gadgetlady

I'm too big for my own personal taste, but my husband loves them. He also loves to quote Proverbs 5:18-20: May you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer— may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love.

I was just thinking about this subject and I remembered a joke my dad used to tell when I was young -- in the '70s. As he told the joke, he and my mom were watching the news and reporting on the feminist movement. He turned to her and said, "Do you want to be equal to me?" She responded back, "Why would I want to come down to your level?"

One other thing -- I wouldn't attend a church that wasn't teaching Biblical standards about marriage and women. I have left churches because I didn't agree with the teaching, so it's more than being fortunate. It's being picky, too -- even though I've never attended a church that preached that women are inferior, I would leave immediately if I did.

I grew up in the Catholic church, so I did have early experiences -- albeit I was not a believer at that time. I even attended and got my B.S. from a Catholic university -- and took classes on marriage (I thought it was pretty funny that many of the classes were taught by a Catholic priest -- "expert in marriage" -- who obviously wasn't married but later left the church to run off and get married to a nun). My parents are devout Catholics, going so far as to seek out Latin masses rather than English, but I still never experienced any discussion ever of women and marriage in any way other than positive and affirming.

ROFLOL! I thought you meant Jack Bauer from "24". Both Jacks are awesome.

Having children is a very sanctifying experience. You cannot do it well if you're selfish. They beat the selfishness right out of you. People who are parents know this very, very well, which might make some of them mistakenly assume the opposite is true -- that if you don't want children it's because you're selfish. It is, in my opinion, a silly assumption. There are some very unselfish people in this world that don't have or want children.

I think everyone's different. I don't have a problem with salads at all, but I can't eat the tomatoes. Sadly, however, I DO have a problem with both cooked and uncooked vegetables. Last night we went to Outback; I had a salad, steak, and then finished it off with very well-cooked broccoli. The broccoli came back up, which I totally don't get because I had no problem at all with the steak. I miss my veges :-(

I have never, ever been told by anyone in my church -- or my life -- that I shouldn't work. I grew up in a family where my parents worked together (my dad was a doctor and my mom was his secretary/office manager). My mom told me it was more important for me to learn to use my brain than to learn to cook and clean, and consequently I'm still not a good cleaner or chef! But I know how to hire a housecleaner and can reheat in the microwave really well :mad: I have been a Christian for about 15 years and I have never, ever heard a sermon preached on or even had any pastor tell me I should stay home and tend to house and/or kids. When my first daughter was born, I couldn't wait to get back to the office because it was the one place I felt competent:D. My husband and I own a business together, and when we had kids he became a "stay-at-home-dad" of sorts. But I found myself longing to be at home with our kids. So we were able to sell a portion of our business to get me home full time so I could homeschool and still work. I run two full-time businesses and a third part-time, as well as homeschooling both kids. I still don't cook and clean very well. I firmly believe that it is best for kids to be at home with one parent (or both, if possible). I think if most families were to subscribe to this philosophy it would mean the mom staying home (for a variety of reasons). But I don't for a milli-second believe that means the mom is "inferior" to the dad. When my husband stayed home with the kids in their younger years, he was in no way inferior to me. And if the positions were reversed, I would not be inferior to him. Raising children is a worthy, intensely important, and extremely difficult job, regardless of which parent is doing it. The other night we were doing our nightly Bible study with our girls, and the passage we read was about the empty tomb. I stopped after my husband read the account and I asked my girls who the first people were to see the empty tomb, talk to the angel, and know Jesus was resurrected. They answered that it was women. I asked them why they thought that was the case. My older daugther answered that it was because women weren't very highly regarded in that society and Jesus was saying that they have just as much value as men. And I agree with her. I don't think that any institution that denigrates women is getting it right. Just because women have different roles and functions in society and in a marriage doesn't mean one gender is inferior and the other is superior.

Glad to hear you liked it. Even the 2nd and 3rd time I watched it I couldn't stop laughing.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1921276117304287501&q=genre:comedy I laughed so hard my stomach hurt.

I've been thinking a lot about the "guilt" and "shame" issues that have been brought up here, and I'm wondering how one could make another feel "guilty" or "shameful" for something that isn't wrong. Let me give you an example. If you come to my house and yell and scream or look down your nose and make snide comments about the fact that I bought a red car, no amount of action on your part will make me feel guilty for buying a red car because there's nothing wrong with it. If, however, you explained that all red car paint comes from a factory that uses child laborers, you would make me understand why I should feel bad about buying a red car. But if your only reason that I should feel shameful or guilty is that you don't like red, I wouldn't feel guilty. If I can "coerce" another human being to feel guilt or shame, there must be at least a smidge of concern in his mind that what he's doing isn't right, mustn't there?

