|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Hell: Who is the sour mouthed COW who went to Colditz this year?
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
Welcome to the ship Mr. Holland!
Ship of fools is a strange place..it has an netequette all of it's own. Nearly every newbie seems to fall foul of it initally.
Holland, check out the "Ten Commandments" button on the left hand side of the screen. It's helpful.
In reply to Ruth W, do I want to be on Mr. Holland's side, well, to actually look at what he said.
quote:
Articles of this nature serve no other purpose than to discourage people, to cultivate cynicism and hatred.
Well, it DOES also generate a laugh or two, but, if I was an organiser of such and event and read that, I'd feel pretty discouraged. If I were the someone considering going to such an event, I think I'd be put off going.
quote:
I know it was funny but surely our priority as Christians is to encourage our brothers and sisters and not to spend our time in unconstructive criticism, or dare I say it blatant abuse of one another.
True enough again, I wouldn't say the article was blatant "abuse" quite...but it was headed in that direction. The rest of this is surely all true? Surely we do want to encourage each other where possible? To find negatives to critisise is easy, to find positives to compliment is hard.
quote:
It basically boils down to this. When Jesus spoke it was only to benefit the people he loved in one way or another.
True, although it's fair to say he sought to benefit some through pretty harsh critisism at times. "get behind me Satan" etc. probably didn't seem that encouraging at the time.
quote:
There is no encouragement in this article, neither is there any love.
Certainly true on the first count. No encouragement whatsoever forthcoming. Maybe the critisim was supposed to be written in love, but in that case, it should have been counterbalanced by encouragement. Jesus was critical, but never only critical.
quote:
So I can only come to the conclusion that the article in question has no place in God’s work.
Well, I'd beg to differ there. Here we are having a conversation about said article, here you are joining the ship, (which may benefit either you, or the ship..or hopefully both!). But then that just goes to show God will use anything...
quote:
What on earth has this article achieved? How many lives will it change? What difference has it made to the areas that it so bluntly criticises?
All highly pertinent questions, and the rhetorical answers are obvious. None, None and none.
Particularly as the author was anonymous and was anonymous about the event in question, (anyone NOT worked out where Colditz is yet?!!)
Although, it might be retorted that my playing a game of pool earlier today did none of these things either..but it was fun...as (from a certain point of view) was this article.
quote:
Nothing ever changed through whining and moaning.
Apart from Tory party leaders.
quote:
Is there room for so called ‘Christian satire’ of this kind in our faith?
A question which the existence of SoF presupposes the answer to, but it is worth asking. What is the difference between being satirical and just being plain cruel and offensive? Is the only difference whether you are the victim or not?
Overall, I can't see anything wrong with Mr. Hollands post. At the very worst, he was only doing what Sarkycow did in her post, and many here seem to be convinced she was perfectly in the right.
Assorted brief responses to other comments on the thread...
Strathclydezero
quote:
It's not whether a *better* conference can be thought of ... they all seem to be as bad as each other. But I can sure as hell think of better things to do with a weeks holiday.
Fine, go do them then. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
dyfrig,
quote:
Strikes me that any organisation that does anything so perverse as to (a) divide seminars between women and men and then (b) give totally different messages at them (women aren't defined by what they do, men are) deserves a good kicking.
Well, here we have one example of complete bullshit from Sarkycow.
The focal point of each day of the conference was a morning and evening meeting...attended by everyone. (everyone who wanted to go anyway!)
Then during the day there were LOADS of different seminar strands on many different things, of which one was "women" and one was "men". You didn't HAVE to go to them, there were plenty of other options.
As Sarky pointed out, the "change the world" strand ran at the same time as the "women's strand", which she took to imply that women weren't supposed to change the world.
Alternatively, you could take this that women were perfectly entitled to go to either, and therefore entitled to be either "stay at home" women, or world changing women! Surely TRUE libertarianism and freedom of choice?!
My mum took one look at the women's strand, said "Not having any of that" and went to Change the world...as did probably 80% of the women on the conference.
As to the men and women's strand having different messages...that's a complete load of crap, and Sarky engineered her quotes to create a contradiction where none existed.
quote:
Likewise, an organisation that has the sort of group that is still indulging the egomanical showmanship of the so-called "worship" sessions needs to be shown how deeply in error it is.
There is a such a thing as egomaniacal worship leading..I've seen plenty of it sadly. This wasn't it in my opinion. You're entitled to yours, but...oops...you weren't even there. If you want sarky's review to spoonfeed you a pre-digested opinion, fair enough.
quote:
[Finally, any event that has RT Kendall at it is clearly so fundamentally (sic) off beam that no amount of Tony Campolo seminars can save it.
You intrigue me, what is your problem with RT Kendall? Apart from him being one of those annoying chaps who, ya know, believes the Bible is true and stuff like that?
matt
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
[Tangent] Brothers and sisters of the ship, is it not an immutable law of the universe that phrases such as this quote:
Originally posted by alistair_holland: I like a laugh as much as the next person.
are invariably accompanied by revelations that allow neither wit nor humour, and usually not much insight either? [/Tangent]
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
Matt, why should I trust you any more than Sarkycow?
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
strathclydezero
# 180
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
Articles of this nature serve no other purpose than to discourage people, to cultivate cynicism and hatred.
Well, it DOES also generate a laugh or two, but, if I was an organiser of such and event and read that, I'd feel pretty discouraged. If I were the someone considering going to such an event, I think I'd be put off going.
[snip]
quote:
Originally posted by strathclydezero:
It's not whether a *better* conference can be thought of ... they all seem to be as bad as each other. But I can sure as hell think of better things to do with a weeks holiday.
Fine, go do them then.
What's your problem with people being put off going? From my experience of these kinds of Christian "holidays" in the past, the article was straight to the point, and anyone it was going to put off going would probably be happier elsewhere anyway.
--------------------
All religions will pass, but this will remain:
simply sitting in a chair and looking in the distance.
V V Rozanov
Posts: 3276 | From: The Near East | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Donne
Renaissance Man
# 220
|
Posted
Well I just read the article (thanks to Dr C's browser tips) and it was fucking hilarious. Onya Ms Cow! (I am giving you a bit of 'the praise of men' so you can say how much you prefer it to God's).
Did the prayer warriors repent that they had not subjugated their women properly? And vow with God's help to oppress them fully?
