No...this is not a 'story' nor a 'blog' by stealth.

I found this interesting article on a 'hot' topic. (the Title).
http://books.google.com.au/books?id=J8dx3ct9zBoC&pg=PA269&lpg=PA269&dq=vd+and+soldier+deaths&source=web&ots=ZdPdbJDZl9&sig=bXn4bQvXWNIzNZLC3Nt5jZrmJ3U&hl=en#PPA8,M1

This article explores the above issues, from the viewpoint of the 19th century, times of the Empire, Colonies etc.

FEMINISTS and GODBOTHERERS on the SAME PAGE?

Regarding Alchohol, the article says: "Feminists and Religious groups, ..were together against alchohol due to it being the doorway to lack of self control and the use and abuse of women" (paraphrase)

In that time, they even had "some doctors were not in favour of outlawing prostitution, but rather wished to control it" (hmm I'm sure I've heard that b4...recently)

But it also reports that this did not work, and failed.

RACE and MORALITY. (British and Australian Colonial Attitudes)

Aboriginals were considered "Dirty men, willing to sell their women for a pouch of tobacco".
"Indians as a race were indifferent to moral degradation, embracing hereditary prostitution caste's without hesitation"

Miles Ogborn said : "Prositution disordered the State and threatened the Empire"

"It was imperitive therefore that she be identified female,..equated with the less civilized and that she be subject to control" (from Ogborn)

ALCHOHOL
Only 12% of the Army were permitted to marry. This led to unfulfilled desire for sex, which led to drunkenness and association with prostitutes of low class, and VD, which reduced the army's fighting ability.
Marilyn Shepherd claimed more Soldiers died of the 'pox' than bullets, but I hardly think that was the case.

From the discussion of the arguments, it seems to me that "there is nothing new under the sun" as we hear them all today also.

My Question: Why are Feminists and Christians not on the same page today? (perhaps they are?)

David glad that you've finally found a book which fits you social values "from the viewpoint of the 19th century, times of the Empire, Colonies etc."

As for your question - some feminists are on the same page as some christains on a lot of issues. Those who think they have the right to decide for others.

Thankfully plenty of feminists and christains don't live to tell others how to live.

Feminism like christainity encompases a wide range of viewpoints and attitudes.

R0bert

Absoutely Robert.

David, you cannot categorise groups so formally or rigidly. Doing so ignores the fact that there is a wide range participants within those groups and a wide variation in views.

R0bert,

Your statement -"Those who think they have the right to decide for others" is one of the most profound observations I have read on these pages for a long time.

Thanks!

Dear David,

You may be interested in the book, "Damned Whores and God's Police,"
by Anne Summers. It deals with the Colonization of Women in Australia, and was voted one of the top ten books of the past 40 years by the Australian Sociological Association.

From memory, I think it was first published in 1975 - then had several re-prints over the years. It should be available from your local library, if you're interested.

Take Care.

Thanx Foxy

the problem I have with Roberts muttering, and his gangs chirping approval :)
is this.

It seems that when there is an obvious detrimental movement in society, whether it be alchohol or devient sex, or sexual abuse, or drugs..
people come out of the woodwork and condemn any proposed legislative solution to such abuse. WAIT.. no, they simply propose to ALLOW it all, because.. "you can't legislate morality" ?

In spite of the rather different perspective of 'those days' the realities of the problems cannot be denied.

Pelican, you did actually offer something worthwhile.. about the diversity of opinion in 'movements'. Point taken, so.. let me re-phrase it.

"Many feminists and Christians were on the same sociological page regarding much abuse"

Is that a bit more to your liking? :)

Given that, then I feel serious and responsible feminists, will join with we Christians, (some may well BE Christians) and worktogether for solutions to many social issues plagueing us.

'Porn in service stations' would be high on my list. 'Sex shops on major roads' would be another.
Brothels in residential neighbourhoods might make the list also.

Gambling, Drunkeness, availability of booze (times when open) Sexualization of children with toys and TV shows etc.

Ooooooh yes.. plenty to think about.

'Brothels in residential neighbourhoods'.
I really don't understand the problem with that. Unless it's offensive for people to be seen coyly entering and leaving a building. In a residential area! How scandalous!

'Sex shops on major roads', 'Brothels in residential neighbourhoods'

Actually. I have the answer! Let's have all sex shops in residential neighbourhoods, and brothels on the major roads!

David, you are still making the assumption that people who might describe themselves as feminists or Christians are on the same page vis a vis prostitution and pornography. (I am still unsure of what constitutes a 'feminist' as the range of definitions or perceptions even on OLO are enlightening)

(As indicated by the ranging opinions on the violent porn/pornography threads from both feminists and Christians.)

If the range of articles on OLO are a reflection of real life perceptions then you will have seen that some of the feminist writers have affilitaion with Christian lobby groups and are sympathetic to your views and some are not.

"It seems that when there is an obvious detrimental movement in society, ..."

There always seems to be an elephant in the room when David starts on this particular bandwagon. The assumption is that someone who shares David's views will get to decide what is immoral or an "obvious detrimental movement in society".

David is in a mixed race marriage and is a passionate advocate for mixed race marriages. We don't have to look far back in history to find a period when a lot of people would have considered mix race marriage immoral and detrimental to society. The old half casts get the worst of both races thinking.