Today I remembered an article I read many years ago; I've been trying to find it and I can't, but I'll keep searching. The gist of the article was that a woman's cervix was more likely to develop dysplasia (and therefore cervical cancer) the more sexual partners she had -- but not because of the increased potential for exposure to STD's. The reason was that a woman's cervix "reacted" to a man's semen (almost like a chemical reaction), and if she had multiple sexual partners the cervix was unable to stabilize to one partical chemical composition of semen and she was more likely to develop dysplasia. I've been looking for the article but I can't find it. Has anyone else ever heard of this?

I've never had a problem with Splenda and gas. I drink Splenda-sweetened beverages all day long. I've never had a problem with Equal or any other artificial sweetner. I have a friend who can't use aspartame (Equal) because it affects her brain.

That may be your experience but it's not everyone's. Some kids get fat because their parents let them eat whatever they want. If a child who would have eaten in private and binged were he in a restrictive household were moved to a permissive household where he could eat whatever he wanted, would he become fat either way? I don't know that there's a definitive answer to that.

Sunta, it's clear from the totality your posts that you believe fundamentalists are the cause of all the world's ills. You're entitled to your beliefs, but I just plain disagree.

"Other than that child in another 15 years" -- I'll report back to you then! BTW, this child does know what breasts are for. His mother nursed his yonger sister and brother. I don't think he's developing any neuroses because his eyes aren't glued to exposed body parts.

Fascinating webpage about rapes per capita by country. Of course, as with all statistics, easily manipulated and can be skewed by underreporting, definition of rape, etc. -- but still interesting: http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cri_rap_percap-crime-rapes-per-capita

That's what I said. In international ring based in Austria. And since the population of the US is larger by just a smidge than Germany or Austria, one would expect the US offenders to be greater in quantity. I suppose we could do a statistical analysis of offenders to population. I also think the article highlighted the number of Americans because it is broadcast to an American audience.

When I look at the world around me, I see sex crime increases as promiscuity increases. In the US, Europe, Africa, Canada, South America, and everywhere else.

We define healthy and responsible differently. And I recognize that it is everyone's right to define it however they'd like.

I agree with you! I was just astounded by the claim that the people who espouse the "whever, whoever, whatever" have a problem -- especially from someone who says that the people who believe in abstinence have a problem.

Did anyone see the news today about the international child porn ring that was just busted? It was based in Europe. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17022345/

Why does the "whenever, whoever, whatever" person have an issue? What's the problem with that philosophy? Sex is fun, it doesn't need to be confined to marriage, and there's nothing wrong with multiple partners . . . at least that's what most people here are saying . . . what am I missing?

If your parents didn't have a problem with it and didn't teach you to have a problem with it, why were you horribly embarrassed?

I am amazed at how everyone is jumping to the conclusion that my friend's dear, dear 10YO boy doesn't respect women because he doesn't ogle them. This boy is incredibly kind and respectful, and his mother is not teaching him that the human body is dirty or sinful. She is teaching him that it is not for public consumption. AND she is teaching him to respect not only women, but all human beings of all sizes, shapes, and shades. When my kids were young, I taught them to wash their hands after going to the bathroom. I didn't explain why; I just taught them to do it. When they were old enough to understand germs I explained that part to them. This is a similar situation. Don't ogle women with their body parts exposed. Develop the habit. One day you'll understand why. The habit is not the extent of his education; it is one facet of it. My daughters were inadvertently exposed to pornography a few months back. They were in a store with us and the shopkeeper asked my husband to go to the back room with him to pay the bill (he needed a calculator that he didn't have up front). The girls went with him and came back and reported that there was a picture of a woman on the wall with her top lifted up and her breasts showing. They were very confused and didn't understand why a woman would do that and why the man would have the picture on his wall. We took them aside and talked to them about how sad that woman must be to feel like she needs to do that to make money and how she must not respect herself very much. We didn't explain sex to them or go into the intricacies of the pornography industry -- there was no need to. BTW, I didn't think for one minute that my husband had done anything more than notice the porn on the wall and then look away and get to the task at hand.