Ship of Fools: Bishops

Thread: Bishops Board: Hell / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=3;t=005659

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Fuck them. Fuck them all.

Might cause a revolution.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

[Confused]

Care to enlighten us a little?

IJ

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Presumably this report by the House of Bishops?

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Episcopal excretions

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Thank you.

I just wonder what Jesus would say? He did pass on some words about marriage, within the context of his time, but I doubt if he then (as a man) had much inkling of what same-sex attraction and commitment might mean in our time.

The unconditional love and welcome he showed to everyone remains the same today, even if not reflected by his Church (or most of it, anyway).

At Our Place, our beloved Father F***wit will no doubt be crowing about upholding 'GOD'S STANDARDS' (he always seems to say it in Capital Letters), notwithstanding the fact that his daughter is gay (and getting married - abroad - to her partner sometime this year, I think). O the irony!

IJ

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Currently feeling sheepish. Hopefully a kind host will pitchfork this into the infernal regions shortly...

Fury blinded me to where I was.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

A Rev on the radio said "A typical CofE fudge, kicked into a different part of the long grass."

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Shock! Group of Bishops selected for their homophobic qualities concludes that the church should continue to be homophobic.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Not all bishops are homophobic - some are *tell it not in Gath - publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon*.....GAY!

[Eek!]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Currently feeling sheepish. Hopefully a kind host will pitchfork this into the infernal regions shortly...

Fury blinded me to where I was.

I live to serve.

Kelly Alves
Admin

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
A Rev on the radio said "A typical CofE fudge, kicked into a different part of the long grass."

That was Richard Coles.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I think the best way to handle it if you are in the C of E is to write to your local Bishop, plus make your own opinions and feelings known in your local congregation.

Plus give this a wide distribution.

There is a human cost involved in kicking stuff into the long grass.

[ 27. January 2017, 19:03: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

I'm wondering what I can leave on his cathedra on Sunday.

I don't the Dean and Chapter would appreciate many of the things I have in mind.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich is the chair of the committee that emitted this nonsense.

Posted by Al Eluia (# 864) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Episcopal excretions

As we say in America, either shit or get off the pot.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Not all bishops are homophobic - some are *tell it not in Gath - publish it not in the streets of Ashkelon*.....GAY!

IJ

Not all Bishops, certainly. The authors of this report? Hell yes. They may not be in the same league as Akinola or Carey, but gay bashing with a velvet glove is still gay bashing. And since when has being gay prevented homophobia? Self-hatred is a thing, y'know.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

From the Bishop of Norwich's statement:

quote:
This means - as the report suggests - establishing across the Church of England a fresh tone and culture of welcome and support for lesbian and gay people, for those who experience same sex attraction, and for their families, and continuing to work toward mutual love and understanding on these issues across the Church.

I'm not surprised at what the bishops have said - if you're a scorpion, you sting. But it does turn my stomach to see that they sting us and then expect us to love them for it.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
From the Bishop of Norwich's statement:
quote:
This means - as the report suggests - establishing across the Church of England a fresh tone and culture of welcome and support for lesbian and gay people, for those who experience same sex attraction, and for their families, and continuing to work toward mutual love and understanding on these issues across the Church.
I'm not surprised at what the bishops have said - if you're a scorpion, you sting. But it does turn my stomach to see that they sting us and then expect us to love them for it.

That's what it feels like when a scorpion humps your leg - like a scaly terrier. The bishops will improve - eventually we'll barely feel it as they go in.

[ 27. January 2017, 20:03: Message edited by: ThunderBunk ]

Posted by Pangolin Guerre (# 18686) on :

Well, if you can't fuck a bishop, who can you fuck?

Posted by David Goode (# 9224) on :

One must never fuck the bishop, only bash it.

Posted by Sober Preacher's Kid (# 12699) on :

Er, but their wives....

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The Bishops are the ones who keep insisting that lifelong celibacy is a completely reasonable demand of gay clergy. Sauce for the goose...

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

Amongst the hurt and anger that I have been reading in response to this ridiculous and hurtful report has been a particular objection to the phrase "experience same-sex attraction" to describe gay people. Personally I was struck that clearly the House of Bishops see a huge problem when CofE churches and priests use unauthorised liturgies such as blessing of same sex-marriages or civil partnerships.

My inner petty bitch has thus formulated a possible two part response to this hateful and divisive document.

Firstly I am going to introduce the phrase "people who experience opposite-sex attraction" to describe myself and other straight people. Does it have implications of being just a stage that we're going through, something that we can ignore or overcome? Well then.

In addition, I think that our Bishops should be exercising their authority every time unauthorised liturgies are used. Every time. Every Sunday when the vicar thinks they'll be a bit clever. Every
praise sandwich and 'innovation’, every use of the Missal, every Taize and Iona service, every New Wine singalong and every U2charist. We (parish clergy) should be inundated with emails, complaints should flood in to Bishops and Archdeacons every Sunday. If it's not in Common Worship or BCP it clearly should not be happening, it clearly is deeply offensive to our beloved leaders. So let's stop it. Unless it is actually more important that we explore creative ways to worship that enable more people to experience and understand God's love for them. Well then.

anne

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

anne, that is my dream and my worst nightmare.

Are the bishops so determined to deal with this one issue that they will allow all creativity in the church to be killed off by bureaucratic process? What happens to pastoral love for that matter? Is everything sacrificed to keep the fundamentalist £££ flowing in?

Such a catastrophic, bureaucratic nightmare and all created by bishops determined to face in all directions at once, meaning the church goes nowhere.

In that respect, at least ++Rowan was kind enough not to throw his bishops to the wolves, and to take on himself the impact of the church's incapacity to embrace the position he himself espoused before taking office. Hugely disappointing, and indeed offensive, to many (including me) but much more like a Christian than ++Justin's antics.

Meanwhile, we are left to deal with the hideous, idiotic episcopal effluent.

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
Meanwhile, we are left to deal with the hideous, idiotic episcopal effluent.

And the fact that I agree that that is an appropriate description of this report is a problem for the Bishops who wrote it. Not that they care what I think individually - they shouldn't and don't - but because I'm a pretty conservative kind of lazy priest and I don't think I'm alone in that.

I'm pretty much a BCP and Common Worship woman. My life is easier when I can respect and like my diocesan Bishop. I'm not one of nature's boat rockers, not a hero, not courageous at all. But when an official document, produced at the end of (although apparently unaffected by) a long process which involved great courage by some of those asked to contribute, contains hateful language, palpable untruths and causes great hurt and distress, even I have to take notice.

This document has made my job of proclaiming the gospel afresh to each generation more difficult. It tramples all over the lived experience of faithful Christians, it ignores even their preferred way of describing themselves, let alone their stories, their faith, their gifts, all that they offer. It pays lip service to the need for repentance (by the church, for the way LGBTQI people have been treated) but doesn't even take that seriously.

