Fw: The fates of "God" & "marriage": word expansions
3 views
Skip to first unread message
Willis E. Elliott
May 16, 2012, 8:24:17 AM5/16/12
to CC
Fellow-Confessors
Sorry you first got this incomplete! My error
occurred early in section 7.
Grace and peace--
Willis
From: "Willis E. Elliott" <elliot...@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday, May 14, 2012 5:29 PM
Subject: The fates of "God" & "marriage": word
expansions
> Amen, Jane.
> 1
> A suburban bio-mother delivers children obstetrically once & thereafter, by
> car, forever. It must be true: Loree just read it to me.
> 2
> After church yesterday, a highschooler came & gave us a hug (as he does every Sunday morning) & told us of an eight-months-old foster child the family (which has
> white/black/yellow chn.) had just gotten. Said Loree, "I'd like to hold her." He: "I'll bring her" - which he did, & Loree & I both got to mother her (I while she pondered what all that white stuff was doing on my face). / So there now: proof of the main point of your post.
> 3
> Language animal that I am, I ponder your post's helpful expansion of the word "mother". And, contrarian that I am, I think of two UNhelpful word-expansions:
> 3.1
> "God" as personal expanded to all processes: "process theology." Whitehead
> solved the religion/science standoff by sucking religion into science.
> 3.2
> "Marriage" as the bio-instituition basic to society expanded to include any socially & legally recognized whole-person two-person committed relationship. This pseudo-solves the problem of fairness to homosexual committed relationship by depriving English of a particular word for the bio-institution basic to society. / The solution is pseudo in that the fairness problem can be solved legally without invading the word "marriage" & destroying its sememe.
> 4
> Since the legal establishment (with rights equitable to the rights of "marriage") of homosexual committed relationships is possible without the destructive invasion of the word "marriage," why does the gay-pride movement insist on the latter? Two reasons:
> 4.1
> Obscurantism. To blur the distinction between society's basic institution (the bio-family) & a relationally parallel & socially enriching but societally unnecessary legal institution ("gay marriage").
> 4.2
> Parasitism. By verbal invasion of "marriage," gay unions parasitize the societally unique respectability of society's basic institution. Parasites decrease the health or even existence of the organism they invade, & "gay marriage" kills English's sememe (particular meaning, viz. the bio-family) for society's basic institution.
> 5
> In the American calendar, we are now between Mother's Day & Father's Day. Children suffer from mothering-deficiency, adolescents - especially boys - suffer
> from fathering-deficiency. / Yes: as you say, "the Father of all" can mother. Please, Jane, on Father's Day write us a post on how "the Father of all" fathers. Perhaps include comments on these two fathering-in-American-public-education stories:
5.1
> In the early '30s, our highschool's father (principal) was a huge man with bulging eyes (from a disease now curable) behind a huge desk with a pingpong paddle near its front edge. The paddle was to terrorize & shame miscreant male students. In my four years, I doubt that I saw as many "sent to the principal" disturbers of the classroom peace as I have fingers. Teachers could assume respect, & order in the classroom. But when threatening bodily pain became illegal in American public schools, classroom chaos became frequent. To escape the chaos, many good teachers (mainly women) sought other employment, & the quality of American education declined. / An even more serious reason for the decline was the 1966 Supreme Court decision to eliminate, from our public schools, any formal recognition that centering sense-making in the biblical God is a constituitive element in the American mind: life's meaning, as public-school-taught, must center elsewhere if anywhere. (For 30 years a sister of mine had opened her third-grace schoolday with Bible reading & prayer. When that became illegal, "I could not control them" - her last three years prior to retirement.)
> 5.2
> A hermit imam in PA started a U.S. charter-schools movement "to the glory of Allah" (though that motivation cannot be taught in them). The 150 schools emphasize math & science, on which our regular public schools are weak because discipline is low. These covertly, silently Muslim schools have 20,000 students, with 30,000 on the waiting lists. Many male teachers are imported from Turkey. Our tax-dollars used to promote Islam's most sophisticated mode of invading America.
