Doonesbury (7-13)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/13/>
--
- ReFlex76
- "Let's beat the terrorists with our most powerful weapon . . . hot girl-on-girl action!"
- "The difference between young and old is the difference between looking forward to your next birthday, and dreading it!"
- Jesus Christ - The original hippie!
<http://reflex76.blogspot.com/>
<http://www.blogger.com/profile/07245047157197572936>
Katana > Chain Saw > Baseball Bat > Hammer
Dann
news:ehvk741ae4q07r34k...@4ax.com.
> Obvious question: who's the lucky guy?!:
>
> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/13/>
One thing's for sure, it isn't Mike!
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Sherwood Harrington
> On 13 Jul 2008, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
> news:ehvk741ae4q07r34k...@4ax.com.
>> Obvious question: who's the lucky guy?!:
>>
>> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/13/>
> One thing's for sure, it isn't Mike!
eeeewww.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
nickelshrink
> Obvious question: who's the lucky guy?!:
>
> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/13/>
>
>
ARRRRRRRRGH!!!
"Young *'women'* are pledging....."
I know, i know. Mike has a daughter, the females are the ones
on his mind. And the strip is about how parenthood makes
former Free Love commune dwellers go all conservative and
maybe even want to adapt for general use a movement that
started among Christian conservatives (!).
But...the whole concept of sexual activity being The characteristic
that defines a person as "impure"....
And pledges! To parents or some public entity (congregation,
community, whatbleepinEVER) as though one's sexual behavior
were a duty to THEM? Yeah, you do it for your God, your future
partner, yadda yadda, but the ones who are watching, judging,
pressuring, filing your pledge certificate in the file cabinet,
applauding or telling you, There there, you can start fresh even
though you Failed ... are the parents and group involved now.
And why in the world can't they just call it the Abstinence
movement and skip the obnoxious and pointlessly judgmental
term "pure" which, unlike the renewable concept of abstinence
(something one *does*) is by definition something one *is* ?
The Purity Movement makes me want to...to....
Um...i'm sorry, what were we talking about...?
--
pax,
ruth
Save trees AND money! Buy used books!
http://stores.ebay.com/Noir-and-More-Books-and-Trains
Alessandro
> And why in the world can't they just call it the Abstinence
> movement and skip the obnoxious and pointlessly judgmental
> term "pure" which, unlike the renewable concept of abstinence
> (something one *does*) is by definition something one *is* ?
In Italy we haven't this kind of movements, or I never heard about
something like that :)
I agree with you: Purity and Abstinence are very different things :)
>
> The Purity Movement makes me want to...to....
>
> Um...i'm sorry, what were we talking about...?
LOL :D
ciao
Alessandro
---.-.----.-.-----.---------.--.------.-----.---.-----
www.oltrecomics.com
Jym Dyer
=v= For the same reason they call it the Republic Party, rather
than the Transfer More Wealth To The Rich Party. HTH.
> ... and skip the obnoxious and pointlessly judgmental term
> "pure" which, unlike the renewable concept of abstinence
> (something one *does*) is by definition something one *is* ?
=v= Actually what one *does* in these movements is have unsafe
sex and get knocked up, since birth control is eevil, or switch
to forms of sodomy, in keeping with Newt Gingrich's* weasel
words about sexual infidelity.
=v= But at least their pregnancy and sodomy is pure.
<_Jym_>
________________________________________________________________
* Imputed to Bill Clinton, but Gingrich was the actual perp.
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> > And why in the world can't they just call it the Abstinence
> > movement ...
>
> =v= For the same reason they call it the Republic Party, rather
> than the Transfer More Wealth To The Rich Party. HTH.
>
> > ... and skip the obnoxious and pointlessly judgmental term
> > "pure" which, unlike the renewable concept of abstinence
> > (something one *does*) is by definition something one *is* ?
>
> =v= Actually what one *does* in these movements is have unsafe
I've heard this statement so may times it seems like a factoid. Is
there actually any data to back it up? I would think any studies of
teens who have taken purity pledges and then had sex could tend to
have skewed results. The teen who took the purity pledge could feel
pressured/embarrassed to admit to having sex, and without a baby or an
abortion, there's no real way to prove the respondent wrong.
