|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
rapier
Joined: 16 Feb 2003
|
 Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 7:22 am Post subject: |
 |
|
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| rapier wrote: |
| Abortion wasn't required until the free love 60's rolled in |
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the heck do you think Cider House Rules was about? |
OK OK...I get the picture that abortion has been going on for a looong time.
But just my opinion...a pile of foetuses in a bucket..is not the way it was meant to be. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:16 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Nor, however, is it considered really normal for the local newspaper to publish entire articles ridiculing the private religious practices of people in the community. |
Go back in his archives a bit, he's got some crazy stuff. I used to subscribe to his column a year or so ago, but I canceled just 'cause he was freaking me out a bit. I still check back from time to time to see what he's up to. He does have a flair for turning a phrase, you've got to give him that.
�S� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Hollywoodaction
Joined: 02 Jul 2004
|
| Posted: Wed May 31, 2006 8:48 am Post subject: |
|
|
| AbbeFaria wrote: |
| Hollywoodaction wrote: |
| What's ironic is that it wasn't uncommon for christians to marry off their daughters when they were 12 or 13 less than a hundred years ago. |
That's really kind of a stupid fact to just lay out there as a sign of the shocking or immoral actions of christians. Life expectancy one hundred or two hundred years ago was in the 30's and 40's. If you were lucky you made it to see your 50th birthday. So by 12 and 13, you were basically the equivalent of someone today being around 22 to 25. Assuming, of course, that you didn't get small pocks, influenza, plauge, die in childbirth or suffer a relatively small injury that would be a minor inconvience but which turned septic due to lack of antibiotics or just overall general medical knowledge. In the Victorian Era if a doctor couldn't diagnose a woman by examining her from the neck up or the waist down, then too bad for her. That's not across the board, of course, but it should give you an idea.
So it's not ironic at all. It was just a fact of life. If a woman wasn't married by twenty, she was an old maid. If you can only expect to live until you're 40, then 13 isn't all that young.
�S� |
It's stupid to think that I was trying to say christians are immoral. I was simply trying to make the point that some people are more conservative than people were 100 years ago. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
TheUrbanMyth
Joined: 28 Jan 2003
Location: Retired
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 4:03 am Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
That article is proof that the non-religous are not simply content to let religious people be themselves, contrary to the opinions of a lot of atheists. The only valid point would be those that infringe on the ability of non-religious people to get abortions or birth control, but the bringing up the purity ball in the beginning shows that the writer is simply offended by people with a different value system than him/her.
|
And you can bet that if it were Morrocan Muslims or Korean Confucians holding a similar ceremony, San Francisco liberals would not be ridiculing it in the local arts paper. |
And I would bet double that if it were about such things, Mr Hite would not have bought it to our attention at all. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| On the other hand wrote: |
And you can bet that if it were Moroccan Muslims or Korean Confucians holding a similar ceremony, San Francisco liberals would not be ridiculing it in the local arts paper. |
you're right. Sadly the article was in the largest circulating paper in Northern California (SF Chronicle), and not just the "local arts paper." |
Well, Muslims and Confucians aren't so powerful and influential that they have a very real possibility of having their morality enshrined as law (or worse a constitutional amendment). Christians are pretty much in control of the government. Could an atheist get elected president? Not in our life times. If you've got a group of people who believe a book without an amending formula takes priority over a constitution, then it behooves "liberals" to examine and even criticize their wonkier practises.
Wouldn't we all want a liberal press within Islam that could level criticism at the dominant religion in that culture? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 6:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
Well, Muslims and Confucians aren't so powerful and influential that they have a very real possibility of having their morality enshrined as law (or worse a constitutional amendment). Christians are pretty much in control of the government. Could an atheist get elected president? Not in our life times. If you've got a group of people who believe a book without an amending formula takes priority over a constitution, then it behooves "liberals" to examine and even criticize their wonkier practises.
|
I would say the problem with the Religious Right is not that their religious practices are "wonky", but that they try to coerce the rest of the population into adotping them. But the article focussed very little, if at all, on the political coercion, and instead just ridiculed the practices themselves.
