California's top court blocks gay marriages

[Weird Harold]

I'm opposed to "Civil Unions" as a replacement for "marriage" unless the laws of inheritance and tax laws and all of the other laws that give "married people" and "spouses" special considerations are changed to make "Partner in a Civil Union" exactly synonymous with "spouse" and "civil union" exactly synonymous with "Marriage."

I find it extremely hypocritical that Wisconsin can pass a law granting pets full inheritance rights, and the Episcopal Church can offer Holy Communion to pets as a way to attract more people toits services withlittle more than a cryptic crawl on HNN, but same sex partners are denied those "rights" in many places.

Perhaps the answer is to redefine "same sex partner" as a "Pet" so they can have some legal rights?

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm opposed to "Civil Unions" as a replacement for "marriage" unless the laws of inheritance and tax laws and all of the other laws that give "married people" and "spouses" special considerations are changed to make "Partner in a Civil Union" exactly synonymous with "spouse" and "civil union" exactly synonymous with "Marriage."

I find it extremely hypocritical that Wisconsin can pass a law granting pets full inheritance rights, and the Episcopal Church can offer Holy Communion to pets as a way to attract more people toits services withlittle more than a cryptic crawl on HNN, but same sex partners are denied those "rights" in many places.

Perhaps the answer is to redefine "same sex partner" as a "Pet" so they can have some legal rights?

I actually support the idea of civil unions as a stepping stone towards full marriage rights. If most states allowed civil unions and most people had become at least tolerant to the idea that John and Fred down the street were a couple and enjoyed the rights of being a couple and in doing so had harmed no one and nothing, especially the instituion of marriage. Then I do not think they would be as oppsed to the question of allowing same sex marriages when it came up.

As it stands now most states don't. And while there will always be a lunatic fringe who decry gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage and there will always be a fairly well organized group on the religious right who oppse it vociferously, if the average person comes to see same sex marriage as no threat to themselves then it can come to pass that gay marriage becomes the norm. It only takes one state legalizing it and the federal government upholding it to make all states have to acept it.

At this point in time though, I believe the average person is ambivilent towards the issue with more leaning con than pro. Without a doubt the congress is stacked against the idea, can they muster a 2/3 rds majority to get an amendment proposal out to the states? That remains to be seen. If they can, then I will make the prediction that the amendment will be ratified by the 38 states neccessary.

In simplest terms I believe there is a anti-gay marriage majority in at least the 38 states required to ratify and I believe mobilizing a significant enough portion of those undecided to vote against it will be a daunting task. Around 60% of registered voters came out to vote for president, how many fewer would come out to vote on something that they didn't really care about? But you can bet the far right would be out in force and would be making their voices heard. You can also bet they will constitute a larger voting block than gays in most states.

In my opinion a slower, more studied and incremental approach to winning marriage rights for gay would have been far more effective and would have minimized exactly the kind of negative backlash that has made the prosepect of a constituional amendment barring gay marriage very real.

-Colly

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'm opposed to "Civil Unions" as a replacement for "marriage" unless the laws of inheritance and tax laws and all of the other laws that give "married people" and "spouses" special considerations are changed to make "Partner in a Civil Union" exactly synonymous with "spouse" and "civil union" exactly synonymous with "Marriage."

My point exactly.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm opposed to "Civil Unions" as a replacement for "marriage" unless the laws of inheritance and tax laws and all of the other laws that give "married people" and "spouses" special considerations are changed to make "Partner in a Civil Union" exactly synonymous with "spouse" and "civil union" exactly synonymous with "Marriage."

I find it extremely hypocritical that Wisconsin can pass a law granting pets full inheritance rights, and the Episcopal Church can offer Holy Communion to pets as a way to attract more people toits services withlittle more than a cryptic crawl on HNN, but same sex partners are denied those "rights" in many places.

Perhaps the answer is to redefine "same sex partner" as a "Pet" so they can have some legal rights?

I also believe marriage rights should be extended to gay couples but they can, by completing the proper forms such as a living will and wills and other documents that are fairly simple to complete, assure inheritance and other rights. In the US, there is only an advantage in filing joint returns if one spouse has much more income than the other and they do not itemize. My wife and I file joint returns and itemize but if we were not married, we could save money because I would itemize and list all the deductions and she would not itemize and report the standard deduction. Being married, we can't do that.