With regards to Alex and Mike's conversation, I would categorize
Alex's response as TMI for Mike.
axlq
Antonio E. Gonzalez <AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
> Obvious question: who's the lucky guy?!:
>
> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/13/>
I was wondering the same thing. Such a momentous event should have been
set forth in the strip, I would think.
The only guy I recall seeing her with is Zipper, and somehow I can't
imagine those two in a sexual relationship, much as Zipper wants it.
-A
Sherwood Harrington
Isn't it possible -- or even probable -- that she's just rattling her very
rattle-able father's cage?
axlq
Possibly, but then, she's in college, and not what you'd consider
conservative. I don't personally recall any women like that in
college who were virgins. Then again, MIT *does* keep her too busy
for social pursuits.
-A
Don Del Grande
> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
>
>> Obvious question: who's the lucky guy?!:
>>
>> <http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/13/>
>
>I was wondering the same thing. Such a momentous event should have been
>set forth in the strip, I would think.
Something tells me characters losing their virginity ranks up there
with coming out and saying that a teenage girl character is having her
first period as things you imply or otherwise reference obtusely but
don't come out and say. (Luann in "Luann" and Patina in "On the
Fastrack" come to mind concerning the latter of those two situations.)
Never mind that the strip is in the editorial section of a number of
newspapers - it's still a comic strip.
-- Don
Freezer
What makes you think it couldn've happened *before* MIT?
Frankly, I like the way she just matter-of-factly states "Not a
virgin. Deal."
--
My name is:
____ _
/ ___| | |
| |__ _ __ ___ ___ ____ ___ _ __ | |
| __|| '__/ _ \/ _ \/_ // _ \| '__|| |
| | | | __/ __/ / /| __/| | |_|
|_| |_| \___|\___||___|\___||_| (_)
And my anti-drug is porn.
http://www.geocities.com/mysterysciencefreezer
http://freezer818.livejournal.com/
George W Harris
<wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> =v= Actually what one *does* in these movements is have unsafe
>> sex and get knocked up, since birth control is eevil, ...
>
>I've heard this statement so may times it seems like a factoid. Is
>there actually any data to back it up? I would think any studies of
>teens who have taken purity pledges and then had sex could tend to
>have skewed results. The teen who took the purity pledge could feel
>pressured/embarrassed to admit to having sex, and without a baby or an
>abortion, there's no real way to prove the respondent wrong.
Abstinence education in general has no noticeable
effect on sexual behavior, according to a study
commissioned by Congress and carried out by Mathematica
Policy Research last year.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67979.php
As near as I can tell, MPR doesn't seem to have an
ideological agenda.
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Carl Fink
> On Mon, 14 Jul 2008 16:11:40 -0700 (PDT), Blinky the Wonder Wombat
><wkharri...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>> =v= Actually what one *does* in these movements is have unsafe
>>> sex and get knocked up, since birth control is eevil, ...
>>
>>I've heard this statement so may times it seems like a factoid. Is
>>there actually any data to back it up? I would think any studies of
>>teens who have taken purity pledges and then had sex could tend to
>>have skewed results. The teen who took the purity pledge could feel
>>pressured/embarrassed to admit to having sex, and without a baby or an
>>abortion, there's no real way to prove the respondent wrong.
>
> Abstinence education in general has no noticeable
> effect on sexual behavior, according to a study
> commissioned by Congress and carried out by Mathematica
> Policy Research last year.
>
> http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67979.php
>
> As near as I can tell, MPR doesn't seem to have an
> ideological agenda.
Psh. You think *facts* matter in this debate?
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
David Armour
suppose, I should admit to having crossed, but only plot-wise.
None of the old man's business, patriarchically-speaking; one may
take a concerned, if theoretical, interest, of course, but only
just.
axlq
Don Del Grande <del_gra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>Something tells me characters losing their virginity ranks up there
>with coming out and saying that a teenage girl character is having her
>first period as things you imply or otherwise reference obtusely but
>don't come out and say.
I agree. However, the implication or obtuse references should have
been made already, showing her involved with a suitor more likely
than Zipper. If she is indeed no longer a virgin, I'm scratching my
head wondering who she lost it with.
-A
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Dann
news:aOWek.3233$nD.1302@pd7urf1no.
> Bingo! ....took the typing right outta my fingers. Which, I
> suppose, I should admit to having crossed, but only plot-wise.