> 6
> For six weeks, son Bill is here from China to digitize my archive - sometime after which their physical form goes to Ottawa (KS) University (where I was Loree's major professor). One of many themes my papers record is the gradual deterioration of American public education & its change from a medium of the American mind to an enemy thereof. A recent survey (Pew, I think) said 40% of "millenials" do not believe the universe has any moral fabric - which comports well with the fact that America's moral fabric is in steep, perhaps even fatal, decline. And, in this neo-American mind, "the Father of all" has lost his severity (Ro.11.22), is only kind if he "is" at all (to our fastest growing demographic, he does not even exist; & to millions of Americans, he exists
> but is no longer "he").
> 7
> Of the five minds (emotional, aesthethic, moral, religious, rational), the moral mind makes decisions on the awareness that reality, including human society, has a "good" fabric of structures & functions to be honored by "good" (i.e., supportive) behavior. As the oral-aural mode of reality, language has a fabric of structures & functions. While no language is perfect, every language is "good" to the degree that it is used with precision. / The reverse is true: It's "bad" to use a language imprecisely whatever the reason for the imprecision. I learned language-precision as respect for language, honor to reality, praise to God; & I am offended by language-abuse. In this post, I am offended by the abuse of the word "marriage" to refer to a relationship other than the fabric-structure-function of society's basic institution, the bio-family.
7.1
> 1
> A suburban bio-mother delivers children obstetrically once & thereafter, by
> car, forever. It must be true: Loree just read it to me.
> 2
> After church yesterday, a highschooler came & gave us a hug (as he does every Sunday morning) & told us of an eight-months-old foster child the family (which has
> white/black/yellow chn.) had just gotten. Said Loree, "I'd like to hold her." He: "I'll bring her" - which he did, & Loree & I both got to mother her (I while she pondered what all that white stuff was doing on my face). / So there now: proof of the main point of your post.
> 3
> Language animal that I am, I ponder your post's helpful expansion of the word "mother". And, contrarian that I am, I think of two UNhelpful word-expansions:
> 3.1
> "God" as personal expanded to all processes: "process theology." Whitehead
> solved the religion/science standoff by sucking religion into science.
> 3.2
> "Marriage" as the bio-instituition basic to society expanded to include any socially & legally recognized whole-person two-person committed relationship. This pseudo-solves the problem of fairness to homosexual committed relationship by depriving English of a particular word for the bio-institution basic to society. / The solution is pseudo in that the fairness problem can be solved legally without invading the word "marriage" & destroying its sememe.
> 4
> Since the legal establishment (with rights equitable to the rights of "marriage") of homosexual committed relationships is possible without the destructive invasion of the word "marriage," why does the gay-pride movement insist on the latter? Two reasons:
> 4.1
> Obscurantism. To blur the distinction between society's basic institution (the bio-family) & a relationally parallel & socially enriching but societally unnecessary legal institution ("gay marriage").
> 4.2
> Parasitism. By verbal invasion of "marriage," gay unions parasitize the societally unique respectability of society's basic institution. Parasites decrease the health or even existence of the organism they invade, & "gay marriage" kills English's sememe (particular meaning, viz. the bio-family) for society's basic institution.
> 5
> In the American calendar, we are now between Mother's Day & Father's Day. Children suffer from mothering-deficiency, adolescents - especially boys - suffer
> from fathering-deficiency. / Yes: as you say, "the Father of all" can mother. Please, Jane, on Father's Day write us a post on how "the Father of all" fathers. Perhaps include comments on these two fathering-in-American-public-education stories:
5.1
> In the early '30s, our highschool's father (principal) was a huge man with bulging eyes (from a disease now curable) behind a huge desk with a pingpong paddle near its front edge. The paddle was to terrorize & shame miscreant male students. In my four years, I doubt that I saw as many "sent to the principal" disturbers of the classroom peace as I have fingers. Teachers could assume respect, & order in the classroom. But when threatening bodily pain became illegal in American public schools, classroom chaos became frequent. To escape the chaos, many good teachers (mainly women) sought other employment, & the quality of American education declined. / An even more serious reason for the decline was the 1966 Supreme Court decision to eliminate, from our public schools, any formal recognition that centering sense-making in the biblical God is a constituitive element in the American mind: life's meaning, as public-school-taught, must center elsewhere if anywhere. (For 30 years a sister of mine had opened her third-grace schoolday with Bible reading & prayer. When that became illegal, "I could not control them" - her last three years prior to retirement.)
