you're confirming that what you meant is exactly what I said you meant, which is that anyone who opposes gay marriage is just trying to avoid legitimizing it. So which is it? And as to your claim, you're now resorting to the same cheap tactic that you used with Zorra. There have been those here who have given you very legitimate reasons for opposing gay marriage, but you're pretending as though they never have so that you can keep your fantasy together. The fact is that there are plenty of people who legitimately believe as a matter of religious faith that marriage should be limited to between one man and one woman. Then there are people like Bill who believe that it's important in terms of providing a stable family structure. Now you, and maybe even I, can disagree with them on those points, but to claim that none of those arguments were ever even made (i.e., "those people are uniformly unable to justify that claim") is just completely false. What's more, it's highly judgmental and prejudicial. > >> >> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in >> > >> message [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] > To which your reply was that anyone who opposes gay marriage is trying > to avoid legitimizing it. As you said, mischaracterized and taken out of context. That's your right, but don't expect it to convince me of anything. >> >> >> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in >> >> >> message [quoted text clipped - 47 lines] > > As you said, mischaracterized and taken out of context. No, I asked you if that's what you thought, I didn't make any such statement. Your inability to make any sort of a logical argument as to how you meant that direct quote vs. how I'm relaying it is convincing evidence that there is no difference between the two. > That's your right, but don't expect it to convince me of anything. Convince you that you're wrong? LOL! I never had any such expectations. The whole point was to show that you're basically a liar, and to that end, I succeeded quite a while ago. The fact is that I quoted you directly, word for word, and you've only made an assertion that it was taken out of context, but provided no argument at all to that effect. QED. >>> >> >> "Doug Anderson" <ethelthelogremovethis@gmail.com> wrote in >> >>> >> message [quoted text clipped - 65 lines] > >QED. You're onto his bastardizing the debate tactics too, huh? > On Wed, 14 Jun 2006 07:59:35 -0400, "AllYou!" > <Idaman@conversent.net> [quoted text clipped - 76 lines] > > You're onto his bastardizing the debate tactics too, huh? He's as transparent as glass. > Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > know > homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. You want to > call > that prejudice? If you do, I'd say you're (whoever) just as bigoted, > albeit in a different way. How do you account for gay sheep and penguins, then? >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >> know >> homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. You want to >> call that prejudice? If you do, I'd say you're (whoever) just as bigoted, >> albeit in a different way. > > How do you account for gay sheep and penguins, then? Easy. Those are examples of some genetic aberrations. So what? >>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >>> know [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Easy. Those are examples of some genetic aberrations. So what? 1.) It happens in nature, so it isn't really unnatural 2.) It is clearly biological - the sheep don't "choose" to be gay 3.) It may be fairly common - if you google "gay sheep percentage" you'll find references giving 8% of rams, for instance. I've not read the original studies, am not interested enough to do so, but wonder how big a percentage it has to be before you can't call it an aberration... >...but wonder how big a percentage >it has to be before you can't call it an aberration... LOL... I suspect that the percentage is inversely related to the degree to which Bill *likes* it. rj >>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >>>> know homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. You want >>>> to call that prejudice? If you do, I'd say you're (whoever) just as >>>> bigoted, albeit in a different way. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > 1.) It happens in nature, so it isn't really unnatural Depends on how you and I are defining "natural", I suppose. If by "natural" you mean does it ever occur in nature (no matter how rare the occurrence), then, sure. > 2.) It is clearly biological - the sheep don't "choose" to be gay OK - that's a good point. Well, unless some of the sheep are somehow hanging out with a different crowd of sheep! > 3.) It may be fairly common - if you google "gay sheep percentage" you'll > find references giving 8% of rams, for instance. I've not read the original > studies, am not interested enough to do so, but wonder how big a percentage > it has to be before you can't call it an aberration... 10 %. >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >> know [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > How do you account for gay sheep and penguins, then? Deviant animals? > >> I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the APA was > >> correct in refusing to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all know > homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. We all know it! We're in denial again. Damn it, at least we can be honest. Seriously though. This is a wacky argument. Just about everything humans do now is in defiance of nature. You never responded to my brth control question. That is also clearly in defiance of nature. Is that also an aberation? > You want to call > that prejudice? If you do, I'd say you're (whoever) just as bigoted, [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > not, these days. And if you don't believe that, then you haven't been > around on this planet long enough to have seen the sea change. >>>> I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the >>>> APA was correct in refusing to classify homosexuality as a mental [quoted text clipped - 107 lines] > brth control question. That is also clearly in defiance of nature. Is > that also an aberation? As long as your form of birth control doesn't involve anal intercourse Bill will think it's fine, natural or not! Tai (snip) >As long as your form of birth control doesn't involve anal intercourse Bill >will think it's fine, natural or not! > >Tai ROTFLMAO! (<grin> Did I just make a pun?) >As long as your form of birth control doesn't involve anal intercourse Bill >will think it's fine, natural or not! Well, judging by the popularity of web sites like anal assault and such, it doesn't seem like anal intercourse is as much of a freak deviation as Bill seems to think it is. I'd say at least 70-80% have tried it at least once, if not more. Seems like Bill and those whom are grossed out by it are in the minority. >> As long as your form of birth control doesn't involve anal intercourse Bill >> will think it's fine, natural or not! > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Seems like Bill and those whom are grossed out by it are in the > minority. I'm often in the minority. Maybe I have a disorder. >>>> I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the APA was >>>> correct in refusing to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. >>>> >>>> Here is a brief history: >>>> >>>> Prior to the 1973 publishing of the DSM-II, committees of the APA met to >>>> discuss this issue. A compromise was reached -- a diagnosis of "sexual >>>> orientation disturbance". The defining characteristic of this diagnosis >>>> was that the person was unhappy with their sexual orientation -- and it >>>> caused them psychological impairment (depression, anxiety, etc.). The >>>> committee recognized that, while some people experienced such impairment, >>>> others did not. Since the APA is in the business of identifying >>>> psychiatric disorders (i.e., those behaviors and thought patterns that >>>> either cause the identified patient distress or causes problems in social >>>> effectivenss or functioning. Since a goodly number of homosexuals were >>>> neither distressed about their sexual orientation *and* demonstrated high >>>> levels of social functioning (i.e., maintaining significant relationship, >>>> being responsible members of society, etc.) the decision was made to take >>>> homosexuality, per se, out of the manual, and to include a category for >>>> those people who were, indeed, distressed about their orientation. >>>> >>>> In the 1980 revision, the category was newly labelled at "Ego-Dystonic >>>> Homosexuality". This was actually in deference to an increasing small, but >>>> vocal group of (primarily classically-trained) psychotherapists who >>>> insisted that it be included. But, the weight of the research had led [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>> >>>> By 1986 (with publishing of the DSM-III-R), the members of the committee >>>> no longer felt that there was a need for that category either. Ego-dystonic >>>> homosexuality seemed to be a normal phase of a person declaring his/her >>>> homosexuality -- most people don't willingly choose to be different ina >>>> way that many members of society deem inappropriate or "sinful", so it was >>>> normal that they would be anxious/depressed upon dealing with the >>>> ramification of this, and wish to change it. What the vast majority of >>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally >>>> healthy was not in trying to change their sexual orientation, but in >>>> changing their thought processes to be accepting of their natural >>>> orientation and learning to deal more effectively with their (less than >>>> supportive) environments. These mental health issues fall under the >>>> non-sexual-orientation-specific categories of "depression", "anxiety" and >>>> "adjustment disorders". >>>> >>>> If anything, the "lobbying" that occurred during this process came, IMO, >>>> from the biased minority of those hold-outs who, for years, insisted on >>>> ignoring the data in favor of "it just isn't right, and therefore, it >>>> should be a mental disorder". Yes, Gay Rights advocates weighed in on the >>>> decision, but they, at least, had data supporting their opinions, not just >>>> blind prejudice. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] >> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all know >> homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. > > We all know it! We're in denial again. Damn it, at least we can be honest. Good. That's a first step! > Seriously though. This is a wacky argument. Just about everything humans do > now is in defiance of nature. You never responded to my brth control > question. That is also clearly in defiance of nature. Is that also an > aberation? "All or nothing" thinking again. Come on, give me a break! I'm usually the one who does this all or nothing thinking. Are you tryin to steal my thunder? :-) > >>>> I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the APA > was [quoted text clipped - 125 lines] > the one who does this all or nothing thinking. Are you tryin to steal my > thunder? :-) Wait a minute. "All or nothing" is your response. It seems to me that if defiance of nature is a reason for one thing to be an aberation, it would also for others. What is the fundamental difference between anal intercourse and birth control as it relates to the defiance of nature = bad equation that you are applying only to anal sex. <Snip> >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > know [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > question. That is also clearly in defiance of nature. Is that also an > aberation? Yes, it is. And the consequences are very severe, though not felt by the individual who is able to support a higher standard of living. It's felt by the society (especially socialist societies like Europe). Due to birth control and abortion, Europe is seeing a decline in the European population. In Italy instead of the required replacement rate of 2.1 required to *simply maintain* population, they are experiencing a 1.2 replacement rate which is well below replacement value. The projection with Muslim immigration into Italy, that the country will be "Italy" in name only in 50 years, and will be effectively Muslim. > <Snip> > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > individual who is able to support a higher standard of living. It's felt > by the society (especially socialist societies like Europe). I have a considerably easier time understanding your position than Bills. I don't agree with it. But at least I can understand it. Bill's supposed reasoning makes no sense. > Due to birth control and abortion, Europe is seeing a decline in the > European population. In Italy instead of the required replacement rate of > 2.1 required to *simply maintain* population, they are experiencing a 1.2 > replacement rate which is well below replacement value. The projection > with Muslim immigration into Italy, that the country will be "Italy" in > name only in 50 years, and will be effectively Muslim. >Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all know >homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. You want to call [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >not, these days. And if you don't believe that, then you haven't been >around on this planet long enough to have seen the sea change. Depression is an abnormality too. Does that mean depressives should not be allowed to marry and reproduce? It's much more likely that a male/female depressive couple will reproduce and have depressive children, then that male/male gay couple will reproduce. >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all know >> homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. You want to call >> that prejudice? If you do, I'd say you're (whoever) just as bigoted, >> albeit in a different way. >> >> So the question becomes, do we accept that is abnormal, and that it may give >> rise to some abnormal role modeling or abnormal child rearing problems in >> society (thinking of marriages here), or do we try to deny that, just >> because it may hurt someone's feelings? (Which seems to be all we ever do >> in this new age generation). >> >> I'm not advocating deliberately hurting people. But OTOH, I do think >> things should be stated and looked at more objectively, and often they are >> not, these days. And if you don't believe that, then you haven't been >> around on this planet long enough to have seen the sea change. > > Depression is an abnormality too. Does that mean depressives should > not be allowed to marry and reproduce? That's probably not a bad idea. Actually, if you want a list, I could probably give you one, but we'd be here all night. We already have a systemic problem across the world now, in terms of who is - and who isn't - reproducing, now don't we? (rhetorical) > It's much more likely that a male/female depressive couple will > reproduce and have depressive children, then that male/male gay couple > will reproduce. >>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >know [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >in terms of who is - and who isn't - reproducing, now don't we? >(rhetorical) Dr Mengele, is that you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele >>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >>>> know homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. You want >>>> to call that prejudice? If you do, I'd say you're (whoever) just as >>>> bigoted, albeit in a different way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> problems in society (thinking of marriages here), or do we try to deny >>>> that, just because it may hurt someone's feelings? (Which seems to be >>>> all we ever do in this new age generation). >>>> >>>> I'm not advocating deliberately hurting people. But OTOH, I do think >>>> things should be stated and looked at more objectively, and often they are >>>> not, these days. And if you don't believe that, then you haven't been >>>> around on this planet long enough to have seen the sea change. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> Actually, if you want a list, I could probably give you one, but we'd be >> here all night. We already have a systemic problem across the world now, >> in terms of who is - and who isn't - reproducing, now don't we? >> (rhetorical) > > Dr Mengele, is that you? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele No, it's not me. But I *am* worried about the world, and overpopulation, and (well, I guess the list is boundless). Maybe it's pointless. >>>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >>>>> know homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. You [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] >No, it's not me. But I *am* worried about the world, and overpopulation, >and (well, I guess the list is boundless). Maybe it's pointless. Well, Bill, I'm pretty sure that allowing gay's to marry isn't going to lead to world overpopulation. I'm also pretty sure you won't be able to resolve world's problems on Usenet. Isn't it bedtime for you? And if you want to solve a problem you *can* solve, you can do data entry for my taxes, I'm way behind and have no motivation to keep plugging away. I'm dying to pawn it off on someone with too much time on their hands. That way you can start solving world's problems one at a time. >>>>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >>>>>> know homosexuality is not normal, and it IS deviant behavior. You want >>>>>> to call that prejudice? If you do, I'd say you're (whoever) just as >>>>>> bigoted, albeit in a different way. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>> problems in society (thinking of marriages here), or do we try to deny >>>>>> that, just because it may hurt someone's feelings? (Which seems to be >>>>>> all we ever do in this new age generation). >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm not advocating deliberately hurting people. But OTOH, I do think >>>>>> things should be stated and looked at more objectively, and often they >>>>>> are not, these days. And if you don't believe that, then you haven't >>>>>> been around on this planet long enough to have seen the sea change. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>>> Actually, if you want a list, I could probably give you one, but we'd be >>>> here all night. We already have a systemic problem across the world now, >>>> in terms of who is - and who isn't - reproducing, now don't we? >>>> (rhetorical) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> No, it's not me. But I *am* worried about the world, and overpopulation, >> and (well, I guess the list is boundless). Maybe it's pointless. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Usenet. > Isn't it bedtime for you? No. It's only bedtime for Bonzo. Hmmm. Well, on second thought... > And if you want to solve a problem you *can* solve, No, that would be too boring. > you can do data > entry for my taxes, I'm way behind and have no motivation to keep > plugging away. I'm dying to pawn it off on someone with too much time > on their hands. I hate taxes! That's why I use Tax Cut (or TurboTax). Maybe you ought to consider doing that too. > That way you can start solving world's problems one at a time. > >>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all > >know [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Dr Mengele, is that you? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele That's what I was thinking too. >>>> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we all >>know [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > Dr Mengele, is that you? > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josef_Mengele I think you were thinking of Margaret Sanger, the founder of Planned Parenthood. > Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we > all know homosexuality is not normal, What is "normal"? > and it IS deviant behavior. - Michaela > You want to call that prejudice? If you do, I'd say you're > (whoever) just as bigoted, albeit in a different way. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > haven't been around on this planet long enough to have seen the sea > change. - Michaela >> Look, you guys can say what you want, but in the final analysis, we >> all know homosexuality is not normal, > > What is "normal"? Normal means conforming to the usual, standard, regular, and expected state of things. And, most commonly, the natural state of things. And lacking observable abnormalities, or deficiencies, or deviances. And - not departing from the usual or accepted standards of social behavior. >> and it IS deviant behavior. > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > - Michaela >Myself, I believe being gay is complex and largely biologic, which >is not to say strictly controlled by one gene or two genes, but >definitely within the purview of genetics. hasn't it been discovered in last 10+ years that there's a significant number of people that aren't genetically pure XX or XY, but that there are subtypes? Like XXY or XYY etc... some links about it: http://www.gynecomastia.org/content/general/klinsyd.shtml http://www.yandina.com/Temp/GIDBrochure.pdf#search='transgendered%20xxy%20xxx' http://sociweb.tamu.edu/Faculty/POSTON/Postonweb/soci207_fall02/biological-appro ach.htm http://www.cttgs.org/Phyllabuster.html > What the vast majority of > therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally > healthy was not in trying to change their sexual orientation, but in > changing their thought processes to be accepting of their natural > orientation and learning to deal more effectively with their (less than > supportive) environments. Then how do you account for the elevated rates of suicide among homosexuals (with no decrease shown in "havens of support" like San Francisco)? > > What the vast majority of > > therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > homosexuals (with no decrease shown in "havens of support" like San > Francisco)? The data on this are all over the place. First of all, San Francisco has a higher overall suicide rate than many other places (Asians in S.F., gay or not, are an example). Many theories have been proposed. But the underlying reason, I believe, for a higher rate of suicide among gay people stems from the tremendous difficulty of accepting oneself. I know lots of gay people who are still coming to terms with all that it means to be gay in society, and many who wish they weren't gay, or who try very hard to "fix themselves" so they aren't gay, etc. I just know it's way easier to be hetero for most of us, and as we were stating, there are "ego dystonic" gay people out there. Very few "ego dystonic" straight people - although some. A. >>> What the vast majority of >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > > A. I woulde guess that is probably true. But then again, that feeling isn't all that unusual, is it? I mean, anyone who has any disorder probably feels this way to some extent, but (admitedly) probably not to this extent - at least for many of the disorders. Of course, if you (whoever) want to categorically state it is not a disorder, then the question becomes, what is a "disorder" in your book? Only something as extreme as, say, someone who is psychotic, or what? Where is the line? > >>> What the vast majority of > >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > feels this way to some extent, but (admitedly) probably not to this extent - > at least for many of the disorders. Well, by your definition of disorder, left-handedness is also a disorder. Of course left-handed people _don't_ have other people telling them they are abnormal, disordered, unnatural, a disappointment to their parents, sinful or mentally ill for being left-handed. Which may explain why left-handedness isn't associated with difficulties in accepting oneself. So no, not anyone who has any disorder (by your definition of disorder) necessarily feels this way. >>>>> What the vast majority of >>>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > they are abnormal, disordered, unnatural, a disappointment to their > parents, sinful or mentally ill for being left-handed. What the hell does being left handed have to do with raising children in the proper role modeling environment (and yes, that includes sex)? Answer: nothing! > Which may explain why left-handedness isn't associated with > difficulties in accepting oneself. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita > http://www.x-privat.org/join.php >> >>> What the vast majority of >> >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > Well, by your definition of disorder, left-handedness is also a > disorder. Well, I'm left handed, and I have adapted quite well. One of the reasons is that I am physically able to use my left hand to do the same thing other people (and sometimes even myself) use my right hand for. I don't have the psychological dissonance of desiring to put my sexual organs to a purpose to which they weren't designed. Using the left hand analogy, it would be a disorder is I had a desire to listen with my hand ("talk to the hand!") and being upset because my hand was deaf. > Of course left-handed people _don't_ have other people telling them they > are abnormal, disordered, unnatural, a disappointment to their parents, > sinful or mentally ill for being left-handed. No, because using a screw driver, or a fork or something else in your left hand is using the appendage as it was designed. I don't believe that there is a *need* to tell homosexuals that something is wrong. I think deep down, they know. I'm sure that isn't true for all of them. And I'm sure there's a homosexual out there who will be happy to tell me I'm wrong. There might even be homosexuals who are supremely comfortable in their own skin. But it has probably taken them a long time to get to that place, and you can't blame "bigots", or "Christians", or "society" for causing all of this uncomfortableness. > Which may explain why left-handedness isn't associated with difficulties > in accepting oneself. What about before about 1950, when nuns in Catholic schools forced left handed students to change hands? Did that impact their self image, and their self esteem? > So no, not anyone who has any disorder (by your definition of disorder) > necessarily feels this way. Did you mean not "everyone"? Because I'm sure that that is true. There are people with all kinds of disorders who are perfectly happy with their lives. Have you ever met a happy alcoholic? These are the ones who don't think they have a problem, and it hasn't supremely affected their lives in a negative way. > >> >>> What the vast majority of > >> >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > is that I am physically able to use my left hand to do the same thing > other people (and sometimes even myself) use my right hand for. Excellent! I'm glad to hear that. Luckily for you, the catholic church doesn't tell you that you are committing a mortal sin every time you use your left hand for things that other people use their right hand for, eh? That _would_ make it a bit harder to adapt, I'd guess. > Luckily for you, the catholic church doesn't tell you that you are > committing a mortal sin every time you use your left hand for things > that other people use their right hand for, eh? > > That _would_ make it a bit harder to adapt, I'd guess. Though, there may well be a certain venial sin that Tony commits with his left hand that others more typically commit with their right. >> Luckily for you, the catholic church doesn't tell you that you are >> committing a mortal sin every time you use your left hand for things [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Though, there may well be a certain venial sin that Tony commits with >his left hand that others more typically commit with their right. So perhaps his right hand may nit be deaf, but his left might be going blind? >>>Luckily for you, the catholic church doesn't tell you that you are >>>committing a mortal sin every time you use your left hand for things [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So perhaps his right hand may nit be deaf, but his left might be going > blind? *spew* >> >> >>> What the vast majority of >> >> >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > > That _would_ make it a bit harder to adapt, I'd guess. A little but not too much. My uncle didn't have too hard a time, and he ended up ambidextrous. (I noticed you snipped the rest, does that mean you agreed with it?) > >> >> >>> What the vast majority of > >> >> >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > > (I noticed you snipped the rest, does that mean you agreed with it?) No it doesn't mean that. It was just to boring to respond to. >>>>>>>>> What the vast majority of >>>>>>>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people >>>>>>>>> mentally healthy was not in trying to change their sexual >>>>>>>>> orientation, but in changing their thought processes to be accepting >>>>>>>>> of their natural orientation and learning to deal more effectively >>>>>>>>> with their (less than supportive) environments. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The data on this are all over the place. First of all, San Francisco >>>>>>> has a higher overall suicide rate than many other places (Asians >>>>>>> in S.F., gay or not, are an example). Many theories have been >>>>>>> proposed. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> But the underlying reason, I believe, for a higher rate of suicide among >>>>>>> gay people stems from the tremendous difficulty of accepting oneself. >>>>>>> I know lots of gay people who are still coming to terms with all that it >>>>>>> means to be gay in society, and many who wish they weren't gay, or >>>>>>> who try very hard to "fix themselves" so they aren't gay, etc. I just >>>>>>> know it's way easier to be hetero for most of us, and as we were >>>>>>> stating, there are "ego dystonic" gay people out there. Very few "ego >>>>>>> dystonic" straight people - although some. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>> isn't all that unusual, is it? I mean, anyone who has any disorder >>>>>> probably feels this way to some extent, but (admitedly) probably not to >>>>>> this extent - at least for many of the disorders. >>>>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > > No it doesn't mean that. It was just to boring to respond to. But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that homosexuality WAS in the DSM (at least up until the mid1970s). Of course - and I'll have to concede this point - that was during the CroMagnon Era. > But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that homosexuality > WAS in the DSM (at least up until the mid1970s). Yes I did. I asked what justification there has ever been to consider it a mental illness. You provided none. >> But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that homosexuality >> WAS in the DSM (at least up until the mid1970s). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You provided none. All I said was it WAS in the DSM. What does that mean to you? But honestly, I don't know if I would classify it as a "mental illness", per se. That doesn't sound quite right to me, anyways. >> But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that homosexuality >> WAS in the DSM (at least up until the mid1970s). [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >You provided none. Are you that bored that you keep trying to have a meaningful logical argument with Bill? Did you eat some crazy mushrooms for dinner today or sumthin'? >>> But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that homosexuality >>> WAS in the DSM (at least up until the mid1970s). [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > argument with Bill? > Did you eat some crazy mushrooms for dinner today or sumthin'? This is what I said, and NOT taken out of context. Shame on you! > All I said was it WAS in the DSM. What does that mean to you? > > But honestly, I don't know if I would classify it as a "mental illness", per > se. That doesn't sound quite right to me, anyways. >>>> But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that >homosexuality [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > >This is what I said, and NOT taken out of context. Shame on you! You look so worked up, I can't follow you. And Doug should know better then to pester. You two are actually somewhat alike, you both like to pester for the sake of some truth you think you believe in. >>>>> But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that homosexuality >>>>> WAS in the DSM (at least up until the mid1970s). >>>> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > You look so worked up, I can't follow you. That's ok. (I've found precious few that really can, so I understand. :-) > And Doug should know better then to pester. > > You two are actually somewhat alike, you both like to pester for the > sake of some truth you think you believe in. >>>>>>>>>> What the vast majority of >>>>>>>>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] >But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that homosexuality >WAS in the DSM (at least up until the mid1970s). Billl! Drop it already, you're starting to look really silly, and you're about 17 and a half miles off track. >>>>>>>>>>> What the vast majority of >>>>>>>>>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people >>>>>>>>>>> mentally healthy was not in trying to change their sexual >>>>>>>>>>> orientation, but in changing their thought processes to be accepting >>>>>>>>>>> of their natural orientation and learning to deal more effectively >>>>>>>>>>> with their (less than supportive) environments. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The data on this are all over the place. First of all, San Francisco >>>>>>>>> has a higher overall suicide rate than many other places (Asians >>>>>>>>> in S.F., gay or not, are an example). Many theories have been [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>>>>>>> among gay people stems from the tremendous difficulty of accepting >>>>>>>>> oneself. I know lots of gay people who are still coming to terms with >>>>>>>>> all that it means to be gay in society, and many who wish they >>>>>>>>> weren't gay, or who try very hard to "fix themselves" so they aren't >>>>>>>>> gay, etc. I just know it's way easier to be hetero for most of us, >>>>>>>>> and as we were stating, there are "ego dystonic" gay people out >>>>>>>>> there. Very few "ego dystonic" straight people - although some. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>>> isn't all that unusual, is it? I mean, anyone who has any disorder >>>>>>>> probably feels this way to some extent, but (admitedly) probably not to >>>>>>>> this extent - at least for many of the disorders. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Well, by your definition of disorder, left-handedness is also a >>>>>>> disorder. >>>>>> >>>>>> Well, I'm left handed, and I have adapted quite well. One of the reasons >>>>>> is that I am physically able to use my left hand to do the same thing >>>>>> other people (and sometimes even myself) use my right hand for. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >> >> But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that homosexuality >> WAS in the DSM (at least up until the mid1970s). > > Billl! > Drop it already, you're starting to look really silly, and you're > about 17 and a half miles off track. LOL. OK. I'll try to be better! (but it's an uphill battle, I tell ya) >>>>>>>>>>>> What the vast majority of >>>>>>>>>>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >LOL. OK. I'll try to be better! (but it's an uphill battle, I tell >ya) Go read the "Death of Socrates" Or better yet, this will give you something to chew on, lecture/commentary on Plato's republic http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/ >>>>>>>>>>>>> What the vast majority of >>>>>>>>>>>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people >>>>>>>>>>>>> mentally healthy was not in trying to change their sexual >>>>>>>>>>>>> orientation, but in changing their thought processes to be >>>>>>>>>>>>> accepting of their natural orientation and learning to deal more >>>>>>>>>>>>> effectively with their (less than supportive) environments. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Then how do you account for the elevated rates of suicide among >>>>>>>>>>>> homosexuals (with no decrease shown in "havens of support" like San >>>>>>>>>>>> Francisco)? >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> The data on this are all over the place. First of all, San >>>>>>>>>>> Francisco has a higher overall suicide rate than many other places >>>>>>>>>>> (Asians in S.F., gay or not, are an example). Many theories have >>>>>>>>>>> been proposed. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> But the underlying reason, I believe, for a higher rate of suicide >>>>>>>>>>> among gay people stems from the tremendous difficulty of accepting >>>>>>>>>>> oneself. I know lots of gay people who are still coming to terms >>>>>>>>>>> with all that it means to be gay in society, and many who wish they >>>>>>>>>>> weren't gay, or who try very hard to "fix themselves" so they aren't >>>>>>>>>>> gay, etc. I just know it's way easier to be hetero for most of us, >>>>>>>>>>> and as we were stating, there are "ego dystonic" gay people out >>>>>>>>>>> there. Very few "ego dystonic" straight people - although some. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> A. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I woulde guess that is probably true. But then again, that feeling >>>>>>>>>> isn't all that unusual, is it? I mean, anyone who has any disorder >>>>>>>>>> probably feels this way to some extent, but (admitedly) probably not >>>>>>>>>> to this extent - at least for many of the disorders. >>>>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >>>>>>>> reasons is that I am physically able to use my left hand to do the >>>>>>>> same thing other people (and sometimes even myself) use my right hand >>>>>>>> for. >>>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >>>>>> >>>>>> A little but not too much. My uncle didn't have too hard a time, and he >>>>>> ended up ambidextrous. >>>>>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >>>> >>>> But you never did respond to the FACT (get that? FACT) that homosexuality >>>> WAS in the DSM (at least up until the mid1970s). >>> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> >> LOL. OK. I'll try to be better! (but it's an uphill battle, I tell >> ya) >> > Go read the "Death of Socrates" Oh, come on now! I don't have to READ about that, I was there, already. > Or better yet, this will give you something to chew on, > lecture/commentary on Plato's republic > http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato-ethics-politics/ It's been a LOONGGG time since I read Plato's Republic. (Practically back in the stone ages for me). >> Go read the "Death of Socrates" > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It's been a LOONGGG time since I read Plato's Republic. (Practically back >in the stone ages for me). might be a food time for a refresher. Back to basics kind of a thing to reel yourself in a tad. >> >> >> >>> What the vast majority of >> >> >> >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > > No it doesn't mean that. It was just to boring to respond to. Or you didn't have a response that would make you sound intelligent. > Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php >>> >> >> >>> What the vast majority of >>> >> >> >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] > >Or you didn't have a response that would make you sound intelligent. Is tat why you omit responding? > What about before about 1950, when nuns in Catholic schools forced > left handed students to change hands? Did that impact their self image, > and their self esteem? Actually, I remember a couple of studies done in the 1980's that indicated far worse impact for some of those students --- the practice was correlated with cerebral hemispheric communication and specialization problems. And, yes, many people will list this among the "horrors" of parochial school. Sheila > > What about before about 1950, when nuns in Catholic schools forced > > left handed students to change hands? Did that impact their self image, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Sheila An add-on: my DH attended parochial school until high school. On the positive side, he acknowledges that he got a good grounding in the basic reading, writing and 'rithmetic. He thinks he recieved a better *education* than many who went to public school during the 60's, because he feels he got more of a traditional, classical education. However, it did have a negative impact on him psychologically (and he wasn't even left-handed!). Yes, it did breed anxiety, self-doubt and lack of trust in others. He acknowledges that, to this day, he is scared to death of nuns. He declares the overall experience "horrendous", and it is my guess that this experience is part of the reason he left the church, and has never returned. So, yes, I think that those left-handed students who were berated by the nuns (although, it wasn't only nuns, in parochial schools, but others, as well) were at-risk of having negative psychological impact. Moreover, my guess is that the messages given to left-handed students were less severe (about being evil, etc) than those given to gay students, so I would expect the impact to be somewhat different, as well. Why do some things affect some people more than others? I have no idea. A long-time interest of mine is the area of "resiliency" -- why some people buckle under the pressure, and some don't. Clearly, this is a result of my own history... why am I so different than my family, how did I come through abuse with (relatively) little scarring, while, for others, it would have been devastating? I strongly suspect this, too, has a biological basis. Sheila [snip] >I don't have the psychological dissonance of desiring to put my sexual >organs to a purpose to which they weren't designed. Using the left hand [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >No, because using a screw driver, or a fork or something else in your left >hand is using the appendage as it was designed. Not according, among other, the Catholic Church for most of its history. It was an abomination and mark of the devil to be using your left hand, _that_ (even though more recently they dropped off the language) is why they persisted in forcible conversion. >I don't believe that >there is a *need* to tell homosexuals that something is wrong. Then why do you do so? (whether you is literal or your church) >I think >deep down, they know. I'm sure that isn't true for all of them. And I'm [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >left handed students to change hands? Did that impact their self image, >and their self esteem? Yes. It also caused the problems whansami mentioned, and language processing problems like dyslexia and stuttering. That your uncle merely (as far as you know, and the ability of people to defend their abusers is phenomenal) came away ambidextrous was fortune, not the way to bet. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences > > >>> What the vast majority of > > >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > So no, not anyone who has any disorder (by your definition of > disorder) necessarily feels this way. Ha, great example. My ex had his hand tied behind his back for almost a year, to become right-handed. I don't think the general outcome was good, he was a very neurotic child. Another great example would be: breasts are for babies and drinking of milk - children should probably never be given solid food until about age 1, and _weren't_ in the "natural" world of unprocessed foods and no formula. It certainly isn't natural to use formula or processed baby food in jars. Canned food, frozen food, all that: unnatural. A. A. > Inviato da X-Privat.Org - Registrazione gratuita http://www.x-privat.org/join.php [snip] >Well, by your definition of disorder, left-handedness is also a >disorder. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Which may explain why left-handedness isn't associated with >difficulties in accepting oneself. Ah, but that's _today_ and in only certain countries. You can track it through time. In societies which are actively hostile to left handedness, you _do_ have other people telling left-handers that they are abnormal, disordered, unnatural, sinful, mentally ill, and in league with Satan. (Actually, I've been told all except in league with Satan, there it was just that Satan was using me. But that's an at one time or another, not persistently.) That included the US to about 1900, the UK to about 1950. In the latter, Cyril Burt's _The demon child_ (title approximate, but you'll be surprised how close) about left handers was influential in continuing their repressive state versus left handedness. This is the same Burt who later was in trouble for fraud in his research. In societies which actively repress left-handedness, the rate is 2-4%. In those which don't, after 2-3 generations, it is about 10% (in the youngest generation). After another generation or two, people are baffled that anyone would say such as the original list about left handers. That's one of the things I have in mind in introducing the analogy. It isn't common, but society can do a lot of harm making such people an out-group, it does harm to try to force otherwise, and a few generations down the road it seems strange that anyone ever got hot and bothered about it. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences > That included the US to about 1900, the UK to about 1950. My father in law had his left hand tied up and was forced to used his right hand in the U.S. in the late '40s. In a major north eastern city, too. His mom had to go to the school and raise hell before they would back off. >> That included the US to about 1900, the UK to about 1950. > > My father in law had his left hand tied up and was forced to used his > right hand in the U.S. in the late '40s. In a major north eastern city, > too. His mom had to go to the school and raise hell before they would > back off. OK, (as much as I hate to concede this in here), I have to admit some practices back then seem a bit Neatherdal, in retrospect. I am curious - what was the outcome of this for him? I'm guessing he got better using his right hand, but he could never do as well with it as with his left hand. Is that what happens? > >> That included the US to about 1900, the UK to about 1950. > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > better using his right hand, but he could never do as well with it as with > his left hand. Is that what happens? He couldn't function at all with his right hand. He went from being an excellent student to being a mess. After his mom went in and made them stop, he was fine again. >>>> That included the US to about 1900, the UK to about 1950. >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > excellent student to being a mess. After his mom went in and made them > stop, he was fine again. I see. It was fortunate that his mom intervened, then. > [snip] > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > except in league with Satan, there it was just that Satan was > using me. But that's an at one time or another, not persistently.) Yes, we're a sinister lot, we lefties! But not at all dexterous... Tai >> [snip] >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > >Yes, we're a sinister lot, we lefties! But not at all dexterous... A gauche group, generally left out, while out in left field, and prone to left-handed compliments. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences >>>[snip] >>> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > A gauche group, generally left out, while out in left field, and > prone to left-handed compliments. Putting the "sin" in "sinister." > >> [snip] > >> [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > A gauche group, generally left out, while out in left field, and > prone to left-handed compliments. Yes, but at least they'll eat left-overs. A, > >>> What the vast majority of > >>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > Only something as extreme as, say, someone who is psychotic, or what? > Where is the line? There is no one line. People who are flagrantly psychotic have to have help surviving - there's no question when someone is psychotic, it's distinctive. You won't be asking about "lines" when you're interacting with them. Where do I draw lines, personally? I use DSMIV criteria in my own life that's for sure - and a variety of other things. I'm not a therapist, so I don't have any reason to categorize people into piles of disorder. Organic brain syndromes and psychosis disable people from self-care and make people dangerous to themselves and others. Society draws that line, various states have various laws about it. But homosexuality is not a disorder. Not in my book - or in DSMIV. Most people who show up in a psychiatrist's office WILL get a diagnosis - because that is what "clinical" means (show up in the clinic - you must be seeking treatment). Subclinical personalities are NOT disorders. Now, if a person wants to exclude (for example) all differently-gendered persons from their world, that's their right. But neither DSM IV nor someone like me is going to automatically agree to the universality of someone's pet peeves. The one diagnosis missing (glaringly) from DSM IV is "racism," as when someone has the persistent believe NOT rooted in reality that they can tell something about someone they don't know by merely seeing a swatch of their skin. That's crazy, to me - and it should be a disorder. You can imagine how few of these folks would show up for treatment though - unless mandated. Above, Sheila posted quite clearly on why someone who is gay might show for treatment (adjustment disorder). Adjustment disorders are usually treatable, but sometimes comorbid with depression. The vast majority of gay people today, however, try to find lifestyles and communities for themselves rather than psychotherapy. Why would anyone have a problem with that? Psychotherapy is for people whose psyches (that's something within an individual, not available to the public) are hurting, disordered, uncomfortable for them. Ego dystonic is the key term. A. >>>>> What the vast majority of >>>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally >>>>> healthy was not in trying to change their sexual orientation, but in >>>>> changing their thought processes to be accepting of their natural [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >> >> I would guess that is probably true. But then again, that feeling isn't >> all that unusual, is it? I mean, anyone who has any disorder probably >> feels this way to some extent, but (admitedly) probably not to this extent - [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > But homosexuality is not a disorder. Not in my book - or in DSMIV. By which version? Today's, or pre-1973? I guess today's, because today we "know better" (magically, for some reason). Probably prior to the mid 1970's we were all just Neanderthal bigots. (now Doug will bring in the left handedness) > Most people who show up in a psychiatrist's office WILL get a diagnosis > - [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > Above, Sheila posted quite clearly on why someone who is gay > might show for treatment (adjustment disorder). Which, in itself, indicates something. > Adjustment disorders > are usually treatable, but sometimes comorbid with depression. > > The vast majority of gay people today, however, try to find lifestyles > and communities for themselves rather than psychotherapy. And if their lifestyle necessitates anal sex, for example, that is perfectly normal, physiologically sound, and without consequence, too, right? I don't think so. As I said, that just helped (I said helped - I didn't say was the sole cause) to spread AIDS and HIV in these recent times, and get us in the situation we're now in today. Is there a message there? (rhetorical) > Why would anyone have a problem with that? Psychotherapy is for > people whose psyches (that's something within an individual, not [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > A. > >>>>> What the vast majority of > >>>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people [quoted text clipped - 92 lines] > And if their lifestyle necessitates anal sex, for example, that is perfectly > normal, physiologically sound, and without consequence, too, right? I'm no expert on male homosexuality - but I do know many, and I know the literature. Many do not have anal sex (although straight men often fantasize that they do). The Greek practice was NOT anal sex, and many/most European gay men don't prefer it - you can research how they did it way more if you like. I'm not say it isn't done, of course, just that a surprising number of gay men do NOT have anal sex - and there are boards on that subject for you to visit to find out more about that. Let's not forget that half of gay people are women, Bill. They don't have anal sex either. Also, the number of straight people who DO have anal sex is still rising, according to all the sex researchers anyway - so it may become a wash. People are polymorphous, I guess. A. I > don't think so. As I said, that just helped (I said helped - I didn't say > was the sole cause) to spread AIDS and HIV in these recent times, and get us [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > > > A. > People are polymorphous, I guess. I don't think so - not for the most part. > > People are polymorphous, I guess. > > I don't think so - not for the most part. Bill, you're hardly an expert on people in general - I don't think you even live in a Big City. Do you? Have you read the sexual research literature recently? Have you looked at stats on actual human sexual behavior - start with your own age group, it's quite interesting. The fasting growing group of "sexuality" in America according to several different branches of study (including medicine, which collects lots of interesting data since so many people have cause to go to doctors at one time or another - even after they're dead): Monosexuality (sex with one's own self). This is a fast growing group at all ages. Masturbation is more common and in younger people than ever before. It's more common in older people and is stated as the PREFERRED form of sexuality by more and more people. Is that natural? I don't think so. In fact, the Bible clearly states that it is as sinful as homosexuality (and all sins are equal in the sight of the Lord, spaketh the Christ of Nazareth). There are as many injunctions against it as there against anal sex in the Bible (look it up - there are actually more, in my view). This absurd topic will always come back to facts. And the fact is that masturbation, cybering, phone sex, lofting, porn sex, etc. is part of the New Modernity. Fewer people are getting married. More people are single than at any point in U.S. history. 55% of the currently single say they want NO SORT of romantic/sexual arrangement with ANYONE, and they are "fine" by themselves. They are, therefore, either celibate or they are monosexual. And that's natural to you, right? A. - there's an American twist to these stats (birth rates also low in Europe - but different situation there, in terms of monosexuality which is less prevalent - Russians are collecting quite the interesting stats on their own remarkably low fertility rates...and their own sexuality). I suppose the experts on asm will tell us which of the various EUROPEAN styles is "natural" (and don't forget to include Italy at all points in time and Greece at all points in time). > > What the vast majority of > > therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > homosexuals (with no decrease shown in "havens of support" like San > Francisco)? Self hatred as a result of living in a culture that tells them it is bad to be gay? That is the standard explanation. It seems fairly convincing when you consider how many people who are gay experience bullying, homophobia, intolerance, etc. And most of them learn these attitudes before they even realize that they themselves are gay. I hear 10 year old boys calling people "faggots" and I hear both boys and girls dismissing something or someone as "that's so gay." And I live in a tolerant place. Consider, for example, the catholic church. "Love the sinner, hate the sin." Homosexual activity or thought is considered "sin." You don't think growing up gay with this attitude surrounding you could raise the risk of suicide? >> > What the vast majority of >> > therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Self hatred as a result of living in a culture that tells them it is > bad to be gay? So why the problem when they are living in a bastion of tolerance like San Francisco? When they can flip on the TV and watch Will & Grace and Queer Eye for the Straight Guy? When they can go to the movies and watch Brokeback Mountain? When they have their own television channel? Seems like it's become pretty mainstreamed, and it's still problematic. Why? > That is the standard explanation. It seems fairly convincing when you > consider how many people who are gay experience bullying, homophobia, > intolerance, etc. And most of them learn these attitudes before they > even realize that they themselves are gay. I hear 10 year old boys > calling people "faggots" and I hear both boys and girls dismissing > something or someone as "that's so gay." Oh hell, I was a fat kid with glasses. I took a lot of bullying. And I'm pretty well adjusted (which some will deny, I'm sure), and I have pretty good self esteem (which I don't think anyone can deny). I have never considered suicide. I learned to "deal". > And I live in a tolerant place. I'm sure you do. > Consider, for example, the catholic church. "Love the sinner, hate > the sin." Homosexual activity or thought is considered "sin." You > don't think growing up gay with this attitude surrounding you could > raise the risk of suicide? Well heck, consider the neo-nazis. They hate the sin and kill the sinner. Do you think gay people care what neo-nazis or Catholic think? And if so, why? > >> > What the vast majority of > >> > therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > So why the problem when they are living in a bastion of tolerance like San > Francisco? The problem is that many homosexuals grew up in an intolerant family and an intolerant culture. Moving doesn't straighten out the self-hatred inculcuated as a child. If only it was so easy. > >> > What the vast majority of > >> > therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > good self esteem (which I don't think anyone can deny). I have never > considered suicide. I learned to "deal". Well then, good for you. Fat kids also have a higher suicide rate. So do adopted kids. And on and on. I still have compassion for those who hurt. I also know a lot of people who are in early graves because while they learned to "deal" with being fat, they got fatter and fatter. In fact, a friend just died at age 56, complications of severe obesity. She had high self esteem though. Still sad. > > And I live in a tolerant place. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Do you think gay people care what neo-nazis or Catholic think? And if > so, why? Well, they might want to, as Nazis have killed gay people. People do murder gay people just because they are gay - or hurt them. Did you know that? A. Gay people have been dragged behind cars, too, it's not just for black people anymore. >>>>> What the vast majority of >>>>> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally >>>>> healthy was not in trying to change their sexual orientation, but in >>>>> changing their thought processes to be accepting of their natural >>>>> orientation and learning to deal more effectively with their (less than >>>>> supportive) environments. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > Gay people have been dragged behind cars, too, it's not just for > black people anymore. Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on record saying this, though. As I've said before, I have had a few good gay friends in the past. That doesn't mean I accept or condone their lifestyle (in certain areas), though. > Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't > know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on > record saying this, though. As I've said before, I have had a few good > gay friends in the past. That doesn't mean I accept or condone their > lifestyle (in certain areas), though. You have no right calling them your "friends" if you feel this way about them, Bill. jen >>Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't >>know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You have no right calling them your "friends" if you feel this way > about them, Bill. Now, holdthephone, Jen. Do we have to accept or condone all aspects of someone's lifestyle in order to call them friends? (Bill's "hideous" comment refers to people who commit hate crimes against homosexuals.) >>> Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't >>> know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > someone's lifestyle in order to call them friends? (Bill's "hideous" > comment refers to people who commit hate crimes against homosexuals.) Well, I have to admit that I find it strange that a person who has a lifestyle that is deemed abnormal and deviant is considered a friend. (And I also wonder if that person *knew* that their 'friend' con- siders their lifestyle abnormal and deviant.) Personally, I wouldn't be friends with someone who had a lifestyle that I considered in that way. That doesn't mean that that all of my friends have aspects of their lives that I totally agree with but the level of disagreement isn't of the 'abnormal and deviant' type. Tracey >> Now, holdthephone, Jen. Do we have to accept or condone all aspects of >> someone's lifestyle in order to call them friends? (Bill's "hideous" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > of their lives that I totally agree with but the level of disagreement > isn't of the 'abnormal and deviant' type. I guess I was thinking specifically in terms of people who use recreational drugs (esp. those who do so well past the high school/college "experimental" phase), are into S&M, have gotten themselves enmeshed in abusive relationships and haven't found the wherewithall to get themselves out, or people who have committed adultery. I am probably guilty of taking Bill's statement and Jen's response out of context; I haven't followed everything that Bill has said in this thread concerning his views on homosexuality, and he may have expressed views elsewhere that go beyond "I don't accept or condone this" and more into the category of "I am disgusted and revolted by this." >>> Now, holdthephone, Jen. Do we have to accept or condone all aspects >>> of someone's lifestyle in order to call them friends? (Bill's [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > recreational drugs (esp. those who do so well past the high > school/college "experimental" phase), I have friends who do so and they have known for years that I cannot be around that stuff knowingly. So, the end result is that they smoke their joint before we get together and smoke afterwards, never with. >are into S&M, Personally, I'm not at all interested in that and I've never had friends who have admitted to being into that lifestyle but I can't see that stopping me from being friends with someone who was as long as it was in the same context as above. >have gotten themselves enmeshed in abusive relationships and >haven't found the wherewithall to get themselves out, I have had only one friend (that I know of) who was in a physically abusive relationship and, while I didn't end the friendship because I didn't want to condone her choices, I *did* end contact quite a few years ago because of other reasons. >or people who have committed adultery. I've had friends who have been in the middle of an affair or seemed to be in the middle of an affair and didn't end the friendship over that fact. > I am probably guilty of taking Bill's statement and Jen's response out > of context; I haven't followed everything that Bill has said in this > thread concerning his views on homosexuality, and he may have expressed > views elsewhere that go beyond "I don't accept or condone this" and more > into the category of "I am disgusted and revolted by this." The operative terms were that homosexuality was abnormal and deviant behavior. Tracey >>>> Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't >>>> know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Tracey I don't see it as a black and white, all or nothing, proposition. I'm not quite that monolithic. > >>> Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't > >>> know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > of their lives that I totally agree with but the level of disagreement > isn't of the 'abnormal and deviant' type. I was wondering if those gays would still be Bill's friends if they knew how harshly he was judging them? >>>>> Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't >>>>> know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > I was wondering if those gays would still be Bill's friends if they > knew how harshly he was judging them? They knew what I thought about it. > Now, holdthephone, Jen. Do we have to accept or condone all aspects of > someone's lifestyle in order to call them friends? No, we don't, but if I were homosexual, I would have a hard time being a friend to someone with Bill's beliefs. Acquaintance, sure. But not a friend. > (Bill's "hideous" > comment refers to people who commit hate crimes against homosexuals.) Oh, I did miss that. Still, it doesn't change my view on this. For me, if I were gay, I could not be friends with someone who felt that there was something "unnatural" or "abberational" about me. That is wholly different than someone just not condoning my lifestyle choices. jen >> Now, holdthephone, Jen. Do we have to accept or condone all aspects of >> someone's lifestyle in order to call them friends? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > jen Well Jen, let me explain how it was handled. Those issues were never discussed, and were just kept out of the friendship. I'm sure if I had made a big issue out of it with them, that would have been the end of the friendship - but for what point? I mean, we probably all have some things we do that our friends disagree with, or disrespect. That doesn't necessarily mean you have to throw out the baby with the bath water, too. Well, ok, up to a point. If I found out I had a friend who was a serial killer, that WOULD be the end of our friendship! (I hope!) >>> Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't >>> know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on >>> record saying this, though. As I've said before, I have had a few good >>> gay friends in the past. That doesn't mean I accept or condone their >>> lifestyle (in certain areas), though. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > someone's lifestyle in order to call them friends? (Bill's "hideous" > comment refers to people who commit hate crimes against homosexuals.) According to Jen, evidently! But this is my point - and you're quite right here, Kath (as to how I see it) >> Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't >> know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > jen No, that is not true. Just because I don't accept some things (meaning what they do behind closed doors) does not mean they are bad people. >> Well, I think that is Hideous! (just to let you know, in case you don't >> know, since a few here seem to think I'm such a bigot. I want to go on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > You have no right calling them your "friends" if you feel this way > about them, Bill. So what's friendship to you, Jen? If your friend is in an abusive relationship and she "loves" the guy, do you keep your mouth shut and "support" her? How about the alcoholic friend? Do you tell them they're fine just the way they are, and here... have another drink? Friends do what's best for their friend. Friends tell unpleasant truths to their friends when it's required sometimes losing the friend in the process. At least that's what friendship means to me. What does it mean to you? > jen > So what's friendship to you, Jen? If your friend is in an abusive > relationship and she "loves" the guy, do you keep your mouth shut and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > At least that's what friendship means to me. What does it mean to you? I see where you are going with this. Let's skip ahead, why don't we? As you know, I am also religious. I believe that loving someone does mean wanting to see them be the best they can be, i.e., grow closer to god. I just don't agree with you that the only way to grow closer to god is for a homosexual to practice celibacy. I feel that for most of us - straight or gay - a committed, sexually monogamous LTR (i.e., marriage) is far more efficient and productive. Why don't we put it this way: are you ready to give up your DW and sex with women forever, if that was what the Church said it would take for you to get into heaven? jen >> So what's friendship to you, Jen? If your friend is in an abusive >> relationship and she "loves" the guy, do you keep your mouth shut and [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > mean wanting to see them be the best they can be, i.e., grow closer to > god. Exactly. You're doing fine so far. > I just don't agree with you that the only way to grow closer to god is > for a homosexual to practice celibacy. I feel that for most of us - > straight or gay - a committed, sexually monogamous LTR (i.e., marriage) > is far more efficient and productive. Problem is, how you grow closer to God (big "G", proper name) is not defined by you. It's defined by God. Relationships are funny like that, even those between people. God expects certain attitudes from you, and certain behaviors as a result of those attitudes. > Why don't we put it this way: are you ready to give up your DW and sex > with women forever, if that was what the Church said it would take for > you to get into heaven? Well, the point is moot, because I didn't get that particular calling from God. However, when I was about 8, I felt the call to the priesthood (give up sex with women, or men, forever). Had it been my true vocation, yes, I could have done that. > >> So what's friendship to you, Jen? If your friend is in an abusive > >> relationship and she "loves" the guy, do you keep your mouth shut and [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > up sex with women, or men, forever). Had it been my true vocation, yes, I > could have done that. Except that who would want a priest who can't distingiush between a truthful and/or reasonable use of the future tense - and self-worthing, unproven (callow) use of the future tense? Only a desperate church. Priests are supposed to be the best - the ones with the highest callings, and sometimes even they fail. Since you didn't give up sex, you FANTASIZE that you are that strong type of man would "could" (future imperfect/improbable tense 'can") give it up. You couldn't and didn't. You could, in the future, if you give up everything that diverts from study of and service to God (or are you going to redefine the word "priest" for us, too - to mean, hobby, dilettante)? At 8, Freud calls that latency and notes that about 95% of boys and girls want to join the convent or become a monk. Obviously, not all of them do. Later, when their bodies begin to produce the variety of chemicals that surround the sex drive, they'll sort themselves out differently. A. - I don't mind that you're anonymous, Troy/Tony/whoever but I do mind that you have decided the way to fight "evil feminists" is to emulate their propagandist tactics. You see, women were probably the last group to get away with it, publically - because we run a tight and fairly longterm P.R. machine. Propaganda and hyperbole are death to a political movement, a family, a loving relationship, a circle of friends, a functional workplace - to so many things, indeed, that it's only suited for usenet. Women, in the 20th century, did indeed opt for less loving relationships, fewer families, lack of diversity in friendships, working less than men but attempting to have the same standard of living, etc., etc. That's not evil - that's history. If you study history, you'll see that people who know a LOT about history and are also good-hearted tend to make fairly good decisions when put in the position to do so (all human decisions are imperfect, someone is always pissed). Then, there are people who know almost nothing about history (like yourself and like the women you deride) and are doomed of course to fight about things that should be settled. It seems that there's a big chunk of peers (men and women) aged about 28-42 right now that are engaged in this comic battle you describe, almost fulltime. The youngers and the olders, not so much. So from one perspective, what you are saying is truer than true: The set of [ALL women are wretched] = [the only set of women with whom I might have mated/reproduced are wretched], whereas obviously women of your grandmother's age would not have the same problems - even your own mom was only on the downslope, and now, your agemates can indeed have offbeat definitions of marriage. In other words, you rile up women here because many of us are not as you describe - not even remotely. Not on a relative scale, not on absolute one. But I see what my daughters and their friends are like, and I see the variation of gameplaying that everyone is doing. I don't see the earnest "anti-game-playing" movement that sprang up in college students in the 1970's, and I don't see an honest return to wanting to "do good in school" that accompanied it. We were pretty straight kids, back then - even the wild ones. Today's younger people do live in a more "Jerry Springer" kind of world (whatever you want to call that). I did too, but I was protected from that knowledge by family members who hid things, as was common back then. In doing years of genealogy research (My Beauty Queen sister feels such guilt about her genes, apparently, she has had to put together the entire family tree to show she was an aberration/didn't mean to be so pretty) I found that all manner of things happened back then, and my family just wasn't the type to "make public." And that's really what we're talking about. In years of family research, I've found most or all families have skeletons (All of the ones I've studied sure do), there