> None of the old man's business, patriarchically-speaking; one may
> take a concerned, if theoretical, interest, of course, but only
> just.
BS. As long as Mike is paying the bills, his interest is more than just
theoretic.
And any rational father would also want to make sure that his daughter
knows about birth control, prevent STDs, etc. if things are going to happen
that are out of his control.
Carl Fink
> And any rational father would also want to make sure that his daughter
> knows about birth control, prevent STDs, etc. if things are going to happen
> that are out of his control.
Right. And there was a period when both Mike and JJ (Alex's mother) were
living with their lovers. Do you reall think she didn't get The Talk?
For that matter, both of Alex's grandmothers have lived with their lovers
during the strip's run, though Joanie got married before Alex's birth.
Dann
news:slrng7p1sh...@panix2.panix.com.
> On 2008-07-15, Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> And any rational father would also want to make sure that his
>> daughter knows about birth control, prevent STDs, etc. if things are
>> going to happen that are out of his control.
>
> Right. And there was a period when both Mike and JJ (Alex's mother)
> were living with their lovers. Do you reall think she didn't get The
> Talk?
>
"The Talk" is usually about theory, not practical application. Whether
you like the answer or not, it is always good to know which ball park you
are playing in.
Jym Dyer
>>> sex and get knocked up, since birth control is eevil, ...
> sexual behavior, according to a study commissioned by Congress
> and carried out by Mathematica Policy Research last year.
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/67979.php
=v= It's long been known that abstinence programs have no effect
on whether they have sex. This is the first reference I've seen
(sourced to Fox and Reuters) suggesting that use of protection
and birth control is about the same. Other news coverage has
mentioned the scenario I described.
=v= Offhand, I don't know whether that's backed by research or
just pediatricians urging caution. I do know that the flip side
is true: programs to encourage safe sex and the use of barrier
protection have been strongly correlated with drops in teenage
pregnancy and the spread of STDs.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> his daughter knows about birth control, prevent STDs, etc.
=v= Daughters don't learn those things at "purity pledge"
hoedowns.
<_Jym_>
Invid Fan
<deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 15 Jul 2008, David Armour said the following in
> news:aOWek.3233$nD.1302@pd7urf1no.
>
> > Bingo! ....took the typing right outta my fingers. Which, I
> > suppose, I should admit to having crossed, but only plot-wise.
> > None of the old man's business, patriarchically-speaking; one may
> > take a concerned, if theoretical, interest, of course, but only
> > just.
>
> BS. As long as Mike is paying the bills, his interest is more than just
> theoretic.
>
> And any rational father would also want to make sure that his daughter
> knows about birth control, prevent STDs, etc. if things are going to happen
> that are out of his control.
But if he's only mentioning it NOW, when she's in her second or so year
of college... I remember my mom wanting me to go to a church sex ed
class, and being shocked that I'd already had two in school. If she
hadn't waited until 11th grade to bring it up,... (I wasn't sexually
active, but not by choice ^_^). Never did get "the talk", apart from
Dad saying don't go to hookers.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Jym Dyer
> The only guy I recall seeing her with is Zipper, and somehow
> I can't imagine those two in a sexual relationship, much as
> Zipper wants it.
=v= Hard-working time-stressed MIT students often have to resort
to the zipless f***. Not that this would help Zipper any.
<_Jym_>
--
"I can't understand you when you speak in asterisks, dear."
-- Lacey Davenport
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
> http://www.gocomics.com/doonesbury/2008/07/13/
>
> > The only guy I recall seeing her with is Zipper, and somehow
> > I can't imagine those two in a sexual relationship, much as
> > Zipper wants it.
>
> =v= Hard-working time-stressed MIT students often have to resort
> to the zipless f***. Not that this would help Zipper any.
> <_Jym_>
So we're talking a Zipperless f***.
nickelshrink
> On 15 Jul 2008, David Armour said the following in
> news:aOWek.3233$nD.1302@pd7urf1no.
>
>> Bingo! ....took the typing right outta my fingers. Which, I
>> suppose, I should admit to having crossed, but only plot-wise.
>> None of the old man's business, patriarchically-speaking; one may
>> take a concerned, if theoretical, interest, of course, but only
>> just.
>
> BS. As long as Mike is paying the bills, his interest is more than just
> theoretic.