As for gay partners having the same insurance and other benefits, that is usually at the discretion of employers and other third parties.

Marriage would, hopefully, be a firm commitment between two people resulting in strong family units, even if some of those units are not the traditional ones. This, generally makes for a better and stronger community.

 

[Weird Harold]

I also believe marriage rights should be extended to gay couples but they can, by completing the proper forms such as a living will and wills and other documents that are fairly simple to complete, assure inheritance and other rights. ...

As for gay partners having the same insurance and other benefits, that is usually at the discretion of employers and other third parties.

True, there are ways to duplicate many of the legal benefits of "Marriage" but there are some things that simply can't be duplicated -- Like the legal requirement for insurance companies to cover a spouse unless unless theinsured specifically excludes coverage or union contracts that specify mandatory benefits for the spouse that can be denied a "domestic partner."

All of the artificial benefits that can be built piece by piece and a tall stack of legal documents (and attendent legal fees) to simulate a marriage are generated automatically by a single (inexpensive) document labeled "Marriage License."

If our laws were not so riddled with special cases and provisions for spouses -- like "a woman cannot be compelled to testify against her husband" -- Gay Marriage wouldn't be any sort of issue.

Inheritance for a "surviving spouse" is virtually unassailable in the courts, but an explicit Will naming a same sex life-partner as sole beneficiary can be challenged and tied up in court by any blood relation of the deceased with the simple words "Undue Influence."

Since I'm now divorced, and subject to only the negative aspects of "spousal rights" I tend to favor circumventing the "Gay Marriage" controversy by removing all of the favoritism towards , and discrimination in favor of, marriage in our laws.

Without those provisions and assumptions about what is the"right of a spouse" Marriage would revert to what it should be -- a solemn promise of fidelity between two people.

 

[SlickTony]

As it stands now most states don't. And while there will always be a lunatic fringe who decry gay marriage will destroy the sanctity of marriage and there will always be a fairly well organized group on the religious right who oppse it vociferously, if the average person comes to see same sex marriage as no threat to themselves then it can come to pass that gay marriage becomes the norm. It only takes one state legalizing it and the federal government upholding it to make all states have to acept it.

I just can't wrap my mind around the reasons the religious right--and that includes some good friends of mine that I go to church with and hang out with--trots out to the effect that gay marriage threatens marriage.

Inevitably, the marriage-is-for-procreation argument is broken out. Well, my sister and her husband have never had any kids--they share love and affection, property and cats. Another of my sisters was married for a while back in, I think, the 80s--no issue. What about oldsters who've had all their kids?

Maybe the thing to do is to declare all state-sanctioned unions as civil unions, and let the churches decide what they want to do about marrying people. After all, even if you do get married in church, it's not legally binding unless you've applied for the license and registered it at the courthouse.

Years ago, we started hearing about old folks having marriages performed for them in church which had no license behind them--this was so they would feel Married in the Eyes of God and not have their social security benefits change.

Both my sisters were married by judges, and not in a church--anyone gonna declare that illegal? No? Thought not.

As I said, let churches do what they will about performing marriages. They do already. They aren't legally obliged to marry anyone they don't feel they ought to. When I married my Muslim first husband, I had to scramble around to find someone who'd marry a Christian Scientist (which is what I was raised) and a Muslim. We were married in the Unitarian church and the preacher told us not to come to him with our problems afterwards.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

The heart of it is simply the idea that sex isn't for pleasure, it's for making babies. While your sister and her husband might never have succeeded in having a child (might not have even tried) there is the possibility of a kiddo everytime tab A goes into slot B.

In a gay relationship sex is never for procreation, it's always for pleasure. Tab A is going to be residing somewehre that has no egg and slot b isn't going to be recieving an appropriatly semen loaded tab A. And that's why they hate gays. For the Christian right the most horrible thought in the world is that somewhere, someone out there, might be having a good time. That's simply not acceptable. And to imagine two people who ONLY go to bed for the pleasure in it is an affront of , pardon the pun, biblical proportions.

The sanctity of marriage should be a church concern. There is no sanctity involved with the government sponsored contract that goes along with it. But separating the two in the minds of the Christian right is about as likely as convincing them that sex for pleasure is a good thing.

