First of all, that's just wrong. This man gives you trips to Paris. And an even bigger sacrifice, he picks you up at LAX, just to be nice, and this is how you return the courtesy? That's just wrong.

Also, I'm going to steal "strugglingest year", but you won't be given credit. (My contenders are '82 and '91, and thanks for asking.)

Don't you understand? He loves it, and I love it. I'd do anything for him, and carry multiple bags of groceries when I'm on my own, but it's fun playing these roles.

P.S. Consider it a gift. You deserve it, even if you did get pissy about who carries the groceries in the Alkon/Sutter dyad.

P.P.S. Gregg also wears the pants, as he'd look pretty silly in the vintage Halston evening dress I wore (as daywear) to accompany him to a screening he had to go to Monday night.

Yes, we all have our roles.

Oh yeah, and '93 really sucked. And thanks for asking.

Kierra you go girl!

That councillor was putting on such an act at the council meeting. It looked and sounded like a bad rap song.

Wow, that women is so full of herself! She's so ghetto I can't believe it.

Ouch.

Awesome.

Connyers exhibits new heights of arrogance. Seriously, this video is shot (presumably) days or weeks after the incident, giving her an easy outlet to apologize and she still can't acknowledge her bad behavior. In front of children!

She needs some PR help.

I think, to make this right, Ms. Connyers needs to look directly at the camera and say, "I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader."

"I am NOT smarter than a 5th grader."

Is Budapest in Paris? Wait, is Paris a country?

I agree with what the young lady was trying to say - adults, in a position like Ms. Conyers's, are held to a higher standard.

Certainly we're all human and subject to acting out of sorts when we're frustrated we must rise above and not act childish. Such childish behavior creates hostility between people who should be working in unison.

Maybe the council president was acting rudely, but playing a game of "top that" isn't going to get him to stop. It's going to add fuel to his fire. I was very impressed with that young woman.

I agree with what the young lady was trying to say - adults, in a position like Ms. Conyers's, are held to a higher standard.

So do I - and she called Ms. Conyers right out on the "do as I say, not as I do" aspect. Keira told her "you're an adult". That does not excuse her behavior. Does anyone know if she's apoligized yet to the council president? I'm betting not.

I read a transcript of this, but the live video does it even better. Between people like Conyers and the mayor, is anyone shocked at how poorly things are going in Detroit. Well done by the young woman.

I have to say, though, that the Detroit News reporter seems like a tool.

Gretchen, I'm not so sure that the council president was being rude. He was obviously getting peeved because he had the floor and he was trying to speak and was essentially being disregarded and talked over by someone who would not shut up. There is a reason for rules such as having the floor in such bodies because if you didn't have them, everyone would just be shouting over each other all the time. But I really couldn't hear exactly what he said so he might have said something rude.

Toubrouk used exactly the right word here, "Ghetto". That could be Detroits theme word. Detroit used to be one of the most industrious, populated, thriving cities in the midwest. I grew up there in the sixties during the heyday of Motown. It was awesome. Now, they hardly have any rush hour traffic at all, because not that many people work anymore. It has all changed because of the peoples embrace of ghettoism. They like it. Race politics rules in Detroit. Michigan itself is a petri dish expriment of what happens when one party takes over and the other party has little or no power whatsover. It is descending further and further into economic misery and higher unemployment under socialist Democrat Governor Granholm. Most of the Michigan legislature is much like the arrogant ignorant ass, Mrs Conyers who really have the intelligence of a potato but run on being the most ghetto in the ghetto and succeed in getting elected like that. I weep for Michigan.

By the way, I would bet that if you were to meet Kierra's family, you would find two very good, conciencious parents. She showed far more maturity and sense of decorum than the coucilwoman. Kids learn that kind of respect for others from great parenting, they don't get it from the ghetto.

She showed far more maturity and sense of decorum than the coucilwoman. Kids learn that kind of respect for others from great parenting

Agree. Behind every well-behaved kid is at least one (and usually two) parents who love 'em enough to teach them about how respect is given and earned.

That kid really called it. The council woman is an adult, and should understand the rules of behaviour in a council meeting. Just another example of people not taking any responsibility for their actions. Very sad.

Damn. Couldn't watch it at work and now I come home to find they've pulled the video.

You can see it here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TvgtGlcdTE

Hmmm. Jeremiah Wright:

• He's cozy with Quadaffi.
• In a kind of reverse minstrel show, publicly mocked how white people talk.
• "God damn America."
• "Hillary 'aint no nigger."
• "Racism is how this country was founded."
• "In comparing African-American children and European-American children, we were comparing apples and rocks."
• "We're the same as al-Qaeda."
• "The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied."

Uh huh. Just like the Wolf Tones. Peggy Noonan is on drugs.

Krauthammer's take on Obama's recent excision of Wright:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/01/AR2008050102900.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Guess it's time to disown Granny, if Obama's famous Philadelphia "race" speech is to be believed. Of course, the speech was not just believed. It was hailed, celebrated, canonized as the greatest pronouncement on race in America since Lincoln at Cooper Union.

...Obama has now decided that the man he simply could not banish because he had become part of Obama himself is, mirabile dictu, surgically excised.

At a news conference in North Carolina, Obama explained why he finally decided to do the deed. Apparently, Wright's latest comments -- Obama cited three in particular -- were so shockingly "divisive and destructive" that he had to renounce the man, not just the words.

What were Obama's three citations? Wright's claim that AIDS was invented by the U.S. government to commit genocide. His praise of Louis Farrakhan as a great man. And his blaming Sept. 11 on American "terrorism."

But these comments are not new. These were precisely the outrages that prompted the initial furor when the Wright tapes emerged seven weeks ago. Obama decided to cut off Wright not because Wright's words or character or views had suddenly changed. The only thing that changed was the venue in which Wright chose to display them -- live on national TV at the National Press Club. That unfortunate choice destroyed Obama's Philadelphia pretense that this "endless loop" of sermon excerpts being shown on "television sets and YouTube" had been taken out of context.

Krauthammer's take is pretty rough, unless you realize that Obama is a politician who needs to do things for political reasons (i.e., if you aren't a kool-aid drinker who thinks he is the second coming, these things shouldn't shock you).

I thought this recent CBS news poll was informative:

Concerning Rev. Wright's coverage in the media the new poll sites that according to registered voters polled the attention paid has been:

Too Much.....56% Too Little.......5% About Right...34%

I think Noonan is onto something here.

One thing to remember about this, and the only thing that makes wright an issue:

"Tell me who you spend your time with, and I'll tell you who you are."

Consider the nature of Wright's utterances.

These cannot have been new to Mr. Obama.

Which is not to say I think he believes every word of it...but a 20 year relationship with an egotistical, self righteous, antiAmerican, howling bigot, ought to give any sane voter pause at least.

Does anyone know how far (if at all) Wright is connected to the Illinois power brokers behind Obama's climb?