What? I thought freedom worked *each and every* ....
Oh, never mind.
David Armour
> Dann wrote:
>> On 15 Jul 2008, David Armour said the following in
>> news:aOWek.3233$nD.1302@pd7urf1no.
>>> Bingo! ....took the typing right outta my fingers. Which, I suppose,
>>> I should admit to having crossed, but only plot-wise. None of the old
>>> man's business, patriarchically-speaking; one may take a concerned,
>>> if theoretical, interest, of course, but only just.
>>
>> BS. As long as Mike is paying the bills, his interest is more than
>> just theoretic.
>
>
> What? I thought freedom worked *each and every* ....
>
> Oh, never mind.
:c) good one!
I was going to say that I thought Mike paying the bills was
nothing much more than what, as her father, he was mostly
expected to do. But 'paying the bills' in anything other than a
patriarchal context doesn't confer votin' rights over what the
other sentient being gets to do, esp. with his/her own parts. She
ain't exactly his property, and as such, he certainly doesn't
have any more say than any other concerned observer in what she
chooses to do with her person. Mike's more than entitled to his
own medieval opinions, of course, should he turn out to have 'em.
(Fwiw, I don't expect him to.)
I'm still holding out, so to speak, for her to be merely yanking
his chain. And I think 'purity pledges' or whatever nonsense the
fundies have come up with this week to keep themselves well away
from the 21stC border on child abuse in the same way that using
prayer to cure your child when a proven medical alternative
exists doesn't advertise well. Purity pledges matter mostly to
soap marketeers who depend on the target demographic's
gullibility and susceptibility to exaggerated claims for
provenance; but gals ain't soap (or sheep!), and they ain't for
sale.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
David Armour <d.f.a...@shawONOspam.ca> wrote:
>
>
>nickelshrink wrote:
>> Dann wrote:
>>> On 15 Jul 2008, David Armour said the following in
>>> news:aOWek.3233$nD.1302@pd7urf1no.
>>>> Bingo! ....took the typing right outta my fingers. Which, I suppose,
>>>> I should admit to having crossed, but only plot-wise. None of the old
>>>> man's business, patriarchically-speaking; one may take a concerned,
>>>> if theoretical, interest, of course, but only just.
>>>
>>> BS. As long as Mike is paying the bills, his interest is more than
>>> just theoretic.
>>
>>
>> What? I thought freedom worked *each and every* ....
>>
>> Oh, never mind.
>
>:c) good one!
>
>I was going to say that I thought Mike paying the bills was
>nothing much more than what, as her father, he was mostly
>expected to do. But 'paying the bills' in anything other than a
>patriarchal context doesn't confer votin' rights over what the
>other sentient being gets to do, esp. with his/her own parts. She
Last time I heard, going to MIT was not an inalienable right.
He certainly does not have a right to say to her as an adult:
"You will not have sex."
He certainly *does* have the right to say, "*If* you have sex,
*then* I will not pay for you to go to MIT".
Sherwood Harrington
> He certainly *does* have the right to say, "*If* you have sex,
> *then* I will not pay for you to go to MIT".
As the lamentedly-absent GITrekker might say, now THAT'S parenting!
The problem I have with that is that the threatened consequence has
nothing to do with the activity; it's just retaliation, and not
particularly rational retaliation. A slightly better approach might be,
"If you have sex, don't expect me to pay for any consequences," but that
doesn't sound very loving, either.
Peter B. Steiger
> A slightly better approach might be,
> "If you have sex, don't expect me to pay for any consequences," but that
> doesn't sound very loving, either.
Nor is it practical - if your kid cranks out a baby she is not able to
provide for and "dad" is nowhere to be found, your choices are to let the
child suffer or go ahead and pay for the consequences.
Back when "Parenthood" came out and I was a first-time daddy with an
infant in diapers, I thought I could identify with Steve Martin's
character. I suppose I still do, to some extent, but more and more I
appreciate the tough decisions Jason Robards' character had to make.
--
Peter B. Steiger
Cheyenne, WY
If you must reply by email, you can reach me by placing zeroes where
you see stars: wypbs.**1 at gmail.com (yes, that's a new address)
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
Whether it's a good idea is different from whether he has that right..
aemeijers
changes your definition. If a kid is attending an expensive school on
the parent's nickel, the parent most certainly DOES have the right to
impose consequences if the kid lets distractions like 'having a good
time' (much less getting pregnant), interfere with that very expensive
investment. As long as the kid is keeping their grades up and staying
clean and healthy, no problem. But if the grades start to slip, or the
kid's health starts to suffer, well, parents have a duty to throw their
weight around. Simple pragmatism, if nothing else. I'm not a parent, but
I did finance a large chunk of my kid sister's college education. I had
to growl a few times when I stopped through town and found she was
living a nicer lifestyle than I was. And it was clearly understood, if
she started goofing off and no longer making progress toward a degree,
the money would be cut off.
--
aem sends...
David Armour
No, he doesn't. That's not a right; it's a (male) privilege
talkin', and a mere hop, skip & a jump away from 'honor
killings'. And what if, as with my niece, *she's* paying for her
schooling with scholarships?
Besides, why would a daughter's 'virginity' matter to a father
who fully believed in her free agency? He has the *opportunity*
certainly to inflict his patriarchal values on his daughter, but
equally she doesn't have to go along with the program, and I'd
tend to suspect her motives if she were to acquiesce. Moreover,
how are you going to be able to brag that your kid's going to
MIT, if she quits just to spite you?
And while we can imagine changing the thread title to When did
Zipper lose his virginity? it's a white limo, i.e. a device for
deflecting anticipated objections. There are all sorts of good
reasons for the wee tykes to keep their willies in, of course,
but 'purity' isn't one of them. It's a totally risible concept
that only works for commodities -- used car, one owner? -- and
last time I looked we were paying lip service, or trying to, to
the idea that teh wimmenz were no longer commodities. And as
legitimate human beings, allowing one's sexuality to provide
pleasure in one's life seems a more inalienable right to me than
a father's self-interest in getting a good price for his
daughter's 'purity', or a potential partner getting 'unspoiled'
merchandise. F* 'em, if they can't take a joke.
Paul Ciszek
In article <O59fk.1777$US3...@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>
>Last time I heard, going to MIT was not an inalienable right.
>He certainly does not have a right to say to her as an adult:
>"You will not have sex."
>
>He certainly *does* have the right to say, "*If* you have sex,
>*then* I will not pay for you to go to MIT".
On a more practical angle, he certainly has the right to say, "I will
pay room and board for a single-sex dorm, I will not pay for an apartment
of your own off campus." Depending on the school, and on the dorm, that
can actually do some good--I understand that there are a few colleges that
actually enforce "quite hours" so students at least have the opportunity
to study. Sure, it won't prevent your daughter from getting knocked up if
she's determined to take that path, but forcing her to live with a nerd of
the same gender can help. It looks like Alex's roommate has already helped
her over at least one academic crisis.
--
Please reply to: | President Bush is promoting Peace and Democracy
pciszek at panix dot com | in the Middle East by selling Weapons to the
Autoreply is disabled | King of Saudi Arabia.
racs...@gmail.com
> In article <O59fk.1777$US3....@bignews2.bellsouth.net>,
> Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Last time I heard, going to MIT was not an inalienable right.
> >He certainly does not have a right to say to her as an adult:
> >"You will not have sex."
>
> >He certainly *does* have the right to say, "*If* you have sex,
> >*then* I will not pay for you to go to MIT".
>
> On a more practical angle, he certainly has the right to say, "I will
> pay room and board for a single-sex dorm, I will not pay for an apartment
> of your own off campus." Depending on the school, and on the dorm, that
> can actually do some good--I understand that there are a few colleges that
> actually enforce "quite hours" so students at least have the opportunity
> to study.
My father joined a frat at MIT back in the early '40s, not to drink
beer and go crazy but so that he could move into the frat house and
have a quieter place than the dorm to study. I'm not kidding. (No, he
was not a DKE)
MIT was a different world then and I suspect it still is.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
$28...@news.teranews.com.
> Back when "Parenthood" came out and I was a first-time daddy with an
> infant in diapers, I thought I could identify with Steve Martin's
> character. I suppose I still do, to some extent, but more and more I
> appreciate the tough decisions Jason Robards' character had to make.
It's not a club anyone would want to join willingly.
My membership dues are paid in full, sadly.
racs...@gmail.com
> And what if, as with my niece, *she's* paying for her
> schooling with scholarships?