-Colly

 

[SlickTony]

Sex started to become unstuck from procreation as soon as the Pill and in vitro fertilization were developed. And children began to become unstuck from marriage as soon as women began earning enough so that they didn't need a man to support them. I suppose the Christian right knows this, at least intellectually, and they probably don't like that either.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sex started to become unstuck from procreation as soon as the Pill and in vitro fertilization were developed. And children began to become unstuck from marriage as soon as women began earning enough so that they didn't need a man to support them. I suppose the Christian right knows this, at least intellectually, and they probably don't like that either.

Sex started to become unstuck from procreation long before that. When I was a teenager, long before The Pill was developed, I and all my fellows carried condoms in our wallets. Most of us, certainly including me, never expected to use them and almost all of them were eventually thrown away. They were probably more an emblem of "maleness" than anything else, because virtually all females at that time and place were adamantly opposed to casual sex, even protected.

 

[SlickTony]

virtually all females at that time and place were adamantly opposed to casual sex, even protected.

It wasn't that we were opposed to it...God, when I remember how ferociously horny I felt as a teenager--it's just that we girls knew what the rules were--at least what we were told they were, and that was, that if we Did It, the guy would tell all his friends, we'd be labeled sluts, and the guy would walk away from us and take the professional virgin to the homecoming game instead.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It wasn't that we were opposed to it...God, when I remember how ferociously horny I felt as a teenager--it's just that we girls knew what the rules were--at least what we were told they were, and that was, that if we Did It, the guy would tell all his friends, we'd be labeled sluts, and the guy would walk away from us and take the professional virgin to the homecoming game instead.

First of all, the rules were made by the girls. Had it been up to the boys, everybody would have been constantly fucking.

Also, if the girls were horny and if they had actually been honest about their sexuality instead of repressing it, there would have been no gossip and no problem. If everybody Did It, why bother to even mention it. Everybody, boys and girls would have been happier except the "Professional Virgins" who would have stayed home the night of the homecoming game.

 

[SlickTony]

First of all, the rules were made by the girls.

Well, I'll concede that. After all, it was our mothers who told us that. Besides, everyone knows that a repressive system depends heavily on collaborators among the repressed group: prison matrons, Deans of Girls, scout leaders, duennas, etc.,etc. and last but not least, our own mothers. But that was what we did to try and deal with the Madonna-whore syndrome, which I don't think women invented.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Sex started to become unstuck from procreation as soon as the Pill and in vitro fertilization were developed. And children began to become unstuck from marriage as soon as women began earning enough so that they didn't need a man to support them. I suppose the Christian right knows this, at least intellectually, and they probably don't like that either.

Ever read the bible Tony? The whole bible i mean, not just the new testament but the old as well. If someone were to write a book today that was a quarter as mysogynistic as the bible is they would be hung in effigy at NOW conventions around the country.

The word that is so scary about the christian right is fundamentalist. Every word in the bible is the literal word of god.

"Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church" (1 Corinthians 14:34-35).

"Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence. For Adam was first formed, then Eve. And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression" (1 Timothy 2:11-14).

"Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in every thing" (Ephesians 5:22-24). "But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God" (1 Corinthians 11:3). "Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord" (Colossians 3:18).

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, and say unto them, When a man shall make a singular vow, the persons shall be for the Lord by thy estimation. And thy estimation shall be of the male from twenty years old even unto sixty years old, even thy estimation shall be fifty shekels of silver, after the shekel of the sanctuary. And if it be a female, then thy estimation shall be thirty shekels. And if it be from a month old even unto five years old, then thy estimation shall be of the male five shekels of silver, and for the female thy estimation shall be three shekels of silver. And if it be from sixty years old and above, if it be a male, then thy estimation shall be fifteen shekels, and for the female, ten shekels" (Leviticus 27:1-7)

Now she that is a widow indeed, and desolate, trusteth in God, and continueth in supplications and prayers night and day. But she that liveth in pleasure is dead while she liveth" (1 Timothy 5:5-6).

"And the Lord spake unto Moses, saying, Speak unto the children of Israel, saying, If a woman have conceived seed, and born a man child: then she shall be unclean seven days . . . But if she bare a maid child, then she shall be unclean two weeks" (Leviticus 12:1-5).

