Fiannan

Elphaba, there is no way I am going to trust a bureaucrat to ínterpret and apply a law to start sex ed for preschoolers. I really don't want Heather Has Two Mommies on the schedule for reading time for the kids.

Okay Elphaba, one area I am going to contend with you, and the other (surprise!) I am going to side with you. First, you say ideas of Freud and Jung (how about Adler?) are not used anymore in psychology. That is just not true. Just open a book up on pre-schooler development -- you'll find many of them refer to stages of development that actually corespond to Freud's stages (or incorporate Eriksson's which merely expanded upon Freud). As this link wil show in a very general manner: http://www.webrenovators.com/psych/Psychoa...lPsychology.htm Freud's research is still part of the field of psychology and is very strong. Yes, his theories tended to go off in strange directions at times (the Totem Theory on the evolution of religion which seems to have heavily influenced the movie "The Island of Dr. Moreau") but still the core of his research and ideas do ring true. Are you prepared to say that modern research on juvenile crime is wrong when it presents the idea that a father figure missing in a male's life is heavily detrimental to a boy? Is it not true that girls from homes where no father is present are more likely to engage in promiscuous behavior at a young age? Why is it that many women from bad homes with abusive fathers wind up marrying men who are abusive yet if he repents and "finds God" and starts to treat her right she leaves him and is shacking up with an abusive man within a year? Freud's theories on how we develop social attachments, images of the ideal life mate and introjection and identification of positive morals makes a lot more sense than even social learning theory and certainly more insights that can be applied to the real world than behaviorism. So maybe some people resent Freud because he isn't politically correct. Maybe his view that no matter how many laws you pass gender roles will remain strong in the future or that the only successful marriage you'll have is if the wife displays the components of mother, lover and sister just irks feminists too much. Doesn't matter, if his views are right then they are right -- the only problem is sifting through his ideas and choosing which make sense. On the issue of single motherhood...well, if a 38 year old single LDS woman who goes into a sperm bank and gets pregnant she will not get in trouble. If an LDS man contributes sperm for insemination of women going into such a facility he will not get in trouble. The official stand of the church is that they discourage single women from getting babies this way but it's their decision. My view is that if I were a woman who had no marriage prospects and was reaching my late 30s and wanted children I would go for it. Better to have a family that way than spend 4 or 5 more decades regretting the decision not to. Now my view is that the ideal family has a father in it but if that is not possible, and the woman is not a crack lady or on public assistance and preferably is educated, then why not get a family that way? Some say, that she should adopt -- uh, hello...she'd still be a single mom. So let her get babies of her own. She is not sinning by doing this and she is following the commandment to multiply and replenish the world -- and if she is an active LDS woman all the better. Now someone is going to accuse me of contradicting myself for saying that single motherhood tends to be associated with some negative behaviors with children yet I say that it is a better option for an older woman than losing the opportunity to have kids. Note, I think that if such a woman has good values and has a good education (and an extended family) many of the bad things will not be as likely to occur. Perhaps the child's father figure will be a grandfather or uncle (as long as one is there that might ward off some of the problems). And of course there's a big difference between a trailer lady or a crack mamma having kids without a father and an educated, religious mid-30s woman who loves kids and wants to bring them up with good values going to a sperm bank.

Okay, before I do this I want advice. For this summer break I have several teens who have been playing X-Box until like 2 or 3 in the morning, then they sleep in and then seem to have a bad attitude during the day. The younger kids are also getting consumed by the games. Now I especially want the little ones off but I know that if I take the X-Box and pack it away for a couple of weeks until school starts and people budget their time better then teens are going to scream this is unfair and they should be the ones to decide what they do with games and the like. Of course I have asked them to head to bed by midnight but that doesn't happen. What would you do then?

Spot on, Ben!!!!Personally, I couldn't care less what a man looks like, what he drives or what he does for a living!! I am only interested in his heart and his relationship with the Lord...I want someone who will treat me with love and respect, This is someone that I could feel safe being sealed for all time and eternity with...nobody else will be good enough for me!!! Yet do you believe the average girl raised in "Happy Valley", attending the local young adult singles ward, has the same attitude? Because if they don't, I'll bet the general US population doesn't either.

