kokigami

Member
  • Posts

    4,896
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by kokigami

  1. 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.

  2. No.

    I don't think "just" is appropriate - hunger is a more fundamental issue. It's not one I referred to, however.

    I have no idea what you mean by this.

    If my words aren't good enough for you, try Bro Kaman's reply...

    Misogyny and homophobia (and general out-group vilification) are real problems. Those attitudes are what lead to the obsession with sexual status, not the other way round. Their first sexual experience is a big deal for most people, and that does not necessarily make them a party to oppressive attitudes. Attacking that reality is counter-productive. It's the hateful attitudes which are tacked on which should be the focus.

    The whole thrust of the article is based on treating the symptoms not the disease. This serves to divert attention away from the real issues, which is why I consider it harmful.

    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.

  3. Nonsense.

    The rest of the article is similar BS. It attempts to show that the concept of virginity in some way causes all sorts of stigmatisation. This obfuscates the (very real) issues, rather than leading to understanding.

    Sexual status may very well be used in the context of heteronormative and/or mysogynistic attitudes, but to identify it (via a narrow and misleading definition) as an invented status is utterly bogus. Articles like this do more harm then good IMHO.

    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.

    Seeker - I agree with you in principle on the over all article, but disagree that virginity has never been or is currently relative to "the commodification of women". I base my appraisal in part on the author's statement "not being pure when you marry in many societies brings shame and dishonor to your family"....because that is very true. Even my very religious parents created my sister before they were married and that caused a huge bruhaha in the community in 1943...one that caused them to move to California from Connecticut...but..."they LOVED each other and father was going off to war" and they stuck together 63 years...so I guess they did have a bond of honorable "love" when having my sister.

    I wasn't a virgin when I married the first time nor was my wife, but we live in the US and nobody I know was a virgin either when they married. In my travels around the world I did witness many of the cruelties the author mentioned being taken out on women and girls...many times by their own father or brother and as a matter of familial "honor". IMHO, they were nutz, crazy stupid for allowing some ancient command from an unseen deity dictate their actions in todays society, but hey, that's their baggage to deal with in the next realm.

    I also agree that this article does more to incite the issue than offer any constructive solution...in fact...almost sounds like it may have been written by a sexually shamed modern woman...pardon my direct reference and does not indicate my feelings towards modern women in general. Frankly, I feel that sex, like our religious or spiritual relationship, is something personal to each individual. What other people think we should or shouldn't do is none of their business.

    How I feel towards the issue may be completely different than other men and women alike, but should be left up to them how they choose to act or not act upon their own views of virginity.

    So Koki....what was your intention on discussing this article?

    Blessings of Peace,

    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?

  4. 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.

  5. Ownership is just an impersonal abstraction to obscure the fact that you are referring to everyone's personal stuff. The involuntary elimination of personal property would require violence or at least the threat of violence, much the same as in rape. And just as in rape, the sociopathic perpetrator would blame the violence involved on the victim putting up a fight, or on the situation that made them a target - "They were asking for it", by having stuff that I want.

    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.

  6. "Teach a man to fish..." is a metaphor meaning teach a man to take care of himself. I believe there are enough resources for that to happen.

    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.

    The same is true of giving them someone else's fish. Try giving them all your own first.

    I would rather eliminate the claim of ownership. It is a fiction anyway.

  7. A few things come to mind while reading this thread.

    1. Teach a man to fish....

    2. Judge not lest ye be judged

    3. Charity is Love.

    4. Free Agency is an exercise.

    Have a blessed day.

    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.

  8. The problem with that is that "poor" is a very vague idea leaving lots of room for disagreement over who does and does not qualify. I overheard a guy teasing his friend over the fact that she lives in a million dollar beach front home and is on food stamps. Her response was "They didn't ask me where I live or whether I pay rent." Lack of income is not the same as lack of money is not the same as need for money- but the government can't really measure need, you know?

    well, they can, but it gets kinda intrusive.

  9. Ask my wife and she will say that I am still not responsible enough to make major decisions. Hmmmm.... So how is it that I made the decision to marry her??

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

  10. An exaggeration for expressive effect. But focusing on the aesthetics of expression does not deal with the point, to wit, feeding animals endangers them. The same applies to people. It is a manipulation that make them less able to feed themselves, dependent on their keepers for survival, and being less fearful of their keepers they are more likely to attack them, and destroy their property.

    The manipulation is already underway and has been for my entire life. My desire is not to initiate it but to end it. Funny how that is twisted around.

    Survive under what conditions is the question. If natural pressure is artificially removed then the perception of survivability is skewed. When natural pressure returns, and it will, die off will be devastating.

    Just picture pets dislocated after a natural disaster, starving because no one comes to feed them. Most domesticated animals are not able to go feral and will just starve instead. Hunting skills are learned and must be honed before they are effective. Instinct is not always enough. Domesticated animals are deprived of these skills and knowledge. And social programs are the means to domesticate human beings. To control their actions and environment, limit their movement, and make them more docile, all for the purpose of extracting a desired resource from them with as few complications as possible.

    I'm not suggesting limiting genetic diversity, I'm proposing limiting the behavioral modification by the state, for the sake of the survival of our species.

    People need to earn what they need to survive, by fulfilling the desires and needs of others. There is nothing more egalitarian or altruistic than the free market.

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

  11. I am of the opinion that we are only responsible for our actions.

    I too have an endless barrage of thoughts and images which, at night, keep me awake despite all efforts to the contrary.

    These are not from external sources....they are from your mind, which is an internal source.

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

  12. IMO, we are not responsible for thoughts or dreams which we had no play in forming. All kinds of random and unusual stuff can pop into our minds. The problem is in entertaining the negative thoughts. If we think of thoughts and dreams the way we think of temptation, it is the same. It is only when we act on these things that we become responsible for our actions. However, even dwelling on a specific negative thought may result in a change of mental or behavioral norms.

    In the case of various mental illness, one may not be able to discern fantasy from reality, or at another level, be plagued with obsessive negative thought which leads to, or can be a result of, depression. Normally, we can dismiss strange thoughts and they go away, but sometimes they hang around and can afflict our thinking as we dwell on them too long. We are not responsible for the thoughts or dreams, but we are responsible for how we handle them.

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