I expect the Warriors (woosses) will be prepared for you next year and there will be signs and disclaimers that the sessions are Men Only. Secret Men's Rituals, you know. Your presence really inhibited the Naked Same Sex Blessings with much Laying on of Hands.
Next year perhaps you should take your young gentlemen friends into the Women's seminars.
We are gunna stand in The Gap, Lord! Snort! How many times have I heard that? Cue: long line of eager Dutch boys ready to stick their fingers in the dike.
But my dear, you realise that in former times, women like you ended up having intimate chats with the Grand Inquisitor?
Posts: 13667 | From: Perth, W.A. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sarkycow
La belle Dame sans merci
# 1012
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
Articles of this nature serve no other purpose than to discourage people, to cultivate cynicism and hatred.
Well, it DOES also generate a laugh or two, but, if I was an organiser of such and event and read that, I'd feel pretty discouraged. If I were the someone considering going to such an event, I think I'd be put off going.
See, you say this, but perhaps the organisers of the event in question found it very witty/amusing, and possibly even helpful? Perhaps you could ask them?
quote:
quote:
I know it was funny but surely our priority as Christians is to encourage our brothers and sisters and not to spend our time in unconstructive criticism, or dare I say it blatant abuse of one another.
True enough again, I wouldn't say the article was blatant "abuse" quite...but it was headed in that direction. The rest of this is surely all true? Surely we do want to encourage each other where possible? To find negatives to critisise is easy, to find positives to compliment is hard.
Again with my question: What do you understand satire to mean? Cause the article was never meant to be a balanced report; if you want that, then perhaps you should write one, and see if Simon will publish it. As this is a satirical magazine, I wrote a satirical piece.
Helpful hint: Look the word satire up in Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary
quote:
quote:
Is there room for so called ‘Christian satire’ of this kind in our faith?
A question which the existence of SoF presupposes the answer to, but it is worth asking. What is the difference between being satirical and just being plain cruel and offensive? Is the only difference whether you are the victim or not?
Satire is amusing. And, as most of the posts on this thread have said, my article was amusing. Plain cruel and offensive would be me naming the event, and the people, and saying "XXXX was an anencephalic fuckwit." Instead I steered clear of names and places, and made amusing comments like "Perky and Pinky bounced around the stage like Tigger on E."
quote:
dyfrig,
quote:
Strikes me that any organisation that does anything so perverse as to (a) divide seminars between women and men and then (b) give totally different messages at them (women aren't defined by what they do, men are) deserves a good kicking.
Well, here we have one example of complete bullshit from Sarkycow.
As to the men and women's strand having different messages...that's a complete load of crap, and Sarky engineered her quotes to create a contradiction where none existed.
Well, someone's talking crap, and it isn't me. Check your programme notes again.
More to the point, I went to at least one seminar from each stream. You (as you admitted earlier) went to none. So, quite how you know what you're talking about, I'm not sure. Still, I'm sure we'll find out.
Sarkycow
[ 31. October 2003, 11:40: Message edited by: Sarkycow ]
--------------------
“Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar.”
Posts: 10787 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
In Theory
Ship's supernova simulator
# 2964
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Qlib:
[Tangent] Brothers and sisters of the ship, is it not an immutable law of the universe that phrases such as this quote:
I like a laugh as much as the next person.
are invariably accompanied by revelations that allow neither wit nor humour, and usually not much insight either? [/Tangent]
I thought it was supposed to be followed, by "Except perhaps my wife... and some of her friends... Come to think of it, most people enjoy a good laugh more than I do, but that's besides the point..."
Oh, and call me innocent, but I don't know where Colditz is, having steered well clear of all but one trendy Christian gathering since birth ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
[ 31. October 2003, 11:44: Message edited by: In Theory ]
--------------------
Popular culture no longer applies to me.
~ Art Brut
Posts: 1167 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
Well...
Reading Sarky's report made me think that I really must get to Greenbelt next year!
I have no idea which Christian boot camp she went to, and unlike Sarky, I would have organised resistance to the 'men' and 'women' streams. I would have got oodles of men to go to the women's sessions, and oodles of womens to go to the men's. Such sexist pap should not be endured.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChrisT
One of the Good Guys™
# 62
|
Posted
matt, wipe your nose for heavens sake, that brown stuff is starting to stink.
--------------------
Firmly on dry land
Posts: 6489 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dyfrig
Blue Scarfed Menace
# 15
|
Posted
From the summary of the Wednesday call for money: "God can, and will, bless us, but only directly in proportion to what we give."
I thought this was meant to be a Christian event?
This is nothing more than heresy and I hope the organisation that peddles this nonsense is stopped in its tracks. Nasty.
--------------------
"He was wrong in the long run, but then, who isn't?" - Tony Judt
Posts: 6917 | From: pob dydd Iau, am hanner dydd | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
In Theory
Ship's supernova simulator
# 2964
|
Posted
Pity the poor people who can't do maths....
--------------------
Popular culture no longer applies to me.
~ Art Brut
Posts: 1167 | From: Sheffield | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
At the women's seminar: "I feel myself slipping into a hypoglycaemic coma caused by the intensely saccharine-sweet talk"
Hmmm, difficult.
Hypoglycaemic (Webster): abnormal decrease of sugar in the blood
But despite the mixed metaphor, I understand exactly what you mean. Been there, doubtful I would ever go again...
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
[fixed code. I hope]
[ 31. October 2003, 20:22: Message edited by: madferret ]
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Well...
Reading Sarky's report made me think that I really must get to Greenbelt next year!
I have no idea which Christian boot camp she went to, and unlike Sarky, I would have organised resistance to the 'men' and 'women' streams. I would have got oodles of men to go to the women's sessions, and oodles of womens to go to the men's. Such sexist pap should not be endured.
bb
I hope we are all clear on a few things.
1) the mens and womens streams were two teaching streams among many, and were optional.
2) They accounted for just over one hour of each days teaching programme as I recall. Everything else was mixed.
3) Sarkycow (as she seems happy to admit herself) was exaggerating for effect the content of the streams. What she says it says in the programme is true, but, it should be pointed out that individual seminar leaders wrote their own intro paragraphs for their seminars in the programme, and unfortunately, lifted out of context by someone who went through the small print of the programme with a magnifying glass, found contradiction.