I would have no problem with an article that criticized the imposition of abstinence education in public schools. But that's not what the SF Gate article was doing. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
On the other hand
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Location: I walk along the avenue
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
[quote]
| Quote: |
Wouldn't we all want a liberal press within Islam that could level criticism at the dominant religion in that culture?
|
I'd love to see the press in those countries take a critical stand against the religious establishment. But if I picked up a copy of The Tehran Times and saw a male writer calling for increased usage of sex toys by girls, I would suspect that I was reading something other than a serious piece of political commentary. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mindmetoo
Joined: 02 Feb 2004
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 3:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
| Quote: |
Well, Muslims and Confucians aren't so powerful and influential that they have a very real possibility of having their morality enshrined as law (or worse a constitutional amendment). Christians are pretty much in control of the government. Could an atheist get elected president? Not in our life times. If you've got a group of people who believe a book without an amending formula takes priority over a constitution, then it behooves "liberals" to examine and even criticize their wonkier practises.
|
I would say the problem with the Religious Right is not that their religious practices are "wonky", but that they try to coerce the rest of the population into adotping them. But the article focussed very little, if at all, on the political coercion, and instead just ridiculed the practices themselves.
I would have no problem with an article that criticized the imposition of abstinence education in public schools. But that's not what the SF Gate article was doing. |
Didn't Ben Franklin mock all that was holy? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Octavius Hite
Joined: 28 Jan 2004
Location: Househunting, looking for a new bunker from which to convert the world to homosexuality.
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 7:12 pm Post subject: |
|
|
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13088669/
| Quote: |
Forget sex? Virginity pledgers lie about past
Teens who promise to wait for marriage more likely to deny sexual history
NEW YORK - Teenagers who take pledges to remain virgins until marriage are likely to deny having taken the pledge if they later become sexually active. Conversely, those who were sexual active before taking the pledge frequency deny their sexual history, according to new study findings.
These findings imply that virginity pledgers often provide unreliable data, making assessment of abstinence-based sex education programs unreliable. In addition, these teens may also underestimate their risk of exposure to sexually transmitted diseases.
"Teenagers do not report their past sexual activity accurately, with virginity pledgers giving more inaccurate reports of their past sexual activity," study author Janet Rosenbaum, of Harvard University in Cambridge, Massachusetts, told Reuters Health.
Consequently, rather than rely on self-reports, "studies of virginity pledges must focus on outcomes where we know we can get good information, such as medical STD tests," she added.
Previous research shows that survey respondents tend to answer questions about sexual activity according to their current beliefs, particularly if their current attitudes conflict with their past behaviors. Survey respondents may also underreport or overreport their health risk behavior.
Rosenbaum evaluated retractions of virginity pledges and reports of sexual histories among a nationally representative sample of seventh- through twelfth-grade students who participated in the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health.
The students were first interviewed in 1995 and followed-up in 1996. The first survey included responses from 79 percent of 20,745 students. The second survey included responses from 88 percent of 14,736 students from the first group.
In the initial survey, about 13 percent of adolescents reported that they had taken a pledge of virginity. Just one year later, however, more than half of this group said they had never taken such a pledge, Rosenbaum reports in the American Journal of Public Health.
In addition, more than 1 in 10 students who reported being sexually active in 1995 said that they were virgins in 1996. Students who reported they were sexually active in second survey were more than three times as likely as their peers to deny they had taken a pledge of virginity.
The adolescents' denials of virginity pledges and sexual histories were associated with changes in their sexual and religious identities, the report indicates.
For example, adolescents who abandoned a born-again Christian identity were more than twice as likely as their peers to say they had never taken a virginity pledge.
On the other hand, 28 percent of nonvirgins who later took a virginity pledge retracted their sexual histories during the 1996 survey. The same was true of 18 percent of nonvirgins who later adopted a born-again Christian identity.
Sexually active teens who later took virginity pledges were four times as likely to deny previous reports of sexual activity than were those who had not taken virginity pledges.