Would David find it acceptable if his new commissioner of morals was someone who considered mixed race marriage immoral and detrimental to society? Would he find it acceptable if his marriage did not share the same legal protections as hetrosexual, monoracial couples? Maybe even to have the physical expression of his love for partner declared illegal because others considered it immoral?

I suspect not.

Prostitution is a different issue but at the heart of the issues lies the concept of consenting adults being able to make their own choices and an acceptance that what is considered immoral and or detrimental to society often is not.

R0bert

R0bert and Pelican, whether feminists and chrisitians have a wide variety of viewpoints or not, they still support the central structures that are occupied by the extremists of either group, which lobby the government (feminists even have an office and minister in our federal government to push their agenda). The softer edges conceal the extremist centre of both groups. On OLO we have observed both (C.Norma as a submitter among others for feminism and Gibo/BOAZ as commenters for Christianity). Their ideas lie at the political centre of their respective groups.

-=-=
http://www.reason.com/news/show/123330.html

"In the 1980s, conservatives and feminists joined to fight a common nemesis: the spread of pornography. Unlike past campaigns to stamp out smut, this one was based not only on morality but also public safety. They argued that hard-core erotica was intolerable because it promoted sexual violence against women.

"Pornography is the theory; rape is the practice," wrote feminist author Robin Morgan"
-==-=

It's a very disturbing situation though and one that hasn't yet been exposed in the mainstream media yet(at least prominent and sustained exposure).

In Australia these groups have diminished press and broadcast/entertainment freedom over the last several decades.

Hi Robert. (the Hefalump here)
something you said deserved closer scrutiny.

You suggest that some things might be declared 'detrimental' by some little club of do gooders who dislike some behavior, and wish to stamp it out. Ok.. good point.

But I deflect that with the simple solution that any consideration of detriment, should be based on evidence which is obvious to all.

For example, the link between alchohol and violence is pretty well established, and the kind of violence often cited is 'domestic' violence.

In the period referred to in the article, (I hope you managed to read it) they refer to the link between:

Alchohol, poor judgement, prostitutes, and soldiers going down the gurgler with STDs and being unable to perform in the military.

Regarding morality in general, and the abuse of women in particular, surely it is obvious (?) that to 'commodify' a human body is detrimental to the individual and society.

Let me give you an example from 'my Journey' :) my goodness.. there was soooo much that impacted on me, that's why my head was spinning and then I 'spilled' it in 3 posts and 2 threads.

One of my peers, (one of the few divorced ones) shared with me about his 'indulging' in 'student sponsorship' in Melbourne. This is a euphemism for him visiting brothels, and requesting young girls, who happen to be like 19, and looking for extra income through casual prostitution. (students)

Try as I might, I cannot see how this is in any way beneficial for all concerned. He has daughters. He related how he might feel if his own daughter DID this..... now.. take a moment to reflect on this.. do you have a daughter? I do, and the thought of her doing that makes me sick. Can this be good? I'll guarantee the girls don't tell mum or dad about their extra income stream....

BOAZ,"Regarding morality in general, and the abuse of women in particular, surely it is obvious (?) that to 'commodify' a human body is detrimental to the individual and society."

People and their bodies are products like everything else. It's ubiquitous. It has been such for hundreds of years. The fashion idustry treats it's employees bodies as products, for example. And it's ENTIRELY VOLUNTARY.

As for your example, she can do whatever the hell she wants. To suggest otherwise is treating her like your property.

Ah yes Robert “Feminism like christainity encompases a wide range of viewpoints and attitudes.”

Christianity is a “broad church”.

Myself, I would rather stand outside in the rain and thank God directly for that than listen to the deranged ranting of some preacher, pumped up on ego and a captive audience.

As for the title “prostitution, race and politics”

Try

“Politicians in a Race for Prostitutes” – a sly bang on the back benches, so to speak.

And a racing certainty it has already happened and is possibly happening as we speak.

As Evans, Kernow, Richardson and Bob Collins showed, a politicians considerations are not exclusively focused on representing the constituents and doubtless some of them will have certainly indulged in the services of a lady of the night.

As for “'Porn in service stations' would be high on my list.”

Adds new meaning to the expression “a quick grease and fluid check”.

Porn is nothing to get all pumped up about (so to speak) (and I am not going near a “jack” )

I love these play posts. Lots of fun.

Keep up the good work Bosie – oops BOAZ (confused your name with Oscar’s favourite friend)

Steel, you really believe that 'people and their bodies are products like everything else'? Or is that your opinion of how everyone else (society) views things?

Either way, you hang yourself mate.

Boazy, I am ill-equipped to comment on Feminism and Christianity except to say I quite like 'em both. Why ain't they on the same page? Some no doubt are, while other Fems. read from the Marxist hymnbook and some god-botherers are literal nuts.

OT perhaps but I find the chemistry of sex is diluted by the addition of alcohol, best keep ones senses unimpaired I reckon.

David, the "obvious to all" bit will beat you almost every time.

In regard to your comment "Regarding morality in general, and the abuse of women in particular, surely it is obvious (?) that to 'commodify' a human body is detrimental to the individual and society."