While it is true you can't judge a man by one friend, I think people are failing to look at the BIG picture with Obama. You can discount one little piece of him at a time, but when you look at everything together, you get a real clear picture of who he is.

If you read his book, he goes into great detail about the problems he has with white people. When he first moved to Chicago, the people who he sought out to associate with were radical left wing, anti-American, even marxists and terrorists. (Both he and Hillary were big fans of the marxist Saul Allinsky. She did her thesis on him but Obama was also a big fan.) He activly supported radical left wing political groups in college. His own wife can't speak five sentences without insulting this country.

Then he joined a church that preached Black Liberation Theology. Am I assuming too much to interpet the phrase "Black Liberation Theology" as an ideology that exposes the conflict with and defeat of non-black people? In my personal opinion, BLT is not a real religion, they talk about Jesus, but in their belief, Jesus was a black man who had no use for white people. There still is the same story about the gospels and all that but they see Jesus as being the saviour to black people. At the same time, they preach politics slamming Jews and white devils. And no, you're not going to find that on their website, not now. BLT allows muslims in their church. Why, because there are a lot of paralells between BLT and Islam. They bond in their hatred of Jews and europeans. Obama knew this and he knew it well. He spoke of Rev Wright as his mentor many times. NOBODY has a mentor that they don't know anything about. He sat in that church for twenty years listening to hate speech and first claimed he never heard anything like that. Then when he gets caught, he says, oh yeah, I heard him say a few things that I objected to but I wanted to stay with the church. Now he openly denounces Wright when he figures out that white people are figuring out that he is nothing but a black bigot. Obama is as phoney as they get. He is a radical left wing marxist white and Jew hating bigot and the more people figure that out, the more his numbers tank. That's why a lot of people say he is unelectable. As more and more of this comes out, he will just sink further. I think they are right.

> Krauthammer's take is pretty
> rough, unless you realize that
> Obama is a politician who needs
> to do things for political reasons

I keep rereading that, and don't know what you'd want to say it. Define your terms!

Whaddya mean, "rough"? Is there some judgment call that coulda gone either way, where K chose to be a meany? Is K wrong for noting that these quotations are the same rhetoric, and only the context of their reception has changed? I think K has --in this instance-- been a rocklike, non-reactive observer.

And who doesn't know (or believe) that "Obama is a politician who needs to do things for political reasons"?

I don't see what you're getting at, and fear I disagree anyway. Back when cartoonist Garry Trudeau was young and interesting, he was interviewed in the preface to one of his collections. It was noted that he (in those days) wasn't interested in hobnobbing with the powerful people in Washington, or hearing them make the case for their positions in intimate contexts. Paraphrasing: 'I'm not interested in reading their tea leaves or getting personal insight. I only do post-mortems. I respond to the things they say in public... What could be more fair than that?'

That's how I feel about Obama, and the people he's claimed as his leaders. I don't ever want to bother with triangulating what a candidate says in some intricate, chesslike paradigm of subtle pandering across cultures. Why can't I just hold him accountable for what he says?

Doing so allows me to hate Hillary in good conscience.

Why you'd want to say it

etc

A second plug for the Air France bus, which is both a good value and a pleasant travel experience after tumbling off a crowded red-eye transatlantic flight. When in Paris, I stay at a small hotel in the 12th, overlooking the lakes and rolling green of the Bois de Vincennes. What the neighborhood lacks in savoir faire is more than made up for in better prices and sheer "neighborhoodiness" (i.e., there are few tourists to be found). With the Air France bus, I can jump out at Gare de Lyon and limit my taxi time to a mere 5 to 10 minutes.

And yes, The Paris Blog is a great source for news on arts and events in Paris.

Susan Spano not only lacks curiosity, but also she repeatedly reveals herself to be rather lazy. That's a lousy mix of traits in someone who is assigned to write interesting, informative pieces about the vibrant city in which she lives.

"Lazy," was implied, but thanks for weighing in, too.

The Air France bus is just great. Around the corner from the place I sometimes rent in the 17th, and more comfy and civilized than any taxi. I've also taken it from Gare Montparnasse.

Neo Radical Feminism: The haunting fear that a married woman is giving her husband a blowjob. And worse, in the kitchen. (*)

(*) Actual Marcotte fear, though I can't find her post at the moment, she expressed in a review of a book of marriage tips, one of which suggested heaven forfend, quickies, to help satisfy a partner with raging hormones. And quite literally for Marcotte, two lesbians or gays enjoying oral sex is a radical political act against the man, and a unmarried couple having oral sex is grudgingly okay, but there is a long checklist for the couple to go through to make sure it isn't an oppressive act.

Very good post Amy! Having just turned 25, I can identify with the issue very well. That was a fair bit of personal disclosure for you, no?

Keep up the good work!

I get that most people in their early 20's aren't ready for a serious comittment - but lots of us are, and you should have a little more respect for our relationships.

If you find yourself with someone you love and who loves you at 20, and keep it that way for a long time, you should be considered lucky - not 'stunting your growth' because you don't have a lot of meaningless sex with strangers.

art - you're new around here, aren't you?

Do come back, art, but see Brian's comment above.

And I, of course, recommend quickies:

http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2007/05/a-tale-of-naked.html

Relationships are filled with little tasks that don’t exactly bring a person to screaming orgasm. A man, for example, doesn’t wake up in the middle of the night with some primal longing to bring his girlfriend flowers, rehang her back door, or clean the trap in her sink. Like sex, these things can be expressions of love, but if a guy’s going to lock himself in the bathroom, it’s not going to be with “Bob Vila's Complete Guide to Remodeling Your Home.”

So, couldn’t putting out when you aren’t in the mood be seen as just another expression of love? Joan Sewell, author of I'd Rather Eat Chocolate: Learning to Love My Low Libido, told The Atlantic Monthly, “If you have sex when you don’t desire it, physically desire it, you are going to feel used.” Well, okay, perhaps. But, if a guy rotates a woman’s tires when he doesn’t desire it, physically desire it, does he feel used?

Actually, we all do plenty of things with our bodies that we don’t really feel like; for instance, taking our bodies to work when we have a hangover instead of putting our bodies in front of some greasy hash browns, and then to bed. For women, however, sexual things are supposed to be out of the question. I think the subtext here is not doing things we really don’t feel like if it GIVES A MAN PLEASURE. And no, I’m not advocating rape or anything remotely close to it. And, of course, if you find sex with your husband or boyfriend a horrible chore, you’re in the wrong place. Otherwise, if you’re with a man, and he’s nice to you, and works hard to please you, would it kill you to throw him a quickie?

are you experienced? heh...

we'd be fine if we'd just stick by the biological playbook, but noooooo! we have to go and think about stuff...

