From: johnny moral (johnnymoral@hotmail.com)
Date: Mon Jun 16 2003 - 09:51:35 BST
Hi David,
Thanks for replying.
>This is a private message. I only wish to scold, not publicly embarrass
>you.
It looks like it came form moq.org and went to the list, so I will reply.
Did it not? Did it go just to me? How can one tell? At any rate, don't
worry about publically embarassing me, I can take it.
>dmb had said:
>"Since we have the ability to control reproduction and marriage is no
>longer
>a social or economic necessity, people get married as a matter of choice."
>
>Johnny replied:
>Actually, there are millions of unintended pregnancies every year, and
>there
>is still such a thing as economic necessity, so this is a fairly ignorant,
>callous statement. What is really being said here is "now that we give
>women abortions and expect them to support themselves as equals, we don't
>have to care for them or put up with their old-school nagging anymore. We
>can get a younger one whenever we want."
>dmb now says:
>Huh? How bizzare! Just because some people don't or won't use contraception
>does not negate the fact that people have the ability. We're talking about
>the changing nature of marriage and relationships, not teen pegnancy.
Contraception seems to fail once in a while, the ability is not so able.
And it isn't always used. Millions of unintended pregnancies says it all,
doesn't it? You brought up the issue of contraception, so apparently you
agree it has something to do with the changing nature of marriage and
relationships. Or, actually, you referred to "the ability to control
reproduction", which presumably means contraception and abortion. If you
are talking about abortion and not contraception, note that neither you nor
I nor half of the population of this planet has the ability to get an
abortion. (Equal reproductive rights are also a casualty)
>I only conclude that women are now freer.
That's a good rationalization. Not that I doubt that many western women
desire that freedom and are thankful, but their desire for it was shaped by
the Giant's values. The Giant now has twice as many worker bees and I'm
sure it is happy.
>They are no longer economically trapped or financially dependent.
You mean trapped into staying with their husband? I guess not, but neither
is a husband trapped into staying with his wife, even if she isn't a lawyer
or something, which contrary to your rosy outlook, not all women are. And
they are still econonically trapped and financially dependent, just on
themselves instead of their husband. That might be a good thing or a bad
thing for them, who knows.
>I'm talking about choice,
>about freedom, about the ability to marry for higher reasons, for emotional
>and spiritual fulfillment rather that just the ancient and conventional
>reasons.
WHy does one need to marry for emotional and spiritual fulfillment? That's
what I don't get about this. Why can't you have multiple sources of
spiritual and emotional fulfillment? Like books, movies, forums, best
friends, business partners, etc? I agree that marriage itself brings
something to a relationship in terms of fulfillment, but I think that
feeling is not long for this world. It is currently just an empty shell, a
sort of play-acted fulfillment based on ideas of marriage that are being
abolished. I don't see how that will continue to happen if marriage is not
seen as life-long and life-giving. "I do, for now" is not so fulfilling, is
it? [is that what you said when you got married? I know some vows leave
out the for better or for worse part now.] I guess it is nice to know that
someone is willing to officially be your spouse, even for now, rather than
imply they are still looking for someone better, but it's still running on
fumes of what it was. Your spouse is still might divorce you if someone
more desirable comes along. if you can never exhale, if you can never feel
that you are really stuck to each other now, it seems more restrictive and
expensive and silly than fulfilling.
>How you can construe this
>as "ignorant or callous" is a mystery to me. I mean, there is reading
>between the lines and then there is making up a bunch of bizzare nonsense
>and then putting into my mouth.
Your dismissal of teen pregnancy above was pretty callous also. Do you
really think that is some unrelated issue? And I didn;t attribute anything
to you you didn't say, I just tried to show how what you said has a flip
side that might really be the real side, the selfish motive. But I think
the real "selfish" thing here is the Giant, I actually don't think men
sneakily figured out that they could get women to do the childbirth AND the
working, and not even have to get married. But I think the Giant used
those selfish desires of men to its advantage.
>And this coming from a guy who has never
>been married, from a guy who has actually played a role in destroying a
>marriage!? I think this topic presents you with an excellent opportunity to
>shut up about marriage and morality.
I don't give myself that much credit. If it wasn't me it would have been
someone else. I don't know that the husband ever found out, I think she
just told him she wanted out of the marriage. Plus,to preserve moralty,
decorum dictates I shouldn't have admitted to that (current memoir culture
notwithstanding). I regret mentioning it, and forget why I did. I think I
thought that it answered the personal insult that I lacked courage to go
against the social currents, but now that I think about it, it doesn't
really, because these days the social currents actually suggest unhappy
married women go seduce some guy, and they still suggest that a guy should
say yes when a beautiful women wants to be with him, so it wasn't an example
of going against the social patterns at all.
>HYP-O-CRITE noun. 1. A person pretends to have virtues, moral or
>religious beliefs or principles, etc., that one does not really possess,
>especially a person whose actions belie stated beliefs. 2. a person who
>fiegns some desirable or publicly approved attitude, especially one whose
>private life, opinions, or statements belie his or her public statements.
I believe it is better to be a hypocrite than to conform ones stated beliefs
to ones actions. And I never said I was entirely moral. But I will say it
now, so no one can avoid my points by pointing to my transgressions ever
again: I'm entirely moral. Never done nothing wrong or bad, always been
good. I freed that woman (helped her out of a jam i guess), and didn't even
use any force.
Btw, in the bible, the people Jesus calls hypocrites (which means "actor")
not only said all the things they should, but they actually did all the
things they should also. Jesus wasn't accusing them of private sins (that's
a different lesson - we are all sinners) he was referring to their lack of
inner beliefs, their lack of true faith, underneath an exterior that went
through all the motions, playing the part of a moral person (hence his
choice of words).
Uh oh, it's light outside now!
Good morning!
_________________________________________________________________
MSN 8 with e-mail virus protection service: 2 months FREE*
http://join.msn.com/?page=features/virus
MOQ.ORG - http://www.moq.org
Mail Archives:
Aug '98 - Oct '02 - http://alt.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/
Nov '02 Onward - http://www.venus.co.uk/hypermail/moq_discuss/summary.html
MD Queries - horse@darkstar.uk.net
To unsubscribe from moq_discuss follow the instructions at:
http://www.moq.org/md/subscribe.html
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Mon Jun 16 2003 - 09:53:01 BST