posted
Bev - I am _so_ not going to try and explain that one.
Mph-
You're welcome.
Before any religion we recognize today? How spiritual were the first primitives as they figured out how to walk upright? Until they could form the concept of "god?" Unless, of course, you literally subscribe to Creationism, at which point yes -we can move on.
Yes - by comparison, the male component, ego notwithstanding, is still about five minutes. But you see the parallel between expendable and not.
posted
Yes, I do believe in a literal interpretation of Genesis 1. There's much there open for interpretation (for example, I don't believe the days mentioned in that chapter were 24 of our hours), but I do believe that there was an Adam and Eve who were the first man and woman. I believe that they spoke with and worshiped God and taught their children to worship Him as well.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
Sexual impurity may be a very common reason why the man is denied the priesthood, but it certainly isn't the only one.
Drinking alcohol, smoking, or illegal drug use would make a man unworthy.
Doing the kinds of things that would get him in juvenile detention or jail would make a man unworthy.
There are other cases where someone could be worthy but still not recieve the priesthood, and that would be if they were mentally disabled to the point where they couldn't understand what the priesthood was.
LMA -
On the attitude some expressed about college education, I find that very wrong. If it were so, why does BYU even bother admitting women? Why are young women constantly taught to get an education?
Beverly also made a great point about there being seasons in a woman's life. I think that is very true.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
There are also some men that would be found worthy for the priesthood by their bishop, but that don't feel ready for the it yet, and so decide to wait.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
No matter how the season's change, the male voices remain the same. Calm, rational, to the point with accumen. N'er swaying from the dictatious role.
quote: I really don't understand why anybody would get upset about what another church does. Unless you belong to that church, what do you care? Take, for example, the case of the gay Episcopalian bishop. Why should I care if they allow or don't allow gay bishops? It's not my church.
Indeed, why should you care what anyone or any organization does? It's not you or yours....
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The thing I find strange about this discussion is that it's happening here. Or rather, that it's not happening anywhere I am (physically).
The most obvious example happened while I was at Harding. For one assignment in one of my honors classes, I wrote a paper on exactly this subject, taking the feminist side. The prof gave me a good smacking-down for not thoroughly investigating one of my authors, but more important was the reaction of my classmates. Several of the guys took my side, but all of the young ladies except one thought the idea was ridiculous--why would they want to be in positions of authority? They had more than enough to do as it was. More than that, almost all of them were from congregations considerably more liberal than mine (therefore more likely to be in favor).
Since then, I've encountered much the same reaction everywhere, except online. Possibly one or two women in favor of women in positions of authority, all the others against.
I suppose it is possible that the differences in our churches' authority structures account for part of this, but still it seems downright strange to me.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Why should I care? Perhaps it's a knee jerk reaction... Thinks like that make me want to avoid organized religion like a plague. Take people who might claim FGM is a religious practice (Though, Mahammed never said anything about it, I supposed there are some Christians that practice it too) Why should it bother me if I don't have to go through it or a daughter of mine? I don't know... It just DOES... Exclusion of any kind bothers me. I hate golf, but I'd get annoyed at a Country club for excluding people..
As for those annoying people LMA, dang, they suck! This isn't the 50s! Why shouldn't a woman who wants to be a housewife go to college? Education is for everyone who wants it...
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Syn hit the nail on the head - especially if FGM means what I think it means.
It's not my daughter, nor my <insert noun here>, so why should I care?
I can still have an opinion on the practice itself, although as I have ranted before, I don't feel I have the right to inflict my opinions on anyone else.
Although, if those practices threaten me or mine or move to a point where they could, I might get a teeny bit antsy.
posted
Synestasia -- you just used two acronyms that I don't know: FGM (Farm Girls' Mother?) and LMA (part of ROFLMAO? ). Could you please tell me what those are so that I know what you are saying? 'Cause right now I have no idea.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Just had to get this out of the way this morning:
quote: No matter how the season's change, the male voices remain the same. Calm, rational, to the point with accumen
When I was a teenager, I was of the very strong belief that male teenagers were extremely irrational, especially when it came to girls. I'm not quite sure what gave me that impression, maybe it was the guy that broke into my house when he found I was home alone. Or the other guy that came very close to stalking me.
Luckily for men, I figured these were extreme examples of irrationality and not the norm. I could point to other, typically male, irrationality, like refusing to read instructions. But us females have our own little quirks, like asking a guy if he thinks she is fat. Not everyone does these kinds of things, but enough to establish a stereotype.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
And yet we mutilate the genitalia of males all the time.
Interesting double standard.
FMG is not as clear cut as you might think. Often it is just a little slit in the skin covering the clitoris. This is less traumatic than circumcision, which most Christians and LDS practice even though it has no religious significance for them whatsoever and only very, very rarely is medically necessary.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:And yet we mutilate the genitalia of males all the time.
Interesting double standard.
FMG is not as clear cut as you might think. Often it is just a little slit in the skin covering the clitoris. This is less traumatic than circumcision, which most Christians and LDS practice even though it has no religious significance for them whatsoever and only very, very rarely is medically necessary.
Can you please please please give us something to back this up, considering what really happens is quite different than your explanation?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
All I'm saying is we shouldn't be so quick to judge. I'm not saying that the horrible things like removal of the clitoris don't happen. Just that we need to be aware of all the details.
And the foreskin of men is also very sensitive and I think it is fairly barbaric to cut it off just so he can be like daddy.
I got my information a few years ago, but I don't think it is suddenly different. I'll go dig up some things for you.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I sort of agree with that, Amka... I read a bit about circumsism and I don't see the nessasity of it outside of religious beliefs... But worse is infibrulation. That's what I'm talking about.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
This site gives a very balanced view of the practice, and supports my point that often it is no worse than what we do to most males in this nation. Again, I'm not condoning FMG. I'm just asking us to take a look at our own practices as well.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
When our son was born, I struggled with whether or not we should circumcise him. I think I took the easiest path because of fear of the unknown. Five years later, I still don't know what I think about it.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What is the significance of circumcision to the Jews? Do they consider it wrong that the practice is fairly widespread in the Gentile world? Is there a female version of circumcision in Jewish culture?
Posts: 5957 | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:All I'm saying is we shouldn't be so quick to judge. I'm not saying that the horrible things like removal of the clitoris don't happen. Just that we need to be aware of all the details.
No, that's not all you were saying. You were saying that female circumcision was not as horrible as people think. This link disagrees with that claim, putting all female circumcisions under the removal of either the clitoris alone or both the clitoris and labia inside of Africa. In other nations, clitoridectomy seems the most prevalent, depending on where you go. Your claim was, in the least, highly offensive misinformation.
quote:And the foreskin of men is also very sensitive and I think it is fairly barbaric to cut it off just so he can be like daddy.
Not the same thing, and now you are trying to equate two very different parts of the body. They work totally different, with nerve clusters being in completely different areas relatively between men and women.
quote:This site gives a very balanced view of the practice, and supports my point that often it is no worse than what we do to most males in this nation. Again, I'm not condoning FMG. I'm just asking us to take a look at our own practices as well.
It does not support your view that it is not as bad as one may think. In both my first link and in this link, the reality is much more clear.
Men are not rendered incapable of achieving orgasm from circumcision, while the majority of FGM renders the woman practically incapable of any orgasm. I'm rather appalled that you are equating the two as if they were the same thing.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:According to the World Health Organization, the most common type of female genital mutilation is excision of the clitoris and the labia minora, accounting for up to 80% of all cases: the most extreme form is infibulation, which constitutes about 15% of all procedures.
posted
Claudia, at present there is a huge amount of disagreement in churches of Christ over whether or not female participation in religious affairs is appropriate and, if so, at what level. The "official" policy has not changed, but many people with considerable influence are agitating for change. I expected to find a considerable amount of that disagreement present at Harding, especially after learning that many of my honors classmates held very different views from mine on a variety of subjects--instead I found near-uniformity.
Posts: 1114 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
Even beyond things impacting you 'directly' now, you can expect the values or ideals inculcated in an organized religion to often have an effect on politics and to show up in law later, which definitely effects you directly. The idea that people who aren't in a particular religion shouldn't be concerned what happens in that religion is silly, imho.
Religious organizations are a part of society. They aren't a society unto themselves. As such, they are just as subject to peer pressure and the opinions of their fellow citizens as anything else. If something that organization does strikes the rest of the populace as 'wrong', then why on earth shouldn't the citizenry step in and stop it? They would if it were an individual,what's so special about a religious organization that puts it above the law or the opinions of its peers?
Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
I've read the amnesty reports on FGM. I find it interesting that they state the ceremonial practices which are sometimes just the cutting of the pubic hair, but do not address that. In addressing the outcomes, they only address the worst ones and leave you thinking those are what usually happens. They also lump removal of the clitoris and cutting of the prepuce together, muddling the statistics.