Can I have a metaphorical show of hands, who here, with these facts understood, simply believes that the idea of men's and women's streams is intrinsically sexist? Because, as far as I can see, that seems to be the core of the issue for the key objectors on the thread so far?
I would be the first to say that I think very often men's and women's conferences are stereotyped and cheesy, but that's just because they are often badly done. I don't see anything intrinsically wrong in the idea of it.
Men and women are different, God made them different, and there are areas of life where that mean's God is saying different things to them.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
posted by the madferret quote:
At the women's seminar: "I feel myself slipping into a hypoglycaemic coma caused by the intensely saccharine-sweet talk"
Hmmm, difficult.
Hypoglycaemic (Webster): abnormal decrease of sugar in the blood
But despite the mixed metaphor, I understand exactly what you mean. Been there, doubtful I would ever go again...
The medic in me smiled at this too...but it paled into insignificance alongside greater inaccuracy...
as a quick biochem lesson for sarky:
Insulin converts glucose in the blood and stores it. Insulin dependant diabetics go hypoglycemic when they accidently OD in insulin. (say, give themselves an injection, then forget to eat).
They get sick and dizzy and irritable, and if they don't down a sugary drink pretty quick they go into a coma.
Saccarine is a sugar substitute, it doesn't make you either hyper or hypo glycemic.
What most people don't know is that some diabetics CAN have HYPERglycemic coma's (ketoacidosis - it's rarer than the normal hypo-coma) This is where the blood sugar level goes to high, and the give away is that the person's breath will smell fruity, something a bit like pear drops. In which case what they need is fluids and insulin. (a combination garunteed to kill someone who is hypoglycemic)
[/tangent]
matt
{Dodgy use of UBB code.}
[ 01. November 2003, 11:11: Message edited by: Nightlamp ]
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
quote:
Men and women are different, God made them different, and there are areas of life where that mean's God is saying different things to them.
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
Did it ever cross your mind that:
A/ He is saying the same thing but we are hearing different things?
B/ We are hearing different things regardless of gender.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Did it ever cross your mind that:
A/ He is saying the same thing but we are hearing different things?
B/ We are hearing different things regardless of gender.
Did it ever cross YOUR mind, that this is in no way contradictory to what I said but rather complimentary to it?
Of course, God can be saying different things to each person as indvidiuals.
On another level, God is of course saying the same thing to Mankind as a whole...the Gospel.
On a level inbetween these two extremes, surely God can be corparately addressing "men" and "women" as groups without that being exclusive to either of the other two?
Imagine a headmaster giving out notices to pupils in an assembly hall.
"I have three notices, first, the whole school is reminded that there will be no school on friday, second, will class 5B go to the gym instead of the field for games due to the weather, and third, will Jimmy brown from class 5B collect a letter from the school office".
Likewise, surely God can be addressing mankind as a whole, Men and women as groups, and each individual as well in a complimentary rather than exclusive sense?
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Matt of course it crossed my mind. It crosses every man's mind and has done so for thousands of years. When it does cross my mind I remind myself of all the stupid, horrible, wicked and evil things done in the name of God ordaining the genders different and I try and dismiss the thought.
Headship, hehehehehehe
Warriors HEHEHEHEHEHEHE
P
[ 01. November 2003, 16:44: Message edited by: Pyx_e ]
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Bede's American Successor
Curmudgeon-in-Training
# 5042
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Can I have a metaphorical show of hands, who here, with these facts understood, simply believes that the idea of men's and women's streams is intrinsically sexist? Because, as far as I can see, that seems to be the core of the issue for the key objectors on the thread so far?
Raises hand.
quote:
Men and women are different, God made them different, and there are areas of life where that mean's God is saying different things to them.
I am going to try to steer clear of the Dead Horse Shoals. Really. Unfortunately, to answer this statement takes me very close to this area of shifting sandbars and previous wrecks. Please forgive me if I come in too close. I will try to take this post back out to safer waters before I end it.
One of the arugments used by the Very Rev. Dr. Peter Moore used against blessing same sex unions in an address given at the annual convention of the Diocese of Pittsburgh, November 1, 2002 is saying that:
quote:
Marriage is God's way of reuniting two opposites. Two who once were one, but who have become alienated. We confront an "other" in the opposite gender, and we are reconciled to an "other" in marriage. Frequently this otherness is psychological. Lots of introverts marry extroverts, sports types marry stay-at-homes, strong leadership-oriented ones marry supportive ones, artists marry activists, and so on. Not always; but with remarkable frequency.
...
...In their search for a same, homosexuals demonstrate a need to fill a void deep within. Most males are searching for a never-affirmed masculinity — lesbians for a never affirmed femininity.
From Homosexuality and the Great Commandment
There is an interesting thing about the above statement is that there is a lot of truth in it. (Did any of you expect me to say that?) The problem is that the good Dean of TESM depends on stereotypes and mis-applied stats (used elswhere in address).
There is a study done by two professors at Boston College on same-sex relationships that suggests otherwise. Yes, "opposites attract" to some degree, but the reason these relationships worked is because a variety of roles that were fulfilled by the relationship which weren't fulfilled when the two weren't in a relationship.
What this tells me is that, if "masculinity" is something that can be defined, identified, and necessary in a relationship, one of the two partners in a lasting male same sex relationship provides for this need. It is not a case of both partners looking for something that isn't available in either of them. For that matter, "masculinity," if necessary for a relationship, is available in a female same-sex relationship.
Since these "needs" are being met, it also tells me that masculinity or femininity is something that is not related to XY chromosomes versus XX chromosomes, or testosterone versus estrogen. Instead, it is something related to roles defined by the situation.
Actually, I've seen this in The Real World™ with opposite-sex couples. Without giving away too much information, I know a male-female couple (who are well known in some of the circles I run in) where most--if not all--of the traditional roles are reversed (short the physical ones such as childbearing). She works in sales; he has been a stay-at-home Mr. Mom after being laid-off several years ago. She is extroverted and good at sales; he has been generally happy to stay in the shadows and support others.
Trying very hard to end-up talking about the conference (and returning to safe waters), maybe there are tracks needed for people in certain roles and positions. There are people called to extroverted, leadership roles. There are people called to nurturing roles. So, maybe those sessions dealing with those issues was needed at Colditz. But, in no way should the split be made by gender because people of either gender may be called to those roles.
