kokigami

or maybe this

I would say it is me.. but I could be biased.

how did this become about Dan?

taxonomy is not a hard science.

Always keep in mind the distinction between the religious nature of the ritual/rite and the legal objective of the couple. Handfasting is religious rite/ritual, but the objective, most likely, is a legal marriage contract. The state doesn't care what ritual is used, or if there is a ritual. Handfasting, Wedding, Signing papers over coffee and Biscuits.. all the same to the state. They require paperwork and witnesses and timely Bureaucracy.

The symptoms promote and transfer the disease. The obsession leads to the attitudes just as much as the other way around. When my daughter first stepped into a relationship that was probably sexual, I freaked a bit. I had to consciously over ride my indoctrination. When I mention to people she is now living with her boyfriend, they almost unanimously make what I have to call, the LOOK. It says, you shouldn't allow that.. But she is an adult.. Not allowing isn't even an option.

well, yes, I agree in general. But as life markers go, this is a big one and it has unique social contexts.

Atwater, I am curious as to know what the Reputation of the Virgin killer was amongst her class mates. Though it would have been mid seventies california, so it may not be a very representative sampling..

So, do you think our cultural obsession with virginity, both the keeping and the loosing of such, depending primarily on gender, is perfectly ok? Or do you just mean that there are bigger issues, like hunger, and Saints Row?

consider the movie the 40 year old virgin. Would that movie have made any cultural sense if it were about a woman?

Well, depends a bit on what you mean. Certainly that status of being a virgin is a real state.. but it is a status far out of proportion to its importance, and almost exclusively as regards women, at least in most of the world. I am curious as to what you see as the very real issues being obfuscated, however. It is an invented status in that we put emphasis on sexulal virginity, but no consideration to most other firsts in ones life. First words, and first steps... maybe riding a bike, or hunting, neither of which has any negative connotations. We generally celebrate firsts, but sexual virginity is treated differently, and, I think the author is correct in saying that it is for very misogynistic reasons. Well, I ran across it on facebook, and it has never, as I recall, been an issue discussed here, it has lots of moral/religious overtones, and it is a subject on my mind for the last few weeks after watching a documentary on the "Purity" movement. I am sure there are those here who will defend the concept as somehow important, and I am curious to see that. I am personally having trouble seeing why it is a big issue. I know it seemed like it was to me, once upon a time. There was another article a bit ago with a similar theme that I had nearly used to start this thread. It is here. It reinforces a good deal of what is said in the OP article. Our social culture puts heavy stock on womens virginity, but almost none on mens. It is a common theme for fathers of young women of a certain age to get all worked up over the possibility that someone my have sex with their daughters. Even that phrasing implies a passive or even unwilling role on the part of the daughter, and, as I recall from my youth, that is terribly misleading. This appears to be all about controlling women, controlling reproduction, removing their free agency. So, hope that answers the question. How do you suppose something personal for each individual becomes something personal for each individual?

here, discuss

ah, that explains a bit. I assume you have no control over this. I haven't got a clue how to sort it out, but I am betting there is a way to do that. This is a bureaucracy problem.

Unless there are some mitigating circumstances, assuming you live in NV as you profile indicates, you should at least qualify for SNAP.

I would consider pointing out the irony of the analogy. I assume the reference is to prizes one must earn by buying, collecting and mailing in box tops from products. That is much more like traditional ordination than it is like ULC. The traditional clergy will only grant ordination to people who, essentially, buy their product, over a period of time, proving brand loyalty. ULC ordains because you request it, and they don't see it as their job to stand in your way.

people don't own stuff. People possess stuff. They claim ownership of other stuff. But that claim has no foundation save that others willingly respect and support it. So, if you get up in the AM and "your car" is gone, it is gone. Society has generally chosen to support your continued claim to own that car, and will, if possible, and not too much work, return that car, but Society has no obligation to do so. That fact that it will incurs in you a debt to society, which society establishes. In modern society, you have some leeway to negotiate that debt load. That hasn't always been true. You can, of course, negotiate with your feet, but, as you live in the US, you unlikely to find a better deal easily. But you need to understand that, should society fail to support the life needs of a large portion of it's constituents, they will eventually choose not to recognize your claims of ownership. They will act in their own interests, when faced with survival. That is just nature. Now most of the constituents would like to be part of a working society, but that can't happen when ownership issues eliminate the potential for even those who know how to fish, to fish. If this is not understood, there will be blood. Property redistribution is inevitable. It is just a matter of how it happens.

but fewer every year. And fewer still that no one lays claim to. The fight has turned to intellectual property because real property is pretty well owned by someone. The metaphor fails the modern world. I would rather eliminate the claim of ownership. It is a fiction anyway.

Teaching someone to fish is only useful if the fish are out there. It is a platitude that assumes an abundance of available resources. It might have been true once.

well, they can, but it gets kinda intrusive.

ignore this. Mererdog beat me to it.. I need to log in more often.

not definitive, but this article would indicate that yes, you are good. Haven't found that actual statute yet. Your local library could probably help, even if google can't or won't oh, found it..

which is why public housing is such a quite, pastoral place..

And those who simply own, are not.. which is where much of the problem lies..

our actions are the results of our thoughts. How can we be responsible for our actions and not our thoughts..

If we had no play in forming the thoughts in our minds, who did?