What is much more obvious is that to take away an individuals right to choose what they do with their body is detrimental to the individual and society. People if they have the freedom will do things which I consider harmful to themselves, possibly which objective evidence would consider harmful but it's their life and their body not mine. The greater harm comes when outsiders take that freedom away.

I don't see a viable basis for me to believe that my values, views and preferences should override someone elses when it comes to how they use their body.

If we want to reduce the incidence of abuse of women then one of the steps is to make it clear that a womans body is her body and that she is sovereign over it. Society usurping control over a womans choices about what she does to her body reinforces the idea that it's not her right to choose which in my view may well increase the risk of abuse.

"by some little club of do gooders who dislike some behavior, and wish to stamp it out." - I didn't mention any little club of do gooders in my recent post although thats a possibllity. I was thinking about things which are widely thought to be immoral and detrimental as your own marriage would once have been considered.

When a big enough group hold to an idea it is difficult to challenge. When I was a kid I recall quite clearly that a lot of people thought that half casts got the worst traits of their parents races. Not logical but rarely challenged.

R0bert

"Steel, you really believe that 'people and their bodies are products like everything else'? Or is that your opinion of how everyone else (society) views things?

Either way, you hang yourself mate."

Unless you care to elaborate I will have to assume. And I assume you think it is a bad thing people's bodies are products? To that I will say you are being presumptuous. If you think I meant that people can't tell the difference between the general population and a product or that is what I was implying, then you are being an idiot. Learn to distinguish that an apple (for example), can be both a product, or a fruit. While you should read what R0bert says below you, let me repeat what I wrote,

1. THIS. IS. VOLUNTARY.

Wrap your head around that a few times. People can use their bodies as they please for business or commercial gain. In fact, they always have and always will.

It's just that many feminists and christians have wrongly asserted over many decades that, nudity, pornography and prostitution are 'different' (immoral, degrading and dangerous), even for free thinking adults who consent and volunteer to engage in such acts.

2. Other industries and practices "commodify" people's bodies:
- Fashion industry
- Modelling
- Media/advertisements
- Retail
- Medical
- Entertainment
- Performing arts

People who make a business out of selling their bodies do so across many industries, because their bodies are the product. It's simply Capitalism. If you do have a problem, you must end all advertising and objectifying images of people. To single out pornography and 'adult' industries, which neatly fits into the agendas of the religious theocrats and most feminists, is illogical and irrational.

COL.. u rrrrr a funny man :)

One point though. You said:

<<Myself, I would rather stand outside in the rain and thank God directly for that than listen to the deranged ranting of some preacher, pumped up on ego and a captive audience>>

I have to agree that there are preachers like that, and even some churches like that. So, we are all wise to steer clear of them. I think some are the ecclesiastical equivalent of the 'Nigerian Email Scam'.

But I recommend you search out the letters of Paul, and see what the true picture is, and realize that 'the' real Church is not like you described. As Jesus said.. "The kingdom of God is in the midst of you"
If you look at Pauls life, his pre-conversion cruelty, and his post conversion grace and love, just imagine this on a broader scale:)

So, definitely keep away from 'ego driven' churches and captive audiences, but look to the Savior Himself, and seek those who are of like mind, and perhaps meet at home? If ur in Melb, I'll happily zip over and share a few thoughts from the Word if anyone wanted.

COMMODIFICATION of our BODIES. I should elaborate/expand on this. We all do this to a degree when we offer ourselves for labor under others. So, it's the 'type' of commodification which is important.

Rob.. seriously, I doubt you would ever in a million years want your daughter, if you have one, to 'choose' to sell herself to dirty old men for sex. So, this raises the question of 'how' do we as a society make such choices repulsive in the extreme?
Well..this gets back to what we communicate to our children regarding dignity, self worth, and their value as people.. right? So, education, upbringing.. etc.

The more we allow the public degrading of ourselves with 'Adult' stores, where kids receive the message that "All that stuff is ok, I just have to be old enought to partake".

I'd rather all that kind of stuff was illegal for public display and definitely NO 'Adult' stores.

Steel, the product, the exchangeable good of modelling is the clothing, not the bloody model. Who's the idiot. Likewise the actor tells a story, or represents some idea to the audience. They sell their acting and communication skills not their body.

Down the pub tonite
me 'Steel, hows the daughter going?'
Steel ' great, making a squillion working in a high class brothel in Pitt st.'
me 'how nice'.

David, I would never in a million years want my son, and I have one, to 'choose' to become a become a religious fundy.

At the same time I'll argue to protect the rights of consenting adults to do that stuff as long as it's kept away from children and they don't impose it on others. I'll even argue that churches should be allowed to keep those disgusting signboards they put up on their properties even though the messages are sometimes quite offensive to thinking adults and there is a risk innocent cildren may see them.

I'd argue that christain bookshops should be allowed to exist (again as long as children are not allowed in).

I think what we do with our minds is far more important than what we do with our bodies.

R0bert

BOAZ,

'sell herself to dirty old men for sex'
Interesting. If the men were young, would they not be dirty? Are the men dirty for wanting sex, or is sex itself dirty, or are the men dirty for paying someone for sex, or ar the men dirty for having sex with a younger person? Is the woman dirty for accepting the money? Are women ever dirty? Would an older woman be dirty if she paid for sex with a younger man? Ah, so many questions.

TUS..I think there is enuf 'dirt' to share around on all of them :)

Dirty young, or old.. makes no diff.