--------------------
This was the iniquity of your sister Sodom: she and her daughters had pride of wealth and food in plenty, comfort and ease, and yet she never helped the poor and the wretched.
—Ezekiel 16.49
Posts: 6079 | From: The banks of Possession Sound | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nicolemr
Shipmate
# 28
|
Posted
hand *not* raised. as long as no ones required to take them i don't see anything wrong with offering them. sometimes its _nice_ to get away with your own gender alone.
--------------------
On pilgrimage in the endless realms of Cyberia, currently traveling by ship. Now with live journal!
Posts: 11803 | From: New York City "The City Carries On" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
jlg
What is this place?
Why am I here?
# 98
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
What on earth has this article achieved? How many lives will it change? What difference has it made to the areas that it so bluntly criticises?
All highly pertinent questions, and the rhetorical answers are obvious. None, None and none.
[emphasis added]
Matt, try reading all the posts before responding; perhaps you missed my response to this earlier:
quote:
Originally posted by jlg:
Well, not that particular article, but the many others like it which have appeared on the Ship helped me overcome my decades of dislike for Christianity and convert. Perhaps in your view, however, it would be better if Christianity kept out those of us who prefer the company of people who can be sincere without being either self-righteous puckerbutts or wishy-washy Good Little Christians.
Obviously, your reply should have stated "Perhaps only one, perhaps only one, who knows?"
I really don't appreciate being turned into a non-person just for the sake of your rhetorical responses.
Posts: 17391 | From: Just a Town, New Hampshire, USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
Now now.. it's not nice to point that out, JLG. He's already made up his mind, and we're just here for him to stamp his foot at and repeat himself.
Sieg
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
caty
Shipmate
# 85
|
Posted
I'm half agreeing with nicole and half with Sarky's original article.
Sometimes it is nice to have things specifically targetted at women. However it has to be done well.
Having been to a similar event, the Ladies Seminar (and I think they really did use the word ladies) was Just Plain Naff.
I was dragged along and sat there getting cross about it being just about the only point in the whole proceedings where women were speaking from the front. And there were no men there to listen. There was *nothing* that couldn't have been said to a mixed audience.
The only plus point was that some of the men in our group decided to pull the finger out and do some baby-sitting so their wives could get some well-earned time off... erm... go to the seminar.
But maybe that's another issue.
caty
[ 01. November 2003, 21:17: Message edited by: caty ]
Posts: 115 | From: yorkshire | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Atmospheric Skull
Antlered Bone-Visage
# 4513
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Can I have a metaphorical show of hands, who here, with these facts understood, simply believes that the idea of men's and women's streams is intrinsically sexist?
Raising my metaphorical hand.
By all means have seminars on gender issues, including the ones that (inevitably) will be of more interest to women than men, and vice versa. (Hell, I went to a rather odd seminar about masculine initiation rites at Greenbelt this year, and the audience there was around 80% male.) But for Heaven's sake respect your punters' intelligence sufficiently to assume that they can identify what interests them without guidance.
As for trying to enforce the men-only rule (even to the extent of trying to get a woman to leave, then backing down) -- that's arrant control freakery.
--------------------
Surrealistic Mystic.
Posts: 371 | From: Bristol, UK | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
Bede, I only said men and women were different not "opposite".
Of those of you who are opposed to gender-split seminars on principle, how many of you regularly walk into ladies lavatories or changing rooms?
How many men would feel exactly the same about your wife going out for lunch with a male friend as with a female friend or vice versa?
How many men have been shopping and bought themselves a thong and skirt lately? (dangerous thing to ask around here...)
The point is, we can theorise about how there are no differences between men and women, the practical reality is that there are differences, and seminars grounded in that practical reality seem entirely sensible to me.
I must stress, I'm not talking about the particular seminars at this camp, only the general concept of gender split seminars.
And as I said in my previous post with the headmaster addressing the assembley hall, there is no reason why addressing groups excludes the possibility of addressing individuals. Of course, there may be exceptions to every rule.
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
welsh dragon
Shipmate
# 3249
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Bede, I only said men and women were different not "opposite".
How many men have been shopping and bought themselves a thong and skirt lately? (dangerous thing to ask around here...)
Yes.
Though I don't know if he was wearing a thong...
Posts: 5352 | From: ebay | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Of those of you who are opposed to gender-split seminars on principle, how many of you regularly walk into ladies lavatories or changing rooms?
Oh, come now, Matt. Unless at these seminars we're all supposed to piss up against a wall, this really is a non-sequitur.
quote:
How many men would feel exactly the same about your wife going out for lunch with a male friend as with a female friend or vice versa?
Well, my girlfriend is not my wife, but I have no problems with who she sees. It's called "trust".
quote:
The point is, we can theorise about how there are no differences between men and women, the practical reality is that there are differences, and seminars grounded in that practical reality seem entirely sensible to me.
I'd agree if those seminars were talking about peni, periods or prostate cancer. Or maybe it was a seminar about redesigning urinals. Or "how to buy a comfortable thong". Not about "you're a man, be a warrior™" or "we have women who want to teach, but God knows they can't teach men anything. Let's put them with our wives."
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Of those of you who are opposed to gender-split seminars on principle, how many of you regularly walk into ladies lavatories or changing rooms?
I am quite happy to walk into ladies lavatories or changing rooms, but then, I am a woman. However, I am quite happy using unisex toilets. I am not too happy about being naked in anyone's company apart from my immediate family.
Isn't it rather sexist to assume the reader of the question is male though?
quote:
How many men would feel exactly the same about your wife going out for lunch with a male friend as with a female friend or vice versa?
Not a problem in the slightest, and it is not a problem for my husband (Gremlin) either. In fact is it rather a queer notion that it might matter.
Now, of course, there are differences between men and women. Hormones and the like see to that. However, the difference between women can be just as big, or even greater than between men and women. I have a lot in common with other wifes and mothers, but I also have a huge deal in common with other technically minded people, be they male, female, engineer, programmer etc.
Quite simply, I refuse to be categorised on the basis of my plumbing and hormones. I love the various different aspects of who I am. It is far better to have seminars for 'preachers', 'worship leaders', 'Sunday School teachers', 'stay at home parents', 'people interested in prophetic basket weaving' etc. Some asignment based on one aspect of who the person is not a suitable way oragnising a teaching event.
