A Lessor Sex?

[Amillia]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 7 2005, 04:25 AM

...ok So basicaly the female objection to being the lesser sex is the way its put. They just dont want to be refeard to as the lessor sex even though their role is the submissive/obedient one.

So then is there a PC (politicaly correct) way of saying "lessor sex"? Because i do understand how that term would be offensive. It does seem rather blunt.

Find me a righteous man and then we'll talk.

[Faerie]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 7 2005, 02:17 PM

Find me a righteous man and then we'll talk.

sorry..i married the last one...haaaa ha ha ha ha

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 7 2005, 03:25 AM

So then is there a PC (politicaly correct) way of saying "lessor sex"?

Uh...No there isn't. Why would you even want to say it? It is not only politically incorrect, it's scientifically, logically, romantically, and morally incorrect as well. (and if you have the slightest inclination of ever getting "laid" again, I suggest you drop it from your vocabulary completely.)

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette@Mar 8 2005, 11:05 AM

(and if you have the slightest inclination of ever getting "laid" again, I suggest you drop it from your vocabulary completely.)

Right on sista!!!

[USNationalist]

<<It is not only politically incorrect, it's scientifically, logically, romantically, and morally incorrect as well>>

-now thats just a ignorant thing to say.

Women- pysicaly inferior to men.

Men- lifespan inferior to women.

Men- higher % of men have top end IQ and Low end IQ (heh) then women. Women are fairly consistant in the middle.

There are somethings i will grant that women have over men (lifespan among them). But aside from things explicit to the sex (child baring)- there is nothing a average women can do that a average man cant, but there is much a man can do that a women can not (or not to the degree that a man can).

And as to your claim it is moraly incorrect- on what biblical baises do you make that claim? Any claim to morality is subjective and lacks any meaningful authority unless God breathed.

Romanticaly- ill give you that. You can have the wishy washy weenie one.

Logicaly- ...pride and bias aside- anyone would come to the conclusion that the women is the "lessor" sex. And only under some severe twisting could the opposite be said- and even equality would be a big stretch.

<<(and if you have the slightest inclination of ever getting "laid" again, I suggest you drop it from your vocabulary completely.)>>

-whats this again buisness? There is no ring on my finger. And no ones going get one on their finger from me if they have your opinions.

[StrawberryFields]

IF this were to be true that men are superior to women the why can not men live without a woman?

It is my opinion that it takes a very good woman behind a successful man.

If a couple are married and the woman dies it won't take long before the man finds a replacement. On the other hand, many women prefer to live alone and never seek another man for companionship. Why can't a man live without a woman when a woman doesn't need a man?

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 10 2005, 07:14 AM

There is no ring on my finger. And no ones going get one on their finger from me if they have your opinions.

I'll be sure to spread the word.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Strawberry Fields@Mar 10 2005, 07:35 AM

It is my opinion that it takes a very good woman behind a successful man.

Or "beside."

[USNationalist]

Strawberry- i have no idea how you got it into your head that living without the opposit sex is something only women do. Have you ever heard of a catholic priest?

Paul teaches us that the reason for marrige is to keep us from sexual immorality. He also teaches that families distract our attention and responsibilities to God (which isnt bad). And so he says to all who don't need to get married to live a moral life- to do so.

Those who marry do good, those who do not do better.

<<It is my opinion that it takes a very good woman behind a successful man.>>

-i tend to agree. I never said women were useless, or anything of that sort. I think a good women isnt a requirement to be a successful man, but that it helps in a very considerable degree.

[Faerie]

oh yes..catholic priests are the epitome of chasteness

[USNationalist]

And mormons are pologamist.

-here here for sterotypes.

[Lindy]

It is my opinion that it takes a very good woman behind a successful man.

i tend to agree. I never said women were useless, or anything of that sort. I think a good women isnt a requirement to be a successful man, but that it helps in a very considerable degree

.You are doing very well digging yourself out of the hole you dug kid!

and I will go out on a line on this one

Paul teaches us that the reason for marrige is to keep us from sexual immorality.

Here ALL this time, I thought it came from higher sources.

**** edited with next statement....

I have to stand up for USN on one point...Not EVERY male has the moral standards of a celebrity, ...and the laws of God actually MEAN something to them. I like knowing that there are young men who respect who and what they believe in.

I'll shut up now.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 11 2005, 07:58 AM

And mormons are pologamist.

-here here for sterotypes.

What a nasty avatar. I never noticed it before.

[USNationalist]

If nasty is code for totaly awesome and hardcore then yes- you are right.