> 5.2
> A hermit imam in PA started a U.S. charter-schools movement "to the glory of Allah" (though that motivation cannot be taught in them). The 150 schools emphasize math & science, on which our regular public schools are weak because discipline is low. These covertly, silently Muslim schools have 20,000 students, with 30,000 on the waiting lists. Many male teachers are imported from Turkey. Our tax-dollars used to promote Islam's most sophisticated mode of invading America.
> 6
> For six weeks, son Bill is here from China to digitize my archive - sometime after which their physical form goes to Ottawa (KS) University (where I was Loree's major professor). One of many themes my papers record is the gradual deterioration of American public education & its change from a medium of the American mind to an enemy thereof. A recent survey (Pew, I think) said 40% of "millenials" do not believe the universe has any moral fabric - which comports well with the fact that America's moral fabric is in steep, perhaps even fatal, decline. And, in this neo-American mind, "the Father of all" has lost his severity (Ro.11.22), is only kind if he "is" at all (to our fastest growing demographic, he does not even exist; & to millions of Americans, he exists
> but is no longer "he").
> 7
> Of the five minds (emotional, aesthethic, moral, religious, rational), the moral mind makes decisions on the awareness that reality, including human society, has a "good" fabric of structures & functions to be honored by "good" (i.e., supportive) behavior. As the oral-aural mode of reality, language has a fabric of structures & functions. While no language is perfect, every language is "good" to the degree that it is used with precision. / The reverse is true: It's "bad" to use a language imprecisely whatever the reason for the imprecision. I learned language-precision as respect for language, honor to reality, praise to God; & I am offended by language-abuse. In this post, I am offended by the abuse of the word "marriage" to refer to a relationship other than the fabric-structure-function of society's basic institution, the bio-family.
7.1
The moral mind sees language as used morally (correctly) or
immorally (abused). Mispronunciation is phoneme abuse; misspelling is
morpheme abuse; mis-identifying the meanings of words & phrases is semene
(denotative & connotative) abuse, mis-sequencing of words is syntax
abuse. These linguistic immoralities are especially serious when speaking
of the specific names of semantic domains. In English, the name of
the bio-family's semantic domain (including all the bio-family's relationships
to reality) is "marriage." A bio-analogy: to society, "marriage" operates
as does a convergent core of neurons in the brain.
7.2
The moral mind uses the sanction of purity (viz.,
clean/dirty) to protect "marriage," which biologically means
protecting the womb for "clean" sex against "dirty" sex. E.g., rape
is dirty sex: to correspond with the offensive behavior, the language is
offensive. In my highschool of hundreds of students, we had (to general
knowledge) only three dirty girls ("dirty," at that place-time, meaning
premarital sex). The three were generally shunned, the shunning being a
behavioral affirmation of "clean" sex (i.e., virginal marriage). Now, says
(again, I think) Pew, 85% of evangelical girls are dirty (i.e., have sex before
marriage - though of course today's America frowns on traditional negative
purity-sanctional sexual words (dirty girls, bastards, cuckolds, etc.).
Less & less, language is a servant of morality. (Exception: standard
American English still avoids using "suicide" as a verb: in referring to the
act, a condemnatory verb ["commit"] must be used before the noun
"suicide".)
7.3
The moral mind is the long finger of our mental hand, which
has integrity when all five fingers co-operate harmoniously. As the
long finger is the hand's centering structure, morality is the centering
structure of a truly human being, of the human "affections" (in
Jon.Edward's meaning: intentions, drives), of human institutions ("marriage"
being society's basic), of human society.