"In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array" (1 Timothy 2:9). "But if a woman have long hair, it is a glory to her: for her hair is given her for a covering" (1 Corinthians 11:15).


Just a few examples. remember these guys think every word of that came straight fromthe all mighty. The only reason they allow their women to vote now is because it effectively doubles the voting power of her husband. If they ever get what the really want the 19th amendment will be over turned sometime after the ban on gay marriage amendment is enacted.

-Colly

 

[SlickTony]

Well, of course I read the Bible, including the passages which you have cited. I just do what most people do, and try not think too much about the passages that I radically disagree with, such as those.

I don't see how anybody can accept the Bible literally. I don't even think that's what it's for. I long ago came to the conclusion that it was written by a gang of Middle Eastern men with their own agendas.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

Well, of course I read the Bible, including the passages which you have cited. I just do what most people do, and try not think too much about the passages that I radically disagree with, such as those.

I don't see how anybody can accept the Bible literally. I don't even think that's what it's for. I long ago came to the conclusion that it was written by a gang of Middle Eastern men with their own agendas.

Of course. Most christians ignore or at least minimize the importance of passages that are obviously behind the times or no longer applicable to modern life.

But you hit the nail on the head inadvetantly. With the reactionary christian right they do the same thing. They try not to think about the passages they don't like. Like love they neighbor and judge not least you be judged. It's all in the passgaes you choose to take and those you hope to minimize.

I would say it's a pretty safe bet that if I gave you a red marker and had you go thorugh the bible, marking out those passages you wish to kinda ignore and I gave someone from the reactionary right a red marker and he/she did the same. If I then took only those passages you both decided should be left in, apart from the parables of jesus, the geneologys of the partiarchs and a few of the least controversial stories there wouldn't be much of a book left.

It's a big book. It covers an incredible range of history, philosophy, theology and practical life advice. Just about anyone with a cause can go in there and find passages, taken out of context, to support any position they happen to hold. Conversely people who hold the opposing view can go in and do the same.

The trick to solving the political far right Christians is to watch them declare it's all true, literally true and then emphasize what they want, just like you think it's a book written by middle easternmen long ago and emphazsize what you want. The real intellectual slight of hand is that by believing it's all, literally true, they empower themselves to emphasize those parts which are counter to modern life and modern precepts of freedom, individuality and justice.

If you took their core political precepts, and applied them as a body of political thought, you would place them out there on the lunatic fringe. So far to the right they would have to build a new wing just to house them. Radical/reactionary politcal agendas, in general, get little support from the middle. But just grab the good book, throw on some somber clothing, memorize a few lines you can quote chapter and verse and BINGO. You are no longer a dangerous right wing nutter, you are a man of religious principle and rather than being osrtacized as a danger to freedom for all, you're in control of the GOP.

-Colly

 

[Boxlicker101]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by SlickTony
Sex started to become unstuck from procreation as soon as the Pill and in vitro fertilization were developed. And children began to become unstuck from marriage as soon as women began earning enough so that they didn't need a man to support them. I suppose the Christian right knows this, at least intellectually, and they probably don't like that either.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I responded:

Sex started to become unstuck from procreation long before that. When I was a teenager, long before The Pill was developed, I and all my fellows carried condoms in our wallets. Most of us, certainly including me, never expected to use them and almost all of them were eventually thrown away. They were probably more an emblem of "maleness" than anything else, because virtually all females at that time and place were adamantly opposed to casual sex, even protected.


and then she said:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
virtually all females at that time and place were adamantly opposed to casual sex, even protected.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

It wasn't that we were opposed to it...God, when I remember how ferociously horny I felt as a teenager--it's just that we girls knew what the rules were--at least what we were told they were, and that was, that if we Did It, the guy would tell all his friends, we'd be labeled sluts, and the guy would walk away from us and take the professional virgin to the homecoming game instead.


and then I said:

First of all, the rules were made by the girls. Had it been up to the boys, everybody would have been constantly fucking.