I did not say numerical differences were the issue -- the issue is desire to marry and have kids. I think I'd like to see the methodology used for this as well as the contect of the study. Ah, but many women do not feel comfortable with cruising singles bars for a baby maker (kinda brings up images of the movie "Species") nor wanting to go to a sperm bank for a baby. Most want someone with them to raise children. Also, I dealt with the genetics thing when responding to John Doe. I do see one problem though. I watched a documentary about a Mormon doctor who was one of the foremost genetics experts who, unknown to his patients requesting sperm, used his own rather than unknown doners (making about 70 babies). Now the guy was a genius but maybe some people didn't like the idea that he was overweight or had bad eyesight. So let's say one man with some bad characteristics does take 10 wives -- those traits are greatly amplified in a small community. Then again, there is nothing to say that these ten women would marry anyone any better off genetically. So... Thing is, most women would probably not go for polygamy (as our opossite sex parent is our focal point in development of wanting a mate we generally don't like to share). However, there are many who would either settle for it if they fell for a guy who was already married or would actually be attracted to the lifestyle. So even if these women were occupied in marriages (and they only were like 5% of the fertile female population) the supply of women would drop and the competition would go up for the available women. So just like some have speculated that the oversupply of men in China will allow women more freedom and status, and allow them to choose the best and ignore the rest, and that the general IQ of the population will also go up. So maybe polygamy would not only serve to increase lagging birthrates but benefit even women not wanting to share a husband -- and improve genetic health.

Let's get this straight. You actually think that people more inclined to be polygamist are more intelligent than the rest of the general population? How do you arrive at that conclusion? Do you have any scientific studies to back this up? As for more religious, I would disagree. I would restate it to 'they are more fanatical about certain religious concepts'. They use religion to justify their nuttiness. And believe me, the gene pool in Colorado City has not been good. I have never heard anyone point to them and declare how impressed they are with their intelligence or genitic purity. I can see how polygamy might be used as a short-term solution to a long-term problem, but I don't see its benefits past 2-3 generations, and if it were to work, the polygamists would necessarily need to be part of a larger, non-polygamist society which accepts the practice. I believe the Lord instituted polygamy among the Saints and then removed it from the earth again for a multitude of reasons, all of which were for our own good and for the good of His church. And while we may not know or understand all those reasons, it is good enough for me to have faith that He knew what He was doing when he commanded it. Actually yes. I have generally found people who buck the mainstream and attack conventional norms are more intelligent than the average Joe. Yes, they may possess certain personality traits (more introspective in the Jungian sense) and may even appear somewhat weird but nevertheless those who have the trait of following the norms of a society just because they are the norms are usually far less bright than people who question the norms. That's why I suspect that the majority of polygamists would come from a more intellectual stock and, due to the fact that most would probably not be rich they would have to possess traits such as charisma and intellect that would attract women to also break from the norm. No, perhaps some communities are not rocket scientists but it is my suspicion that this is more due to environment than genetic potential. The people in places like Colorado city are probably (from a gynotype perspective) as bright or brighter than the surrounding population. Also, from what I have understood from reading about what I call freelance polygamists, those who may be LDS but later form their own family group, these guys were research freaks who just feel that the mainstream church has gone astray. I don't agree with them but I can see where it takes a certain type of person to go that route -- and they aren't inactives or gullible morons.

If you're going to mention Obama's political positions it would be nice if kept them in context. Regarding invading Pakistan, here is the gist of his position: “If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won’t act,” Barack Obama said today, “we will.” So it's not as if Obama's going to rush into a war with Pakistan. As far as sex education in kindergarten, again, context. According to Obama campaign spokeswoman Jen Psaki :"Barack Obama supports sensible, community-driven education for children because, among other things, he believes it could help protect them from pedophiles. A child's knowledge of the difference between appropriate and inappropriate touching is crucial to keeping them safe from predators." This is what Obama had to say: “We have an existing law that mandates sex education in the schools. We want to make sure that it's medically accurate and age-appropriate. “Now, I'll give you an example, because I have a six-year-old daughter and a three-year-old daughter, and one of the things my wife and I talked to our daughters about is the possibility of somebody touching them inappropriately, and what that might mean. “And that was included specifically in the law, so that kindergarteners are able to exercise some possible protection against abuse, because I have family members as well as friends who suffered abuse at that age. So, that's the kind of stuff that I was talking about in that piece of legislation. “ ---------------- You make it sound as if Obama is suggesting we pass out birth control to kindergarteners. Nothing could be further from the truth. He just wants to educate them about inappropriate touching, and I support that. Elphaba Hey, why not invade Pakistan and make their pro-western leader look like a fool? Nothing like a civil war in a nation barely held together through tribal alliances -- oh, and with nukes as well. Good thinking! And so all the preschoolers will learn about is about touching? Think that's as far as the bureaucrats would take such federal measures? Again, sure thing.