It has made me ashamed to be a member of the CofE who experiences opposite-sex attraction.

anne

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

anne, I myself used the phrase 'same-sex attraction' further up this thread. If it came across as offensive, it wasn't meant to, and I apologise.

Re unauthorised liturgy (though I think Taize, Iona etc. are 'approved' if not actually 'authorised'), I contacted the Archdeacon when our beloved Father Fuckwit altered our already bastardised Common Worship Eucharist to a Roman Mass. My complaint was referred to the Bishop, since when.........nothing. One or two others complained, but, again........nothing.

I don't attend the Eucharist at Our Place now.

IJ

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

No offence intended, anne, but I wish we could get past the rhetoric of hurt. If I say X has hurt me, it casts me in the submissive role of the poor delicate little thing whom we have to be careful with in case we make him cry.

Fuck that.

I am an adult gay man who isn't going to stand for any shrivelled old queer-basher in a pointy hat telling me who I can fuck. I frankly despise the moral cowardice of these dull-witted prelates, and if any one of them said to me personally what they've said in their statement, it's 50/50 whether they'd be on the receiving end of a good tongue-lashing, or a sharp right hook.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:

This document has made my job of proclaiming the gospel afresh to each generation more difficult. It tramples all over the lived experience of faithful Christians, it ignores even their preferred way of describing themselves, let alone their stories, their faith, their gifts, all that they offer. It pays lip service to the need for repentance (by the church, for the way LGBTQI people have been treated) but doesn't even take that seriously.

It has made me ashamed to be a member of the CofE who experiences opposite-sex attraction.

anne

This has to be the worst indictment of the report. I think mine, as a gay man trying to see how to deploy his gifts before they rot on the shelf, is particular and important as far as it goes, but it's personal and it's about my relationship with the structure. Your expression goes to the heart of what the church is for, and calls out exactly what the problem is: the church is not being sufficiently Christ-like to carry out its divinely mandated purpose. That is a crisis.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I'm wondering what I can leave on his cathedra on Sunday.

I don't the Dean and Chapter would appreciate many of the things I have in mind.

The Lord Bishop of Norwich is the chair of the committee that emitted this nonsense.

I believe the cathedral gift shop sells fudge.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
No offence intended, anne, but I wish we could get past the rhetoric of hurt. If I say X has hurt me, it casts me in the submissive role of the poor delicate little thing whom we have to be careful with in case we make him cry.

Fuck that.

I am an adult gay man who isn't going to stand for any shrivelled old queer-basher in a pointy hat telling me who I can fuck. I frankly despise the moral cowardice of these dull-witted prelates, and if any one of them said to me personally what they've said in their statement, it's 50/50 whether they'd be on the receiving end of a good tongue-lashing, or a sharp right hook.

I too would replace "hurt and distress" with "boiling rage", but "hurt and distress" is an expression with a great deal of currency at present.

It would appear that their episcopal pointinesss/pointlessnesses are expecting people to be nice and calm and unemotional after their report has been noted by Synod. My word they are in for a disappointment.

Apologies for my third posting in a row, but they were responding to different things....

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

A friend emailed me this cartoon this morning.

This could be put on the Bishop's cathedra along with whatever else you decide to leave there.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
anne, I myself used the phrase 'same-sex attraction' further up this thread. If it came across as offensive, it wasn't meant to, and I apologise.

TBH, I thought that phrase was there because of people who do not identify as "gay" but have sex with people of the same sex. Kind of like the reason that "MSM (Men who have sex with men) shows up as a category on forms."

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

I think this is all about identity politics.

TBH, if you want to identify as gay or not or as being attracted to the same - or the opposite - gender or be asexual or whatever that is fine. That is how you identify yourself, and I will respect that. That is, as I understand it, how you reflect your sexuality*.

The other related issue is who you have sex with. Something which is, in truth, none of my damn business. It is only my business if it is abusive or genetically dangerous.

Given the pronouncements from Trump this week, and the damage that May is doing to this country, I would have thought that the HoB had far better things to be concerned with than other peoples genitals, and this lack-love report.

*By which I mean that this may change over time, as people learn more about themselves, not that it is anything other than part of who they are.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ThunderBunk:
I believe the cathedral gift shop sells fudge.

All cathedral gift shops sell fudge, but not necessarily the episcopal kind ...

Posted by anne (# 73) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
Fuck that.

With a rusty crosier

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:

Given the pronouncements from Trump this week, and the damage that May is doing to this country, I would have thought that the HoB had far better things to be concerned with than other peoples genitals, and this lack-love report.

IMO, such shite emboldens the bigoted old bastards.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The House of Bishops only ever seems to be concerned with dangly bits, as does part of the rest of the rapidly-disappearing C of E.

Why on earth cannot they - and many of their priests - realise that the world has changed since 1st Century Palestine?

I recall our own beloved Father Fuckwit ranting on one Sunday (just after the first hymn) about how Vital It Was to Uphold God's Standards by signing the petition to Roman Catholic Bishops regarding The Sanctity Of Christian Marriage. Well, the RCs are, of course, entitled to their official view, but, being an insensitive clod, Father Fuckwit conveniently forgot that the people he was ranting to (a backstreet urban congregation) were mostly divorced, co-habiting, single by default, single by choice, widowed, or unsure of their sexuality. He thinks in Black or White, unlike the way the world actually is.

He'd make a good bishop, by this bunch's standards.

IJ

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

I wouldn't say the bishops thought in black and white, more a long yellow-brown smeer.

Posted by leo (# 1458) on :

misprint: the Shard (sic) Conversations

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

Trying to be fair, there are some really good bishops who would be unhappy with the reaction this has prompted.

My problem is that, from outside the CofE, the perception is that, in a week where groups of people are being sectionalised, discriminated against and abused by Trump, supported by May, the Bishops manage to bring out this report, doing the same.

From a public perception perspective, it is a disaster. It links the CofE with the Trump policies. For me, I am so glad I am out. It might have saved me, enabling my faith to be properly expressed. The more I see, the more I think the CofE is killing itself. And yes, I do mourn it.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I'm just so angry that my initial reaction to the idea of "Shared Conversations" has proved to be entirely justified (and precient).

As someone who spent valuable time at one of the Shared Conversations (SC) I'm boiling mad that this disgraceful tripe from the HoB is being put forward as being in some way as a result of them. For the record - and any shippie can message me if they want details - it shows that ONE SC at least was discounted because any honest report of the one I was at couldn't have led to this wickedness.

Now I have a dilemma: do I out a bishop who, presumably, has put his name to this crap, or do I just ring him up and ask him if he needs a drink and to talk about things?

Perhaps more pertinent, does a friend who was at another SC hand over to the press details of the networking that went on with ConEvo clergy present which seems to mirror those who were in the news about setting up a "Shadow Synod"? Thinking my friend was sympathetic to their cause they dropped their guard and invited them to one of their own sessions and he was appalled.

As for ++Justin: he's perfectly relaxed about this because, after all, the statement reiterates the woolly crap he comes out with all the time; as for where his sympathies lie, I suspect he won't be wanting details of any ConEvo wrongdoing anytime.