Any kid who can get into MIT can figure out how to make up whatever
percentage of the package her parents are picking up ... if any.
What Mike can do is treat her like the adult she is and concentrate on
being an influence, not a censor, of her actions.
Or he can be a controlling jackass, try to jerk the rug out from under
her and teach her an important lesson: That she doesn't need the
sonofabitch in her life. I've seen that happen, and it's a good way to
spend several years apart from your kid.
Ironically, when it ends, it usually ends because she had sex, gave
birth to a child, and decides she wants that child to know his
grandparents.
Which is to say, the child becomes an adult and decides to try to find
a way around the fact that the parent never did.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
$gc5.24233@pd7urf2no.
> nickelshrink wrote:
>> Dann wrote:
>>> On 15 Jul 2008, David Armour said the following in
>>> news:aOWek.3233$nD.1302@pd7urf1no.
>>>> Bingo! ....took the typing right outta my fingers. Which, I suppose,
>>>> I should admit to having crossed, but only plot-wise. None of the old
>>>> man's business, patriarchically-speaking; one may take a concerned,
>>>> if theoretical, interest, of course, but only just.
>>>
>>> BS. As long as Mike is paying the bills, his interest is more than
>>> just theoretic.
>>
>>
>> What? I thought freedom worked *each and every* ....
>>
>> Oh, never mind.
>
>:c) good one!
>
> I was going to say that I thought Mike paying the bills was
> nothing much more than what, as her father, he was mostly
> expected to do. But 'paying the bills' in anything other than a
> patriarchal context doesn't confer votin' rights over what the
> other sentient being gets to do, esp. with his/her own parts. She
> ain't exactly his property, and as such, he certainly doesn't
> have any more say than any other concerned observer in what she
> chooses to do with her person.
[I guess here's as good a spot as anywhere.]
And what about his _responsibility_ to raise Alex to be a decent and
successful person? That fact is that while some people are pretty level-
headed early on, there are others that are not. And...at least IME...some
pretty intelligent and well informed people can still end up doing some
spectacularly stupid things that screw up their lives.
Sometimes parents need to lay down the law...set limits...etc....because
kids are kids. They lack the experience to properly judge the risks
['cause there aren't any when you are 15-20 and indestructable] against the
rewards.
Having Alex in college changes how a reasonable person would approach the
issue. But there's nothing wrong with letting her know that he doesn't
approve.
'Cause, yes...after investing 20+ years of his life in her, he's earned the
right to comment on mistakes....at least until she's out on her own.
> I'm still holding out, so to speak, for her to be merely yanking
> his chain. And I think 'purity pledges' or whatever nonsense the
> fundies have come up with this week to keep themselves well away
> from the 21stC border on child abuse in the same way that using
> prayer to cure your child when a proven medical alternative
> exists doesn't advertise well. Purity pledges matter mostly to
> soap marketeers who depend on the target demographic's
> gullibility and susceptibility to exaggerated claims for
> provenance; but gals ain't soap (or sheep!), and they ain't for
> sale.
Now that we've lost all sense of scale.....
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> Besides, why would a daughter's 'virginity' matter to a father
> who fully believed in her free agency? He has the *opportunity*
> certainly to inflict his patriarchal values on his daughter, but
> equally she doesn't have to go along with the program, and I'd
> tend to suspect her motives if she were to acquiesce. Moreover,
> how are you going to be able to brag that your kid's going to
> MIT, if she quits just to spite you?
>
Or just maybe instead of "inflicting his patriarchal values" he has
tried to impart his experience to daughter in hopes that she might not
make the same mistakes he made. Not that teens and young adults ever
actually believe their parents understand. It's amazing how smarter my
father became when I got a mortgage and started my family.
Sherwood Harrington
> My father joined a frat at MIT back in the early '40s, not to drink
> beer and go crazy but so that he could move into the frat house and
> have a quieter place than the dorm to study. I'm not kidding. (No, he
> was not a DKE)
SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING A DEKE, PETERSON? (Aside from some of the
unfortunate baggage the Phi chapter has saddled us with over the years, I
mean.)