Here's a challenge.

SNIFFING a WOMANS SEAT.... should Buzwell go..or stay.. is what he did 'dirty, freaky, creepy, ok.. good.. normal' etc etc.. yes. many questions.

It seems John Q Public knows exactly how to characterize Buzzwell's seat sniffing act, but maybe not so sure about a mans daughter selling her vagina and breasts to a man for physical pleasure. (for she surely does not offer her 'heart')

Robert.. you avoided the question. A daughter? Your little burst about religion and children is really rather artificially constructed, and invalid. Jesus placed highest importance on children.

I will concede that some overly zealous evangelicals have overstepped the line a bit in dealing with children, mainly in well intended proclamation of the gospel. If I was going to change something, I'd ensure that all beach mission evangelists ensured that Children who come along to their activities have their parents permission.

"you avoided the question" - was my answer to subtle for you David.

OK if I had a daughter I'd not be keen for her to be a prostitute.
I'd also not be keen for her to be a religious fundy or any number of other things which I support the right's of people to choose but which I don't personally like or think are good for the individuals concerned or society.

I consider unnecessary restriction of adults right to choose what they do with their own bodies much more harmful to the individual and to society than the activities which bother you so much.

"I will concede that some overly zealous evangelicals have overstepped the line a bit in dealing with children" - and the ocean is a bit damp.

As for avoiding the question you continue to avoid the question about your willingness to accept externally imposed morality if the old bigitry against mixed marriages still applied.

If enough people still though that was wrong would it be OK for you and your lovely wife to be denied the opportunity to express your love for each other, for your children never to have been born because bigot thought a mixed marriage was immoral and detrimental to society?

A simple question David, perhaps a trap but an upfront one.

R0bert

Robert...if I thought that 'enough people' looked down on mixed marriages I probably would not have married her. Practical answer.

I don't think it would have been fair to the children.
As it turned out, there are still some sad kids out there, like the one which said my daughter was born in a peanut butter jar, and others who, as far as I can work out were jealous of her exotic looks and soft personality, and use the latter to attack the former. Many of them now, are single mothers and druggies.. so.. I guess it all comes back.

You and anyone would be wise to avoid any religious group which you did not investigate first. Word of mouth is usually pretty good.
Perhaps if you had done 'due diligence' for the one with which you became involved, you might not have had the crisis of faith which you often remind us of.
I've never had faith in 'people'..and while you cannot accept a Sovereign God who actually does judge, and involve Himself in His world according to His sovereign will.. I find I cannot believe otherwise, in the light of His grace to me personally and in history.
"Judging" the Almighty, is something I would think about very carefully. Because to do so, makes 'me'...'God'...

All our choices as adults are conditioned by our social norms and values. While some choices are difficult to eliminate by law, they can be at least minimuzed by spiritual values and commitment. Thus, there is an important role of 'The Church' to be salt and light...which is it's calling.

If I was a religious person I think I would pray that BD's wife never reads that last comment he made. Oh, he thinks he was being "practical" (did he mean pragmatic?). Practical be damned!

From BDs lack of knowledge of grammar, spelling, syntax, vocabulary and knowledge itself, it is fairly obvious that his formal education was limited (that's not an indictment: the fact that he hasn't continued to educate himself after leaving school however, is). So I assume he doesn't actually appreciate that the way he actually framed his first sentence is insulting enough.

But to dis. his wife on a public and open forum now puts him, for me, beyond the Pale. Geez.

Thought: How many people constitute "enough"? 10? 100? 1000? And is that Christian people or does it include, oh I dunno, pagans and Muslims and gays and refugees?

And the "Isn't fair on the children" line is a croc. I had my life at Primary school made miserable because of who I was. One of my sons had his life made miserable because he was, in pre-pubescence, chubby. My other son was put through miseries because he was skinny. In all these scenarios it was factors we were helpless to change.

Hmmm. Seems "God is love". But its been proved beyond all doubt now that BD definitely isn't.

Romany: "From BDs lack of knowledge of grammar, spelling, syntax, vocabulary and knowledge itself..."

Hilarious. High five.

As for feminists and Christians, well, I'm a feminist and I have worked with both the Jesuits and the Brotherhood of St Lawrence to help asylum seekers. They were ace — compassionate, tenacious, deeply moral. I imagine anyone interested in social justice issues, would happily align themselves with these most excellent organisations. See here: http://www.bsl.org.au/main.asp and here: http://jesuit.org.au/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=25&Itemid=58 for more information about their social justice programs.

Feminism, to me, means making sure people aren't restricted in their activities or passions or work or whatever because of their sex. Similarly, social justice is about removing discrimination and obstacles to... um... self-acutalisation (for want of a better word) from the lives of all sorts of people. These movements are about what you can do, not what you can't do.

Sure, sex workers are there voluntarily, but many feel like they had few other options. This is particularly true for street workers (rather than brothel workers). Go down William St in Darlinghurst one night and take a poll of how many hookers are poor, with drug habits, and a past full of physical and/or sexual violence.

What good would criminalising prostitution do for these women? In a week, the same women will be doing the same work — they'll just be risking their freedom and safety by doing it illegally. Their poverty and drug habits and violence-infused pasts would not disappear. Their kids would still end up in foster care.