Also, if the girls were horny and if they had actually been honest about their sexuality instead of repressing it, there would have been no gossip and no problem. If everybody Did It, why bother to even mention it. Everybody, boys and girls would have been happier except the "Professional Virgins" who would have stayed home the night of the homecoming game.

and then she countered:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
First of all, the rules were made by the girls.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, I'll concede that. After all, it was our mothers who told us that. Besides, everyone knows that a repressive system depends heavily on collaborators among the repressed group: prison matrons, Deans of Girls, scout leaders, duennas, etc.,etc. and last but not least, our own mothers. But that was what we did to try and deal with the Madonna-whore syndrome, which I don't think women invented.

and now I am saying:

Presumably, you are referring to girls and women as a "repressed group". They are not, at least not now. As I said, girls made the rules that regulated sexual activity among girls and boys. I'm glad you agreed with that. How many repressed groups do you know of who have made the rules to regulate their own repression?

If boys had made the rules, everybody would have fucked all they wanted and, assuming certain precautions were taken to prevent pregnancy and STD, there would have been no repercussions. Maybe not "everybody" and not "all they wanted", but most people and a lot more than they did. If sexual openness were the norm among women, which is what men and boys fervently wish were the case, the inflated value believed to be placed on virginity would disappear and the "professional virgins" you mention would be regarded as being silly for missing out on the fun. In fact, if they had expressed a desire to refrain from sex, some males would have applauded them and sought them out. These would have been the types we are now scorning as "Far right Christisan fundamendalists". Most males, however would have had an attitude something like: "If she is not interested in sex, I better stay away from her. Certainly, she is not someone I would want as a girl friend or wife.

The Madonna-whore syndrome you mention relates to mothers compared to wives and has nothing to do with what either of us is saying. I could expand on that but it would only get me into trouble with other persons on AH.

 

[juanjsojr]

it happens

I knew this will happen it is not right to see same sex marriage the law says marriage is for one man and one woman it is not anyone's problem they just following the law I myself is bi but I will follow the law and never marry another guy it just I think it is right to ban same sex marriage

 

[minsue]

Re: it happens

I knew this will happen it is not right to see same sex marriage the law says marriage is for one man and one woman it is not anyone's problem they just following the law I myself is bi but I will follow the law and never marry another guy it just I think it is right to ban same sex marriage

I agree with being a law abiding person, juan. I also believe it is my duty, as it is everybody's duty, to fight against laws that I believe are wrong. It was only a few decades ago that the US Supreme Court found it unconstitutional for states to outlaw interracial marraiges. A lot of people had to fight long and hard to get those laws changed and many of them didn't get to live to see it. It will likely be the same this time around.

- Mindy

 

[sweetnpetite]

It would be cool but it will also never happen in any volume. I believe the city of Santa Cruz has tried to follow the lead of SF and San Jose is recognizing the gay marriages of city employees but this will not be any kind of a major groundswell. San Francisco is unique amont cities in Cal because it is also a county and the official name is "The City and County of San Francisco. Every other city in the state is part of a county, and it is the counties that issue marriage licenses. In other words, with the one exception, cities are not in the business of authorizing marriages and county employees will not do something so contrary to their instructions, and the law, as issuing marriage licenses to gay couples. I think the situation is the same in most, maybe all cities in the country.

I think it's already starting:

http://www.katu.com/news/story.asp?ID=65486

Benton county to issue marriage licenses to gay couples

By JULIA SILVERMAN
PORTLAND - Benton County will become the second county in Oregon to begin issuing marriage licenses to gay couples, County Commissioner Linda Modrell said Tuesday.

The county, home to Oregon State University, follows in the footsteps of Multnomah County, the state's most populous, which has issued over 2,400 licenses to gay couples since March 3.

Licenses will be available in Benton County starting on March 24, at 9 a.m., Modrell said.

After three hours of emotional public testimony, the motion was passed by county commissioners by a 2-1 vote, with Modrell and Commissioner Annabelle Jaramillo voting in favor, and Commissioner Jay Dixon voting against it.

Modrell said the decision was partly based on a non-binding opinion issued last week by Oregon Attorney General Hardy Myers, which said a ban on gay marriage probably violates Oregon's constitution, although existing state law also prohibits the practice. Gov. Ted Kulongoski, a Democrat, had urged other counties not to follow in Multnomah County's lead.

The issue, legal observers have said, is likely to wind up being decided by the state's highest court.

"If the attorney general believes it is likely to be deemed unconstitutional, and if the other opinions out there believe the law is likely to be unconstitutional, it is just as unconstitutional today as it will be next week, next month and next year," Modrell told The Associated Press Tuesday.