The thing I wonder is how much our use of barrier contraception influences the rise of free and not so free love. It is my understanding that a lot of our imprint on each other has to do with the hormonal influences of copulation with each other. Of necessity we are no longer bound entirely to that... so some things change in approach, and we look at experience differently. So, when you have a fling, and protect yourself, what's the connection? Catch is, not protected, is asking for trouble in a loud and clear voice.

Society's catch up scenerio for understanding... does it have one? In countries where contraception is well known and easily practiced, birth rates are below replacement, seems like. It's a conscious decision, that certainly makes sense for an individual, how does it affect everyone else?

The other thing I have yet to see mentioned is the presence of "beer goggles". Drunk people aren't exactly discriminatin'... I wonder how much that plays into the embarassing 5am parting. "oh, what WAS I thinking?" 'don't worry, she's running away faster than you are...'

People tend to think their own personality is universal. The showiest, most outgoing (if not to say arrogant) personalities are thus perceived as normative. This applies especially to the Fucky Years concept... It gets much more and better press than it deserves. The people who were going to be out there chatting with lots of others and building many shallow relationships instead of a few deep ones (whether sexual are not) are of course going to be spreading their ideas far and wide.

As it happens, the happiest, longest marriages I know of are the ones begun pretty early in the game. And while those folks may have been sexually active before that, they weren't exactly promiscuous. They were paying attention to the people they were with and learning fast. They were looking for someone, and they knew them when they showed up.

Fucking isn't an acquired taste, certainly not on the masculine side. Puberty throws the switch and that's that. But extroversion is not some stage of life or glandular condition of maturity. Mouthy, lonely, intrusive people at cocktail parties don't understand this.

Amy, I see where you're going with this. Humans are social animals, and it's through relationships with others that we tend to grow. But our needs for growth are as individual as fingerprints. You can't design courseware or offer bootcamp for this. It's not like the marine corp, where first you run the obstacle course and then you climb the mountain and then you clean the rifle and then you're a marine (or ready to get married).

From what I understand (said the 49-year-old), a great deal of the behavior called "hook-ups" happens to people who are drinking a lot of alcohol. These people are scared as shit of each other.

The men, because it hurts to risk getting shot down; the women, because it hurts to spend these encounters with someone who won't fucking talk to them, let alone phone next week. And people in those years are horrible to each other. They think everyone else in the world is a sibling who has to forgive any transgression.

Did I just say the same thing in each of 15 sentences? Executive Summary:

1.) Yes, a mature approach to intercourse will bring smooth encounters, but...

2.) That's not the same thing as extroversion.

I suspect that the essayist is unfortunately not in a minority. There are just too many people who don't understand that the desire for monogamy is not counter the notion of free "love." Rather it is just another face of it, as is abstinence. Too many people have this inane notion that if you aren't having the casual sex, you are just repressed.

Having the Sex when you don't really want to is just as damaging as actually being repressed. The important thing is to be true to who you are and what you really want. Yes, that is a very cliche, trite sort of sentiment, but it is also very true. Of course in our early twenties, it is not always clear exactly what we really want and our hormones don't help.

Damn Crid. That was really well said.

I like what Crid said too.

I've been one to sleep with guys as soon as I meet them, or a couple days after. I made a mistake in my first such encounter. But I pick them right nowadays, and we tend to treat each other well.

Even the guy I had sex with one hour after I met him (he moved away) taught me alot (he was a Buddhist) especially in terms of how to control my frustration with events I couldnt control and positive thinking among other things. We are very fond of each other I think.

I like to learn things from the people I sleep with.

If sleeping with random men after brief encounters made Marguerite Fields happy, I might say "more power to her." But she clearly is miserable about her failure to have a close relationship with a man that doesn't ONLY involve sex. If this kind of empty promiscuity is the best that the New York Times can identify as "love" in this generation, than I really fear for this generation.

How interesting! I think the work by Justin Garcia is dead on! Hook ups can really mean something else, like a desire for a relationship. And the idea that an increasing amount of time between when one can have kids and actually has kids makes me think of myself who doesn't want to really settle into a marriage with kids any time soon, so why wouldn't I be having hook ups. Do you have any more stuff to read on that... SO COOL!

My college years were about 10 years ago. I am not sure if things have changed or if it was paticular to that college. Many people where hooking up (or some, just trying) with lots of people for the first two years. But the last two, there was well defined couples for the most part. Most all of the people who have settled had done so by 25. I do know some in their 30s who say that they want to settle down and seem unable to. Hooking-up does not seem to have affected things much in the people I know - see no pattern in regards to hookup behaviour and later behaviour.

If Garcia is correct, women maintain the simultaneous desire for long-term relationships and promiscuous sex. If one holds contradictory desires, at least one of them is guaranteed to go unfulfilled. Life will be lived in a perpetual state of frustrated desire. That's not good. It could have long-term emotional consequences.

It has also become unfashionable to note certain facts about male longings and attitudes about sex. In some rather explosive threads, I've noted the male's evolved "slut defense" that lessens the probability of long-term relationships with promiscuous females, even if that promiscuity happened in the past. This "double standard" is well studied and even has a very plausible explanation in evolutionary psychology. To some degree, men will consider a woman's sexual past before and during a relationship. The "fucking 20's" can have effects on a woman's prospects even after that phase has passed.

"The problem was my trying to meet the standards I was "supposed" to have by telling myself I wanted a boyfriend -- because you were supposed to want a boyfriend -- when all I was really ready for was to have a lot of wet, naked fun."

I experienced precisely the same thing in my early 20's, but in the reverse order. What I thought I was "supposed" to want was a lot of wet, naked fun, and what I really wanted was a boyfriend. I kept telling myself over and over to stop being needy, insecure, clingy, to let go, etc., and sometimes what I was really telling myself to do was lower my standards. No matter how many times I kept telling myself not to care, I *did* care. I *hated* sleeping with a guy, knowing full well he wasn't going to call me again. But I was supposed to keep it light, casual, keep my feelings out of it, and somehow have an orgasm? Never worked for me, although I tried.

And I don't very often disagree with you Amy, but I disagree with this: "...lest you get into a serious relationship with somebody before you've really developed into who you're going to be...and lest you stunt your growth in becoming that person."

When do people develop into who they're going to be? I'm a different person than I was ten years ago, and I'll probably be a different person ten years from now. Wouldn't I otherwise just reach an age where I became stuck in my ways and stopped growing? Why would being in a serious relationship stunt that growth? Why must a serious relationship be assumed to act as poison instead of plant food? If you find a fellow thinker to get involved with, they sharpen your insights and expose you to new ideas.

I have seen that when some people get seriously involved with someone, they hibernate with that person and ignore their friends. But sometimes it can work in just the opposite way.

When do people develop into who they're going to be? I'm a different person than I was ten years ago, and I'll probably be a different person ten years from now.

Perhaps, PJ. But I think our core, or the essential part of us, if you will, is unchanging. We can change our thoughts, and our way of dealing with things and people, but there is that part of us deep down inside that stays the same, no matter what. Our inner strength, I guess. I know I've been through a lot of changes in my 50 years, but in my heart I'm still the same. I'm still just as fierce as ever, but I've mellowed somewhat. I'm still just as silly as ever; I still get just as indignant about perceived injustices, but I deal with things differently now than I did when I was younger. It's true what they say, old age and treachery will always overcome youth and skill! o_O
YMMV

Flynne, you're 50? I don't know why, but I always guessed you were in your 30's - wow!

I don't remember the "fuck years" as all that great, nor do I think they are all that they are made out to be by those living them now or looking back in hindisght. Hook-ups, or whatever we called them in the 80's, were invariably followed by embarassing, awkward morning after conversations or semi-panicked prayers that I didn't get someone pregnant. And of course, people were freaking out about AIDS a lot more then than today. It kinda took most of the fun out of "hooking up."

I guess it's still normal to go through it, but I don't think there ever was any doubt that I was always on the lookout for "the one." When I found her, at age 25, I proposed six months later and we are still married 22 years later. Did I know that I was at that time the person I was going to be? Absolutely not, and the subsequent years have more than proven that point. The only undeniable correlation here is that I continued to pursue her mostly because she would NOT hook up with me right away. And if she had, I wouldn't have continued to pursue her.

If women are looking for long term relationships after giving it up so soon, they are, I'm afraid, making a mistake.

Flynne, you're 50? I don't know why, but I always guessed you were in your 30's - wow!

Oh yeah, baby! I turned 35 the day after Daughter #1 was born, and I had #2 three weeks after I turned 38. They keep me young! o_-

What I'm saying is that even though I've put myself through the ringer (my 20s were spent being totally irresponsible!) I really haven't changed all that much from the person I started out to be. I still have a very warped sense of humour, I have always crossed my 7's and used British spelling randomly (my teachers used to freak out about it), I've always been a loyal friend until I got dissed, and people who have dissed me regret it, I hear, because I also hold a grudge a long time and it takes a lot for me to forgive, but I will give in more readily if I'm proven wrong. I am quick to apologize. I still crack up over Bugs Bunny cartoons (and quote them to this very day when the occasion calls for it). My college career was very short so I don't quite understand the "hook up" thing in that respect, but I can say I did a lot of hooking up when I was in my 20s and in the band. I've been both a member of the band and a band wife, and have seen a lot of indescretion on a lot of fronts. Also a lot of tears and mistrust. When other band wives would ask me to "keep an eye" on their men, I'd tell them if they didn't trust their man, they shouldn't be with them. And the women, for some reason, always said "oh it isn't him I don't trust, it's the groupies who throw themselves at him" or some variation. I pointed out what bullshit that was, and some would go off and pout, and others would come to all the gigs just to make sure.
Bottom line is, you have to trust yourself, follow your own gut, or instincts, and not worry about others. They're sure not worrying about you! YMMV

The most poignant word in PJ's comment is "boyfriend." In a world of hookups, it just sounds so quaint. There was a silly but admirably stubborn book about this a few years ago. One idea in it went like this: Of course girls grow up to want boyfriends. They want an attractive, successful guy to give them special attention and be concerned with their feelings and interests.

What the book never explained is why popular thinking nowadays is so fixed on the Fuck Years model. It looks like a premature surrender to the fantasies of dim teenage guys. "Well, these boys aren't going to grow up to be the men we want them to be anyway, so we may as well just play along..."

This not meant to indict Amy's thoughts, sincerity, choices, or history in any way. Her specific advice in this comment could probably do a lotta good for a lotta young women. (The preceding ass-coverage is presented as a measure of respect for the fact that she's shared private information with us.)

But on the other hand, we shouldn't ask people to ignore their nature for no good reason. Young women who want something more than hookups aren't hurting anyone. The messages they get from pop culture (MTV, advice columnists, etc.) ought to be as encouraging as those given to girls who sincerely want to party for awhile before growing up.

If women didn't hear that boyfriends were out of the question for so much of their childhood, they might do a better job of chosing them, thus reducing the incidence of divorce, etc. I think this is really important. Nobody, no one is asking women to make good choices in mate selection, and it's getting out of hand.

This is from a short commentary by Denis Dutton about Darwin:

>> Every Pleistocene man who chose to bed, protect, and provision a woman because she struck him as, say, witty and healthy, and because her eyes lit up in the presence of children, along with every woman who chose a man because of his hunting skills, fine sense of humor, and generosity, was making a rational, intentional choice that in the end built much of the human personality as we now know it.

Flynne, I'll turn fifty at the end of October. I'm wondering, do you see your friends of your age doing the same hooking up thing like they did when they were twenty something? I do, to an extent. While they are not doing it as often, they are doing it just as easily. I didn't expect that. I know a lot of people my age who are just a little less sexually active than they were when they were in their twenties. I also have several female friends close to my age willing to be 'fuck-buddies'. Most are single but some are married. I have also seen a lot of swinging with people of my age. I'm not really into that and some of my friends have looked down on me as somewhat of a prude because I don't really like the idea of sex as an exhibition sport. It seems to me that as you get into middle age, when you're not thinking about having kids anymore, it's almost easier to fool around becuase you're not really pressured to find a life partner anymore to have kids. And hell, even if you're in decent shape and still somewhat attractive, you can sense that you're years of good sex are limited, so you may as well use them while you can! YMMV.

I'm 49, and I've just gone through a hook up phase. I agree with the comment that there is no pressure to get a life partner, so you can fool around quite a bit. During the phase, I just wanted to see what was on the market, so to speak, and since I was (and still am) attractive and fit, there was a lot of selection.

After a while, it got kind of boring, and I know that after about a year, I tend to develop feelings for my fuck-buddies, so I'm on a break from all that.

My female friends in their 30s and 40s are either in a relationship that they're not happy with (settling), or have given up on men entirely.

It looks like a premature surrender to the fantasies of dim teenage guys. "Well, these boys aren't going to grow up to be the men we want them to be anyway, so we may as well just play along..."

Yes, absolutely. And it certainly did seem to me at the time that the boys were the ones having the most fun. You didn't see them crying in their Kool-Aid when their relationships didn't last - the more people they slept with, the more fun they had. If the girls could just learn to be that smart and adopt that attitude, I thought, they would have more fun, too!

I had previously been brainwashed by religious indoctrination that women were sullied, unclean, used, or damaged goods if they weren't saving themselves for marriages. I knew how silly that was, and I was trying hard to unlearn it and replace it with something more workable. (Not to mention more fun - sheesh, I've never been married but am glad I'm not still a virgin at the age of 38.)