Sure, some women choose to be sex workers. But some wish they could leave the industry and do something else. The latter don't need pity, criminalising or god, they need work, education, rehab, parenting help, mentoring and general friendship. We help them by not making them feel like sh!t because they a hooker. We help them by working with families at risk in the first instance, so that their daughters don't leave home at 15 and get into trouble.

Boazy, I'm not even sure what your point is. Earlier you said, "It seems that when there is an obvious detrimental movement in society, whether it be alchohol or devient sex, or sexual abuse, or drugs..
people come out of the woodwork and condemn any proposed legislative solution to such abuse. WAIT.. no, they simply propose to ALLOW it"

For a start, sexual abuse is illegal and so are drugs. I don't know what you mean by deviant sex, but if it is done without consent, it's illegal, and if it's done with consent, then it's not deviant to those involved. That leaves alcohol.

And right now I feel like a glass of it.

Dear Romany... you sounded there like a vulture just salivating and waiting for the poor old buffalo to die so you can jump on it and begin tearing out his entrails.

THINK! for once in your life. When a man or a woman contemplates marriage, there are a whole range of issues, both practical and long term which should be considered. I don't know how in the wide world you get 'dissing' my wife out of that? It's no reflection her in the slightest. Its simply a man telling one of the factors which should responsibly be considered when deciding the future course of his life.

Dear Vanilla, we will probably have to agree to disagree on some things.

"if it's done with consent, then it's not deviant to those involved." (echoes of postmodernism there?)

My position is that there are devient sexual practices irrespective of the mutual consent of the participants. It appears your position is at odds with that.

Devient sex.
a)Incest.
b)Same gender.
c)Bestiality.
d)70 yr old men and 16 yr old girls.
e)Sniffing seats where women have just sat :) (a rather contemporary one.. by the way.. how do you feel about Buzwell doing that?)

Now.. lets consider "consent".
This leads to 2 issues.
1/ Age difference
2/ Political pressure to change age of consent.

I won't add more, but it just goes on and on, one thing leading to another. I don't see any other way ahead than simply for competing forces and groups in society to just 'slug it out' at the Ballot Box, because other than this we would either have a Theocracy or a Secular Totalitarian state.. no ?

Boazy: "I won't add more..."

Oh good.

Oh, and Romany, yes, I can only back up the previous request, please, THINK! FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE! As it stands, Boazy is running intellectual rings around you. Can't you see that selling out the woman you claim to love above all other women simply because the neighbours are a bit sniffy about the match is no reflection on the quality or otherwise of that love? Frankly, your inability to grasp this simple point baffles both Boazy and myself.

BOAZ>"I won't add more, but it just goes on and on, one thing leading to another. I don't see any other way ahead than simply for competing forces and groups in society to just 'slug it out' at the Ballot Box, because other than this we would either have a Theocracy or a Secular Totalitarian state.. no ?"

There are other ways, BOAZ. It's about keeping totalitarianism and theocracy out of politics, by living according to your private beliefs and not forcing them onto others who disagree with you and believe otherwise (and conversley, they extend you the same courtesy). There are general guiding rules but it works (and it's based on reason, logic). For example, if you disagree with abortion. You never seek abortion. If you disbelieve in divorce, you do not divorce.

Wow.

>>if I thought that 'enough people' looked down on mixed marriages I probably would not have married her. Practical answer. I don't think it would have been fair to the children.<<

That says more about you and your attitude towards women - all women - than you have the mental capacity to understand, Boaz.

"Possible wife? Let's take a look. Can cook? Check. Looks ok in daylight? Check. Of childbearing age? Check. Christian? Check. Colour? Oh dear, the neighbours wouldn't approve, better look for another one.

How about this one... let's take a look..."

Wow. And then there's the comeback.

>>THINK! for once in your life. When a man or a woman contemplates marriage, there are a whole range of issues, both practical and long term which should be considered. I don't know how in the wide world you get 'dissing' my wife out of that?<<

I believe you. I really do.

You have absolutely no idea.

Wow.

David, when others put your kids down because of something which your kids were born with and which caused no harm to others did you feel the injustice of that? Did you see the wrong? Was the problem with your kids or with those who thought they needed to put your kids down?

Kids sometimes do stuff like that. The greater crime comes when adults behave in the same way. Adult fundy christains and others who say the vilest things about homosexuals (and advocate for legal sanctions against homosexuals). Adults who behave in a worse manner than those kids because they act as adults with a greater ability to understand the harm they do and because they seek significant real world harm to those others.

R0bert

Aah..Vanilla and Pericles... don't you just love it when you think you have suddenly found some chink in my armor which you can then use to lift yourselves up to that secular higher moral ground, and give me a serve :)

Well.. you attack me from a completely irrelevant perpsective, because you dear folks simply don't have a clue about my own history, or the situation I was in, no, rather you extrapoloate from some pseudo romanticism of your own making, and then do the very thing which Steel said we must not do 'impose' your view on my own situation.

and then.. you are incredulous about me expressing some practical issues regarding what a responsible person thinks about when contemplating if a marriage will 'work' under the pressures of life, I guess the 29 yrs we have been together now mean nothing?

I won't dignify the things you raised any further, because the topic is...not 'me' but Prostution, Race, and Politics. (just in case you have forgotten.)