Posted by BabyWombat (# 18552) on :

This makes me weep for the faithful gay men and women in the CofE who have been told, yet again “we really care for you – but you’re not good enough, really…. And we just can’t take chances….”

I am delighted when on these boards someone speaks that an act “makes the Baby Jesus weep”. I can only think that cowardly actions such as this make the Crucified One weep all the more.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

I don't see why anyone is surprised. The contents of the report were entirely to be expected. Same old, same old. L'Organist and other shipmates reported on these boards the nonsense going on at the so-called "Shared Conversations" with their carefully picked participants.

I don't like the report. But its contents come as no surprise in a CoE where at least one large conevo organisation not totally unconnected with an archbishop has a set agenda for taking over parishes, marginalising or excluding local people and vigorously promoting its own agenda, while the dioceses are silent and acquiescent.

Of course they are killing the CoE. But under its current leadership it deserves to die.

Posted by Jane R (# 331) on :

ThunderBunk:

quote:
I too would replace "hurt and distress" with "boiling rage", but "hurt and distress" is an expression with a great deal of currency at present.

Does it have to be either/or? I am quite capable of feeling hurt AND distressed AND boiling with rage. All at the same time.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I don't want to speak of interpreting Anne's take on the 'experiencing same-sex attraction' piece of waffle, as a phrase. She posted so eloquently. But for me I could see an offence in the phrase as describing the love same-sex couples have for each other as 'experience' rather than LOVE!

It's love. It's not an experience; it's not a fad; or a perversion; it's not a distortion of God - it's love. And God is love. I see my friends and family who are gay, with their partners - and I see love. Not an 'experience', somehow separate from who they are, or who they should be; like some unfortunate disfigurement which stops me from openly embracing them as being totally acceptable to me.

They LOVE their partners - they don't merely 'experience feelings' for them in one segregated area of human life.

I 'experience' temptation when I see someone I want to punch in the face, but don't. I 'experience' lust when I see Colin Firth. I 'experience' annoyance when someone doesn't indicate at a roundabout. But I LOVE my friends and family. And I see them LOVE their partners; wholly, sacrificially, with their whole selves. And, yes, of course, imperfectly, rowing over the occasional differences of opinion.

And I LOVE, LOVE, LOVE my gay friends and family because of who and what they are, and because of the LOVE they have for their partners, wives, husbands. And I think God does, too. Because God IS love.

They don't 'experience' same-sex attraction. They LOVE. Is that really so hard to get?

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
I don't see why anyone is surprised. The contents of the report were entirely to be expected. Same old, same old. L'Organist and other shipmates reported on these boards the nonsense going on at the so-called "Shared Conversations" with their carefully picked participants.

I don't like the report. But its contents come as no surprise in a CoE where at least one large conevo organisation not totally unconnected with an archbishop has a set agenda for taking over parishes, marginalising or excluding local people and vigorously promoting its own agenda, while the dioceses are silent and acquiescent.

Of course they are killing the CoE. But under its current leadership it deserves to die.

Sometimes the said organisation is "invited" in by the Bishop to do just that.

Doesn't exactly build bridges with people on the ground in your own or other denominations who may well be working their socks off to build God's Kingdom.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

Could someone tell me exactly which organisation you are talking about? I can guess, but I may be wrong! [Confused]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

They don't 'experience' same-sex attraction. They LOVE. Is that really so hard to get?

The problem is, we also fuck. Love - especially English love, it seems - can be beautifully invisible. It sits bolt upright in a pew next to the beloved, and shares not a sideways glance, let alone a hold of the hand. Love stands ten yards apart at post-service coffe and talks to strangers. Love does not touch, it shares no kiss, the eyes of lovers do not linger on each other. Not in England. So love is not the problem.

The problem is, we fuck.

[ 30. January 2017, 08:35: Message edited by: Adeodatus ]

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Of course you do, as is only natural in an other-than-Platonic relationship, but with love, and caring each for the other - just as much as (if not more than) 'straight' couples.

So where's the problem?

[Confused]

In the Bishops' heads....

IJ

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:

The problem is, we fuck.

This is true!

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Could someone please answer Baptist Trainfan's question upthread?

I can think of HTB, or perhaps that Reform, or possibly GAFCON....

.... but there may, God help us all, be Other Suspects.

[Help]

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

I think you've got the main suspect there.

Posted by Oscar the Grouch (# 1916) on :

(Emerging briefly from the shadows...)

I am SO glad that I left the C of E to become part of the Anglican Church of Canada. If I had stayed put, I would not in all honesty be able to remain in the C of E, as I could not have any respect for any bishop who put their name to this document.

And one of the most awful things about this is that we all knew, before the Shared Conversations ever started, that this is how it would all end up. The Shared Conversations were always a smokescreen and utter waste of time.

(Going back into the shadows of lurkdom...)

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by L'Organist:

quote:
I think you've got the main suspect there.

Yes. "Any or all of the above" probably applies.
Don't want to derail this thread with a tangent so lets leave it there.

Posted by Gwalchmai (# 17802) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:

They LOVE their partners - they don't merely 'experience feelings' for them in one segregated area of human life.

In the course of my work as a lawyer I meet quite a few same-sex couples, both in civil partnerships and, more recently, in marriages. They are just as boringly married or partnered as most straight couples. Many of them have been together longer than a lot of married couples. They all report that their civil partnership ceremony or wedding brought as much joy to their families and friends as it would to the family and friends of straight couples.

The issue of same sex relationships is becoming as toxic to the C of E as the European Union is to political parties. Jesus said very little about sexuality but a great deal about money and power.

Perhaps the bishops could spend more time preaching the gospel and less time worrying about what people do with each other in the privacy of their bedrooms.

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwalchmai:
Perhaps the bishops could spend more time preaching the gospel and less time worrying about what people do with each other in the privacy of their bedrooms.

It all depends which gospel they decide to preach.

Posted by ThunderBunk (# 15579) on :

Well now, let's try the good news of the incarnation of God and God's unconditional love for creation, including human beings in all our aspects. How's that for a starter?

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

That'll do nicely, and it's the gospel preached in many churches - pity the bishops don't take more notice...

IJ

Posted by rolyn (# 16840) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
It all depends which gospel they decide to preach.

Didn't think there was anything to denigrate same sex liaisons in the Gospels. Yes, a load of waffle about man, woman,marriage and so on which heteros for Centuries have taken precious little notice of, and even less these days.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

As an outside observer, I'm curious what happens next? Is there a response from other groups in the church? Do people ignore this and wait for them to die of embarrassment? Or do they just shuffle off to other groups? Do the factions who pushed for this use this as an excuse for an inquisition of currently closeted partnered clergy?

Any ideas?

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
Of course you do, as is only natural in an other-than-Platonic relationship, but with love, and caring each for the other - just as much as (if not more than) 'straight' couples.

So where's the problem?

In the Bishops' heads....