Wanting a "boyfriend" DID seem quaint, even to my own ears. So I tried the "fake it till you make it" approach. I thought that the reason I didn't get enjoyment out of casual hook-ups was because there was something wrong with me. (Misplaced guilt, etc.) It really wasn't that, though. I didn't feel guilt about one-night stands, I just didn't get what I wanted out of them. (And that would be because I was ashamed of what I *did* want, and was trying to want something else.) To this day, though, my biggest aphrodisiac is a guy who is crazy about me and treats me like a queen.

I think it's interesting that the essays were all submitted by college students. The college environment is like summer camp - far removed from anything that even vaguely resembles the real world. I would like to read an equal number of essays from people paying bills, working full-time, and living truly independently, and see how those essays differed.

It looks like a premature surrender to the fantasies of dim teenage guys. "Well, these boys aren't going to grow up to be the men we want them to be anyway, so we may as well just play along..."

Yes, absolutely. And it certainly did seem to me at the time that the boys were the ones having the most fun. You didn't see them crying in their Kool-Aid when their relationships didn't last - the more people they slept with, the more fun they had. If the girls could just learn to be that smart and adopt that attitude, I thought, they would have more fun, too!

I had previously been brainwashed by religious indoctrination that women were sullied, unclean, used, or damaged goods if they weren't saving themselves for marriages. I knew how silly that was, and I was trying hard to unlearn it and replace it with something more workable. (Not to mention more fun - sheesh, I've never been married but am glad I'm not still a virgin at the age of 38.)

Wanting a "boyfriend" DID seem quaint, even to my own ears. So I tried the "fake it till you make it" approach. I thought that the reason I didn't get enjoyment out of casual hook-ups was because there was something wrong with me. (Misplaced guilt, etc.) It really wasn't that, though. I didn't feel guilt about one-night stands, I just didn't get what I wanted out of them. (And that would be because I was ashamed of what I *did* want, and was trying to want something else.) To this day, though, my biggest aphrodisiac is a guy who is crazy about me and treats me like a queen.

I think it's interesting that the essays were all submitted by college students. The college environment is like summer camp - far removed from anything that even vaguely resembles the real world. I would like to read an equal number of essays from people paying bills, working full-time, and living truly independently, and see how those essays differed.

Sorry - sticky mouse button.

Y'know, Bikerken, I do see some of that, but it's less so among my women friends than my men friends. I have a couple of men friends that actually pout when they get turned down! But then, they're going after younger women. I think that if they were going after women our age, they'd have a better chance. I'm happy hanging with the man I've got, and not really willing to share, and neither is he, so we won't being doing the swinger thing. Absolutely there's less pressure now than in previous years, and I see that in a lot of my women friends, especially the ones who hook up with younger men. They've already got kids, some have grandkids, so that option is totally off the table. But I've also seen the breakups that follow with this, and while some women pretend that it doesn't bother them, you can see that it does.

My female friends in their 30s and 40s are either in a relationship that they're not happy with (settling), or have given up on men entirely.

Chrissy, this strikes me as being rather sad. When are women going to understand that they don't need a man to be fulfilled? I had quite the drought in between the ex and the man I live with now, and it was up to me to fill the gaps, not some random stranger. Fuck buddies always end up breaking your heart; they're holding out for someone better than you (in their eyes), and don't want the attachment that inevitably happens. While they're looking for Ms. Right, they're settling for Ms. Right Now. I don't know of any of my friends who can honestly say that she didn't start developing feelings for her fuck buddy. Most cut it off before it got out of control, but then they just started going out to look for another. Wash, rinse, repeat. You can be lonely even when you're in a relationship. There's a difference between being lonely and being alone. Sometimes being alone is a relief. YMMV

Flynne, I completely second your opinion about fuck buddies.

It makes me think of a guy I know who is 45 years old. Very good-looking, smart, has his act together, and seems like a great catch. He was married once and had two kids with his wife. They divorced after a number of years and he found someone else, the ONLY woman he says he has ever loved. She had never been married or had kids, but wanted to, and he (already with two kids) didn't want to get married again or have more kids. So they split up, and she went on to marry someone else and have the family she wanted. He has only had fuck buddies ever since, for about the last 15 years. It isn't that he is holding out for someone better - he isn't even looking for anything else. He just wants a woman he can have sex and dinner with a couple times a week, and he keeps his emotions totally removed.

>>> He just wants a woman he can have sex and dinner with a couple times a week,

The most over-rated thing in the world is lousy sex.

The most under-rated thing is taking a pretty woman in her best LBD out to a very nice restaurant and getting the works. Great meal, drinks, dessert, good atmosphere, good conversation, music. I love doing that and I don't mind dropping a couple hundred bucks to do it. It's well worth it to me. Sex don't have to happen afterward, but it's usually much better when you approach it with that kind of an evening. Theres no bigger turn on that when a woman gets really dolled up for you.

"When are women going to understand that they don't need a man to be fulfilled? "

I figured this out at a young age, and am grateful for it.

I did the hook up thing in high school and beginning of college. I got attached to some of the guys. I had fun but felt a little unfulfilled. I thought I was a decent catch but no one wanted to DATE me (didn't happen no matter how I played my cards). Which is why I did that whole "if you can't beat 'em join 'em" bit...

Then I realized I was bored with guys. I wanted a companion and was sick of this lack of fulfillment. I didn't blame anyone, not even myself. If I didn't click with anyone then so what. I consciously decided to just hang out solo for a while (which was really easy since I moved home from college to save money/get away from crazy drug selling, underwear snatching roomies).

Then BF came along. We hit it off right away. It was immediately comfortable and we didn't waste anytime get, er uh, better acquainted. The next day I felt chipper and never doubted he'd call. He did, two or three days later per The Book of Rules. We chatted and made plans for the following weekend. He was a good guy and I knew that right away.

2 1/2 years later we're still getting acquainted and still making plans.

Meanwhile, I see my gf's and enjoy alone time. If I said "let's move in together" he'd say "sure" but I don't want to rush it. I need to do my own thing for awhile before I get into a situation where I have to constantly compromise and consider another person. I love him very much but I'm 23 and need to be selfish for a few years (he's 29 so he's had that opportunity!).

I think I'm doing alright - I'm happy and no one's in a full body cast so that's good.

P.S: everyone's shared so much great stuff on this post and I've enjoyed all of you so much!

I'm enjoying everyone's comments too, very much.

I just wanted to clarify that I'm not like anyone I know, in that I'm not in a relationship that I'm bored with, nor have I given up on men. I adore men, and I'm very happy with my 'not-boyfriend', who I've been seeing for around 2 years. He's adorable, and makes me very happy. He's younger than me, and he actually has emotions, which I found strangely lacking in the men of my age group, so I really like that.

I enjoy my friends and my own company, find life fascinating and fun, and accept men as they are. I live in the moment, try to be very Daoist, so I'm very content.

I was married for 4 years, been divorced for about 12 years, and had 3 relationships in that time period, but never wanted to remarry or live together again, even though the guys wanted to.