But..right now must away to some exercise.. will pick up on this later.
cheers.

BD
I "sounded there like a vulture just salivating and waiting for the poor old buffalo to die so you can jump on it and begin tearing out his entrails."?

Because I commented on a post? Wow! And, for future reference, just what is the sound of a salivating vulture waiting etc. etc.? Anything like the sound of one hand clapping?

No. I am not a "pseudo-romantic". And yes, also did the pre- I Do considerations about someone who just happened not to be of the same race as I. Not just a mild-coffee coloured someone, mind you. I'm talking really black, here. You know? The kind whose daughter might even have had one of those nasty wide noses which would, of course, be unthinkable if "other people" didn't like it.

But, as you said, those are the things a really responsible man has to consider. And me, being just a fluffy little gal, plum forgot to factor in what "other people" thought. (Hang on - so did he. Perhaps he wasn't being too responsible, huh?)

Someone else pointed out that yep - its sad but true that you do not, nor probably ever will, see how what you posted was could be construed as dissing your wife. As to what relevance the fact that you've been together 29 years now has? Simply means that you found a way to justify this aspect at least of your racist views for that long.

Btw: "This thread is not about me"? The time to consider that was when Robert asked the question. Could have told him to rack off and that you were not prepared to talk about your feelings towards your wife on a public forum. But you chose another course. Now take responsibility.

Vanilla:

I debated the conundrum with which BD presented me. But, if I was only going to be given the chance to think once in my life I decided to save it for something a little more profound - like whether 42 or 46 is actually the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything.

Vanilla and Romany

"Oh, and Romany, yes, I can only back up the previous request, please, THINK! FOR ONCE IN YOUR LIFE! As it stands, Boazy is running intellectual rings around you. Can't you see that selling out the woman you claim to love above all other women simply because the neighbours are a bit sniffy about the match is no reflection on the quality or otherwise of that love? Frankly, your inability to grasp this simple point baffles both Boazy and myself."

"I debated the conundrum with which BD presented me. But, if I was only going to be given the chance to think once in my life I decided to save it for something a little more profound - like whether 42 or 46 is actually the meaning of Life, the Universe and Everything."

Thank you both for this brilliant bit of repartee. It's little gems like these that make even wading through BD's waffle worth the effort! I couldn't work out the 42 and 46 reference though. Was it random or were you referring to something I've missed along the way? Just curious.

BD

"But..right now must away to some exercise.. will pick up on this later."

P-l-e-a-s-e don't bring back any more of the lycra stories or the tantalising toilet conversations you've regaled us with recently. Unfortunately they only tell us more about you than most of us want to know.

Bronwyn

Well, those who believe the Hitchhikers Guide is accurate in all details have slavishly accepted that the meaning of Life etc. is one particular number.But, having done a Course on it, I am pretty sure I know better. So, when I get the chance to do so, this big Think I have been saving up for so long could result in something monumental. I will probably find that they made a horrible mistake in the translation from the original language.

See, thats what I mean about wasting my One Big Chance on the mundane - if someone ran out of fingers in their calculations and missed by a couple of digits I could, personally, throw the entire universe into a frenzy!. You imagine, of course, the connotations for any responsible woman? I'm just worried that the members of that sect called Enuf Peepul won't agree with me.

Yes, this whole thinking for once in your life thing will be a challenge. What if you just about to have the think, then you get distracted and think about something else? Will that still count as the think? How long will the think last for? Could it, for example, last as long as your entire life? (That was scupper Boazy's plan.) If there is a time limit, what if you don't get to the end of your thinking before the time is up?

The whole question of thinking is really quite tricky, and I see now why Boazy chooses not to do any.

Bronwyn, for the moment of revelation, see here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GUV7zz-8Oc

(Talking of mistranslations and numbers, apparently the devil's number, 666, is a mistranslation, and it's actually 616. I would investigate but I ran out of interest even before I finished this sentence.)

Boazy, I addressed the topic you raised in an earlier post, and you've ignored it, so I don't really understand why you're accusing me of veering off topic. I continue to struggle to work out what the topic is. The unholy alliance between Christians and feminists, how gay sex leads to orgies with underage animals, something unintelligible about race? What on earth are you trying to say?

Aah..*Slice* (code for Vanilla) the point I was trying to raise for serious discussion, was the article itself, I found it fascinating when reading it. Attitudes to prostitution, race and the political intrique of the day between the Motherland and the emerging sense of self consciousness of the Colonies, and the various responses to the issue of prostitution and race.

ROMANY.. now.. it's a fine point, but I need to address it. Can I see how my post might have "appeared" to be 'dissing' my wife? err.. now in retrospect I guess so. But please understand, I write from the perspective of one who has entered another culture at the deepest levels, and some things don't click with me about how a 'Western' mind might see them. There was a point where I used to even 'think' in the Malay language.
Perhaps for future reference, I should explain how betrothal works in my wifes culture. The 2 families usually meet, and thrash out the practical aspects of the union. This includes former blemishes on one's record, compatability of class, personality, how the relatives feel about each other, etc.. and in the end, when I finally passed muster, she 'cost' me 3 buffaloes, $200 cash and a pair of false teeth for Granny :) well.. 'she' didn't cost me that, it was just the normal dowry kind of thing which is aimed at strengthening the marriage. So.. its quite different.