IJ

Make the bishops watch the film "Mass Appeal". Forgive the SPOILERS, but they'll help you understand why. Young almost-priest, either gay or bi, is assigned to a much-older priest (Jason Robards, IIRC) who's rather worn out. When the bishop finds out the young almost-priest's sexuality, he has prurient interest and tries to find out details. Some great lines throughout, such as "Some people search with their bodies, but that didn't work for me". (All quotes approximate.)

Big scene with all three men:

{Bishop expresses horrified, fascinated prurience.}

Older priest {yelling}: As long as you're celibate, it doesn't matter whether your thing is men, women, or goats!

Bishop: GOATS!!!

{Young Almost-Priest starts to deny interest in goats.}

Older priest {Overriding him}: Yes, GOATS!

There's another great scene where Young Almost-Priest is in the pulpit, and tells the congregation the story of all his goldfish dying because of a problem he didn't realize; and he couldn't help them, because he couldn't hear their screams. Then he looks right at the congregation and says, "I want to hear your screams".

Really, really good film.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

14 retired bishops have issued a letter to the current bishops about their report.

Headed up by Peter Selby, it includes people like Tim Stevens, John Gladwin and Lord Harries.

Apparently the story around this is on the front page of The Observer.

Posted by Ian Climacus (# 944) on :

The Observer article.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I've posted a link to this on the "House of Bishops' Report" page in Dead Horses.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by anne:
Amongst the hurt and anger that I have been reading in response to this ridiculous and hurtful report has been a particular objection to the phrase "experience same-sex attraction" to describe gay people.

So much work has been done within the queer community - charities, groups, businesses, the pink press - to ensure that our policies, our assumptions, and the language we use don't exclude people who don't fit into the neat categories of "gay", "lesbian", or "straight" that have framed so much of the discourse about this, that it's actually encouraging to see organisations outside of the community taking that on board.

So now a religious body is taking this on board and acknowledging the breadth of people on the queer spectrum. I can't imagine what anybody would find objectionable about this - unless you're suggesting that only gay people experience same-sex attraction.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

The problem is that "experience same-sex attraction" is a dog-whistle for the fundie-gelical fringe who think being gay is a lifestyle choice. It's not a reference to bisexuality or any other queer sexuality, it's homophobic bullshit which the Bishops ought to know well.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem is that "experience same-sex attraction" is a dog-whistle for the fundie-gelical fringe who think being gay is a lifestyle choice. It's not a reference to bisexuality or any other queer sexuality, it's homophobic bullshit which the Bishops ought to know well.

I suppose that makes sense, but what other term are they to use?

The various "LGBTQQIA..." abbreviations all exclude some groups, and quickly become ridiculously tedious, defeating the purpose of an abbreviation.

Personally, I favour queer but I don't think that's become sufficiently mainstream yet for the Church of England to be able to get away with it, especially as not even the Huffington Post could (although I congratulate them on sticking to their guns).

All in all, I think they used the right term, and that it's a vast improvement over their previous choice of "homophile".

Posted by TomM (# 4618) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:

quote:
Originally posted by Arethosemyfeet:
The problem is that "experience same-sex attraction" is a dog-whistle for the fundie-gelical fringe who think being gay is a lifestyle choice. It's not a reference to bisexuality or any other queer sexuality, it's homophobic bullshit which the Bishops ought to know well.
I suppose that makes sense, but what other term are they to use?

The various "LGBTQQIA..." abbreviations all exclude some groups, and quickly become ridiculously tedious, defeating the purpose of an abbreviation.

Personally, I favour queer but I don't think that's become sufficiently mainstream yet for the Church of England to be able to get away with it, especially as not even the Huffington Post could (although I congratulate them on sticking to their guns).

All in all, I think they used the right term, and that it's a vast improvement over their previous choice of "homophile".

I'd suggest terminology that isn't about making anyone who isn't straight-down-the-line cis-hetero out to be a 'them' to be stigmatised would be a bloody good start.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
I suppose that makes sense, but what other term are they to use?

I think inadvertently missing a small number of people is an improvement over using a term known to be grotesquely insulting to a large number. I can't see how the Bishops can have got through the "Shared Conversations" without coming across the hugely negative connotations of this term. Maybe they just don't care.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

Actually, turns out they were well aware the report only addressed Lesbian and Gay people (see page 9 here: https://www.churchofengland.org/media/3874927/notice-paper-february-2017.pdf ) so there can be no claim that the phrase was intended to address any alternate sexuality, it was purely a sop to bigots.

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

To me, referring to people who experience attraction to the same sex is a means of inclusion. I have never consciously seen or heard this type of wording used in any negative way, and it just looked to me like a case of looking for something to be offended by.

I suppose it's just been too long since I have been following the intricacies of internal Anglican developments to grasp the nuances of the language used here. So I concede that I might have missed something that others have identified.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

The Scrumpmeister--

Maybe it's because of using "same-sex attraction disorder" to indicate that being LGB is a mental illness? Do a web search on the term. FWIW.

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

If it helps the bishops and Synod this week, I can say with certainty that there are some LGBT+ people who wouldn't set foot in one of their bloody churches again if they paid us. So they needn't feel they have to try too hard to make us like them.

Posted by Arethosemyfeet (# 17047) on :

quote:
Originally posted by The Scrumpmeister:
To me, referring to people who experience attraction to the same sex is a means of inclusion. I have never consciously seen or heard this type of wording used in any negative way, and it just looked to me like a case of looking for something to be offended by.

I suppose it's just been too long since I have been following the intricacies of internal Anglican developments to grasp the nuances of the language used here. So I concede that I might have missed something that others have identified.

It's by no means confined to Anglicanism, it's used by con-evos everywhere to deny the identity and gay and lesbian Christians.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

Not just con-evos, either. I know an Anglo-Catholic priest who thinks the same way - mainly, I suspect, because he is so unsure of his own sexuality.

IJ

Posted by The Scrumpmeister (# 5638) on :

Then I consider my horizons broadened.

This is new to me.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

And, I expect, saddening.

Fortunately, of course, there many churches of all shades of churchmanship within the C of E which are inclusive (or trying to be).

IJ

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

I think, too, the phrase 'experience same-sex attraction' is also in danger of making that human aspect of someone sound like either a regrettable flaw or a choice. Or, at best, like some part of them that can in fact be separated off from who they actually are as a whole person.

If someone is sacrificially loving, committed, monogamous, loyal and selfless towards his partner, it really can't and shouldn't be principally defined as 'experiencing same sex attraction' or even 'opposite sex attraction'. It reduces the comprehensive humanness of a person's whole experience to what they might, or might not, be doing with their private parts.

It just seems to me that the folks who see any expression of homosexual love as sinful especially physical expression, just want to put the 'naughty' aspects of being a gay person, into a hived off category. So therefore it's easier to imagine they're not really discussing, or disapproving, of a real live whole human being; they're just judging one or two sadly regrettable aspects of someone who might otherwise be acceptable to the Church.