According to Rosenbaum, "it's not possible to know why pledgers retracted their sexual history since it's impossible to know whether respondents actually had sex."
"Psychology studies in a variety of contexts seem to demonstrate that people's memories of their behavior are consistent with their beliefs rather than their actual behavior," she told Reuters Health, adding that "anecdotally, some people seem to feel like the answer which is strictly true may not represent themselves accurately."
"If those who deny their sexual pasts perceive their new history as correct, they will underestimate the sexually transmitted disease risk stemming from their prepledge sexual behavior," Rosenbaum adds. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Jun 01, 2006 9:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| flakfizer wrote: |
| That article made it into a major paper? Unbelievable. It was pure crap. It was nothing but the hatred of one puny-minded idiot directed at a group of people who happen to think that waiting till marriage is a good thing. Did the writer investigate to see if the boys in these same families were NOT taught to wait till marriage? My guess is that they are but that boys are not so keen on having balls (the party/dance types I mean-not the testicular kind of which they are quite fond.) I've never heard of any church teaching that girls should wait till marriage but not boys. |
The man is a regular columnist in the "datebook" (aka entertainment) section of the Chron.
I consider myself fairly open-minded but I refuse to read his drival. He's a nut and I'm embarrased to live in a community that publishes and supports his rants. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fiveeagles
Joined: 19 May 2005
Location: Vancouver
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 12:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| flakfizer wrote: |
| That article made it into a major paper? Unbelievable. It was pure crap. It was nothing but the hatred of one puny-minded idiot directed at a group of people who happen to think that waiting till marriage is a good thing. Did the writer investigate to see if the boys in these same families were NOT taught to wait till marriage? My guess is that they are but that boys are not so keen on having balls (the party/dance types I mean-not the testicular kind of which they are quite fond.) I've never heard of any church teaching that girls should wait till marriage but not boys. |
The man is a regular columnist in the "datebook" (aka entertainment) section of the Chron.
I consider myself fairly open-minded but I refuse to read his drival. He's a nut and I'm embarrased to live in a community that publishes and supports his rants. |
It is pure crap and I am surprised that Octavius Hite has posted it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Man known as The Man
Joined: 29 Mar 2003
Location: 3 cheers for Ted Haggard oh yeah!
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 1:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Svend Robinson is the ideal candidate for retroactive abortion.
Ever hear of the game, "STOP, THIEF"? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
SHANE02
Joined: 04 Jun 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 4:53 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| rapier wrote: |
| EFLtrainer wrote: |
| rapier wrote: |
| Abortion wasn't required until the free love 60's rolled in |
Bwahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahhaahahhahahaha!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
What the heck do you think Cider House Rules was about? |
OK OK...I get the picture that abortion has been going on for a looong time.
But just my opinion...a pile of foetuses in a bucket..is not the way it was meant to be. |
Right....so I'd have to say that providing open minded
education about sex and contraception is much better than some "Virginity Pledge". That whole idea sounds very strange...... to me anyway.
Kids will allways experiment so I think the whole idea of sex is bad doesn't help.
Have you ever dated a girl who went to a Catholic high school?
I have. 
To quote her " The nuns didn't like us to look at the boys through the fence at lunch time" (in the neighbouring boys high school).
"They said that we must be virgins and that sex was nothing but trouble"
"That made us so curious". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Satori
Joined: 09 Dec 2005
Location: Above it all
|
| Posted: Fri Jun 02, 2006 9:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I don't know why people are linking abortions and std's to liberal ideas about sex before marriage. What causes abortions and std's is lack of education, and that tends to happen more in conservative homes. The idea there is that you are not going to have sex, so we're not going to tell you anything about it. Liberal parents will educate about the importance of using condoms, which are a very good protection against both std's and unwanted pregnancy. This is much more desirable than giving no education at all and hoping that the kids will buy the idea that they wait till marriage.