Fuck buddies always end up breaking your heart; they're holding out for someone better than you (in their eyes), and don't want the attachment that inevitably happens.

I have to respectfully disagree with that. I was never holding out for someone better - not once, not ever. I just didn't want the relationship, commitment or monogamy. I always did my best to find women who felt the same and wanted the sex. I was always clear and upfront about my lack of any interest in a relationship or the big M. And if I suspected that feelings might be getting out of hand, I would end it.

On a couple of occasions I actually developed feelings of my own, so I always tried to be sensitive to what might be happening with the person. OTOH, all I did at that time in my life was play music, use drugs and fuck a lot - emphasis on the drugs, I was not always the most aware of what was happening. But I daresay that none of us gets through life without hurting others or being hurt. Some of us just try harder not to than others.

I would also daresay that while it probably happens that women develop feelings more often, men are quite prone to it as well. Sickeningly, some of the very men that a women might have developed feelings for, have done the same. But they figure that it's against the established rules and never pursue it. Such is life.

The sad thing about this is that since no one can scan for the actual content of a .jpg, .gif, .tif, .eps - or about eighty other graphics formats, it does nothing to halt the transmission of child pornography, etc., between people who know this.

I call this "gee-whiz disease": the mental condition which causes a halt to all thinking after a first action is taken.

I'm amazed that XM/Sirius is allowed some of its content. So many cars come with those radios it's ludicrous to claim that little Johnny and Susie can't hear Howard Stern - or worse - during the day (which is somehow an evil time to be doing what Howard does).

I can understand why the nanny-ware would block that, my question is, why were they using nanny-ware? Were you at a hotel? a University?

Worse.

She's in New England.

We are infested, even in that bastion of freedom New Hampshire, with a bunch of senseless Puritans who recoil in horror that someone, somewhere, might be having fun.

I'm at the Hilton. And hilariously, Nando found a DVD of hardcore 80s porn on top of their TV. I guess there's no nannyware against being very tall, like Nando. Well, not yet, anyway.

So the word "pedophile" itself is harmful to children? What pedophile is going to try to lure children by telling them he's a pedophile?

Perhaps the Hilton caters to a population of retarded kiddie diddlers?

Aha! I wondered where NAMBLA went after they got kicked out of South Park! o_O

Won't somebody PLEASE think about the children?!

So, I'm guessing all news outlets are blocked as well?

never underestimate the human need to appear to be seen doing something... This is why I often have to be less clear when I reply to things on the net. When I am using a work PC there is no telling what words they are looking for.

the bottom line is "we'll remeber it for you at wholesale"... The very computer power that allows things like the net to happen, is also the power to control it...

Flynne, what do the North American Marlon Brando Look Alikes have anything to do with it?

Seriously, Jim Treacher is right, would you really expect to find the word pedophile on any site where adults were trying to lure children or a site where people were discussing the issue? It sure seems to me that there would be a more accurate way of judging the content of a site quickly and efficiently without getting this stupid. That being said, there are always a few dropped coins that will seek out the nearest crack and fall through it.

No need to drag Marlon in there. FYI, humor works best when it comes from truth.

Is there a gideon bible?

Fucking hell. That headline cracked me up. Brilliant.

at a glance, i thought your headline read, "Child Saver"

THE IRONY!

no wonder you're busy, you're all the way over in New Hampshire! best of luck ms. amy(:

Amy- I take it you are not a South Park affeciando. In a South Park episode a while back, the National Man / Boy Love Association (NAMBLA) held their conference at the same hotel as the National Marlon Brando Look-Alike (NAMBLA) people. Hillarity ensued!

er- North American MBLA...

Whoops! Thanks for the explanation. Marlon was a friend, and I'm a bad idea for an enemy, but I stand up for my friends, even after they're dead.

We woke up this morning, and there was old Marlon and Jack Nicholson on TV in The Missouri Breaks...

My favorite was Last Tango in Paris. He was one of the great ones. Never knew him, but from what I have heard, he was a real decent man too.

11 kids by five women says wikipedia, but I've heard as many as fifteen, and Wiki didn't include the daughter I worked with once (she had a Gadfatherly jawline).

This was not an entirely balanced individual man.

Yes, the nerd police block alot of traffic. I actually hate it when this happens. I find my americanmeth and streetgang websites blocked from hotels often. Doesn't matter to the puritan fucks running the place that I am speaking and writing about the dangers of methamphetamine. Oh well, there is always a solution:

Amy, just use a proxy when you are stuck in some place that blocks websites with nannyware. Just google up 'blocked site access' for a list of proxy sites, and keep a list of these sites handy for when you are in some puritan-infested nannyware location. The proxy blocks the nannyware from actually knowing what site you are on. Don't tell the kids, but it's a great way to get to porn sites from locked down corp environments without leaving a trail;-0

Oh, and if the software is filtering text, that's a little tricker. I don't see how they would do that. I mean technically it's easy but shit you couldn't even read an online newspaper.

To deal with this, setup your home or office workstation for remote control, and connect to that workstation with a secure tunnel from whereever your travels take you. Everything you send and receive is encrypted, so even the nannyware is helpless to stop it. Unless it stops you from making the secure connection, in which case, find another less nazi-like hotel.

we gotta do something ... this is something ... let's do it!

I'm actually suprised websense doesn't filter this site out. I think it's a great site but your ability to say what you're actually thinking without putting it through a PC filter usually triggers the websense people. For instance, Volokh.com is filtered and that's not offensive. I'm just hoping this site never gets filtered from me.

Volokh.com offends many -- for standing up for the Constitution, and Enlightenment values, and questioning bad laws made in the service of political correctness, just to name a few examples.

It may not levitate, but let me tell you, you can definitely make yogurt fly.

Enjoy your conference. At the keynote, listen carefully. That sound you hear will be thousands of radical feminists crying out in pain since they hate woman-hating evo-psychos and prefer their patriarchy conspiracy theory.

If anyone doubts my power, just note that I posted my comment more than 24 hours before Amy posted the entire post. I am more powerful than General Zod!

I remember when I became an atheist. I was sound asleep in my bed, woke up suddenly and decided I didnt believe in God. I felt a sudden relief, and fell promptly back to sleep. That's my story, wouldnt a religious person label this as a spiritual experience if instead I said "I woke up and suddenly believed in God, and felt relief and happiness" and use this to prove there is a God? What about me whose story is in reverse?

If anyone has deets for the Hitchens D'Souza event, please tell us where and when. I can't find anything about it on the web.

Can anyone ever give an example of an athiest regime? How about any type of athiest based government?

I can understand how some people are comforted by the notion of a god, and I'll admit there might indeed be one.

But I have to say if there is a god it is cannot be anything like the gods described by any religion to day.

Islam was founded by a child rapist, anyone who thinks a god would condone that is fucked in the head.

Nearly ever single christina sect in existance either gaurentees you will go to hell, or simply ignores the very rules set for by thier god.

Lutherans belive their faith is wrong, just better than catholocism.

Catholics, in addition to violating the ten commandments by praying to idols(icons, saints, virgin mary, etc), aid and abet the catholic church in finacing the removal of child molesters from public prosecution.

The Church of England is based soley on the whim of a serial killer wanting a divorce.

Protestism was founded on the basis of protesting the catholic churchs actions of selling indulgences and tourturing people to death for heresy. Unfrotunatly the edited the bible which carries a penalty of eternal damnation.

According to the bible jesus denied being god, so any church subscribing to the doctrine of trinity holds jesus not only to be god, but a liar. Tell me how can a liar be a god of all that is good and holy?

Ten minutes of rational thought applied to any religion whould show that they are ALL false. They either ignore their very sorce material or garuntee that you will never go to heaven.

What kind of all loving all powerful deity condems everyone to hell?

And suppose you do get into heaven, what is your reward?

It is an eternity of sitting around praiseing god telling him how great he is.

How fucking narcissistic is that?

You have supreme power, and you use it to create a testing ground rigged where everyone fails, and the special few you allow in get to sit around forever and tell you how swell you are?

I'll ask again How fucking narcissistic is that?

Great post, lujlp.

And here's all I could find about the event, from D'Souza's website:

http://www.dineshdsouza.com/events/calendar.html

MAY 01, 2008

Forum with Christopher Hitchens & Dennis Prager, Orange County, CA

Welcome to the cold and dreary Northeast...shit weather this week.

Let me know if you're passing through Boston and I'll email some restaurant recommendations!

Lujlp - ditto.

Thanks, Gretchen. And I'm only passing through Manchester for a few days, and apparently, we're all staying near some fish restaurant that's supposed to be the best in the state.

Well, heck, Amy. If I had known you were making this trip, I would have waved at you when you flew over Wisconsin.

Amy, I know you and your supporters are very sensitive to criticism, but I can't resist two small points: 1) it should read "whoever taped it" and 2) I think "you do protest too much" re your atheism. I do believe in God but I don't have to mention it every time I put pen to paper the way you seem to have to do. It makes me wonder why.

Because the inanities of faith are warping the human enterprise.

"It makes me wonder why."

Because she makes a living off telling people what she thinks. And what she thinks has a lot to do with her atheist (non)belief system.

Just a thought. I am certainly not claiming I can speak on her behalf.

You're right on "whoever" -- changed that, thanks -- and that's what I get for blogging at 2 am after a long plane flight. ("Whoever" would be answered by "he" taped it.)

As for why I mention god, if people who believed in god were just off doing rain dances and didn't try to legislate their religious beliefs on others, or worse, in the case of Muslims, try to murder, convert, or tax and humiliate infidels, well, I wouldn't have a problem with believers. Well, I'd find it sad and immoral that they raise their children to believe instead of to think. But, you don't see me blogging about astrology buffs, do you? They believe, without evidence, in some silly crap. But, they don't endanger my life or freedoms. So, I just laugh at them and don't devote much wordspace to them.

Kerry, why do you believe in god when there's no evidence god exists?

Oh, and I just looked at what Crid said. Yeah, that. I was too tired to write it shorter, to borrow from somebody or other.

And now, I'm going back to bed.

Have you heard that they call Manchester ManchVegas? :) Enjoy!

There's a great public Gun range 5 minutes from the Manchester airport if you're bored and have an urge to shoot an Uzi or an MP5.
Not that you'd be bored in Manchester ...

Pinker and David Sloan Wilson and all sorts of interesting people will be presenting their research here. What I do need is not target practice but three hours of sleep.

Can anyone ever give an example of an athiest regime? How about any type of athiest based government? (lujlp)

Atheist regimes: Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, North Korea. D'souza's point is that if we are to hold religions responsible for the actions of governments, then also we have to hold atheism responsible for the actions of governments.

Avowedly atheist societies have not proved more benevolent or more rational than religious societies. Quite the opposite. It's paradoxical.

Atheism is, simply, requiring evidence before believing in something. (Amy)

Well that's one conception of atheism. There are strong and weak versions of atheism.

Ten minutes of rational thought applied to any religion whould show that they are ALL false. They either ignore their very sorce material or garuntee that you will never go to heaven. (lujlp)

The idea of religions being "false," seems to be a category mistake. Atheists often err by assuming all religions are fundamentalist, but most aren't. So saying a religion is "false" is like saying that moral tales, like Flaubert's Madame Bovary, are false. Most religions conceive of religious texts as the shared stories of a common culture. Indeed, culture is probably nothing more or less than shared stories.

This turns out to be the value of religion. Religious societies have proved more resilient, more cohesive, less abusive of human rights, and more economically prosperous than non-religious societies. Most of the modern liberal ideas of human rights derive from religious beliefs about human flourishing.

For very good, if inconclusive, discussion of the issues involved, I recommend Rameau's Nephew. The Enlightenment thinkers were unsure about how society would develop without religion. The terrors of the 20th century seem to confirm their concerns.

Religion has a social value. It's still here because it has been very useful.

I agree that religion is very useful.

Being condemned to hell is a whole lot scarier than 25-life.

It's still here because it has been very useful.

That's the question: has it been useful. If it had been useful, then it should still be here. It does not follow that since it's still here it must have been very useful. Otherwise, we'd have to say that the common cold must have been useful too, to mention just one thing. It's a logic error. (P implies Q) does not imply (Q implies P).

I'd accept that religion is not all bad - it does offer some benefits. But how can you weigh them up against the drawbacks? And it looks as if the balance is shifting on a worldwide scale.

Atheist regimes: Nazi Germany, Maoist China, Stalinist Russia, North Korea. D'souza's point is that if we are to hold religions responsible for the actions of governments, then also we have to hold atheism responsible for the actions of governments.

Ugh...this is so ridiculous, I was hoping I wouldn't have to get into this.

Hitler was a Christian, first of all, and the others weren't "atheist" regimes, because there's no atheist playbook like there is a Bible or a Koran. Atheism is not believing in god. It doesn't tell you to go kill people who believe differently, as do the Bible AND the Koran. Luckily, Jews and Christians have moved on from that advice. Too many Muslims have not.

As for the so-called success of "religious societies," societies saw real success when they practiced and practice Enlightenment values.

Religion is useful for keeping the sheep in line. But, guess what: Humans have evolved morality, and don't kill each other or cheat each other because it isn't in their self-interest. They cooperate because it is in their self-interest. And when our group size gets above the Dunbar 150 (which he speculates is the maximum human group size that can be self-policing) we have police forces to keep us in line.

I'm on deadline now, plus I have this conference. Norman and the rest of you, can you please take over with any further cleanup?

