winstonjen

Yeah. Nothing's better than tradition.

PandaJoe

Still no explanation of "natural authority", not that I was expecting any different.

Calzaer

Still no explanation as to why only yguy gets to assume facts not in evidence.

Dr Rick

Still no explanation as to why a penis is a prerequisite for family leadership.

winstonjen

Still no explanation as to why IIDB doesn't charge admission to read yguy's posts.

Daleth

Dammit, all these snappy one-liners posted as I typed this... I feel so left out.

No. Hmmm... where to begin? I have never suggested the abolition of traditional marriage. That's addressed in my previous post, I think.

Gender confusion, as you use the term, means such an array of things. I've seen you use it to mean everything from homosexuality to Michael Jackson to men who cuddle their kids. I assume the term can also be applied to women, although I don't think I've seen you use it that way. At any rate, I see no inherent harm in gender confusion and I don't see inherent value in traditional gender roles.

I also don't see where non-trad families necessarily to lead to gender confusion nor how trad families necessarily avoid gender confusion. Gay children do come out of trad families and gay couples do raise straight kids.

Finally it ends up in a circle. It is necessary that adults drink coffee because if adults stop drinking coffee many more people will drink tea. See what I mean? Unless you can show the inherent value of coffee and the inherent wrongness of tea, it doesn't make sense. If my partner cuddles our son and so our son grows up to be a man who cuddles his sons, where's the bad?

This question cracked me up so much I've told half a dozen people about it already. I propose a new rule. Invoking the name of Michael Jackson shall end any discussion, like invoking th name of Hitler. It's calling up the most extreme and inexplicable example of bizarre personalities. Whatever MJ's quirks are, I'm thinking gender confusion gets lost in the mix.

But anyway... If my daughter were interested in 2 men who looked like them and were deciding between, and they both treated her well, I'd be fine with that. If my son were deciding between men who looked like that and they made him happy, I'd be fine with that. If my daughter or son came home with a guy who looked like Vin Diesel or like Bruce Willis, and he beat her/him up or made her/him miserable, then I've got a problem with it.

Right, but I don't think we're at that point yet. And in many cases, the person will say "It's self-evident to me," or "I just have faith that it's true." Most of the time, people don't say it's intuitively obvious to everyone, which is what you have been saying.

OK, so it's a story I don't believe in, but at least it provides a starting point. But where do you get that he submitted to her authority? She made a suggestion and he liked it and went for it (not all that surprising given that he didn't yet have the knowledge of good and evil). The story is not that she gave him the forbidden fruit and said, "This is what we're having for dinner tonight. Eat it or go hungry."

You've been telling us that a husband should consider his wife's opinions and consider the areas where she has more knowledge along with all other factors when he makes his decision. But if we take just the story above, shouldn't the husband refuse to hear his wife's opinions at all, lest he be tempted by his weakness for her and make the wrong choice like Adam did? When she speaks, shouldn't he plug his ears and chant, "La, la, la, I can't hear you"?

Sure, I wouldn't respect a guy like that, nor let him in the house. That's creepy. You're reducing this man to a caricature, and this woman has no weakness. Remember, Eve was tempted too... by a big old snake, if you like symbolism. In reality, this guy has a mind and this woman has desires.

Or maybe they both just think Dad's a loser. And in a traditional family, maybe they both grow up thinking Mum is weak. Sometimes in the traditional family the boy grows up thinking all women are weak and so he doesn't respect them, and the girl grows up thinking, well, that she shouldn't bother with thinking. Sometimes. It's always sometimes.

But of course there's your evidence that it's possible. It happens quite a lot, in fact. And based on your description of your mother as "psychologically abusive," imagine how much more easily it can work out when the parents in question are doing their damnedest to raise healthy kids and provide them as many positive role models as possible.

If all men have got it, it's not confusion. It's the nature of being male.

Dal

Daleth

Did I turn off all the quips? Somebody say something! Please!

Queen of Swords

Originally posted by Daleth
The story is not that she gave him the forbidden fruit and said, "This is what we're having for dinner tonight. Eat it or go hungry."

Eve : Here is the forbidden fruit. Eat it or I won't have sex with you.
Adam : But honey, your attempt to captain our ship will result in our children being Michael Jackson.
Eve : Who died and made you President?

Daleth

And Adam looked around and saw that no one had died because there wasn't anybody else, shrugged, and took a bite.

Thank you, now I've got the movie trailer for The Story of Cain and Abel starring Michael Jackson and Tim Curry going through my head.

yguy

It is a faint wisp of the authority Adam had and lost, and which Christ had and retained - and demonstrated when He told the adulterous woman to go and sin no more. An egotistical person having it directed at him/her will hate it, at least temporarily.

If male authority figures you have encountered tended to be at all phony or shallow, you would tend to confuse that sort of authority with the kind I'm talking about.

That means you don't know for sure whether she did or not. Let's say she really didn't. Why would you think it unfair if she was happy in that role?

I rather suspect, however, that she was not, outward appearances notwithstanding. If I had more info, I'll bet I could show you that your example doesn't really contradict what I'm saying, but I don't know that you want to go into all that on open or otherwise.

I know from some of our past conversations that you are not without intuition. However, I don't anyone's intuition escapes childhood unimpaired. Perhaps this is a blind spot for you.

If that were my idea, of course, it would amount to the woman pretending to be under the man's authority. A woman should ideally look for a man who is aware of his weakness and is determined to get over it, with or without her.

If he isn't, she shouldn't enter a contract that requires that, which traditional marriage does, as I use the term.

If he's really better than she is, there is no imbalance - with the proviso that "better" doesn't mean more egotistical.

I don't personally see the need for that, but do as you will.