There was a letter in The Church Times this week, however, from someone who like the Scrumpmeister could see some positive points in the use of the phrase. So it is something perhaps which might in some ways open up the discussion, too.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Yes, it seems to eroticize relationship unduly, which I suppose (for bigots), is the point. Gays are out for instant shags, (and this is bad apparently), whereas straight people have long tender evenings in, discuss Wittgenstein, and have lots of photos of their children around the place, in silver frames, (and this is good).

However, I didn't realize that 'experiences same sex attraction' is being used as a dog whistle in some quarters.

What's wrong with LGBT+? You don't have to give the long version.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Wow, yes, googled 'same sex attraction disorder' and found all manner of weird and wonderful exotica. From a Catholic website, 'weak masculine identity is easily identified and in my clinical experience is the major cause of SSAD in men'.

People were writing this stuff in the late 19th century and early 20th century, still it goes on, and inevitably leads to a Treatment section. Very sick.

http://www.catholiceducation.org/en/controversy/homosexuality/known-causes-of-same-sex-attraction.html

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

For Xmas from an indulgent relative I received a "Guide to Home Life" published in 1910. It is essentially a health and sex manual. The amount of truly appalling information in circulation during that period would crisp your hair.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

The mere fact that it's classed as a Disorder moves me to despair.

And this from the same Church* noted for the amount of paedophilia and child abuse going on within it in recent (and not-so-recent) years.

*Yes, I know - by no means the only one....

IJ

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

What's wrong with LGBT+? You don't have to give the long version.

The form for blood donation uses MSM (Men who have sex with men), IIRC because some men who have sex with men do not self-identify as gay or bi. So I can see "people who experience same-sex attraction" as trying to be a label-free inclusive description that says that it doesn't matter how you choose to identify yourself, we're talking about people who are attracted to others of the same sex, and form relationships as a consequence of that.

(And the statement has nothing at all to do with T+: it's explicitly and exclusively concerned with L, G, and the same-sex parts of B.)

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Bishops Finger:
The mere fact that it's classed as a Disorder moves me to despair.

And this from the same Church* noted for the amount of paedophilia and child abuse going on within it in recent (and not-so-recent) years.

*Yes, I know - by no means the only one....

IJ

There was a scandal in the UK over conversion therapists, stemming from a journalist who went undercover. His therapist came out with the biggest load of cobblers, including that he might have been abused, that he should take up rugby, and she would pray for him, as gay sex is sinful, and so on.

This led in the end to the banning of conversion therapy in all UK organizations, although it remains legal to do it.

Anyway, she wasn't a Catholic.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2011/may/27/gay-conversion-therapy-patrick-strudwick

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
For Xmas from an indulgent relative I received a "Guide to Home Life" published in 1910. It is essentially a health and sex manual. The amount of truly appalling information in circulation during that period would crisp your hair.

Oh, you're such a tease! Give us some examples, please. The world wants to know.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe:
[Oh, you're such a tease! Give us some examples, please. The world wants to know. [/QB]

This charming tome is SEX TRAINING IN THE HOME, by Dr. Winfield Scott Hall. It is copyright 1927. It is turgid lectures, followed by Q&A like this random selection:
May a man who for 2 or 3 years of his boyhood practiced masturbation, but who has reformed, ask a pure woman to be his wife?
I know you will heave a sigh of relief to learn that the good doctor, after much hedging and circumlocution, says yes. There is tons more (his discussion of eugenics and why you shouldn't marry out of your race is stupendous).
Here it is online, for your delectation.

Posted by Bishops Finger (# 5430) on :

I suspect the good Doctor is (albeit somewhat aged) still alive, well, and working in the Church of England... [Paranoid]

Wonderful stuff, though - talk about a different world....

(The term a pure woman reminds me of Hardy's typically ironic sub-title for Tess of the D'Urbervilles.)

IJ

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

One of the questions asked at Synod yesterday was, given the bishops' restating of the CofE's understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman for life, would there now be moves to bar divorced-and-remarried people from being ordained as priests or consecrated as bishops?

The answer from the Bishop of Norwich was "No."

Which rather shows this whole thing up for what it really is: a bit of queerbashing to keep the evos' money rolling in.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Don't tell me you ever thought it was about anything else [Killing me]

Posted by Adeodatus (# 4992) on :

quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
Don't tell me you ever thought it was about anything else

I didn't. But reading through a few twitter threads, I think there are some poor naive saps who actually think the whole thing was an honest process.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

Perhaps this sums up what really ought to have been the Bishops' statement?!

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

Thanks for that Anselima. Thing is that it was funny, unlike the Bishops who are... well words fail me.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
For Xmas from an indulgent relative I received a "Guide to Home Life" published in 1910. It is essentially a health and sex manual. The amount of truly appalling information in circulation during that period would crisp your hair.

I have a manual that my mother sent me, written by the psychiatrist who ran the summer camp I went to as a child. It stated that careful attention to organic food avoiding white sugar and using whole wheat bread could cure homosexuality.

[ 20. February 2017, 06:05: Message edited by: Palimpsest ]

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Adeodatus:
One of the questions asked at Synod yesterday was, given the bishops' restating of the CofE's understanding of marriage as being between one man and one woman for life, would there now be moves to bar divorced-and-remarried people from being ordained as priests or consecrated as bishops?

The answer from the Bishop of Norwich was "No."

Which rather shows this whole thing up for what it really is: a bit of queerbashing to keep the evos' money rolling in.

The Archbishop here is quite clear that a divorced man, or a man married to a divorced woman, will not be licensed! Note of course that this refers to men only as women are still not licensed in this diocese.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

But, while that's in the Anglican Communion, it's not in the CofE. What the last post was surely trying to point out is the inconsistency which seems to lie within the English Church.

Posted by Jemima the 9th (# 15106) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Palimpsest:

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
For Xmas from an indulgent relative I received a "Guide to Home Life" published in 1910. It is essentially a health and sex manual. The amount of truly appalling information in circulation during that period would crisp your hair.
I have a manual that my mother sent me, written by the psychiatrist who ran the summer camp I went to as a child. It stated that careful attention to organic food avoiding white sugar and using whole wheat bread could cure homosexuality.

I remember a manual (published in the 50s I think) I found in a holiday house. It was assumed that the wife would be virginal upon marriage, and that once it had been decided that marriage was to happen, she could make regular visits to the doctor. He would avail himself of a collection of plastic tubes or cups of increasing size, which could be inserted into the vagina, in order to widen it to make it sex-ready. Ah, a penis home! Surely Mark Driscoll would approve.

Other dodgy theories - I have also heard the male homosexuality is caused by a disordered idea of male identity (this from a con evo type, though) and lesbianism is caused by us women having dodgy relationships with our mothers, you know.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Jemima the 9th:
I remember a manual (published in the 50s I think) I found in a holiday house. It was assumed that the wife would be virginal upon marriage, and that once it had been decided that marriage was to happen, she could make regular visits to the doctor. He would avail himself of a collection of plastic tubes or cups of increasing size, which could be inserted into the vagina, in order to widen it to make it sex-ready. Ah, a penis home! Surely Mark Driscoll would approve.

Sounds like quite an interesting procedure, and I wonder when it was first devised. Brides in the 1950s were more likely to have been virgins than nowadays, of course.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Brides in the 1950s were more likely to have been virgins than nowadays, of course.

[citation needed]

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Brides in the 1950s were more likely to have been virgins than nowadays, of course.
[citation needed]

Don't know if a 'citation' is actually needed! Unless we've morphed into Wikipedia?! Probably SvitlanaV2 is giving an opinion, and one I would be inclined to agree with, if only anecdotally and given the cultural millieu of the time.

It's probably, though maybe not provably true that more brides were NOT virgins than was assumed at the time. The war years did a lot to encourage less conventional sexual habits.

But compared to 60's onwards, I would've thought it a fairly safe bet to suppose that more women were virgins on their wedding night in the 50's than in more recent times. The percentage might've been, as I say, a little slimmer than folks at the time would've thought.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

"More likely to say they were virgins" is probably accurate. But anything else is a stretch, and is unverifiable.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
But anything else is a stretch.

Really?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Oh come on. This is low-hanging fruit.

(Next you'll be telling me you thought the 'personal massage wands' advertised in Woman's Weekly were really for ladies' sore shoulders...)

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

They don't seem to be advertising anything similar in "Backtrack" (the historical railway magazine).

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

I didn't think I'd said anything particularly controversial there.

The 1950s occurred after the social shakeup of WWII but before the sexual revolution of the 1960s. It seems fairly obvious, therefore, that there would have been fewer bridal virgins in the 50s than before, but more than there would be afterwards.

The net has no shortage of references to the stage at which many young British women found themselves in the 1950s:
This is the passage

and this one

etc. etc.

Many women may have hidden their escapades, but before reliable contraception came on the scene they would have been taking a great risk. However, I imagine that some women would have had less to lose than others, as is always the case.

[ 22. February 2017, 13:10: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Sorry about that. This was my first link:

here.

Posted by Baptist Trainfan (# 15128) on :

I suspect that pre-marriage virginity fell during the War, and then recovered until the late 50s or even early 60s, with that era's focus on "getting back to normal".

And then the Pill came along ...

(Read "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" - that was in the 30s, of course).

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Many women may have hidden their escapades, but before reliable contraception came on the scene they would have been taking a great risk. However, I imagine that some women would have had less to lose than others, as is always the case.

This is true, of course - that women bore the (by far) greatest risk of 'getting caught'. And we can argue about what it means to be 'a virgin'.

But we can also raise an eyebrow or two at the phrase "a rising number of women reported pre-marital sexual experience". Sex surveys are notoriously inaccurate, and I'd be at liberty to interpret it as "women more comfortable saying that they had sex before marriage".

We are the product of a long line of people who had sex.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
"More likely to say they were virgins" is probably accurate. But anything else is a stretch, and is unverifiable.

And what is also unverifiable is assuming that most of the women who, if questioned, were lying when they said they were virgins when married. It is entirely possible that most of these women were telling the truth.

The pill wasn't around then, religion-influenced morality was still pretty strong amongst many families and cultural expectations were still high - even if unfairly so - that the woman would not have sex before she married. And given this environment, it makes complete sense that the ordinary girl hoping to marry successfully, by keeping herself for her husband; especially in the days when being married to your child's father was arguably the best way to ensure you weren't abandoned after becoming pregnant.

There would need to be pretty conclusive statistical evidence to prove that, on the whole, most young women claiming to be virgin on their wedding night in the 50's, weren't.

Again, I expect there were more who did lie about this. But sex before marriage for young girls I would imagine was not the norm, during the 1950's, as was afterwards.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
There would need to be pretty conclusive statistical evidence to prove that, on the whole, most young women claiming to be virgin on their wedding night in the 50's, weren't.

Was that the 1550s?

quote:
Nearly a third of Elizabethan brides were pregnant by the time they came to church, despite the Church’s prohibition on sexual relations beforehand.

I could most likely find statistical evidence for every subsequent century, but I'll leave that as an exercise for the reader...

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Oh, go on then. Another data point.

quote:
For instance, there is evidence that in rural England in the latter eighteenth and the nineteenth century 30-40% of brides had a birth within 8 months of marriage (Hair 1970, Table 1), consistent with pregnancy at marriage for a substantial proportion of brides. In 1963, the earliest year that official statistics give similar information (and before the widespread use of the contraceptive pill), the corresponding figure was about 20%.

Source (page 5-6) (pdf)

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

And?

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

And because I have to spell it out.

The only reliable, unbiased, statistic as to whether a woman was a virgin when getting married is whether or not she has a child in the 0-8 months after getting married. (Yes, men get a free ride on this. Sorry.)

Given that, consistently up to the Victorian age, when attitudes changed, some 30-40% of women were actually pregnant at the time they were married and subsequently gave birth, I'm going to risk calling that 'pretty conclusive statistical evidence' that certainly, a large minority of women weren't virgins when they married.

It's not much of an assumption to go from that to say that a majority weren't, since every act of sexual intercourse doesn't end in a live birth.

Yes, things changed - for women - during the Victorian era, but what we see now is very much a return to the status quo that prevailed in the previous 500 years.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

In any case, my original comment was about the 1950s, not the 1550s or the 1850s, etc.! However, I own a very interesting book about sexual licence in 19th c. Europe, so I'm aware that there were various customs and tendencies at play.

Class and environment played a factor. Medieval peasants often wanted to ensure fertility before marriage; and there was a lot of prostitution in 18th c. London, where large numbers of newly urban, self-supporting women had to top up their meagre wages, etc.

Still, in the period I was referring to sexual license wasn't the norm, although I agree it was probably becoming more so, especially among some social groups. Illegitimacy rates and very early births after marriage can tell us a great deal about how people behaved, regardless of historians' agendas.

Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
And because I have to spell it out.

No. You don't. Honestly.

Nothing you've posted deals with the issue of how many women in the 1950s claiming to be virgins before marriage were liars. That's the only thing my comments have been concerned about.

Look, we're obviously not going to agree. I happen to believe that probably more women, than fewer, were telling the truth when they said they'd saved themselves for their wedding day; even if amongst that number we should assume some, maybe even a significant number, were lying. You don't believe that. Fair enough.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

I don't believe it because it's not true.

This study (USA) is a bit impenetrable, but this summary states things more clearly.

quote:
The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex, even those born decades ago. Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44.

Yes, it's a social study, and therefore unreliable, but it does actually fit with all the older data.

To conclude: most people have been doing it before they got married for time immemorial, and lying about it for the same length of time.

Posted by SvitlanaV2 (# 16967) on :

Interesting material, but it does refer to the USA, which is hardly the whole world.

Moreover, I'm not sure why this particular survey is more reliable than others, specifically in relation to the 1950s in Britain.

Perhaps it's that Americans, both male and female, have always been vastly more truthful than the British on these matters, more easily liberated from the shackles of prudery and deceit?

[Biased]

[ 27. February 2017, 00:05: Message edited by: SvitlanaV2 ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't believe it because it's not true.

This study (USA) is a bit impenetrable, but this summary states things more clearly.

quote:
The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex, even those born decades ago. Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44.
Yes, it's a social study, and therefore unreliable, but it does actually fit with all the older data.

To conclude: most people have been doing it before they got married for time immemorial, and lying about it for the same length of time.

That's an interesting study, Doc Tor. I think figure 2 does show a clear change in behavior over the decades; although as you note pre-marital sex is eventually nearly universal among even the earliest cohort, there was a significant proportion who first had pre-marital sex at a much later age than subsequent cohorts. By age ~19, 80% of women in the last three cohorts (turned 15 between 1974-84, 1984-94, 1994-2004) had had pre-marital sex; for the earliest cohort (turned 15 between 1954-1964) this proportion was only reached by age ~25.

So perhaps the study provides some support for the perception that 50's sexual mores really were different, though not for the notion that a large fraction of brides were virgins back then.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

It is incredibly difficult to do studies that mean respondents have to be honest about behaviours they might be ashamed of. Which is why I was using the live birth after 0-8 months of marriage as the only reliable guide, and which holds up pretty well until the Victorian era when things did seem to change - at least in the hiding/obfuscating from official records.

And, of course, it depends on what 'sex' means. It won't just mean tab A/slot B action (otherwise you've just wiped out homosexual experiences). Though I expect someone will tell me there were none of them around in the 50s.

People - good church people - have been ignoring the church's teaching on fornication for at least 500 years. I don't know whether we should be surprised, or merely surprised that others are surprised by it.

[ 27. February 2017, 08:05: Message edited by: Doc Tor ]

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It is incredibly difficult to do studies that mean respondents have to be honest about behaviours they might be ashamed of.

Well, in the last study you cited nearly everyone admitted to pre-marital sex so it's hard to see how that could have greatly distorted the results; if they were willing to admit that, it seems unlikely they'd be dishonest about the first time it occurred.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

There's a lot less shame now about acts committed in the past. I can't conceive of a similar survey being carried out contemporaneously in the 1950s and producing the same result.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by Anselmina:

quote:
Nothing you've posted deals with the issue of how many women in the 1950s claiming to be virgins before marriage were liars. That's the only thing my comments have been concerned about.

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
I don't believe it because it's not true.

This study (USA) is a bit impenetrable, but this summary states things more clearly.
quote:

quote:
The study found women virtually as likely as men to engage in premarital sex, even those born decades ago. Among women born between 1950 and 1978, at least 91 percent had had premarital sex by age 30, he said, while among those born in the 1940s, 88 percent had done so by age 44.
Yes, it's a social study, and therefore unreliable, but it does actually fit with all the older data.

To conclude: most people have been doing it before they got married for time immemorial, and lying about it for the same length of time.

This is bollocks. Women born between 1950 and 1978 wouldn't have been legally old enough to marry in the 1950s. In the UK a woman born in 1950 couldn't get married before 1966 at the absolute earliest. So the information you are quoting has no bearing whatsoever on Anselmina's point.

Women born in the early 1950s would have been teenagers in the "permissive" years of the 60s, when sexual mores changed significantly.

And a woman born in the 1940s who was still unmarried at age 44 would have been living in the 1980s before she had pre-marital sex.

So your response has nothing all to say about the virginity or otherwise of women who got married in the 1950s.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
It is incredibly difficult to do studies that mean respondents have to be honest about behaviours they might be ashamed of. Which is why I was using the live birth after 0-8 months of marriage as the only reliable guide, and which holds up pretty well until the Victorian era when things did seem to change - at least in the hiding/obfuscating from official records.

*snip*

People - good church people - have been ignoring the church's teaching on fornication for at least 500 years. I don't know whether we should be surprised, or merely surprised that others are surprised by it.

Longer than that. Chrysostom in his homilies on 1 Timothy and Colossians, among others, teach on this in a way that suggests that the faithful clearly were staggering in to hear sermons after a night of shame and dissipation.

As far as chastity rates go, I leave others to do the sociological research. In Canada, there seem to be historical variances between rural and urban, and RC and non-RC, as well as other regional and class indicators. Let us not take away from the availability of dissertation topics by generalizing, but I most enjoy the work of bicycle historians at York University who ascribe the downfall of virtue to widespread cycling among young women, and their ability to socialize without supervision. Since then, it's been downhill.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

Surely, only if you live at the *top* of a hill...

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:

And a woman born in the 1940s who was still unmarried at age 44 would have been living in the 1980s before she had pre-marital sex.

So your response has nothing all to say about the virginity or otherwise of women who got married in the 1950s.

Those born in 1940 would have been 15 by 1955. So unless you can show that they all waited until 1979 to have sex, then get married, I think you probably need to take a couple of remedial maths lessons.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

No, you are the one who needs remedial maths. The data you've quoted only gives the proportion of women born in the 1940s who had had sex by the time they were 44. It says nothing about how many had had premarital sex before 1960.

You can't use data which is based on birth-date ranges to draw accurate conclusions about marriage-date ranges. It's not valid.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

*face palm* Pre-marital does rather imply something.

But whatever helps you sleep at night.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Please try to concentrate. This really isn't difficult.

Anselmina is talking about women who married in the 1950s.

First: women born in the 1950s cannot possibly have been married in the 1950s. They wouldn't have been old enough. Therefore whether they did or did not have pre-marital sex is not relevant.

Secondly: the only thing your study says about women born in the 1940s is that by the time they were 44, a certain proportion of them had had pre-marital sex. Your study does NOT say how many of them got married in the 1950s. Of all the women born in the 1940s, only women born in 1940, 1941, 1942 or 1943 could have been old enough to get married in the 1950s. We don't know what proportion of these did get married in the 1950s. If they didn't get married in the 1950s then whether they did or did not have pre-marital sex is not relevant. We don't know when these women married, and we don't even know if the number of women included in the study was the same for each year of the 1940s decade (the baby boom might very well mean that more of the cohort were actually born in the late 1940s than were born before 1944). It's highly probable that most of the study cohort born in the 1940s got married in the 1960s or 1970s and some even later than that. So the study doesn't tell us anything relevant to Anselmina's point.

Got it? I hope so. If not, get some maths tuition before you start spreading statistics all over someone else's argument.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Chamois:
Please try to concentrate. This really isn't difficult.

Anselmina is talking about women who married in the 1950s.

It was Svitlana.

quote:
Originally posted by SvitlanaV2:
Sounds like quite an interesting procedure, and I wonder when it was first devised. Brides in the 1950s were more likely to have been virgins than nowadays, of course.

quote:
First: women born in the 1950s cannot possibly have been married in the 1950s. They wouldn't have been old enough. Therefore whether they did or did not have pre-marital sex is not relevant.