7.4
7.4
The moral mind is concerned with truth (contra
falsehood), with right (contra wrong), & with fairness (contra
inequity). / All three dimensions were eroded by the Supreme Court's
decision that our public schools be godless (Jn.Dewey humanism, a worldview more
different from our historic public school's than is Islam, which accepts the Ten
Commandments as basic morality - which Miroslav Volf uses [e.g., 11.29.11
Christian Century p.11] to argue that if we consider Christianity & Islam to
be worshiping two different gods, the two religions would "inhabit two
incompatible moral universes").
7.5
In moving, in four years, from two pregnancies to 87, our
local highschool's sexual ethic has moved from one "moral universe" to another,
in violation of the moral mind's concern for sexual equity, in this
case fairness to the husband, who is in the inferior position of
not being certain that a birth in the family will make him
a father (though his wife is sure it will make her a mother).
/ In America after WW2, the ideology of autonomy moved the ethical sacred
from equity to equality, a move that increasingly shows itself to be unfair to
both sexes & corrosive of "marriage," for which young wombs are now too
loose. / A confirmative moral tale: My Grandpa Elliott, an atheist,
created his own structure for avoiding the possibility of becoming a cuckold
rather than a father. He married a gorgeous actress, & before supper
told her her career was over: he wasn't interested in the theater, & would
not let her out of the house alone nights. Conclusion: A man can be sure
his wife's children are also his; but it's very hard work, & fatal to the
relationship (reducing his wife to a marriage-fenced cow). Grandpa, who
was his own god, was a real man in the worse sense; & "marriage" to him was
"an order of creation," his creation. I thought this story would be a nice
touch to end my Mothers Day meditation on this "Subject"
(above).
Grace and peace--
Willis
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Jane Ellingwood" <bct...@aol.com>
> To: <confessi...@googlegroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, May 13, 2012 6:41 AM
> Subject: Happy Mother's Day
>
>
> Dear friends and colleagues,
>
> We don't have too many women who chime in to these online discussions on a
> regular basis (including me, these days), but I wanted to wish those of you
> who are mothers or who play a mothering role to others a very "Happy
> Mother's Day"!
>
> As we continue our discussions related to gender and same gender
> relationships, we can also remind ourselves that the act of "mothering" does
> not have to be undertaken by a person who is biologically a mother. I was
> reminded of this myself earlier today, by a very thoughtful article.
> Fathers can be mothers too --- whether human fathers or the Father of us
> all. Women and men, or two women together who are in a same gender
> relationship, who adopt children or take in foster children can play
> mothering roles. People in our churches play mothering roles to us, and
> some of you in this forum, who are very wise and full of faith, can be
> mothers to us, as well as fathers. Even single people like me can have some
> maternal characteristics, although in my case, God didn't give me very many
> (good thing God also did not give me any children!). :-)))
>
> So, honor your own mothers and those who have mothered and still mother you,
> and honor everyone who acts with nurturing love and care to others, and
> helps them to live out the faith. We come in all shapes and sizes and
> genders and backgrounds.
>
> Jane Ellingwood
link...@aol.com
May 16, 2012, 9:41:52 AM5/16/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Willis,
I agree with your point about "equity." How do you think this works
itself out in attitudes and words regarding males who engage in
premarital sexual relations, e.g. what did you call the males who
engaged in said activity, who also seem to be the enemies of purity?
Has the availability of very accurate paternity testing promoted
equity, such that linguistic sanctions regarding premartital sexual
relations are not so relevant to equity? And what about extramarital
sexual relations, in an age when paternity is almost as easily
established as maternity?
God bless you!
Jim
On May 16, 8:24 am, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliottwlm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I agree with your point about "equity." How do you think this works
itself out in attitudes and words regarding males who engage in
premarital sexual relations, e.g. what did you call the males who
engaged in said activity, who also seem to be the enemies of purity?
Has the availability of very accurate paternity testing promoted
equity, such that linguistic sanctions regarding premartital sexual
relations are not so relevant to equity? And what about extramarital
sexual relations, in an age when paternity is almost as easily
established as maternity?
God bless you!
Jim
On May 16, 8:24 am, "Willis E. Elliott" <elliottwlm...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Fellow-Confessors
>
> Sorry you first got this incomplete! My error occurred early in section 7.