BRONNY.... I hope that little story did not impact on you like the Lycra shorts :) but hey..at least I know ur READING my posts aaah.. life now has meaning 0_^

To all ... including the picky picky ones, yes.. it is great to interact and believe it or not, I treasure each one of you. (even Pericles)

Yes, when I first read about the 666 thing I felt quite sorry for all those poor people who received those numbers as stigmata or had them as birthmarks and then got burnt at the stake or otherwise propelled into a sticky end. All they probably had was somebodies telephone number or address marked down for handy reference. I bet those Inquisitors feel a little embarrassed now.

Not to mention those filmmakers who called for the big crashes of thunder and spooky music when The Mark of the Beast was revealed - only to find out later that it was only the mark of Luigi's Take Away Pizza.

What is fascinating, Boaz, is that you think that an apology is required.

>>Can I see how my post might have "appeared" to be 'dissing' my wife? err.. now in retrospect I guess so.<<

Not much of one, of course, but that's not the point.

These kind of remarks, that you make without thinking, are the ones that tell us most about your character.

>>you think you have suddenly found some chink in my armor which you can then use to lift yourselves up to that secular higher moral ground, and give me a serve<<

Nope. What you tell us about yourself has no impact on how I see myself. Strange as it may seem to you, I don't measure my character against yours, so there's no "moral high ground" involved.

"Giving you a serve" however, I must confess, is not without its quiet pleasures.

Romany and Vanilla

Ah, now I see! Thanks for filling me in. It did cross my mind that I'd probably be revealing my ignorance to all when I asked that question!

Romany and Vanilla! I want to grow up to be just like you!

Robert, how well you post as usual.

Pericles, patient as ever with Boazy. I admire your serenity.

Boazy, take the life of JC as an example. He was very much into breaking all sorts of rules and laws. He was a regular rebel, shockingly anti-establishment. He thought there were too many rules and laws. Remember?

It was Moses who was thundering around with tablets with laws written on them, but as a Christian you really need to pay a bit more attention to JC.

Legislation is not the answer to address issues of morals or self respect.

Dear DEAR Yvonne.. I totally concur there.

*Take the life of JC as an example*

hoooooray. You see.. I don't mind being negatively compared to my Lord, because I don't claim anything more than being a sinner saved by Grace.

That people find imperfections in me is most welcome. That someone directs my gaze to the Lord, is cause for jubilation :)

But may I do the same? aah.. I hope so. For the Lord Jesus was far more than just an 'example'....

You know what? the fact that no person can achieve his glorious level of righteousness, is testimony to our need OF "Grace" (undeserved kindness)

If I may humbly suggest, that includes me, you, Bronwyn, Pericles, Romany, Robert, Ginx, TRTL,Vanilla and all.

Prostitution, Race problems, Politicial intrigue, are all 'healed' in Him. The destroyed self worth of the prostitute, the hate of the KKK, or the Islamist, the selfish, greedy machinations of party politics.....

5 But he was pierced for our transgressions,
he was crushed for our iniquities;
the punishment that brought us peace was upon him,
and by his wounds we are healed.

6 We all, like sheep, have gone astray,
each of us has turned to his own way;
and the LORD has laid on him
the iniquity of us all

Oh how I pray, that you (plural) see this along with all those who already do.

We have 'strayed' in our occupations, marriages, our relationships, our families, our politics...our values... from that which God would have us be, and.. as you put it Yvonne.. paraphrasing. "looking unto Jesus, the author and finisher of our faith"...

May it be so.

Boaz

Your latest 'triste mot': "I don't mind being negatively compared to my Lord, because I don't claim anything more than being a sinner saved by Grace."

Well that's good to know because thus far you fail miserably in comparison to JC.

BTW, your opinions tend towards OT rather than NT. Just thought I'd point that out in case you hadn't realised that by now.

However, with the whole 'being saved from sin' thing - does this mean you can continue to be demean non-christians and generally behave very badly with impunity simply because you believe you have been 'saved' by Christ?

What a great deal, you can do anything you like no matter how much grief you cause others - no wonder christianity has such a huge following - it is the ultimate "Get Out of Jail Free Card".

Now I understand what your thread title means:

"Sex has a price; hate those who are different; and justify it all however you want (that's the political bit)."

To Romany and Vanilla:

Thanks for the inspirational posts - had a great laugh that I really needed.

A good try on the part of BD. But now, using the same tool of condescension which he wields to such patronising effect, lets see if his debating skills can be honed just a tad further.

The contentious statement was "if I thought that 'enough people' looked down on mixed marriages I probably would not have married her. Practical answer. I don't think it would have been fair to the children".

As I and others discounted the "fair to the children" aspect and he, with silence, gave consent to this, it is the first sentence that he was attempting to defend in the very interesting dissertation on Malay betrothal. Which, incidentally, works in the same way as African, Papua New Guinean, Chinese, Pacific Islands Indian and even, traditionally in French and Meditteranean cultures.(all of which being the countries in which I was brought up since birth and in which most of my life has been, and still is, lived.). He might also be interested to know that Islam betrothals also follow this paradigm.

(The corollary to a lifetime of experience and "deep immersion" in such countries is that I also know full well how colonialism works.)