How would you feel about seminars for people born in Jan-June, and a different session for those in July-Dec, and giving those people a different message about what the church expects them to be?
Anything that says that men are to be 'go-getters' and women are to be 'passive' needs to be challenged!
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pyx_e
Quixotic Tilter
# 57
|
Posted
Matt as you chose to ignore my previous post I will put it more clearly. There is a type of Christianity that has seen the heterosexual male as the Answer To The Worlds Problems.™ It has filtered through most denominations and churchmanships. Whilst it can be, at its best very affirming of those who are not male or heterosexual, though only in an incredibly patronising way. It is at its worst the religionising (and thereby adding the weight of God’s presumed will) of the darkest aspect of maleness.
That aspect that has lead to the greatest and most long standing injustice in this creation. The treating of women as second class citizens. From this great horrors and a million million minor ones have been, and still are perpetuated.
I mock any seminar that seeks to presume that it can exclude anyone because of gender. I spit on any aspect of Christianity that deliberately or even worse “with the best intentions” seeks to “keep women in their place” and create false barriers that only serve to uphold a damned patriarchal system that has caused such suffering. And has destroyed the chance of so many women to use their God given gifts in the way He planned.
It is not enough to say “Well that was never our in intention to do any thing like that.” It is either culpable ignorance or a lie. There is a strain running through some aspects of Christianity that sees women as no headship material and having a place in the scheme things that is so stereotypically “feminine” as to be a mockery.
Sarkies piece clearly points out, to me, such a strain as being alive and well. And in severe need of mockery.
P
--------------------
It is better to be Kind than right.
Posts: 9778 | From: The Dark Tower | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alan Cresswell
Mad Scientist 先生
# 31
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
That aspect that has lead to the greatest and most long standing injustice in this creation. The treating of women as second class citizens. From this great horrors and a million million minor ones have been, and still are perpetuated.
And, it should go without saying that the church should be at the forefront of the battle against this injustice rather than trailing behind society. Especially those in the Church who take Scripture most seriously (which, I guess, should include the people at Colditz). Now, just how does "there is neither male nor female ... you are all one in Christ Jesus" lead to seminars for men or women only? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.
Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emma Louise
Storm in a teapot
# 3571
|
Posted
pyx_e ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif) (so its overused... but heh he deserves it)
Posts: 12719 | From: Enid Blyton territory. | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
auntbeast
Shipmate
# 377
|
Posted
Well, I think I'll give Colditz a miss, then again I generally avoid "Christian" (fill in name of event/profession here).
The whole men/women event is rather a murky subject. I have seen some gender specific events done really well but they tend to have been marketed by the topic and have attracted one or the other gender.
I once went to a church in Northern BC where they had Sunday school for everyone before church. I walked into the room marked "Adult Sunday School", being an adult I thought this would be a reasonable place to be.... oops! I was informed that the "ladies Sunday school" was down the hall. I politely told them that I was fine here with "adult" and didn't feel the need to go to the "ladies group" (the word "lady is rarely if ever applied to me). It went from bad to worse when one of the men in the room was asked to give an example of a situation in which the ends justified the means and cited the murder of an abortion provider in the US. I innocently pointed out that the pastor had asked for a situation where it DID justify the means and wsa told that "yes, it was justified". I managed to resist the urge to punch him in the face to adjust his attitude and justify it by saying he really needed an attitude adjustment.
The notion of gender exclusive meetings really makes little sense as it assumes that there are topics in which only women will have an interest. I recall being forced to go to a "women's action committee conference" for my work (some sort of affirmative action shit). I was subjected to a seminar on why Hunter Green is good for power dressing and a Myers-Briggs. There was then a seminar on balancing children and work and trying to organize paid childcare. A male co-worker had been sent by one of the other offices (none of the women were available and every office HAD to send someone). He got flack and I got in hot water when I noted that they might prefer him there advocating for their free childcare to me. He has 4 children as opposed to me who is in fact female but had no interest in breeding and as far as I was concerned they bred the damn things they could figure out how to raise them and it would be a Frosty Friday before I allowed any of my money to go to support their breeding habits.
Just thought of something. Are there topics that would be of interest ONLY to women or men? (I say topics because there are all sorts of reasons to have gender specific process oriented groups etc. I mean in a public lecture format). All of the ones listed above could be of interest to some members of either sex (e.g. urinal re-design might interest a female plumber or gynecological issues might interest male healthcare providers or caring partners).
Now I will have something to mull over at work today... to which I must run shortly.
All good things,
Auntbeast
--------------------
"My vices are the children of a forced solitude that I abhor; and my virtues will necessarily arise when I live in communion with an equal" - Mary Shelley (Frankenstein)
Posts: 820 | From: Vancouver, Canada | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Obnoxious Snob
Arch-Deacon
# 982
|
Posted
I know we are not supposed to post just to agree but I just had to thank Pyx_e for that post. It was simply inspirational and if biology allowed, I would wish to have your babies, Pyx_e.
One day, One day....... ![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
--------------------
'The best thing we can do is to make wherever we're lost in Look as much like home as we can'
Christopher Fry
Posts: 889 | From: Kernow | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by auntbeast:
Are there topics that would be of interest ONLY to women or men? ... All of the ones listed above could be of interest to some members of either sex (e.g. urinal re-design might interest a female plumber or gynecological issues might interest male healthcare providers or caring partners).
I am rather fascinated by the idea of a seminar on urinal re-design. It is an engineering problem. I love problem solving.
Things like talks on prostate cancer are likely to be very interesting to females who are supporting males with that type of cancer, or health care professionals. Breastfeeding discussions are liable to be very interesting to fathers-to-be or new fathers because they want to support their wives.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ChrisT
One of the Good Guys™
# 62
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by auntbeast:
Just thought of something. Are there topics that would be of interest ONLY to women or men?
I, for one, would be extremely interested in attending seminars that discussed topics that could be seen as being "female" territory. For the simple reason that I understand men (being one)better than I do women, and any help in that area would be appreciated. Something that could give me insider information about a womans psychology, physical anatomy, hopes, dreams, aspirations, gripes, concerns, as well as any aspect of her spiritual life would be very very useful.