You're absolutely right. It is irrelevant. That's why only you are talking about them.

quote:

Secondly: the only thing your study says about women born in the 1940s is that by the time they were 44, a certain proportion of them had had pre-marital sex. Your study does NOT say how many of them got married in the 1950s. Of all the women born in the 1940s, only women born in 1940, 1941, 1942 or 1943 could have been old enough to get married in the 1950s. We don't know what proportion of these did get married in the 1950s. If they didn't get married in the 1950s then whether they did or did not have pre-marital sex is not relevant.

I'll stop you there. You do realise the prerequisite for having pre-marital sex is not being married? This study says nothing about married women having sex. As soon as women get married, they exclude themselves from the study. When they get married is not a data set. Whether they have sex before they get married is. And for those born in the 1940s (which is the earliest group considered), that's 88%.

Whether women in the 1950s were virgins when they married is what we're arguing about. If you make the assumption - and you appear to - that 1950s women married relatively young, then please consider that 82% had had pre-marital sex by the time they were aged 30. That's pre-marital sex. Not sex when married.

quote:
Got it? I hope so. If not, get some maths tuition before you start spreading statistics all over someone else's argument.

Yes. I absolutely do get it. I get you are provably and empirically wrong.

Posted by Dave W. (# 8765) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's a lot less shame now about acts committed in the past. I can't conceive of a similar survey being carried out contemporaneously in the 1950s and producing the same result.

I think that's probably true - but my point is that the different behavior of the earliest cohort isn't that far fewer had pre-marital sex, but that a significant fraction had their first (pre-marital) sexual experience at a noticeably later age than subsequent cohorts. Their line in figure 2 is distinctly different from the others, even if it does eventually end up near the same total incidence of pre-marital sex.

This difference in reported behavior is unlikely to be due to a shame-based artifact, since these first cohort women who are (now) reporting a later age are, after all, still admitting pre-marital sex.

Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's a lot less shame now about acts committed in the past. I can't conceive of a similar survey being carried out contemporaneously in the 1950s and producing the same result.
I think that's probably true - but my point is that the different behavior of the earliest cohort isn't that far fewer had pre-marital sex, but that a significant fraction had their first (pre-marital) sexual experience at a noticeably later age than subsequent cohorts. Their line in figure 2 is distinctly different from the others, even if it does eventually end up near the same total incidence of pre-marital sex.

This difference in reported behavior is unlikely to be due to a shame-based artifact, since these first cohort women who are (now) reporting a later age are, after all, still admitting pre-marital sex.

Yes, I take your point. Lack of opportunity when living in the family home? I don't know.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
I'll stop you there. You do realise the prerequisite for having pre-marital sex is not being married? This study says nothing about married women having sex. As soon as women get married, they exclude themselves from the study. When they get married is not a data set. Whether they have sex before they get married is. And for those born in the 1940s (which is the earliest group considered), that's 88%.

Whether women in the 1950s were virgins when they married is what we're arguing about. If you make the assumption - and you appear to - that 1950s women married relatively young, then please consider that 82% had had pre-marital sex by the time they were aged 30. That's pre-marital sex. Not sex when married.

Yes, exactly, we are arguing about whether women in the 1950s were virgins when they married. My point is that the majority of women born in the 1940s did not get married in the 1950s. Most of them probably married in the late 1960s or early 1970s.

The women who got married in the 1950s (which are the ones we are arguing about) would mostly have been born in the 1920s and the 1930s. So those are the women who you need to ask whether they had had pre-marital sex.

I'm assuming the peak age for marriage was in the woman's 20s.

Posted by Chamois (# 16204) on :

Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
This difference in reported behavior is unlikely to be due to a shame-based artifact, since these first cohort women who are (now) reporting a later age are, after all, still admitting pre-marital sex.

My guess would be the Swinging Sixties had a lot to do with this.

Posted by RuthW (# 13) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:

quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:

quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
There's a lot less shame now about acts committed in the past. I can't conceive of a similar survey being carried out contemporaneously in the 1950s and producing the same result.
I think that's probably true - but my point is that the different behavior of the earliest cohort isn't that far fewer had pre-marital sex, but that a significant fraction had their first (pre-marital) sexual experience at a noticeably later age than subsequent cohorts. Their line in figure 2 is distinctly different from the others, even if it does eventually end up near the same total incidence of pre-marital sex.

This difference in reported behavior is unlikely to be due to a shame-based artifact, since these first cohort women who are (now) reporting a later age are, after all, still admitting pre-marital sex.
Yes, I take your point. Lack of opportunity when living in the family home? I don't know.

This, and other cultural factors may also have contributed. I would guess young women were more likely to postpone sex before oral contraceptives came on the market -- they became available in the US in 1960. The so-called sexual revolution might also have had an effect.

An important thing not discussed in that study is how much of all this pre-marital sex was post-engagement sex. 50% of that cohort of women who turned 15 between 1954 and 1963 had pre-marital sex by the age of 20. 20 was also the median age for women getting married in the US then (source). In the next cohort, women turned 15 in 1964-73, 70% of them had pre-marital sex by the age of 20, and the median age for marriage was still only 21 or so. Someone with a better head for numbers can tell me if I'm misinterpreting them, but to me this says the rate of casual pre-marital sex went way up very quickly. There's a big difference between having sex with someone who has proposed marriage with a diamond engagement ring (since breach of promise laws were no longer on the books) and having sex with someone you're only dating, or picked up in a bar, or whatever.

Posted by Aravis (# 13824) on :

As my parents married late in life I had six rather elderly aunts (the oldest was born in 1916 and her husband was born in 1889) so have heard many anecdotes of how life has changed for women over the past century.
My parents and my oldest aunt went to university (the other five didn't) and there was a noticeable difference in the amount of freedom you had as a student. My grandmother was appalled that her eldest daughter had gone to a concert on her own with a young man. It just wouldn't have happened at home.
Life was more segregated halfway through the 20th century. More schools were single sex. When you left school, if you trained as a primary school teacher or a nurse or a typist you would spend most of your time with other women. If you lived at home your family would want to know where you were. It was harder to arrange liaisons; less people had phones, and even if there was one, you'd be unlikely to have a very private conversation. Less people had cars too.
I know this may seem obvious and trivial, but if sex is very difficult to arrange before marriage, you're a lot less likely to have any. Especially if society tells you that being seen as immoral will drastically reduce your chances of marriage and security.

Posted by L'organist (# 17338) on :

Reminds me of my uncle (a prudish cleric) who insisted his 3 daughters were all home by 10pm (10.30 on a Saturday) until they were over 30. The cousins moaned a bit but seemed to put up with it very well.

It was when I stayed with two of them while their father was away that my eyes were opened: as they said, if their father thought 'sin' (by which he meant sex) could only take place outside the family home during the hours of darkness, who were they to disabuse him? To quote one, My own comfy bed on a glorious sunny afternoon while Pa is visiting his housebound - bliss!, while another used to visit the man who became her husband every morning for 'coffee'.

There will always be opportunity if you're prepared to be inventive.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0