Further, it's not just a vow of chastity. What accompanies this whole ideology is an unspoken and perhaps even unconscious negative attitude to sex that is entirely unhealthy. And that is the reason these people are less likely to have a satisfying sex life, not just the lack of experience. Though it is also a fact that having a few sexual partners before marriage makes you more knowledgable, more competant, and more comfortable with sex and your body. Even with sexual education, there are just some things that need to be learned from a partner. Not everyone will know everything. Thus, having a variety of partners increases the likelihood of coming across someone who can teach you something you don't know, and so the knowledge gets passed around. Having several partners in your life is confidence building. It's also natural, as we can see by the strenuous efforts needed to curb and control this behaviour.
I think the christian attitude to sex is extremely unhealthy and causes a lot of misery. Not to mention the fact that it is also about controlling and subjugating women. The general atittude is that a woman is a man's property, and her "value" is higher if she has had her natural sexuality neutered so is passive and obedient. It's also better that she doesn't know what great sex is, so she is less likely to get curisous about what she is missing, and more accepting of the tragic fumblings of her inept and sexually repressed husband.
It's also deeply odd, but quite telling, that there is not the same hysterical focus on male virginity in the radical christian circles. It goes along, of course, with the whole male dominance implicit in that ideology, the whole "man is the head of the household" thing. It's ok and even natural for the man to have a few drunked slip ups and "sow his wild oats" with a few "dirty girls", as long he comes to his senses again and marries a "good christian virgin" in the end. It's repulsive, and deeply mysogenistic.
I think one of the most brilliant things that christianity has managed to pull off is to maintain the image of being "conservative". The thing is, although it is associated with the "conservative party", the is nothing conservative about it. It is radical, and extremely unhealthy, and extremely unnatural. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
AbbeFaria
Joined: 17 May 2005
Location: Gangnam
|
| Posted: Sat Jun 03, 2006 8:30 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Satori wrote: |
I don't know why people are linking abortions and std's to liberal ideas about sex before marriage. What causes abortions and std's is lack of education, and that tends to happen more in conservative homes. The idea there is that you are not going to have sex, so we're not going to tell you anything about it. Liberal parents will educate about the importance of using condoms, which are a very good protection against both std's and unwanted pregnancy. This is much more desirable than giving no education at all and hoping that the kids will buy the idea that they wait till marriage.
Further, it's not just a vow of chastity. What accompanies this whole ideology is an unspoken and perhaps even unconscious negative attitude to sex that is entirely unhealthy. And that is the reason these people are less likely to have a satisfying sex life, not just the lack of experience. Though it is also a fact that having a few sexual partners before marriage makes you more knowledgable, more competant, and more comfortable with sex and your body. Even with sexual education, there are just some things that need to be learned from a partner. Not everyone will know everything. Thus, having a variety of partners increases the likelihood of coming across someone who can teach you something you don't know, and so the knowledge gets passed around. Having several partners in your life is confidence building. It's also natural, as we can see by the strenuous efforts needed to curb and control this behaviour.
I think the christian attitude to sex is extremely unhealthy and causes a lot of misery. Not to mention the fact that it is also about controlling and subjugating women. The general atittude is that a woman is a man's property, and her "value" is higher if she has had her natural sexuality neutered so is passive and obedient. It's also better that she doesn't know what great sex is, so she is less likely to get curisous about what she is missing, and more accepting of the tragic fumblings of her inept and sexually repressed husband.
It's also deeply odd, but quite telling, that there is not the same hysterical focus on male virginity in the radical christian circles. It goes along, of course, with the whole male dominance implicit in that ideology, the whole "man is the head of the household" thing. It's ok and even natural for the man to have a few drunked slip ups and "sow his wild oats" with a few "dirty girls", as long he comes to his senses again and marries a "good christian virgin" in the end. It's repulsive, and deeply mysogenistic.
I think one of the most brilliant things that christianity has managed to pull off is to maintain the image of being "conservative". The thing is, although it is associated with the "conservative party", the is nothing conservative about it. It is radical, and extremely unhealthy, and extremely unnatural. |
Yeah, what he said. I could try to be more intelligant in some sort of over-opinated comment, but really, I've had to much soju tonight to really think of anything on my own. So...you go Satori. You go with your bad self.
�S� |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