Polygamy actually has a negative impact on childbearing. The birth rate is higher when a man is married to one wife. He can have relations with her more often than a husband with many wives can, and therefore can impregnate her more often. A woman can only carry one child at a time, whether she is the only wife or one man or one of many wives. So it is not true that polygamy creates a higher birth rate. Shan, you forgot to mention lesbians. You know how Fiannin is obssessed with lesbians. (J/K Fiannin) Elphaba Yeah right! I'll discuss the issues first though. Polygamy in a society that had an equal number of men and women desiring marriage and family would have zero impact on births. But in a society that has many single women and few statistical prospects for marriage then polygamy would have a positive impact. In my observations on the mini and macro societal aspects of childbearing it seems that there are more women out there wanting to settle down and have kids than there are men (especially desirable males). Then if you consider that about 3 - 4 percent of males are either homosexual or predominantly homosexual (and that only 1 - 2% of the female population is lesbian) then while that doesn't seem much it leaves millions of surplus women of fertile age in America and probably more in Europe. Also, the people who would become polygamist would probably be kinda out of the main cultural norms anyway, probably more intelligent and probably more religious. Might do good for the overall genetic quality of the population of any nation if these people produced a higher percentage of the next gene pool. As for the lesbian thing, sorry...I don't even listen to Howard Stern nor do I even watch The L Word series. But hey, just remember, polygamy would certainly help out all the bi women in this society who have a hard time choosing which way to go (why bother choosing?).

Didn't Hillary sell her stock in WalMart just recently?

I guess that could explain how Barak Obama was able to woo and marry Michelle Obama, who is an exceptionally accomplished woman. We would be very lucky to have her as our First Lady. Elphaba So Steve Irkle look-alikes can get pretty women as well! However, I'd rather have Mrs. Putin as our First Lady than Obama's wife -- nothing personal about her, just her husband is way too liberal and kinda kookie (invade Pakistan???? Sex education for pre-schoolers????). And I certainly would not like Bill Clinton to be our first lady. However, if he were, and was still making it with younger, more attractive and probably nicer women than Hillary, would that make him a virtual lesbian?

Absolutely -- his talks were quite intellectual.

Glenn Beck 5 part series on radical Islam. Really interesting! http://www.youtube.com/results?search_quer...k+radical+islam

Hey, anytime Shanstress -- my friends and I tease each other all the time.:) I read somewhere that since communism fell Russians are more into nudism than Germans so I guess that would not be a problem and Russian women are generally highly attractive.:) The Turkish sultans used to send raiding parties into Russia to acquire female concubines because of attractiveness so if the church comes back with polygamy...:) I know one poster here who is going to really go bonkers if she reads this thread now. Hope the humor level is high today.

Here's an excellent commentary on this issue that I hope gets wide reading: http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=21849

I would disagree. You need a much higher population than Russia has in order to exploit the resources of the country and develop the infrastructure. Also, an aging population will be a disaster for them unless they get more babies being made.

Guess there are always exceptions I suppose but it does explain how Dennis Kunincich wound up with this woman who is more than 30 years younger. Or how many women go ape over this guy

Interesting study -- just seems to replicate others I have read: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070808/wl_uk...en_070808122024 Okay, boyish looks coupled with being older, being healthy and having thinner facial features... Confirms what my family history charts seem to indicate as well!