are merely varying degrees of honesty - and of intelligence - in the families. If the kids are smart and start asking questions, you're doomed to have to tell the truth or to try and explain to your offspring why lying is sometimes good. Good luck with that. A. >> >> So what's friendship to you, Jen? If your friend is in an abusive >> >> relationship and she "loves" the guy, do you keep your mouth shut and [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > self-worthing, > unproven (callow) use of the future tense? I guess I really can't answer that because my God isn't calling me to do that. If I were homosexual, and I found the love and grace of God in the Catholic Church I would endeavor to follow what God was telling me. You give me a silly assed straw man hypothetical, I will give you a silly assed straw man answer. The problem as I see it is that homosexuals who are Catholic, and want the Church's blessing for what was taught from the time of Christ to be sinful are in for a long and disappointing wait. If they *are* Catholic, they believe that the Church was the one founded by Christ and as such holds the repository of God's truth. It doesn't hold the repository of truths-I-agree-with, it holds the repository of truth period. If you don't subscribe to that, why are you worrying about what a bunch of celibate old men in Rome say about anything. Just live your life as you see fit, and let the eternal chips fall where they may. > Only a desperate church. Priests are supposed to be the best - the > ones with the highest callings, and sometimes even they fail. Sometimes they do. My calling didn't materialize for a lot of different reasons, none of which I want to go into with a hostile anonymous woman on usenet. Had it materialized, I would have endeavored to follow it as best I could. Your guestion was of the same vein of: "What if your god required you to cut off your dick to get to heaven?" Or how about: "What is little green men hit you with a homo-ray and made you gay?" I can't answer either of those questions. > Since you didn't give up sex, you FANTASIZE that you are that strong > type of man would "could" (future imperfect/improbable tense 'can") [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > to redefine the word "priest" for us, too - to mean, hobby, > dilettante)? I didn't, but that doesn't relate to couldn't. You didn't climb mount Everest. That doesn't imply you couldn't (though that would be my guess statistically speaking). > At 8, Freud calls that latency and notes that about 95% of boys and > girls > want to join the convent or become a monk. Obviously, not all of them > do. Oh really. How does that correlate to the 80% or so of women who don't like sex? Or is that a different, creative statistic? You know, 87.5% of all statistics are made up on the spot. > Later, when their bodies begin to produce the variety of chemicals that > surround the sex drive, they'll sort themselves out differently. > > A. > > - I don't mind that you're anonymous, Troy/Tony/whoever but I do This from a woman called "A". > mind that you have decided the way to fight "evil feminists" is to > emulate their propagandist tactics. You see, women were probably [quoted text clipped - 63 lines] > explain > to your offspring why lying is sometimes good. Good luck with that. LOL!!! Where did that come from? I don't believe in this whole discussion, I mentioned the word "feminist". I could be wrong. I generally don't bring them up, because the radical feminist "movement" is basically irrelevant. A bunch of disaffected man-haters who blame all their problems on guys really don't care enough about them to "oppress" them. This was basically a discussion about biology (at least from my point of view). Morality didn't enter into it a lot in this particular discussion (though I have been known to moralize in the past). But if you are feeling bad about the choices you made, look in the phone book, call the local Catholic parish, and find out their schedule for confession. I know a lot about history, and I'll point you to the Roman Empire. They fell into an "anything goes, use any orifice for my personal pleasure" kind of society. They had their "swingers clubs" they called them "orgies", their welfare and mass entertainment (bread and circuses) and their great society is as dead as a week old mackerel. I'd like to learn from what happened (history, you know) and try and teach my kids how to live a life and to be touched as little as possible by it. I'll also try and talk to a few strangers about it who might be willing to listen. You obviously won't. Too bad for you. But someone reading (most likely lurking) might hear some truth and want to learn more. There are some unpleasant (for you) truths. 1. Sex is designed to cause babies. Oh sure, we can stop it with chemicals and whatnot, but all technology is not good technology. Tell it to the people who lived in Hiroshima at the end of WWII. 2. That sex that is not designed to cause babies goes against the design of the parts. It is disordered. People have free will. You can choose to go against the design of the parts if you wish, but it doesn't make it ordered, or right. This sort of discussion must touch you in a profound way. I come to that conclusion because you are spending your time debating with a faceless guy on usenet when you could be snugging your SO, or curling up with a good book or a myriad of other, more productive things. Frankly, I have no vested interest in you changing your life. Neither am I looking for your, or anyone else's admiration. I must be a masochist like Bill in Co if I espouse views that will bet me beat up. Maybe I'm just trolling, and YHBT. Either way, I've touched a nerve and the best reaction to that is to ask yourself why you're getting so worked up, and don't dismiss the unpleasant answers. Chew on them for a while. > A. > >> >> So what's friendship to you, Jen? If your friend is in an abusive > >> >> relationship and she "loves" the guy, do you keep your mouth shut and [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > Church's blessing for what was taught from the time of Christ to be sinful > are in for a long and disappointing wait. But Tony, here's the rub (so to speak). Homosexuality has _not_ been taught from the time of Christ to be sinful. It has been often tolerated by Christendom, and the middle ages had a thriving homosexual (male) subculture. There have simultaneously always been voices against homosexuality. So it would be perfectly reasonable to be gay, to be Catholic, to believe that the current (post inquisition) church has it wrong, and that the pre-inquisition church had it right. God could be "telling" someone all that, and it is at _least_ as credible as "rhythm method good, barrier methods bad." >> >> >> So what's friendship to you, Jen? If your friend is in an abusive >> >> >> relationship and she "loves" the guy, do you keep your mouth shut and [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > Homosexuality has _not_ been taught from the time of Christ to be > sinful. Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: Main Entry: for·ni·ca·tion Pronunciation: "for-n&-'kA-sh&n Function: noun : consensual sexual intercourse between two persons not married to each : other -- compare ADULTERY Looks pretty straightforward to me. Unless you have some other biblical scholarship with regards to Matthew that you'd like to bring to bear. Or are you going to claim that because people do it, it's ok. Go for it, Doug. > It has been often tolerated by Christendom, and the middle ages had a > thriving homosexual (male) subculture. There have simultaneously > always been voices against homosexuality. Cite? (Acceptance of homosexuality by the Catholic church). Take all the paper you need. > So it would be perfectly reasonable to be gay, to be Catholic, to > believe that the current (post inquisition) church has it wrong, and > that the pre-inquisition church had it right. You can believe anything the Catholic Church espouses is wrong. That doesn't change the Church teaching. It simply makes you extra ecclesiam. > God could be "telling" someone all that, and it is at _least_ as > credible as "rhythm method good, barrier methods bad." It doesn't make it less truthful because *you* don't happen to believe it. And that last statement shows your ignorance of Catholic doctrine. But carry on. (snip) > > But Tony, here's the rub (so to speak). > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > are you going to claim that because people do it, it's ok. Go for it, > Doug. I wasn't talking about the Bible. Many Christians, including Catholics don't believe in the literal interpreation of every word of the bible. Many Christian (including catholics) take their teachings from other sources besides just the bible. I was talking about Christianity as practiced. You made a claim that homosexuality has always been taught (since the time of Christ) to be sinful. I disagree with that claim. If we are going to bat things back and forth by appealing to literal interpretations of the bible (which I have no interest in doing) I'm going to need to know why you heathens insist on observing the sabbath on the _first_ day rather than the _seventh_ day. t > > It has been often tolerated by Christendom, and the middle ages had a > > thriving homosexual (male) subculture. There have simultaneously > > always been voices against homosexuality. > > Cite? (Acceptance of homosexuality by the Catholic church). Take all the > paper you need. Well, one could start with Saint Sebastian! On a more serious note, let me refer you also (for example) to Boswell's book "Christianity, Social Tolerance and Homosexuality," and mayve even more interesting the same author's "Same Sex Unions in Pre-Modern Europe." Or for a contrasting viewpoint "The Invention of Sodomy" by Mark Jordan (a Christian and a former Catholic). > > So it would be perfectly reasonable to be gay, to be Catholic, to > > believe that the current (post inquisition) church has it wrong, and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > doesn't change the Church teaching. It simply makes you extra > ecclesiam. I understand that this is your opinion. But I know a number of people who believe themselves to be Catholics (heterosexual people) who nevertheless believe different things than the things you tell me are the infallible word of Catholicism. So either you are wrong, they are wrong, or that word is subject to more than one interpretation. As that word has changed over time, I suspect that _at least_ the third thing is true. > > God could be "telling" someone all that, and it is at _least_ as > > credible as "rhythm method good, barrier methods bad." > > It doesn't make it less truthful because *you* don't happen to > believe it. You're right, that isn't what makes it less truthful. > And that last statement shows your ignorance of Catholic doctrine. But > carry on. Care to point out the error? Are you going to tell me that the Catholic church now endorses barrier methods? _That_ would be bigger news than Vatican III - I wonder how they've kept it out of the press! > (snip) > [quoted text clipped - 82 lines] > Catholic church now endorses barrier methods? _That_ would be bigger > news than Vatican III - I wonder how they've kept it out of the press! No Doug. I'm done debating you. I showed you specifically in the Bible where Jesus said Homosexuality (fornication) was sinful, and you come out and tell me about some "Christian" sects that don't believe the Bible is the words of God. Should I point out specific doctrines on vatican.va, you'll go on to point to some dissenting person who call themselves "Catholic" who doesn't believe it. I'm beginning to think that AllYou! is right. I'm just going to ignore what you write unless you decide to be intellectually honest. > > (snip) > > [quoted text clipped - 87 lines] > and tell me about some "Christian" sects that don't believe the Bible is > the words of God. Not what I said at all. If you can't actually _face_ what I said, then you could do me the credit of ignoring it, rather than making stuff up. > Should I point out specific doctrines on vatican.va, you'll go on to point > to some dissenting person who call themselves "Catholic" who doesn't > believe it. > > I'm beginning to think that AllYou! is right. I'm just going to ignore > what you write unless you decide to be intellectually honest. You can stop debating with me anytime you want. You specifically said I'm wrong about catholic doctrine including "rhythm method good, barrier methods bad." Yet you've specifically refused to say how. Your choice. > Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, > adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > are you going to claim that because people do it, it's ok. Go for it, > Doug. My priest always told me that people aren't married by a priest: they are married by God. I.e., two people who privately declare their intention together are just as married as anyone who had a church wedding. If he's right, then whether gay marriage is legal or recognized by the church makes no difference. Two homosexuals may be married in the eyes of God, for all we know... meaning they are not fornicating. (I know, I know... you've told me in the past that my priest had odd views.... ) jen >> Matthew 15:19 For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, >> adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies: [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > (I know, I know... you've told me in the past that my priest had odd > views.... ) "People" aren't married. A man and a woman are married as long as they aren't encumbered. > "People" aren't married. A man and a woman are married as long as they > aren't encumbered. So it gets back to the idea that somewhere in the "rules" it states that marriage is for a man and a woman only. Well, I looked through the Gospel and I don't see anywhere that Jesus makes that statement. So it must be something the Pope clarified for us, huh? Can you confirm that for me? And point me in the direction of anything written about this specifically, because I would like to educate myself. And while you are at it, I would be interested in your interpretation of Matthew 16. Because there is something in that passage that has long puzzled me; I'm sure that you can probably point me to the papal documents that cleared it all up. I would like to see them. My confusion is this: I see that in Matt 16:18 Jesus declares Peter is the rock where he will build his church. Got that. But then later down in Matt 16:23 - just shortly after making his famous Peter/rock statement - he says: 23Jesus turned and said to Peter, "Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the things of God, but the things of men." So that has always made me puzzled. If Peter is the church is the pope, then Jesus seems to be warning - rather dramatically - that Peter the church the Pope is highly fallible. I've also wondered about this line: "whatever you bind on earth will