Once again, let me state that I'm not condoning it at all. I'm not downplaying it. I'm just saying we can't play the double standard here.
posted
Again, I'm saying they group removal of the prepuce with excision of the clitoris, muddying up their statistics.
Posts: 438 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Claudia, at present there is a huge amount of disagreement in churches of Christ over whether or not female participation in religious affairs is appropriate and, if so, at what level. The "official" policy has not changed, but many people with considerable influence are agitating for change. I expected to find a considerable amount of that disagreement present at Harding, especially after learning that many of my honors classmates held very different views from mine on a variety of subjects--instead I found near-uniformity.
Have you given any thought to the possibility that the women who disagree with the added responsibility are also assuming that they would still be required all of the former responsibilities on top of it, or that they could have the same sets of responsibilities as men?
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:Again, I'm saying they group removal of the prepuce with excision of the clitoris, muddying up their statistics.
Yet you have no problem muddying things by comparing it to circumcision, which is a totally different process affecting different things? Hey pot, meet kettle.
And in case you didn't read those links, as well as the quote I used in the last one, let me make it clear: the majority of FGM that occurs includes complete removal of the clitoris.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: In addressing the outcomes, they only address the worst ones and leave you thinking those are what usually happens. They also lump removal of the clitoris and cutting of the prepuce together, muddling the statistics.
I don't see support for this in your links. Can you quote the relevant portions with link, please? Posts: 13123 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I've given nine links, most of which have relevant statistics showing the average use of different methods. Amka is intentionally misleading people with her statements, when the information is readily available out there to contradict her claims.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Saxon - your point is completely valid. However, it's the half-way point I am willing to make. There are religious people like Bev and Mr. Head who don't make me sleep with a gun nearby and a dog in the front yard.
There are some who do.
But I cannot in good conscience proactively move against people or organizations for what they _might_ do.
posted
Amka - I have to admit, your commentary is the first to <edited>.
I was circumcised at birth, so I can't tell you what sex was like before and after the cutting. If I could have been asked, I'd say leave it on - it can always come off later.
That being said, my genetalia is fully functional and I do enjoy sex. Maybe not as much as I might have otherwise - I honestly don't know.
But, the savagery and mysoginistic practice of cutting off or simply mutilating a girl's genitalia is abhorrent. Why? To ensure her fidelity? So...we're saying all women are whores and sluts and can't be trusted beyond the sight of their male masters?
You can make an argument for circumcision as a hygiene issue - although the extra thirty seconds it takes to pull the foreskin back and clean is not a big deal, but at least it's a reason.
Unless there is a personal hygiene issue that I am unaware of, you can't make a similar case for Female Genital Mutilation.
And it's hardly a double standard - girls may or may not volunteer to undergo this procedure, but I've yet to hear about a boy being held down by his family while they took a broken bottle to his genitals.
As Jutsa has pointed out, two entirely different things. Getting an ear pierced is a far cry from a Prince Albert. Technically, yes - they are both body piercings. However, the issues pertaining to both are so radically different as to make them seperate considerations.
posted
I don't feel comfortable with male circumcision. I find it pretty barbaric. I can understand people who do it for religious reasons but otherwise I see it as exactly the same phenomenon as female genital mutilation, just not quite as bad. It is like foot-binding in ancient Chinese culture, or the neck and lip rings of some African cultures.
Why not let the kids grow up and decide for themselves? Why cut them before they are even old enough to consent? I find it appalling. I would never do it to my sons.
After all, when they get to be teenagers they can start with the tattoos and piercings. <laughs> Let them make their own choices about self-mutilation.
Posts: 2843 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!
| IP: Logged |
posted
My guess is that no sane male would ever choose to do so, at least not without getting put under. Females just don't understand at times exactly how sensitive that area is.
And that is why it is done when a person is a child, if not for religious reasons. There is not much chance of residue trama. For instance, how many males remember the process? My guess is very few.
Posts: 2207 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: What is the significance of circumcision to the Jews? Do they consider it wrong that the practice is fairly widespread in the Gentile world? Is there a female version of circumcision in Jewish culture?
posted
Somewhere I read that Victorians used circumcism to prevent masturbation in males. Some of them also used FGM for the same purpose.
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Can you prove such a ridiculous statement, or is that just your idea of rhetoric?