Benton County, about an hour's drive from Portland, is home to Corvallis, one of the state's more liberal cities.

Modrell said she is expecting the county to face a lawsuit filed by opponents of gay marriage.

Gay rights groups hailed the decision, and said they expected other Oregon counties to follow suit.

"I would not be surprise if other counties follow," said Roey Thorpe, the executive director of Basic Rights Oregon, a group that has been most instrumental in the gay marriage debate.

"This is a moment where real leaders are stepping forward.

People understand that this is an historic moment, and they have an ability to make a difference and take a public position against discrimination."

Anti-gay marriage groups denounced Benton County's actions, and dismissed the vote as pure politics.

"We would call it using the sacred institution of marriage as a political tool," said Tim Nashif, the spokesman for the Defense of Marriage Coalition, which has already filed a lawsuit against Multnomah County. "They're not making decisions just for Benton County, they are making it for the entire state."

Portland staffers Andrew Kramer and William McCall contributed to this report.

(Copyright 2004 by The Associated Press. All Rights Reserved.)

 

[sweetnpetite]

Well, I'll concede that. After all, it was our mothers who told us that.

Besides, everyone knows that a repressive system depends heavily on collaborators among the repressed group: prison matrons, Deans of Girls, scout leaders, duennas, etc.,etc. and last but not least, our own mothers.

But that was what we did to try and deal with the Madonna-whore syndrome, which I don't think women invented.

And it makes it so much easier to blame the victim for there own repression. Thanks Slick Tony for cutting through all of that. (But it's still so easy to deny or refuse to see, that even the truth won't convince many)

 

[sweetnpetite]

So true, it's scary.

If you took their core political precepts, and applied them as a body of political thought, you would place them out there on the lunatic fringe. So far to the right they would have to build a new wing just to house them. Radical/reactionary politcal agendas, in general, get little support from the middle. But just grab the good book, throw on some somber clothing, memorize a few lines you can quote chapter and verse and BINGO. You are no longer a dangerous right wing nutter, you are a man of religious principle and rather than being osrtacized as a danger to freedom for all, you're in control of the GOP.

-Colly

 

[sweetnpetite]

I'm opposed to "Civil Unions" as a replacement for "marriage" unless the laws of inheritance and tax laws and all of the other laws that give "married people" and "spouses" special considerations are changed to make "Partner in a Civil Union" exactly synonymous with "spouse" and "civil union" exactly synonymous with "Marriage."

I find it extremely hypocritical that Wisconsin can pass a law granting pets full inheritance rights, and the Episcopal Church can offer Holy Communion to pets as a way to attract more people toits services withlittle more than a cryptic crawl on HNN, but same sex partners are denied those "rights" in many places.

Perhaps the answer is to redefine "same sex partner" as a "Pet" so they can have some legal rights?

some people would be offended- but the kinky amoung us would truly appreciate this sort of thing.

ANd you know how the religious right loves kinky sexual relationships

 

[SlickTony]

And it makes it so much easier to blame the victim for there own repression. Thanks Slick Tony for cutting through all of that.

I think Box must be much younger than I am, and probably has read less history, but I've got to leave in a little bit and don't have time to 'splain it all to him now.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Well, I'll concede that. After all, it was our mothers who told us that. Besides, everyone knows that a repressive system depends heavily on collaborators among the repressed group: prison matrons, Deans of Girls, scout leaders, duennas, etc.,etc. and last but not least, our own mothers. But that was what we did to try and deal with the Madonna-whore syndrome, which I don't think women invented.

It's like the system of female mutilation in Africa and the Middle East... it's the mothers who reinforce it, not the fathers. Now why would mothers do that to their daughters, especially when they know from experience how horrible it is?

Because they also know that if they don't have their daughters "circumsized", there won't be a man around who wants to marry the daughter. And if the daughter doesn't get married, how's she to support herself? How's she going to make a living? There aren't many professions for women, except for prostitution.

It's a case of "better the devil you know...". And it exists all over the world. In the West, mothers don't cut their daughters' clits off to make them subdued, but they brainwash them with their talk about What Good Girls Do And Don't Do.

It all comes down to the same thing in the end - make the girls change, in order to please men.