>
> Grace and peace--
> Willis
>
>
> Sorry you first got this incomplete! My error occurred early in section 7.
>
> Grace and peace--
> Willis
>
link...@aol.com
May 16, 2012, 10:24:37 AM5/16/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
P.S. Just last Friday, at a funeral reception, a delightful lawyer
said to me, "You know what I think was the greatest revolution of the
last century? The pill. That changed everything!"
Jim
So, throw the pill in there too, has that changed the language and
"marriage"?
> ...
>
> read more »
said to me, "You know what I think was the greatest revolution of the
last century? The pill. That changed everything!"
Jim
So, throw the pill in there too, has that changed the language and
"marriage"?
>
> read more »
Janet Keyes
May 16, 2012, 12:42:56 PM5/16/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Willis-
I am glad to see that you are still relating well to teenagers. Many of the young generation find it difficult to believe that their elders are relevant.
The newly called pastor of our church is Scott Haskell, who remembers you and Loree form the Centerville Church on Cape Cod when he was in high school. (He asserts that you would not remember him, but I would never bet against your memory, especially of a kid who felt the call to preaching as early as age eight!)
Blessedly small world!
Yours in Christ,
Janet Keyes
Willis E. Elliott
May 16, 2012, 6:44:33 PM5/16/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com, Loree Elliott
Greetings to Scott, Janet!
Bless you for your warm post.
Herb Davis
May 16, 2012, 9:25:17 PM5/16/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Jim, the Pill has changed everything. I would think for the better, but
one never knows. Herb
> read more �
one never knows. Herb
link...@aol.com
May 17, 2012, 7:28:50 AM5/17/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Herb,
I have to admit that I really like and admire lawyers and that what I
liked most about the chat between the lawyer and myself was that he
didn't put any "better" or "worse" on the revolution but was simply
acknowleding it, with awe, he brought the statement out as a sort of
beloved possession to show a new friend, and I was glad to be a new
friend in that moment of sorrow and loss for his old friend. We had
been talking about timelessness, infinity and eternity (that is how I
will phrase it) and I had brought up the phenomena of "ought" and
"should" as pointing to the eternal significance or dimension of our
life in history, whereas he was pointing out the cosmic insignificance
of humanity. Then he brought up the pill, which was his way of saying
"Yes, there is such a thing as history, but how very revolutionary it
is as I have experienced in my own time!" Later, his equally
delightful wife came over and began to ask me whether I really
believed in the parting of the Red Sea (they are Jewish), that Jesus
rose from the dead in his body, and the "immaculate conception of
Mary" (which I interpreted as meaning "born of the virigin Mary") I
said yes to all three and told them I believe Jesus is the Messiah and
told them that the existence of the Jewish people is the only real
"historical proof" we have for the existence of God, to which they
agreed. We parted with mutual warm wishes.
God bless you, Rabbi!
Jim
> ...
>
> read more »
I have to admit that I really like and admire lawyers and that what I
liked most about the chat between the lawyer and myself was that he
didn't put any "better" or "worse" on the revolution but was simply
acknowleding it, with awe, he brought the statement out as a sort of
beloved possession to show a new friend, and I was glad to be a new
friend in that moment of sorrow and loss for his old friend. We had
been talking about timelessness, infinity and eternity (that is how I
will phrase it) and I had brought up the phenomena of "ought" and
"should" as pointing to the eternal significance or dimension of our
life in history, whereas he was pointing out the cosmic insignificance
of humanity. Then he brought up the pill, which was his way of saying
"Yes, there is such a thing as history, but how very revolutionary it
is as I have experienced in my own time!" Later, his equally
delightful wife came over and began to ask me whether I really
believed in the parting of the Red Sea (they are Jewish), that Jesus
rose from the dead in his body, and the "immaculate conception of
Mary" (which I interpreted as meaning "born of the virigin Mary") I
said yes to all three and told them I believe Jesus is the Messiah and
told them that the existence of the Jewish people is the only real
"historical proof" we have for the existence of God, to which they
agreed. We parted with mutual warm wishes.
God bless you, Rabbi!