be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] loosed in heaven." That seems like a warning to me, that Peter could potentially screw things up big time if he's not careful? I mean, sure, he recognizes the Son of God. But that's about where his infallibility ends, no? And if Jesus where here today, I have to wonder what he'd think about the whole Papal State. Would he scoff that we've missed the whole point, that we went and created a whole new set of Caeser's rules and that's not what following God is about? Because if Jesus meant us to have a set of doctrine to follow - like marriage is for reproduction and only between a man and a woman - I should think he'd have talked that up. But he didn't. Instead, he gets highly impatient with anyone coming to him with a "rule" type of question. He waves them off by telling them they simply don't need all these detailed rules and regulations, not if they "get it." I also remembered the line that there are no marriages in heaven. So it makes you kind of wonder what Jesus would think about this whole gay marriage debate, doesn't it? Would he tell us we're missing the whole point? That there are no marriages in heaven? Yeah, it's clear he did not like fornication. You are defining that as sex between unmarried people. Maybe what he meant was sex without love between those people? I would agree that is wrong. Lots to think about. Tony, I will say one thing: every time we get into a debate it prompts me to go back and revisit the Gospels, which is a good thing. jen jen, I'm not Catholic but I think I can interject a few answers...from a Protestant point of view. > So it gets back to the idea that somewhere in the "rules" it states > that marriage is for a man and a woman only. Well, I looked through the > Gospel and I don't see anywhere that Jesus makes that statement. See Matt 19:4-6. I think this is pretty plain that marriage is man-woman only. Another interesting point if you look closely in Genesis is that when God created them, He called _them_ Adam (Gen 5:2). This may be the origin of wives taking the husband's name--I don't know--but it seems plain to me that God viewed them as one flesh. >So it > must be something the Pope clarified for us, huh? Can you confirm that [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > then Jesus seems to be warning - rather dramatically - that Peter the > church the Pope is highly fallible. I think you'd be much less confused iif you abandon the idea that Peter was the 'Pope'. However, if you choose not to abandon the pope theory, then the next logical explanation would be that Peter was not the Pope until Acts 2 perhaps. > I've also wondered about this line: "whatever you bind on earth will > be[f] bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth will be[g] > loosed in heaven." That seems like a warning to me, that Peter could > potentially screw things up big time if he's not careful? I mean, sure, > he recognizes the Son of God. But that's about where his infallibility > ends, no? Yes... Peter was not infallible--he was just as sinful and fallible as you or me (or any Pope that ever lived). I don't think that passage is necessarily a warning to Peter/anyone--but rather a statement that explains and reveals the authority a believer has and that a person's spoken word is far more than just sound/noise/words---ie the power of the spoken word is far greater than anyone realizes. God afterall *spoke* the world into existence according to Genesis... > And if Jesus where here today, I have to wonder what he'd think about > the whole Papal State. Would he scoff that we've missed the whole > point, that we went and created a whole new set of Caeser's rules and > that's not what following God is about? He would surely be disappointed in the church in general--and many Papal teachings/rulings for certain--like forbidding preists to marry---clearly contradicting 1 Timothy 4:3. >Because if Jesus meant us to > have a set of doctrine to follow - like marriage is for reproduction > and only between a man and a woman - I should think he'd have talked > that up. But he didn't. But he did in Matt 19. > Instead, he gets highly impatient with anyone > coming to him with a "rule" type of question. He waves them off by [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > makes you kind of wonder what Jesus would think about this whole gay > marriage debate, doesn't it? Not in my view. >Would he tell us we're missing the whole > point? That there are no marriages in heaven? Yeah, it's clear he did > not like fornication. You are defining that as sex between unmarried > people. Maybe what he meant was sex without love between those people? Nice thought--but He never said anything to indicate that. Bo > I would agree that is wrong. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > jen >> "People" aren't married. A man and a woman are married as long as they >> aren't encumbered. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > for me? And point me in the direction of anything written about this > specifically, because I would like to educate myself. No you don't. As little as 50 years ago, if you mentioned to anyone the idea of a man marrying a man, or a woman marrying a woman, they would have looked at you like you were nuts. It never had to be clarified, because nobody ever thought anyone would think otherwise. <assorted religious stuff snipped> > Problem is, how you grow closer to God (big "G", proper name) is not > defined by you. It's defined by God. Right, and it's not defined by you and the Catholic church either. jen >In fact, a friend just died at age 56, complications > of severe obesity. She had high self esteem though... [Note to self] Severe obesity and high self esteem? How can that be, in the absence of some metabolism problem? I'm only wondering, to myself; so, no response necessary. > >In fact, a friend just died at age 56, complications > > of severe obesity. She had high self esteem though... > > [Note to self] Severe obesity and high self esteem? How can that be, in > the absence of some metabolism problem? Because some people's self esteem is not tied to their weight. > I'm only wondering, to myself; so, no response necessary. Nonetheless, I thought I would answer. :-) Sheila >> >In fact, a friend just died at age 56, complications >> > of severe obesity. She had high self esteem though... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Because some people's self esteem is not tied to their weight. Or their physical appearance (to a degree) >>>In fact, a friend just died at age 56, complications >>> of severe obesity. She had high self esteem though... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >Because some people's self esteem is not tied to their weight. I don't understand your explanation, but my comprehension has been declining in recent days. :-( I thought people with high self esteem defended themselves from self destructive actions or inactions. It seems that a person with a healthy self esteem would maintain a healthy weight--unless there was an untreatable metabolism problem. I wonder if the high self esteem could have been fake, merely a facade. In my humble opinion, having a high self esteem is not the same as being proud of one or more personal attributes: it is more of a general acceptance/endorsement of one's self. It is more than a sense of pride. Once developed, it seems a high self esteem would cause one to resist self destructive behavior. Plenty of people who hold high offices or have achieved great things appear to have high self esteem. They fool onlookers, while suffering in silence. ________________________ "The most exciting phrase to hear in science, the one that heralds new discoveries, is not 'Eureka!' ('I found it!'), but rather 'hmm....that's funny...'" - Isaac Asimov > >>>In fact, a friend just died at age 56, complications > >>> of severe obesity. She had high self esteem though... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > proud of one or more personal attributes: it is more of a general > acceptance/endorsement of one's self. Okay. I'm with you to there.... It is more than a sense of pride. > Once developed, it seems a high self esteem would cause one to resist > self destructive behavior. That would assume that one accepts it as self-destructive behavior. Look, life is full of risk benefit analyses. By your logic, people who pilot planes, scale mountains, or even drive cars cannot have a high self esteem. The risk of dying in a car accident is fairly high. Car accidents are, in fact, the leading cause of death in people six to 27, so..... it would stand to reason that young adults with high self esteem should not get into cars, right? Wrong. Most of us decide that we'd rather drive to work, we'd rather be able to take vacations, and we'd rather get from A to B faster. Submitting to a higher risk is simply a side effect of those other desires. In many cases, obesity is a side effect of a number of factors, including (but not limited to) a love of good food; a sedentary job; a perference for reading, watching television or writing on Usenet (;-)) over jogging, hiking or Jazzercising; and a genetic predisposition for obesity. Weight gain isn't the goal, simply an artifact, one that the person is willing to have, because they place a low priority on either physical appearance in general (as Kitty said) or weight specifically. Sheila (snip) >Look, life is full of risk benefit analyses. By your logic, people who >pilot planes, Quantas... I'll only fly Quantas.... rj >>>> In fact, a friend just died at age 56, complications >>>> of severe obesity. She had high self esteem though... [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > untreatable metabolism problem. I wonder if the high self esteem could > have been fake, merely a facade. This raises an interesting question. Do people who have high self esteem always avoid self-destructive behaviors? And is that really a truism? (I don't know - seems like a good question) > In my humble opinion, having a high self esteem is not the same as being > proud of one or more personal attributes: it is more of a general [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > appear to have high self esteem. They fool onlookers, while suffering in > silence. > >>>> In fact, a friend just died at age 56, complications > >>>> of severe obesity. She had high self esteem though... [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > always avoid self-destructive behaviors? And is that really a truism? > (I don't know - seems like a good question) I've never heard anything to indicate that "self-esteem" leads to self-protective behaviors. And what is "self-destructive" varies from person to person, doesn't it? Not everyone wants to live forever - and some people figure they'll play life as it lays. Anyway, I regard high risk hobbies like mountain-climbing as in a similar category to overeating. It's something the person likes to do, has real risks associated with it, etc. Regarding my dead friend, I know other really big people (I'm thinking of one in particular) who are quite old. It would have been wrong of them to regard their "problem" behavior as self-destructive. Would Mrs. C have lived as long if she were skinny? We'll never know. An excess of self-esteem (narcissism) definitely correlates with some forms of problem behaviors (I don't know if you'd call them "self" destructive - they are often "other" destructive). > > In my humble opinion, having a high self esteem is not the same as being > > proud of one or more personal attributes: it is more of a general [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > appear to have high self esteem. They fool onlookers, while suffering in > > silence. Which is why it's impossible to talk about anyone else's self-esteem. The reason I said my friend had high self-esteem is that she said so, and behaved so. I take people's self-reports on these issues at face value, having no way of seeing inside their heads. I do know that people with high self-esteem have purposely self- destructed, even suicided, in situations where they felt it was hopeless to continue existing - or where they felt they might benefit others that they also esteemed, in some way. >>>>>> In fact, a friend just died at age 56, complications >>>>>> of severe obesity. She had high self esteem though... [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > to self-protective behaviors. And what is "self-destructive" varies > from person to person, doesn't it? I don't know. Does it? Is climbing a mountain considered "self destructive"? I don't think so. But - it is risky or chancy, and that part (and only that part) is true. Is smoking or overeating or becoming addicted to drugs self-destructive? Absolutely - it WILL do damage to your body, and that is a FACT. So, I don't think the line of demarkation is as blurred as you make it out to be. > Not everyone wants to live > forever - and some people figure they'll play life as it lays. But that is irrelevant to the discussion as to whether or not it is destructive. That is another issue. (Actually, that is basically just a form of hedonism; i.e., doing what makes you "feel good" - end of story). > Anyway, I regard high risk hobbies like mountain-climbing as > in a similar category to overeating. It's something the person likes [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > to continue existing - or where they felt they might benefit others > that they also esteemed, in some way. (snip) > > Consider, for example, the catholic church. "Love the sinner, hate > > the sin." Homosexual activity or thought is considered "sin." You [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Do you think gay people care what neo-nazis or Catholic think? And if > so, why? I'm going to have to remember this: "The catholic church is better than the neo-nazis." Thanks for reminding me, but that's a pretty low bar, don't ya think? Seriously, people who grow up in the catholic church care what the church says. They may reject the church, but the messages drummed in during childhood still resonate, for good or bad. Same for people growing up in neo-nazi families. This is the whole point. Self-hatred comes from what you imbibe as a childhood. It doesn't go away because you move to a neighborhood where you are accepted (though that can help). It is _self_ hatred which lead to suicide, not that your neighbors as an adult are bigots. "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message > Do you think gay people care what neo-nazis or Catholic think? And if > so, why? I don't know about neo-nazis but I do know my catholic relative hated being gay and in the end took his own life because he could not deal with being catholic AND gay. Amy > "Tony Miller" <tony@cigardiary.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > gay and in the end took his own life because he could not deal with being > catholic AND gay. That's unfortunate. He should have looked up the Courage Apostolate. They may have been able to help him. http://couragerc.net/ >...my catholic relative hated being >gay and in the end took his own life because he could not deal with being >catholic AND gay. I am sorry for your loss. 1. Change religious affiliation, and/or 2. Change sexual orientation, or 3. Commit suicide? How sad (and somewhat surprising) that number three was the easiest choice for your relative. _________________________ Some trees are ever green. > >...my catholic relative hated being > >gay and in the end took his own life because he could not deal with being [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > How sad (and somewhat surprising) that number three was the easiest > choice for your relative. It is sad. I'm not really sure if it is surprising. 2. seems impossible for many people (it would certainly be impossible for me to become gay). 1. is easier for some people, but if you are convinced that your religion is correct, then why would you switch to a religion that is incorrect? So you are left believing in the truth of a religion which condemns you for who you are. _Very_ sad, and not rare enough. >> >...my catholic relative hated being >> >gay and in the end took his own life because he could not deal with being [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > So you are left believing in the truth of a religion which condemns > you for who you are. Get your facts straight, Doug. The Catholic church does not condemn anyone for *who they are*. Now you're on *my* turf. > >> >...my catholic relative hated being > >> >gay and in the end took his own life because he could not deal with being [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > Get your facts straight, Doug. The Catholic church does not condemn > anyone for *who they are*. Now you're on *my* turf. Yes, that is a laughable little line the church has going. It is OK to _be_ homosexual. Just don't do anything or think anything homosexual. It is a pretty tiny bit of turf you guys are camped out on. And it is sad, but as I said, not surprising that it leads to misery. >> >> >...my catholic relative hated being >> >> >gay and in the end took his own life because he could not deal with being [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] > to _be_ homosexual. Just don't do anything or think anything > homosexual. That's right. Just like it's fine and dandy to be an alcoholic, just don't go on a binge, fall down and pass out or kill someone with your car. > It is a pretty tiny bit of turf you guys are camped out on. And it is > sad, but as I said, not surprising that it leads to misery. Lots of behaviors that people do lead to misery, just like falling down stupid drunk and smoking crack. > Oh hell, I was a fat kid with glasses. I took a lot of bullying. And I'm > pretty well adjusted (which some will deny, I'm sure), and I have pretty > good self esteem (which I don't think anyone can deny). I have never > considered suicide. I learned to "deal". Looks like you learned to "deal" by joining an exclusionary group that bashes deviant outsiders. Do you like being the bully now? Does it feel good to finally belong to the "popular" crowd? jen >> Oh hell, I was a fat kid with glasses. I took a lot of bullying. And I'm >> pretty well adjusted (which some will deny, I'm sure), and I have pretty >> good self esteem (which I don't think anyone can deny). Actually, I don't know all that many people in here or in RL who TRULY have great self esteem, that is, when one digs down deep enough. Blustering, posturing, and acting on top of it all, is transparent. And there is a lot of "me doth think thou protest too much" running around too, which also says something, if you look beneath the covers. >> I have never considered suicide. I learned to "deal". > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > jen >> Oh hell, I was a fat kid with glasses. I took a lot of bullying. And I'm >> pretty well adjusted (which some will deny, I'm sure), and I have pretty [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Do you like being the bully now? Does it feel good to finally belong to > the "popular" crowd? Ooohhh... "Bashes". I like that. So... emotional and all... so self righteous. I guess I'll just have to go eat worms now. > >> Oh hell, I was a fat kid with glasses. I took a lot of bullying. And I'm > >> pretty well adjusted (which some will deny, I'm sure), and I have pretty [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Ooohhh... "Bashes". I like that. So... emotional and all... so self > righteous. I guess I'll just have to go eat worms now. Pretty much on the mark, if I do say so myself. jen >> >> Oh hell, I was a fat kid with glasses. I took a lot of bullying. And I'm >> >> pretty well adjusted (which some will deny, I'm sure), and I have pretty [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Pretty much on the mark, if I do say so myself. Why, is that Jen I see with her claws out? oh my! ;) [just some friendly teasing here] >>> >> Oh hell, I was a fat kid with glasses. I took a lot of bullying. And I'm >>> >> pretty well adjusted (which some will deny, I'm sure), and I have pretty [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > oh my! ;) > [just some friendly teasing here] Nothing like a little estrogen poisoning, huh Kitty ;) > >>> >> Oh hell, I was a fat kid with glasses. I took a lot of bullying. And I'm > >>> >> pretty well adjusted (which some will deny, I'm sure), and I have pretty [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Nothing like a little estrogen poisoning, huh Kitty ;) Just wait and see when I start PMSing (that's testosterone excess, is it?), IIRC, that's scheduled fo next week. Don't say you haven't had fair warning! > And I live in a tolerant place. Then you're out of place. Is it tolerant to demand that everyone have the same degree of tolerance as yourself? >> And I live in a tolerant place. > >Then you're out of place. Is it tolerant to demand that everyone have >the same degree of tolerance as yourself? Tolerance means that you have to be tolerant enough to pretend that Doug knows everything. Got that, now go with the program, will ya! ;) >>> And I live in a tolerant place. >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Tolerance means that you have to be tolerant enough to pretend that > Doug knows everything. Got that, now go with the program, will ya! ;) Wait a minute. Are you actually suggesting here that Doug might actually be wrong, on some occasions? Well, now that's just heresy, I tell ya! > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:50:04 -0400, "AllYou!" > <Idaman@conversent.net> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Doug knows everything. Got that, now go with the program, will ya! > ;) Sorry, I never got that memo. > > On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:50:04 -0400, "AllYou!" > > <Idaman@conversent.net> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sorry, I never got that memo. Sure you did, just read between the lines of his posts ;) >>> On Mon, 12 Jun 2006 14:50:04 -0400, "AllYou!" >>> <Idaman@conversent.net> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > Sure you did, just read between the lines of his posts ;) Is that really what tolerant meant? >> What the vast majority of >> therapists were finding, however, is that what made these people mentally [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >homosexuals (with no decrease shown in "havens of support" like San >Francisco)? How do you account for one of the highest risk groups for suicide in general is males of the ages between 19 and 24? With a slight increase in rural areas? How do you account for the fact that suicide attempts are higher in females 19-24 then in males? > I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the APA was > correct in refusing to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > Sheila Gee, Sheila, you got a quick and vocal response to that one. From what I can see of the era of classical literature (about 550-300 B.C.) homosexuality was commonplace and mentioned openly. I don't consider it a mental disorder. It may be a hormonal disorder, if it is to be called a disorder at all. I haven't investigated that. My "gut" reaction to a homosexual I meet is that these people are not normal. I can't help that; it is an instinct. I think that it comes from an earlier animal idea that they are not contributing to the continuation of the species. But at least: (a) I am aware of it, unlike the passionate opponents; and (b) I am able to keep it under control. Homosexuals are still human beings. Their preferences won't rub off on me. I can afford to associate with them. A fellow Uni student told of being propositioned by one. I wouldn't tolerate that. But the ones in a stable relationship and not looking beyond it -- no problem. Doug L. SignatureI am a man; I consider nothing pertaining to mankind as foreign to my nature. - Plautus, Roman writer of comedies, 163 B.c. > My "gut" reaction to a homosexual I meet is that these people are not > normal. I can't help that; it is an instinct. I think that it comes from > an earlier animal idea that they are not contributing to the continuation > of the species. But, they are! Just not in the sense of perpetuating themselves through reproduction. Because gays don't have children, they are able to pursue careers, make a lot of money, and spend it on all sorts of disposable stuff. Thus, they are significant contributors to the economy which helps us all. The "be fruitful and multiply" motto may have worked just fine the last couple thousand years, but as we reach unsustainable population levels we need a new model. Instead of reproducing quantity (hoping at least two or three children will survive to adulthood), modern societies go for quality, reproducing less children but putting more resources into their comfortable survival. Not just food and housing and basic subsistence, but a college education, etc, to boot. It is not a bad strategy - in an overpopulated world - to have a percentage of humans who do not reproduce. This means more resources for fewer offspring, upping the chance those fewer offspring will survive. (Thank you, JWB! ;-) And I'll repeat that throughout all creatures great and small (including the sheep Joy mentioned), homosexual behavior is "natural" and tends, in fact, to arise when populations get too large or the environment becomes too harsh to sustain population growth. So if the Catholic Church's ultimate goal is to encourage survival of the human race, then they should be embracing homosexuality, not discouraging it. jen > > My "gut" reaction to a homosexual I meet is that these people are not > > normal. I can't help that; it is an instinct. I think that it comes from [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > the human race, then they should be embracing homosexuality, not > discouraging it. Especially when for centuries they've taken some of the "best" folks out of the gene pool into monasteries and convents, on the view that these strange "celibate" people make creative intelligent scientists and teachers, to benefit the whole. Many a village in Europe was saved at one point or another by the hard work and the storehouses of these "celibate other" people who didn't have kids, thank god. People thought all the food at the monastery was because of the prayers, but I remember learning how hard those monks, especially worked at figuring out how to farm. Got interested in this because we make our own beer once in awhile and was amazed the discoveries made by those monks. Same is true today. A person who becomes a doctor or a teacher and devotes their whole life to many others does more than someone who just has a bunch of kids. >> My "gut" reaction to a homosexual I meet is that these people are not >> normal. I can't help that; it is an instinct. I think that it comes from [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >a lot of money, and spend it on all sorts of disposable stuff. Thus, >they are significant contributors to the economy which helps us all. Though it probably didn't get passed on by way of a 'helps us all'. More likely by way of aunt and uncle ensuring that their nieces and nephews grew up -- 'spending' that food they got hold of on their siblings' kids rather than having more kids of their own competing for an already limited food supply. 'kin selection' is the term. It's still argued how much it applies to humans. I'd also wager some quatloos that the incidence is a function of population density and food availability. Fertility rates seem to drop with high population density, and with good food availability. SignatureRobert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links. Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences Bill in Co. wrote: > shinypenny wrote: >> Bill in Co. wrote: >>> Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and elasticity >>> of the tissues involved. >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The anus does that over a period of time, and is not expected to react > instantaneously. And even perhaps more importantly, there can be contact with fecal matter, which is just asking for trouble. And in fact, that certainly helped to spread STDs. Bill in Co. wrote: > Bill in Co. wrote: >> shinypenny wrote: >>> Bill in Co. wrote: >>>> Because of basic anatomical considerations, i.e., the nature and elasticity >>>> of the tissues involved. >>> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > which is just asking for trouble. And in fact, that certainly helped to > spread STDs. And - why do you think lubrication is needed when this done, but is not needed as called upon by nature? mark doesn't know it sick to be a homo. > I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the APA was > correct in refusing to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > > Sheila Medina_Wei...@yahoo.com wrote: > mark doesn't know it sick to be a homo. bacause you privde the eveidence it isn't > > I've noted that a discussion has erupted over whether or not the APA was > > correct in refusing to classify homosexuality as a mental disorder. > > If anything, the "lobbying" that occurred during this process came, IMO, > > from the biased minority of those hold-outs who, for years, insisted on [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > > > Sheila MARKIE LOVES HIM SOME DICK! JIM WANTED TO SUCK OFF MARKIE BUT THEN FOUND OUT MARKIE DON'T LIKE NIGGERS! > Medina_Wei...@yahoo.com wrote: > > mark doesn't know it sick to be a homo. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > > > > > Sheila hamm_burge...@yahoo.com wrote: > MARKIE LOVES HIM SOME DICK! > JIM WANTED TO SUCK OFF MARKIE BUT THEN FOUND OUT MARKIE DON'T LIKE > NIGGERS! why do you spread such bigotry ITS TRUE,THATS WHY. YOU AND JIM WERE THICK AS THEIVES THEN YOU FOUND OUT JIM IS A sh.t-SKIN. > hamm_burge...@yahoo.com wrote: > > MARKIE LOVES HIM SOME DICK! > > JIM WANTED TO SUCK OFF MARKIE BUT THEN FOUND OUT MARKIE DON'T LIKE > > NIGGERS! > wh |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message