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by Traveler@Mar 3 2005, 09:52 AM

Men and women are created in the image of G-d - how can there be a lesser sex?  I can understand that a dog, or cow is a lessor creation but I do not believe a women is a lesser creation nor do I believe a Christian would even suggest such a thing.

The Traveler

I knew a grand-daughter of Brigham Young, once.

(Does that make me old, I wonder?)

And, she could have told you stories about how those "multiple aunts" of hers felt!

(In that home of theirs!)

Won't say more. It's not "kosher", here!

[Meridiani]

Originally posted by Faerie@Mar 10 2005, 10:41 PM

oh yes..catholic priests are the epitome of chasteness

What's wrong with the word chastity?

(I think you were trying to coin a new word. Yes?)

[Amillia]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 13 2005, 03:50 PM

If nasty is code for totaly awesome and hardcore then yes- you are right.

Hey! I like this one much much much better!!!

[Amillia]

I knew a grand-daughter of Brigham Young, once.

(Does that make me old, I wonder?)

And, she could have told you stories about how those "multiple aunts" of hers felt!

(In that home of theirs!)

Won't say more.  It's not "kosher", here!

Hey my next door neighbor and her cousin accross the street were grand daughters of BY and their family were proud to be call such and I never heard a peep about any unhappy aunts, and I was companions and VT of both over the years. (infact I live on BY land!)

Of course every marriage has days where they would just rather not have the world know the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

I have read my angry journals and thought what would happen if anyone got ahold of them and determined whether or not I was happily married by just what they read ~

I don't keep a happy journal because when I am happy, I don't need a place to vent. I just enjoy my happiness. So I don't believe journals and other such resources of historical figures can do real justice or come to any real totaly truth on the matter.

It is a dangerous road to take historically incomplete recordings and make a case against someone, or some practice through them and them only. Most people don't go around telling everyone how happy they are, but they spend lots and lots of time telling their closest friend about how they are not happy one day or another.

My VT once told me that if it weren't for my telling of my woes, I wouldn't have anything to say ~ I thought about that and decided I wouldn't complain any more because really I was happier than not but my conversations weren't portraying my totally picture.

I think it is true with most people today ~ they mostly tell about the bad things that happen to them ~

Haven't heard many women coming to RS telling about multiple orgasms, but they will tell how their baby kept them up all the night before. It is the nature of the beast when in public.

[USNationalist]

<<Hey! I like this one much much much better!!! >>

-mormon mother told me to change it, so i did.

[StrawberryFields]

Originally posted by USNationalist@Mar 14 2005, 04:32 AM

<<Hey! I like this one much much much better!!! >>

-mormon mother told me to change it, so i did.

Way to go LINDY!

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 13 2005, 11:56 PM

Haven't heard many women coming to RS telling about multiple orgasms, but they will tell how their baby kept them up all the night before. It is the nature of the beast when in public.

I suspect that even a single would have been out of the realm of experience of President Young's wives.

[Amillia]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 14 2005, 01:00 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 14 2005, 01:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Mar 13 2005, 11:56 PM

Haven't heard many women coming to RS telling about multiple orgasms, but they will tell how their baby kept them up all the night before. It is the nature of the beast when in public.

I suspect that even a single would have been out of the realm of experience of President Young's wives.

I don't. I honestly think that they had it pretty cushy back then if they were married to the prophet ~

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by Amillia@Mar 14 2005, 12:33 PM

I honestly think that they had it pretty cushy back then if they were married to the prophet ~

Cushy financially and socially, sure. I just don't think there was much excitement between the sheets. (for the ladies anyway...)

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Originally posted by curvette+Mar 14 2005, 02:51 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (curvette @ Mar 14 2005, 02:51 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Mar 14 2005, 12:33 PM

I honestly think that they had it pretty cushy back then if they were married to the prophet ~

Cushy financially and socially, sure. I just don't think there was much excitement between the sheets. (for the ladies anyway...)

I imagine being one of Joseph Smith's plural wives would have enjoyed things more. Charismatic founders are traditionally better in the sack than businesslike administrators.

Although I dunno -- Brigham Young was a larger-than-life figure, playing a mythic role and bending the West to his will. Chicks dig that kind of Nietzschean uber-figure.

[Guest curvette]

Originally posted by TheProudDuck@Mar 14 2005, 03:22 PM

Chicks dig that kind of Nietzschean uber-figure.

It was his attitude. He didn't like women. I can't imagine him trying to please them in any way, shape or form. I imagine the type that "dug" him would have been the ones looking for prestige and security--not the ones looking for excitement or romance.