Is that in reference to Christians who are into Mozart or those who are into the Rolling Stones? But seriously, here's a quci and simple reference from a Jewish perspective, and since Christianity is merely a formn of Judaism... http://en.allexperts.com/q/Orthodox-Judais...stence-Soul.htm

The Duma in Russia is considering proposals to lay heavy taxes on people who are at a certain age and don't have kids yet (I think 25 years or so). Russia recently adopted the Swedish-style program of maternity care (80% pay and 1.5 years off at the birth of a child). One would hope that the Russiasn would pump some of that oil money into building larger apartment/housing units for families since most people live in small apartments built during the communist age. Some in the Duma have called for recognizing polygamy but it is doubtful at this time it will be considered, although it could have a positive impact on childbearing. If nationalism can grow and flourish in Russia within the young then perhaps that will also have a positive impact on births. Let's wish them success.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Manzere manzere: A garment that is worn by men to support an abnormaly large chest. Information No way I am clicking that link. I just assume it is something for the modern American and British male in the whole obesity epidemic.

I am confused -- do you mean that Putin's youth organization is like the ones promoted by Stalin?

I have to agree. As long as you aren't threatening one of your children then why not use every means to encourage them to go for a temple wedding rather than a civil one? The marriage for time and eternity is so special that it should be held in a special place. And while it may hurt some people when they cannot attend the actual wedding from what I have observed in my life the vast majority understand and respect the decisions of their kids.

are they just in their bras and if they are what are you - a voyeur? Typical male attitude in my opinion! There is NO circulatory effects unless the stupid woman is wearing a bra that is sizes too small! What circulation do you actually think is getting cut off? If it is the shoulder straps then the bra is TOO SMALL. If it is the gouges around the body, then the bra is TOO SMALL. I am a 46 DDD. I went to a professional fitter to ensure that I got the right size, now I can now go to nearly any store that sells bras in my size and get one. I don't have any constriction. Never did have any constriction in the past - just no support. Fiannan, really, don't you think it is time you got your head/mind out of the lingerie department, nudist camps, naked women, or in other words: carnel thoughts and delved more deeply into the scriptures? Sorry, the only time I see women in bras (besides my wife who I might add hates the things) is at the beach, women working in their gardens in my neighborhood or when I take my kids to the local playground (well, a few of the women on hot days). Oh, and just to let you know they generally are wearing either shorts, bikini bottoms or lingerie on their bottoms. And like I said, this post was actually to get people to talk about all the aspects of cancer prevention -- especially brast cancer. Not my fault people are letting their pent up repressed libidos get focused on this topic of underwear. Also, I hate to break it to people but in the 1800s in England much of the Bible was not discussed due to its sexual nature. Now as for scriptures I really can say that you can barely open up a passage in the Bible and not find references to uncomfortable aspects of sexuality. As of late the entire topic of the sex life of Jesus has been totally taboo (his marriage(s) and possible children) because people are uncomfortable with attributing sexual characteristics towards Jesus (as much as they are towards thinking about their parents). People are really into discussing polygamy because it centers on sexuality (many of the philosophers of early Christiandom were probably either sexually disturbed or homosexual and felt one wife was hard enough to contemplate much less several). Sex and nudity is a central theme of the Book of Ester, reproduction is strongly encouraged throughout the Bible and, well, if one wants to call discussions of sexuality being something that is carnal (it isn't if one has the morality encouraged in the scriptures) then so be it.

The aticle seems to say that caffeine if in sun protection lotion (applied to the skin) seems to be effective in getting rid of cancers in the skin -- doesn't seem to imply that you get protection from drinking coffee. Also in the article... The aticles I originally mentioned (except perhaps the one on vra use and cancer) indicate proven methods of reducing the risk of cancer. The most obvious, for women, is having children. For each and every child you have (and better if you breastfeed) you reduce your risk of breast and uterine cancer. The reason white career women with high status jobs, lesbians and nuns have high rates of cancer is due to lack of childbearing. Exercise is a great way to reduce the risk of a host of cancers in men and women and sunlight (while too much can cause basel cell carcenoma) has been increasingly shown to reduce cancers and degenerative bone disorders. As for some people getting all freaky about the bra thing I have to say that I see a lot of women in bras and for the ones with ample endowments I still have to wonder about the circulatory effects.

Ah ha, a discussion about hopw to avoid breast cancer turns into a discussion about nudity. Interesting. Then again, if sun exposure reduces the risk of breast cancer (and I have read that it also is associated with the reduction of certain skin cancers and colon cancer) then I suppose as long as you are naked and in the sun...