Jim
>
> read more »
link...@aol.com
May 17, 2012, 11:57:37 AM5/17/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear Herb and Ted,
Here is how Karl Barth relates Gen 1: 28 (procreation and dominion) to
Gen 1:26 and 27 (creation in the image and likeness of God, male and
female, for dominion): "This human activity [blessed procreation and
dominion] is the sign of the genuinely creaturely confrontation in
open differention and joyful fellowship [male and female] which is the
image and likeness of the divine form of life." CD III 1, pp190-191,
chapter 41, part 2, "Creation as the External Basis of Covenant." So,
Ted, Barth would probably split the difference with you here, there is
an also an explicit purpose, but it is not procreation per se, it is
"fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion..." Notice how the
dominion over living creatures in all their explicit differentiation
which can be differently expressed ("fish of the sea etc." compare 26
and 28 ) is directly rooted in God creating humanity in the simple
and sole differentiation of "male and female" (27) according to Gods
image (26,27) That is another point in Barth's favor for seeing the
close link of image of God, and with it, dominion, to humanity as
"male and female."
Jim
> ...
>
> read more »
Here is how Karl Barth relates Gen 1: 28 (procreation and dominion) to
Gen 1:26 and 27 (creation in the image and likeness of God, male and
female, for dominion): "This human activity [blessed procreation and
dominion] is the sign of the genuinely creaturely confrontation in
open differention and joyful fellowship [male and female] which is the
image and likeness of the divine form of life." CD III 1, pp190-191,
chapter 41, part 2, "Creation as the External Basis of Covenant." So,
Ted, Barth would probably split the difference with you here, there is
an also an explicit purpose, but it is not procreation per se, it is
"fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion..." Notice how the
dominion over living creatures in all their explicit differentiation
which can be differently expressed ("fish of the sea etc." compare 26
and 28 ) is directly rooted in God creating humanity in the simple
and sole differentiation of "male and female" (27) according to Gods
image (26,27) That is another point in Barth's favor for seeing the
close link of image of God, and with it, dominion, to humanity as
"male and female."
Jim
>
> read more »
Herb Davis
May 17, 2012, 1:41:04 PM5/17/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Herb Davis
May 17, 2012, 1:50:22 PM5/17/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jim, Sounds like a delightful chat. I would have loved to have listen
to the part about the Red Sea, Virgin birth, and resurrection. I too enjoy
lawyers and they are precise in relationship to language. It is funny I
have this need to judge the pill, marriage, sexuality, Obama, Republicans
but you notice I did qualify my judgment. It must be the result of the Fall
since I know good and evil or think I do. My problem is with people who
don't judge or except you were ever you are and really reject you if where
you are is judging. Thanks Jim, Herb
> read more �
to the part about the Red Sea, Virgin birth, and resurrection. I too enjoy
lawyers and they are precise in relationship to language. It is funny I
have this need to judge the pill, marriage, sexuality, Obama, Republicans
but you notice I did qualify my judgment. It must be the result of the Fall
since I know good and evil or think I do. My problem is with people who
don't judge or except you were ever you are and really reject you if where
you are is judging. Thanks Jim, Herb
Willis E. Elliott
May 19, 2012, 7:32:14 AM5/19/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Dear Jim
Since we agree on "equity" (existential fairness, against
ideological-arithmetic "equality"), it's easier to explain why (in the early
1930s) we had no male word paralleling "dirty" girls (though "wild" was
close). The negative-sanctional word "dirty" was womb-protecting (against
pregnancy), & boys have no womb to protect. But we did have the expression
"dirfy sex," which covered both sexes.
On your second question: girls can no longer get away with lying about a
child's paternity, an instance of science supporting morality & equity.
Your third question - I think correctly - implies that the ease of DNA ident
logically should cause second thoughts about extramarital sex. But
"logically" elicits a smile: logic has little to do with most sexual acts.
Since we agree on "equity" (existential fairness, against
ideological-arithmetic "equality"), it's easier to explain why (in the early
1930s) we had no male word paralleling "dirty" girls (though "wild" was
close). The negative-sanctional word "dirty" was womb-protecting (against
pregnancy), & boys have no womb to protect. But we did have the expression
"dirfy sex," which covered both sexes.