However, his acceptance by his wife’s family is not the same issue as his personal attitude to mixed marriages. Whether or not they and his own family “thrashed things out” is irrelevant to this question .The statement that marriage to his wife was dependent upon the attitudes of an unspecified number of what appears to be disinterested parties rather than her own family, still stands.

Of course, I only offer the above in the spirit of his statement "That people find imperfections in me is most welcome" and do not descend into a polemic upon what imperfection are cast up as a result.

As for me being listed amongst those in need of certain gifts from the deity in whom he believe as he "humbly suggest(s)" - I have yet to see evidence that his opinion is, indeed, humble, which is why I too have often, it appears, caused him much jubilation

Dear Fractelle
you said:

"However, with the whole 'being saved from sin' thing - does this mean you can continue to be demean non-christians and generally behave very badly with impunity simply because you believe you have been 'saved' by Christ?"

May I draw your attention to the 'whole' of what Jesus spoke about?
I hope so, because it seems you are projecting your own subjective image on the Lord, where you are selecting only the things which you personally find acceptable, usually things which fit with 'tolerance'.. and then, drawing negative comparisons to me, against that unbalanced, self imposed, limited constrictive pattern.

Jesus spoke very harshly to some groups. Haven't you noticed?
Those he spoke most harshly to, were those who had the education and the knowledge to recognize the truth (about Him) but then rejected it.
Well educated Muslims, are in that category (i.e. religiously educated)

Impugnity? good grief.. how can you call exposing my words to the criticism of all and sundry here "impugnity"?

I long for the day when, instead of making these things about 'me', you make them about the actual issue being discussed. Example. Surah 64:4 u know my stand on that. 'prove me wrong'... its simple.

Regarding my 'attitudes' being more O.T. than N.T... err u kinda miss that this is a forum where you only see a small part of 'me' and if you tried to understand the whole of me based on this small part you would surely err.

Dear Romany. Sorry to say, you are still approaching the issue of my marraige pre considerations from a 'western romantic' perspective.
Honestly, you don't have a clue about what led up to all this, and I sure am not going to elaborate further. If you wish to place that little piece of information in a personally manufactured straight jacket, then feel free.
-blessings.

No, no, no, BD, don't feel sorry for saying what you did. Rather feel sorry that you were unable to extrapolate from my posts that I do not view marriage from a "western romantic" viewpoint.

However, from whatever viewpoints we view this institution the fact remains that you are currently posting, as am I, on a site that IS predominantly a Western one and whose adherants are predominantly Western.

Every comment I have seen you post is framed within this context - more definitively within a Western, Christian paradigm. It is in this context that your comment was, and remains, ignoble. Is it so impossible merely to admit that you goofed up?

David, thinking back to one of your earier comments in relation to more recent discussions

"It seems that when there is an obvious detrimental movement in society, whether it be alchohol or devient sex, or sexual abuse, or drugs.. people come out of the woodwork and condemn any proposed legislative solution to such abuse. WAIT.. no, they simply propose to ALLOW it all, because.. "you can't legislate morality" ?"

It seems that you owe a significant debt of gratitude to those who have gone before advocating for tollerance and allowing what others have previously considered immoral or damaging to society. Those who have faced the scorn and attacks of people just like yourself who have insisted that whatever it is they don't like is obviously wrong.

You might take a moment to reflect how different your life would have been if others had not already fought and largely won the battle over mixed marriage (and children of mixed race).

R0bert

"Jesus spoke very harshly to some groups. Haven't you noticed?
Those he spoke most harshly to, were those who had the education and the knowledge to recognize the truth (about Him) but then rejected it.
Well educated Muslims, are in that category (i.e. religiously educated)"

So Jesus was a bigot, just like you.

I can honestly say, Boazy, that no one has ever turned me off Christ and Christianity quite as much as you have.

yvonne,

'Boazy, take the life of JC as an example. He was very much into breaking all sorts of rules and laws. He was a regular rebel, shockingly anti-establishment. He thought there were too many rules and laws. Remember?
'

Yep, I'd even wager if Jesus was around today he'd be in Gaol. I read this some time ago after that scandalous Blake Prize entry with Mary and Osama and found it funny...

Boazy will love this:-)

...What all this shows is how far the far-Right evangelical view of Christianity has strayed from the reality of Jesus. Allegedly conservative mono-cultural fruitloops keep referring to Australia’s Christian heritage. Yet how would they react if the real Jesus returned and arrived in Australia?

Well, for a start, they’d probably think he was a terrorist. He wouldn’t be speaking English, and would suddenly appear from the wilderness looking rather dishevelled.

Jesus’ photo would be splashed across our American-owned metropolitan tabloids. Piersed Akumen and his colleagues would be waxing unlyrical about this latest foreign threat. Gerard Henderson would attack the "civil rights lobby" for defending Jesus. Janet Albrechtsen would castigate lawyers and judges for defending a man who wants to establish the Kingdom of God (read sharia law) in Australia. The AFP wouldn’t understand a word Jesus was saying but would charge him anyway. Some magistrate would grant Jesus bail, and the good Catholic Kevin Andrews would cancel Jesus’ visa and send him back to … um … er … God The Father?

As William Dalrymple keeps reminding us, Christianity (like Judaism and Islam) is a Middle Eastern religion. And Jesus was a Middle Easterner. Just accept it