--
Sherwood Harrington
Sigma DKE
racs...@gmail.com
wrote:
> peter...@SPAMnelliebly.org <racss...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > My father joined a frat at MIT back in the early '40s, not to drink
> > beer and go crazy but so that he could move into the frat house and
> > have a quieter place than the dorm to study. I'm not kidding. (No, he
> > was not a DKE)
>
> SO WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING A DEKE, PETERSON? (Aside from some of the
> unfortunate baggage the Phi chapter has saddled us with over the years, I
> mean.)
Pledging DKE being one of the more innocuous examples of his ability
to cash in on being a legacy.
Mike Peterson
GDI
Sherwood Harrington
> Mike Peterson
> GDI
mutter grumble god damn independents mutter grumble
Actually, everybody at Amherst is an independent now, since fraternities
long since vanished there. And that's a *good* thing.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
He *has* to pay her tuition? How is it different from "If you're
going to live in my house, you're going to follow my rules?" How
is it a male privilege? If her mom were paying the tuition, it'd
be her call.
I'm not advocating any such thing, which seems to have gotten lost
here. I don't think Mike would do it. I wouldn't want Mike to do it.
I don't think it will even come up in the strip.
Ted Kerin
> On Jul 15, 8:15 pm, David Armour <d.f.arm...@shawONOspam.ca> wrote:
>> And what if, as with my niece, *she's* paying for her
>> schooling with scholarships?
>
> Any kid who can get into MIT can figure out how to make up whatever
> percentage of the package her parents are picking up ... if any.
>
> What Mike can do is treat her like the adult she is and concentrate on
> being an influence, not a censor, of her actions.
>
This is an interesting discussion of the broader issue of parental options,
and/or duties, re: the sprog's sex life (at least during that dodgy interim
between faux or age-based adulthood and the financial independence that
more practicically defines it), but I think Trudeau was focused on the joke
that Alex, while not a sacred virgin, considered her sexual experience(s)
literally forgettable. Which, to me, implies that it's not a major risk
factor in her life. (Yeah, I know it "only has to happen once," but let's
not go all "Reefer Madness" here.) As others have said, I think it's
relevant that she is an MIT student and not a Canadian pharmacist.
Trudeau is having fun with the idea that, while Mike might be the first to
defend Alex's right to a sex life in political theory and as a matter of
social policy, he catches himself in the unwanted and embarrassing hypocrisy
of his feelings as a Dad. Whether Mike is right or wrong, it's a
thought-provoking joke. And of course his wife, like all cartoon (and
real-life) wives, calls him on this.
James Nicoll
and when what became the University of Waterloo was first being founded
and then rejected by Waterloo Lutheran University, the lack of native-
born qualified people meant that a lot of foreigners got hired. One
of them was my father (MIT, a university in California that I can
never recall and Imperial [1]).
One of the things most of the US expats agreed on was that
under no circumstances were frats to be tolerated on campus. I don't
know why, exactly. Bill did sometimes mention a stupid hazing prank
that got someone killed using only a forced winter trek and a lake
that turned out not to be entirely frozen but I don't know if that
was the reason he loathed frats or one example of the stupid things
that they did [2].
1: Although he didn't get his fud until the mid-1960s. It was a lot
easier to get a tenure tracked job back then.
2: And really, I am not sure a guy who once decided to see if it was
possible to raft during a hurricane and who later tried to walk off
a burst appendix was the best guy to assess how risky behavior was.
--
http://www.livejournal.com/users/james_nicoll
http://www.cafepress.com/jdnicoll (For all your "The problem with
defending the English language [...]" T-shirt, cup and tote-bag needs)
Paul Ciszek
In article <25bfk.73823$kx.55378@pd7urf3no>,
David Armour <d.f.a...@shawONOspam.ca> wrote:
>
>Besides, why would a daughter's 'virginity' matter to a father
>who fully believed in her free agency?
Many liberal dads believe in theory that consenting adults should have
complete freedom to do what they wish with their own bodies, and yet
still secretly wish that every other male on the planet could be nailed
up in a barrel until after their daughter has graduated from college.
The double standard comes from the fact that people care more about
their own children than they do about other people's children--and
this is not necessarily a bad thing.
Bill
college than he did.
And she's just in her first year!
Bill
axlq
Ted Nolan <tednolan> <tednolan> wrote:
>>head wondering who she lost it with.
>
>Alphie.
Machines don't count.
On the other hand, Alphie seems to have many surprises built in...
-A