I doubt I'll ever be at another Christian conference (I feel I've Done My Time™) but if I am I'll certainly seek out any women-orientated events.
--------------------
Firmly on dry land
Posts: 6489 | From: Here, there and everywhere | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
Well, my girlfriend is not my wife, but I have no problems with who she sees. It's called "trust".
Or, possibly, an avoidable cause of infidelity? a fair proportion of which arises from people being too arrogant/stupid to acknowledge fundamental differences in interactions between men and women, people put themselves in situations they should never be in, then when it all kicks off, they appear slightly dumbfounded and say "He/she was a good friend...things weren't great at home....It just happened..."
As a medical student, I would be crazy to ignore differences between men and women in my job. when doing a physical exam on a woman, I take extra precautions...make sure the room is well lit, ask if they would like someone else to be present, etc. I would be a fool to not do this.
A hell of a lot of uneccessary disasters come about from people refusing to acknowledge gender differences.
Advertising knows full well that there are different markets for men and women, and different approaches. Ad executives spend millions exploiting those differences.
If the secular world knows it, how come it's wrong for the Christian world to acknowledge it and address it?
matt
--------------------
3M Matt.
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Siegfried
Ship's ferret
# 29
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
Well, my girlfriend is not my wife, but I have no problems with who she sees. It's called "trust".
Or, possibly, an avoidable cause of infidelity? a fair proportion of which arises from people being too arrogant/stupid to acknowledge fundamental differences in interactions between men and women, people put themselves in situations they should never be in, then when it all kicks off, they appear slightly dumbfounded and say "He/she was a good friend...things weren't great at home....It just happened..."
So, am I reading this correctly? You don't think married folks should be allowed to go off with their friends of the opposite sex without their spouse present?
Sieg
Posts: 5592 | From: Tallahassee, FL USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Never Conforming
Aspiring to Something
# 4054
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
Well, my girlfriend is not my wife, but I have no problems with who she sees. It's called "trust".
Or, possibly, an avoidable cause of infidelity? a fair proportion of which arises from people being too arrogant/stupid to acknowledge fundamental differences in interactions between men and women,
I think Stoo makes a very good point.
On the other hand, Matt - That makes an awful lot of presumptions!!
Imaginary situation for Matt (assuming you're straught) - If, for example the woman your wife is going to meet is either bi or a lesbian, are you worried for your wife, that she may fall an unwitting victim to something here, if the man she's going to meet is gay, would you
still be worried about what happens. What if she fancies him? ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) Do you not trust them? If you wife is bi would you get worried when she goes to meet anyone? But then they could both be straight - one male and the other female. Of course they will both authomatically fancy each other because all straight and bi men, bi and gay women fancy all women, and all straight and bi women and gay and bi men fancy all men. It's idiotic!! ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif) These presumptions are so unbelievably stupid. IME people who feel the jealousy of their partners are more likely to be unhappy and eventually more likely to be unfaithful.
Many of my close friends are male, and I sincerely hope their relevant wifes don't have problems with their husbands spending time with me, nor do any of the partners of my female friends.
Jo
--------------------
I used to poison Student Minds™ and am proud to have done so
Never Conforming in the Surreal World
Posts: 1419 | From: Oop Norf | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chapelhead*
Ship’s Photographer
# 1143
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Siegfried:
So, am I reading this correctly? You don't think married folks should be allowed to go off with their friends of the opposite sex without their spouse present?
And why women should be kept out of the workplace?
--------------------
Benedikt Gott Geschickt!
Posts: 7082 | From: Turbolift Control. | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Advertising knows full well that there are different markets for men and women, and different approaches. Ad executives spend millions exploiting those differences.
Oooh go on, give us an example from the world of advertising, and we shall give you our totally unbiased opinions.
I believe that far too many ad execs play on sexual stereotypes and believe that 'there is no such thing as bad publicity'.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jen.
Godless Liberal
# 3131
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
quote:
Well, my girlfriend is not my wife, but I have no problems with who she sees. It's called "trust".
Or, possibly, an avoidable cause of infidelity? a fair proportion of which arises from people being too arrogant/stupid to acknowledge fundamental differences in interactions between men and women, people put themselves in situations they should never be in, then when it all kicks off, they appear slightly dumbfounded and say "He/she was a good friend...things weren't great at home....It just happened..."
Hi, said Girlfriend here.
I shall ignore any implications of a tendancy towards infidelity on my part...
It is trust. I have no problems with Stoo going off with his female friends, I'm just likely to be pissed off if he ignores me to do it! My best friend is male and if Stoo 'banned' me from seeing him then me and stoo would not be together. If you don't have this kind of trust in your life, I feel really sorry for you.
J
--------------------
Was Jenny Ann, but fancied being more minimal.
Posts: 5318 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Peppone
Marine
# 3855
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
A hell of a lot of uneccessary disasters [I guess you mean, among other things, people indulging in affairs] come about from people refusing to acknowledge gender differences.
Nah. They come about from people giving themselves bogus excuses based on gender differences.
--------------------
I looked at the wa's o' Glasgow Cathedral, where vandals and angels painted their names,
I was clutching at straws and wrote your initials, while parish officials were safe in their hames.
Posts: 3020 | From: Hong Kong | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Talitha
Shipmate
# 5085
|
Posted
I don't think you're actually in disagreement here...
Matt never advocated banning anyone from seeing anyone. He just said you would feel differently about your partner going off with a friend of the same sex.
After that initial, natural reaction, you would (hopefully ![[Smile]](smile.gif) ) choose to trust them. It's the next stage in the thought process - not an alternative to the first stage.
Yes, Matt, I would feel differently about my fiance going out with a female friend than with a male friend; but yes, Jenny, I would choose to trust him, and not dream of banning him.
[ 03. November 2003, 08:55: Message edited by: Talitha ]
Posts: 554 | From: Cambridge, UK | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
3M Matt
Shipmate
# 1675
|
Posted
quote:
So, am I reading this correctly? You don't think married folks should be allowed to go off with their friends of the opposite sex without their spouse present?
Not quite, I'm saying if they do, they should bear in mind it's not at all the same thing as going off with a friend of the same sex without their spouse present. Having considered those circumstances, they might decide it's actually not appropriate at all.
quote:
Imaginary situation for Matt (assuming you're straught) - If, for example the woman your wife is going to meet is either bi or a lesbian, are you worried for your wife, that she may fall an unwitting victim to something here, if the man she's going to meet is gay, would you
still be worried about what happens?