On your second question: girls can no longer get away with lying about a
child's paternity, an instance of science supporting morality & equity.
Your third question - I think correctly - implies that the ease of DNA ident
logically should cause second thoughts about extramarital sex. But
"logically" elicits a smile: logic has little to do with most sexual acts.
link...@aol.com
May 19, 2012, 8:56:34 AM5/19/12
to Confessing Christ Open Forum
Dear,
"Easier," but not, of course, easy to explain the double standards. My
theory would be that the immoral (it is threatening to purity to have
males who disregard the marriage bond) males, (I have heard old songs
using the word "playboy," were they "playboys"?) served to identify
the "dirty girls," the girls who were not trustworthy marriage
prospects, and the males were thus we granted their "dirty sex"
without a linguistic sanction.
You also follow with good points. I would add to that final one that
I am not speaking so much about "logic," (the pill logically helps
trump all remnants of logic in what, as you say, is almost entirely
alogical) as social evolution. The not so subtle shift away from
marriage in our culture, at least among certain populations, could be
a function of the increasing ease and probablity with which paternity
may be established (marriage is no longer the primary means of
guarding the truth of paternity, although a husband is still
presumptively the legal the father of a child born to his wife). Of
course, if a male, like T. Jefferson, has a brother or brothers, or a
living father or son, current technology could point the finger back
to the male's own birth family, which has always been as much, if not
more, of a threat than the milk man (whom we no longer have, but daily
social interaction between males and females is another variable I
will not get into).
Jim
> ...
>
> read more »
"Easier," but not, of course, easy to explain the double standards. My
theory would be that the immoral (it is threatening to purity to have
males who disregard the marriage bond) males, (I have heard old songs
using the word "playboy," were they "playboys"?) served to identify
the "dirty girls," the girls who were not trustworthy marriage
prospects, and the males were thus we granted their "dirty sex"
without a linguistic sanction.
You also follow with good points. I would add to that final one that
I am not speaking so much about "logic," (the pill logically helps
trump all remnants of logic in what, as you say, is almost entirely
alogical) as social evolution. The not so subtle shift away from
marriage in our culture, at least among certain populations, could be
a function of the increasing ease and probablity with which paternity
may be established (marriage is no longer the primary means of
guarding the truth of paternity, although a husband is still
presumptively the legal the father of a child born to his wife). Of
course, if a male, like T. Jefferson, has a brother or brothers, or a
living father or son, current technology could point the finger back
to the male's own birth family, which has always been as much, if not
more, of a threat than the milk man (whom we no longer have, but daily
social interaction between males and females is another variable I
will not get into).
Jim
>
> read more »
Rev. AWKovacs
May 19, 2012, 11:10:44 AM5/19/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com, Kovacs, Rev. Albert W.
Dear Willis:
Before the 30's some terms were: rake, whoremonger or whoremaster,
lecher.
In more modern days another word was: stud.
Gotta go!
Al
Before the 30's some terms were: rake, whoremonger or whoremaster,
lecher.
In more modern days another word was: stud.
Gotta go!
Al
Willis E. Elliott
May 19, 2012, 5:45:34 PM5/19/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
Thanks, Al, for your additions, all of which I am familiar with - but none
were in use in our society (my subculture) in the early '30s.
Also, note that I was talking specifically about the (clean / dirty)
sanction of purity. None of your (properly) defaming words is in that
category.
were in use in our society (my subculture) in the early '30s.
Also, note that I was talking specifically about the (clean / dirty)
sanction of purity. None of your (properly) defaming words is in that
category.
Willis E. Elliott
May 19, 2012, 5:56:19 PM5/19/12
to confessi...@googlegroups.com
On your first paragraph, Jim:
Yes, the males (you might say) are cases of "guilt [here, dirty] by
association." Further: as I said, the offending males are included in the
phrase "dirty sex."
> read more �
Yes, the males (you might say) are cases of "guilt [here, dirty] by
association." Further: as I said, the offending males are included in the
phrase "dirty sex."
Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages