seebs

You only think that because it's happened to someone you know.

Hey, wait a seco
Segmentation fault - core dumped.

~~~|x
NO CARRIER

luvluv

Okay, here is a graph showing Fukiyama's data that births to unwed mothers is up in all industrialized countries since the widespread use of birth control:

<a href="http://www.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/fukuyama/books_frame.htm" target="_blank">http://www.sais-jhu.edu/faculty/fukuyama/books_frame.htm</a>

Ooops! I guess the link just takes you to the main page. Anyway, click on the book The Great Disruption, and then click on births to unwed mothers for the table. While you are there, check out all the tables.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: luvluv ]</p>

luvluv

Pompous, go head with your ghetto self!

No actually the song I am reffering to is that "My neck, my back..." foolishness. And even though oh my is about masterbation, you wouldn't really catch that by listening to the song unless you were listening carefully, and that is still no reason for the video to be played in front of an audience full of children, particularly with no discussion afterward of what the song really means. That same issue of Essence I talked about was starting a letter writing campaign to mandate that sexually explicit videos only be shown after 8 PM. I think that would be a good idea. The biggest audience for this trash is children. To my great horror, my 7 year old nephew knew almost all the words to that "My neck, my back" song!

bonduca

luvluv, the tables you mentioned appear to only date from the 1950's and forward. That is a relatively small sample of data to support the sweeping statements you are making regarding the whole of history and society. And before you sound the death knell over society, consider this - the culture of 1950's and early 1960's has a reputation for sexual repression and sexual dishonesty. Because of the stigma attached to bearing an illigimate child, many young women would have been forced into an unsuitable marriage, or failing that, sought an illegal abortion, or taken some other measures to hide the fact that they had borne a child out of wedlock. Because a thing is hidden does not mean it does not exist.

And this still does not support your theory regarding the sexual nature of woman.

[ June 10, 2002: Message edited by: bonduca ]</p>

luvluv

"luvluv, the tables you mentioned appear to only date from the 1950's and forward. That is a relatively small sample of data to support the sweeping statements you are making regarding the whole of history and society."

True but it does support the claim that as birth control became more available, illegitimacy rose in all industrialized countries.

"And before you sound the death knell over society, consider this - the culture of 1950's and early 1960's has a reputation for sexual repression and sexual dishonesty."

First of all, ye to whom all must be empirically proven, this is not an objectively provable statement. Were I such a person, I might repeatedly ask you for proof of such an assertion... perhaps some index of repression... but luckily I am not such a person.

Secondly, people throw around the word repression. A repression is a psychological phenomenon by which one unconciously forces a memory or experience from their mind because their conscious mind cannot endure the trauma. People who are creating repressions are not aware that they are creating repressions and are not aware that they have any. What you are most likely talking about is suppression, the conscious resisting of a desire. This phenomenon is not at all unhealthy and is something that is required of all of us at some point and time (like if you really wanted to have sex with your best friends husband or something). And the Christian idea of sexuality is not to repress it but to chanel it into committed relationships. God is not, as C.S. Lewis says "awestruck by virginity". I think sexuality was given to us to enjoy, our only dispute is over the context within which sex takes place. If the culture of the 50's and the 60's made sex seem bad, to that extent it was not in line with Christian thought. And anyway, I have no intention nor desire to defend the 50's and 60's since I was just a bad intention in my father's heart back then.

"Because of the stigma attached to bearing an illigimate child, many young women would have been forced into an unsuitable marriage, or failing that, sought an illegal abortion, or taken some other measures to hide the fact that they had borne a child out of wedlock. Because a thing is hidden does not mean it does not exist."

In Fukiyama's book, he also tracks the rate of "shotgun marriages" by using census data to compare the date of marriage to the date of birth of the first child. He only has data points every 10 years for that, so maybe that is why he didn't include them on his web page. I thought there were numbers on abortions on that page, but I could be wrong. I consider it unlikely that abortions could be so avaliable and so common in the pre-50's society of "sexual repression and dishonesty" that they could have secretly occured at a rate to offset the statistics so badly.

Is it possible that you will simply never accept any data that does not support your opinion?
That's no skin off my teeth, but if such is they case why did you send me off scrambling for proof?

"And this still does not support your theory regarding the sexual nature of woman."

I don't really intend nor desire to prove it to you. It is my belief that women, compared to men, are more monogamous. That's a statement that most people agree with based on their personal and observed experiences. If you disagree with that, that's fine.

At any rate, I feel like we got off on the wrong foot. I said some really mean stuff to you and I apologize. I think I might have been taking out some stuff on you that I have experienced from other similar conversations with people I knew. There's no excuse for that and, again, I am sorry. I really don't think we have anything like a major philosophical disagreement here. We just have two different worldviews that lead us to make different choices with our lives. No big whoop.

luvluv

"It is my belief that holding the female gender responsible for the moral downfall of humanity"

For the record, Christians actually assign Adam the blame for humanity's fall. As Paul says, in Adam all men sinned, in Christ all men are redeemed. If you read the Genesis story, the stuff did not hit the fan until Adam ate the apple. You'll never hear a story preached about the fall of Eve.