Of course you can construct a million hypotheticals to undermine a general principle. You draw in a whole bunch of other issues over which we might agree to differ (what is sexual "orientation" anyway? Is the only form of adulterous sin physical intercourse anyway?)
quote:
If you wife is bi would you get worried when she goes to meet anyone?
Bisexuals do have a fairly unique problem in that there is no person they can interact with in a platonic relationship and I think this is often a source of isolation for them. (I predict This will spark a flurry of indignation about how person X has plenty of platonic relationships...etc etc. To which I say go away and read some social psychology on the definition of a platonic relationship. If someone is of the opposite sexual orientation, the relationship is by strict definition non-platonic) Frankly, yes, I can see it being the cause of tension in a marriage. Moreover, I would be curious as to why someone who is married (or for that matter in a life long lesbian or homosexual relationship) would insist on defining themselves as bisexual when presumably they have settled on one partner. The "bi" part can only refer to some counterfactual reality in which they are not with their current partner.
quote:
Of course they will both authomatically fancy each other because all straight and bi men, bi and gay women fancy all women, and all straight and bi women and gay and bi men fancy all men. It's idiotic!!
Excusing your hyperbole, it's really not that idiotic. When people of opposite sex (or compatible sexual orientations to be accurate) spend considerable time alone together, stuff happens.
Sex isn't where infidelity starts it's where it ends usually after much time spent with a friend who is "so understanding" or "has so much more time to talk to me than my other half"...etc.
Hear what i'm saying, I'm not saying all friendships turn into infidelity, only that most infidelity arises out of that kind of friendship.
Look at people you know who have had affiars, I'll bet 90% got themselves into situations with the opposite sex they just shouldn't have been in long before it ended up in bed. Adultery ends in bed, it doesn't start in it.
You don't want to buy that, fine. If you think you have more self-control and disapline than I believe I have myself, fine. It's worth considering the possiblity that maybe self control isn't being better able to resist temptation, it's about being better able to avoid it.
And fidelity to a partner is not merely about not sleeping with someone else, but going the extra mile in terms of accountablity.
I remember reading once that Billy Graham has always insisted on never being alone in his office with a woman without the door open. At the time I heard that, I thought it to be rediculous, I now start to see the wisdom of it.
Suppose there are whispers of something inappropriate, which is better to be able to say to your other half? "We only had lunch together and then we went home.." or "that's rediculous, I was never alone with her in the first place".
That is the assurance I would wish to be able to give to my wife were any accusation made against me. You would be right to say that maybe she should just "Trust me", but a partner's behaviour should surely seek to maximise the amount of sure confidence and minimise the amount of blind trust?
quote:
These presumptions are so unbelievably stupid. IME people who feel the jealousy of their partners are more likely to be unhappy and eventually more likely to be unfaithful.
Who mentioned jealousy? the other half most often may be blissfully unaware, or quite happy for their partner to be off alone with someone, i don't see the relevance of that to be honest.
quote:
My best friend is male and if Stoo 'banned' me from seeing him then me and stoo would not be together.
Well, first, you're not Stoo's wife, you're his girlfriend, that makes a difference.
Second, I never implied the onus was on the other half to "ban" anybody, but on rather on the individual to carefully consider for themselves what's appropriate and what's not.
I refer you back to my comments on accountablity. If a rumour was floated in Stoo's direction concerning your close male friend, what would you be able to say to him, "trust me?". That's all very well and good, and quite possibly he should, but you really leave him nowhere to go, apart from holding an emotional blackmail over him in which to not trust you is to question your character.
The words "trust me" are incredibly powerful and incredibly manipulative in a relationship. To NOT trust means the end of the relationship, (as you rightly say) and therefore you have to be very careful how often you use them. Blind trust is the final protective mechanism for holding a relationship together, it's better not to enter that territory in the first place.
quote:
If you don't have this kind of trust in your life, I feel really sorry for you.
Trust of who? I'm not talking about trusting other people, I'm talking about trusting myself and what signals I put out to those around me.
And trust of what? A "trust" that holds a gun to your head and says "Trust me..and if you don't it's all over"? I'll pass thanks.
matt
Posts: 1227 | From: London | Registered: Nov 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
babybear
Bear faced and cheeky with it
# 34
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Talitha:
He just said you would feel differently about your partner going off with a friend of the same sex.
And he got it wrong for most people!
Most of us have male and female friends, and they are just that, friends. Why on earth would I worry about my husband having lunch with a friend, based solely on their gender? The idea is mind boggling!
Affairs don't 'just happen'. There have to be a number of choices made, on both sides. Sometimes the choices are to do nothing and say nothing, but those are still choices. We are not animals at the mercy of every passing hormone or emotion. We have choice and we can exercise it.
bb
Posts: 13287 | From: Cottage of the 3 Bears (and The Gremlin) | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Firenze
Ordinary decent pagan
# 619
|
Posted
Matt does seem to live in a world of extraordinary sexual danger, of enormously fragile relationships, which break apart under the most routine social pressure...
Maybe it's a youth thing, and I've forgotten? My experience/observation of relationships that run to decades is that either they are immensely resilent, or, if they do fracture, it is from causes deeper than the mere presence of social opportunities (affairs arising from those tend to be symptoms, not causes IMO).#
On the gender thing, I agree with the posters who analyse it in terms of roles: it is so a construct.
As for the original article - you know how you sometimes do something, and only later realise an immense collateral benefit? Abandon the faith and OK, so there's eternal separation from God - but I never have to go to a Christian holiday camp
Posts: 17302 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Machine Elf
Irregular polytope
# 1622
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
Look at people you know who have had affiars, I'll bet 90% got themselves into situations with the opposite sex they just shouldn't have been in long before it ended up in bed.
The few people I know who had tried to start affairs, have given me the strong impression that something else was wrong before they needed to look elsewhere for respect and empathy.
quote:
I remember reading once that Billy Graham has always insisted on never being alone in his office with a woman without the door open. At the time I heard that, I thought it to be rediculous, I now start to see the wisdom of it.