"degrading them at every stage of life"

How exactly?

"Asserting childbirth is a punishment instead of a joyous event"

I agree with you there. But the Bible doesnn't say that childbirth was a punishment he said that the pain of childbirth was a punishment. At any rate, throughout the rest of the Bible many births are portrayed as joyous events (the birth of Isaac, John the Baptist, Jesus, etc).

"then indoctrinating them into the ultimately abusive mindsnare that they should unconditionally love and defend the imaginary sky king"

How is this abusive, exactly? Do you think women, as a class, are forced by men to be Christians? Women who are Christians are Christians because they want to be.

bonduca

No, it does not conclusively support this assertion.
luvluv, I said that era had a reputation for sexual repression. Now you are being foolish.
What I am also talking about is repression.
In many cases, it is extremely unhealthy. At any rate, it is not relevant to the discussion. If I did not know better, luvluv, I would suspect you of attempting to show off.
Our dispute has been over your assertions regarding the sexual nature of woman. You still have yet to prove these statements are true.
Though it sounds impressive, this cannot provide sufficient data accurately enough to conclusively prove his (or your) point.
It is highly unlikely that there are reliable statistics on the number of illegal abortions obtained by young women who wished to terminate a pregnancy in secret.
Whether or not you consider it likely, it is one of several variables, which, when combined, can corrupt this data sufficiently to render it nearly useless.
Not of this quality, no.
I requested you do us the courtesy of quoting your sources when making your arguments. I also suggested that you attempt to research this further for your own sake.
You are entitled to your opinion, but it does not make you an expert. Nor does the magazine article you quoted or the ghosts of nameless biology professors you summoned.
It depends on the crowd. For instance, at a conservative fund raiser, it is likely that most people would agree with you. In a more liberal environment (such as this board) you would most likely find yourself in the minority. “Most people” is often of as much value as “four out five dentists surveyed.”
And how you could do such a thing baffles me, for I am without a doubt the most charming and beguiling person in existence. I am happy to see that you have come to your senses.
As long as you realize that I am always right, I am sure that you and I will be the best of friends, luvluv.

Panta Pei

"For the record, Christians actually assign Adam the blame for humanity's fall. As Paul says, in Adam all men sinned, in Christ all men are redeemed. If you read the Genesis story, the stuff did not hit the fan until Adam ate the apple. You'll never hear a story preached about the fall of Eve. "

Well, I guess I got that all wrong then. Eve should still be residing in Eden, pure and enlightened. Who’s up for a road trip

Women of the world rejoice and become leaders, heads of households, preachers, priests and Popes.

Should I write to the Southern Baptist Convention or will you, luvluv?

Paul says that a lot of people said a lot of stuff. I vote we change the name of your religion to ‘Paulianity’.

Clarify a couple of things for me, luvluv:

You find it completely acceptable and logical to believe that a supreme deity got mad at ‘His’ innocent creation for eating a magic fruit, thereby requiring that ‘He’ punish all of ‘His’ creation’s offspring to torment and suffering until ‘He’ could finally get around to impregnating a human with ‘Himself’ in order to have ‘Himself’ murdered to appease ‘His’ own anger at ‘His’ first creation?

Then, though the same torment and suffering continues to this day, you can ‘accept’ this nonsense and be ‘saved’ &lt;from ‘His’ wrath&gt;, but even then you are only relieved after bodily death which conveniently means that there are no personal testimonials from beyond the grave to confirm these claims?

This is the grand, mysterious ‘Plan’ for something as vast and beautiful as the natural universe in plain view?

I’ll pass.

"How exactly is this degrading?"

By using dogma to make them a subservient class of being.

"But the Bible doesnn't say that childbirth was a punishment he said that the pain of childbirth was a punishment. At any rate, throughout the rest of the Bible many births are portrayed as joyous events (the birth of Isaac, John the Baptist, Jesus, etc)."

Punishment for what, luvluv?

Someone once told me, ‘If you read the Genesis story, the stuff did not hit the fan until Adam ate the apple. You'll never hear a story preached about the fall of Eve.’

Just how many kids did Eve give birth to prior to this heinous fruit-eating fiasco?

Your rationale reminds me of the killer I once interviewed that told me that he was not responsible for murdering his girlfriend by throwing her into the bayou after binding her hands and feet, she just drowned.

<img src="graemlins/banghead.gif" border="0" alt="[Bang Head]" />

"How is this abusive, exactly? Do you think women, as a class, are forced by men to be Christians? Women who are Christians are Christians because they want to be. "

Surely you cannot be this credulous!

They ‘want’ to be because of the constant indoctrination of their particular cult not on the rational examination of reality.

It’s abusive because a true ‘Christian’ puts the imagery of a pretend ‘lover’ before real loving and compassionate humans all on the promise of post mortum reward.

I hope that helps.

[ June 11, 2002: Message edited by: Panta Pei ]</p>

Ion

Powerful post, Panta Pei.

I agree with it, and it helps me think.

luvluv

"As long as you realize that I am always right, I am sure that you and I will be the best of friends, luvluv."

Yes, ma'am.