I heard that was because, in his position, a malicious law suit would ruin his ministry, not to avoid his own temptation. It is common practise in ministry circles now.
quote:
Suppose there are whispers of something inappropriate, which is better to be able to say to your other half?
Being a traditionalist in such matters, if there were whispers, then I would ask the rumourmongers to either apologise, or meet me at dawn with a matched pair of the weapon of their choice.
quote:
Blind trust is the final protective mechanism for holding a relationship together, it's better not to enter that territory in the first place.
'Tis only blind if you know them not.
quote:
I'm talking about trusting myself and what signals I put out to those around me.
Well, if you can't be trusted to be alone with a member of the opposite sex without jumping their bones, then perhaps you should lock yourself up.
I wonder how much of this attitude is based on the 'if you must have sex, get married' being translated to sex=marriage in evangelical circles, marrying the first partner you are attracted to, and then finding that there's more people you fancy and so confusing normal behaviour with unfaithfulness.
TME
--------------------
Elves of any kind are strange folk.
Posts: 1298 | From: the edge of the deep green sea | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jen.
Godless Liberal
# 3131
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by The Machine Elf:
quote:
Originally posted by Matt the Mad Medic:
I remember reading once that Billy Graham has always insisted on never being alone in his office with a woman without the door open. At the time I heard that, I thought it to be rediculous, I now start to see the wisdom of it.
I heard that was because, in his position, a malicious law suit would ruin his ministry, not to avoid his own temptation. It is common practise in ministry circles now.
and teaching (being alone with kids) and all sorts of things. This is to protect both parties against any kind of accusation.
also, could a Bi woman not have a platonic relationship with a gay man? as he is in no way going to fancy her?
just wondering.
J
--------------------
Was Jenny Ann, but fancied being more minimal.
Posts: 5318 | From: Manchester, England | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Chorister
Completely Frocked
# 473
|
Posted
I have at last managed to persuade my computer to let me read Sarkycow's diary (after disabling everything which could be disabled) - my computer must be working as a secret agent for the holiday camp guards
anyway, I foiled 'em and had a great laugh reading about what seemed to have changed little from 1970s youth group camp ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
Thank goodness I only go to 'ordinary church' each week. Do some people really go to such events as their only form of spiritual life? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
I shall await next year's instalment with great interest. That is, if my computer will let me..... ![[Cool]](cool.gif)
--------------------
Retired, sitting back and watching others for a change.
Posts: 34626 | From: Cream Tealand | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Icklicus Angelicus
Shipmate
# 3588
|
Posted
sweet merciful crap.
Some thoughts the 'friends of opposite sex being dangerous temptation' issue.
and particularly...
quote:
but on rather on the individual to carefully consider for themselves what's appropriate and what's not.
Matt, you totally contradict yourself.
You are right. It IS for the individual to carefully consider what is appropriate.
So why do you make out that YOU are right on this and that you clearly have more knowledge of all relationships than anybody who might be IN one?? Relationships obviously differ due to the personalities of those involved, but clearly you are the all-seeing euthority? If you are not intending to say this, i suggest you reconsider your tone as it comes across as incredibly judgemental.
My best friend is male. He is engaged, i am in a long term relationship. Both his fiancee and my boyfriend are happy with it.
How on earth can there be anything wrong with close friendships like that?
I agree, that when married, friendships change and in my understanding that should include SAME SEX friendships too - time is apportioned differently when married. But to distinguish between men and women friends in that sense is to say that the non-physical aspect of an 'affair' i.e. the intimacy, companionship etc. is irrelevant - something which Matt appears to be saying is important. Two straight women can share a bond which should maybe only for marrieds, but why is this any different from a man and a woman doing so?
Matt says that adultery only ends in the bed, not starts with it. Suggesting there is more to the risk than sexual attraction.
Yet he also implies that there is a risk with opposite sex friends and not with same sex.
I'm sorry, what else is there different apart from the physical attraction risk?
From a non-married point of view, i need all of my friends in different ways. If i marry, all of my other friendships will change, not just the one with my best (male) friend because the ways in which i need them will change.
Example, i spend a heck of a lot of time with said friend. When married, i will spend that time with husband (as my relationship is long distance this currently isn't an option).
I will also see my girlfriends a lot less, because things have changed.
Still not seeing where those differ on grounds of sex.
Also, the idea that there is a danger of being attracted to any person of the opposite sex is crazy. I'm sorry matt, but if you experience this then it is likely to be an element of boyish youth. I am no more attracted to my best male friend than i am to some of my female friends. He isn't unattractive but my eyes are no more likely to wander just because he happens to be a bloke!
If there is a danger of adultery it will, i can only assume, be because there is something fundamentally wrong in the married relationship. This needs sorting out. The problem is with the relationship and why one might be considering an affair and NOT with the fact that they have opposite sex friends. I would suggest that if having opposite sex friends causes a problem, this is indicative of something wrong in the relationship anyway.
--------------------
LEGOLAS: The sky wears a film of gauze. The night air breathes infamy. Deceit weaves itself around my fingernails.
(mollyringwraith)
Posts: 763 | From: Oxford / Devon | Registered: Nov 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stoo
Mighty Pirate
# 254
|
Posted
quote:
Originally blethered by Matt the Mad Medic in a vain attempt to sound like he's making sense:
Bisexuals do have a fairly unique problem in that there is no person they can interact with in a platonic relationship... (I predict This will spark a flurry of indignation about how person X has plenty of platonic relationships...etc etc. To which I say go away and read some social psychology on the definition of a platonic relationship. If someone is of the opposite sexual orientation, the relationship is by strict definition non-platonic)
Cough, Bollocks!
A 'Platonic friendship' is not about one's sexual orientation - it's about the lack of a sexual relationship, and instead, a meeting of souls (originally between two men). It's come to mean a friendship without sex, but it's more than that.
If you take the original meaning, sexual orientation doesn't come into it (Plato was gay, by the way), rather it's about the Greek idea of "love between friends". Take its modern meaning and, guess what?, sexual orientation doesn't come into it. The only qualifier is that you know the other person and that you're not having sex with them.
In short, Matt, you are speaking out of your closely-guarded rear end.
By the way, would it not be easier to buy a chastity belt for you and your lass? That way, you could pop into Mcdonalds with whomsoever you wanted.
--------------------
This space left blank
Posts: 5266 | From: the director of "Bikini Traffic School" | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