It does not follow that since it's still here it must have been very useful. Otherwise, we'd have to say that the common cold must have been useful too, to mention just one thing. It's a logic error. (P implies Q) does not imply (Q implies P).

Not so. You are equivocating over two sense of 'utility.' The common cold is a (marginally) living thing. Religion is a social practice of a living thing. Thus, your counter-claim fails.

I'm arguing on the warrant that social practices survive over long, long periods of time because they are useful. You'll need to address that warrant. Analogies with viruses won't work here.

because there's no atheist playbook like there is a Bible or a Koran. Atheism is not believing in god. It doesn't tell you to go kill people who believe differently, as do the Bible AND the Koran. (Amy)

The "playbooks" do exist. You need only read the works of Marx, Trotsky, and Mao. For example, atheism is the bedrock of Mao's totalitarian "new man" concept.

I'm not saying that atheistic societies are necessarily more abusive than religious societies. Denmark is a mostly atheist country, and it's benign. But there is no reason to believe, from the historical record, that atheistic societies will be any more rational or less abusive than Western religious societies.

As for the so-called success of "religious societies," societies saw real success when they practiced and practice Enlightenment values. (Amy)

True. But Enlightenment values were mostly theistic in one way or another. I suggest it is no accident that the Enlightenment ocurred, that science flourished, in Western religious societies.

But, guess what: Humans have evolved morality, and don't kill each other or cheat each other because it isn't in their self-interest. (Amy)

This is too gross. It ignores qualitative differences between social moralities. Western religions seemed to have developed a more successful implementation of our "evolved morality."

The idea of religions being "false," seems to be a category mistake. Atheists often err by assuming all religions are fundamentalist, but most aren't. So saying a religion is "false" is like saying that moral tales, like Flaubert's Madame Bovary, are false. - Jeff

So Jeff what you are saying is Madame Bovery acctually happened?

That Hansel, Gretal, and Goldilocks were real people. And that what they all went thru was hostorical fact, that we need to center our lives around them and legislate innane laws to force the populas at large to 'benifit' from the wisdom their biographies teach us?

Is that what your saying Jeff?

Do you find it convincing when Muslim apologists cite Timothy McVeigh being a Christian as evidence of "Christian Terrorism"?

Neither do I.

And it's equally unconvincing when atheists cite Hitler being a Christian for similarly sophist purposes. As an Irish standup comic whose name I can't remember put it: "I'm about as much a Catholic as a cow born in a tree is a bird."

History will show that regimes that have criminalized religion have killed more people than religious regimes, at least in the 20th century. Why this should be I can't say, and the kill ratio may indeed become reversed in the 21th century, but we'd be in a better position to face the future if we're more honest about the past.

>> I ran into Christopher Hitchens, who said he was in ...

Amy, you're the bomb. Hitch isn't one of my favorite thinkers, but it would be cool to run into him.

I am not an atheist (agnostic maybe?) but I can't help but blast this:

"The "playbooks" do exist. You need only read the works of Marx, Trotsky, and Mao. For example, atheism is the bedrock of Mao's totalitarian "new man" concept."

Atheism is not a set of rules and it is NOT a singular set of ideas. Atheism simply means you don't believe in something - that is unless you are presented with some sort of proof which is reasonable to you.

Religions give you all the answers, not urge you to find them. Atheism allows you to seek your own proof. Create your own unique framework for believing in god, afterlives, karma, whatever.

I don't know what Marx did in terms of religion, but I do know he was a great thinker of economics and human behaviors. Maybe I'm missing something there. I probably am.

Not believing in god (because there isn't sufficient evidence, which I think is subjective) doesn't necessitate your allegiance to everyone else who feels the same. Atheism is just a term for people to describe themselves as not believing in god, yet there is nothing binding about their whole belief system. I'm definitely repeating myself.

Furthermore, the insinuation that morality outside of religion is ludicrous. My statement about "being condemned to hell is scarier than 25-life" = religion is a tool that states can use to create good behavior. I find this insulting as morality and ethics exist entirely outside of religious context for me. I don't follow a religion yet have no desire whatsoever to kill, rape, steal, maim, etc. Those just aren't appealing activities, in fact they are revolting to me. I'd much rather DRINK MARGARITAS AND WATCH BSG TONIGHT! Sorry, I'm exciting it's Friday...

Maybe you should beef with Nietsche, not labor activists and revolutionaries...

Lujlp - go easy there! :-)

For Jeff
False religions

Islam - founded by a child rapist to justfy his actions - Highly doubt any god condones raping children

The Church Of England - Created by Henry the 8th, a serial killer who wanted a divorce - doesnt sound devinely inspired to me

Lutheranism - Created by Martin Luther. Luther himself said his church was a false church, but that it was slightly better that catholocism - Its own founder labels it as false

Catholocism - Under a banner of peace n love ran a thousand year campgain of death and torture. Venertaes idols in violation of the ten commandments. At one point declared the christ has no soul. Subscribes to the doctrine of triny which holds jesus god and the holy spirt are one being, unfortunatly jesus himself denied being god.

As nearly every christian sect in the world today holds to the doctrine of trinity they must be false. Unless jesus was a liar, but if jesus was a liar then obviously they would still be false.

The few sect which are not followers of trinity are Christadelphians, Jehovah's Witnesses, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, and Unitarians.

Christadelphians - belive that the bible was the only work inspired by god. Unfortunalty when jesus assended after the pentecost he said he was off to visit other 'sheep that were not of this flock' alluding to other belivers.(This phrase has been latched onto by mormons)

But it raises the question ifgod has followers elsewhere in the globe why would he deny them a religious text. As everyone claims god is unchanging it is obvious he wouldnt therefore Christadelphians are wong.

Jehovah's Witnesses belive only 144,000 people get into heaven. Out of all the people in all of the universe. If you were to simply take the people on the planet at this moment that would be .0024%. less than one quarter of one percent of people from right now. Imagine how small that number will be if you were to factor everyone who has ever or will ever live - it flies in the face of 'belive in me and you'll go to heaven'

Unitarians are an interseting bunch - they consider themselves christians but do not belive christ was the son of god. Kinda hard to have a christian faith that denies christ was the son of god, but they manage to wrap their heads around it.

I could go on and one about mormons as well if you'd like Jeff. Let me know if youd like me to. In the mean time if you can provide me with a religion that is true I'll be happy to look into it

History will show that regimes that have criminalized religion have killed more people than religious regimes, at least in the 20th century. - naif

Well sir the 20th century is over, why hasnt history shown it yet?

And Hilter was a christian, denying to doesnt help your argument in any way

And Mad Russian Roman Genn argues that communism was the state religion.

(Just bopping in for a second...thanks so much, Gretchen and lujlp, for the janitorial help!)

lujlp: Jehovah's Witnesses belive only 144,000 people get into heaven.

What's the appeal for the 144,001st Jehovah's Witness?

lujlp: And Hilter was a christian...

Yes and no. It's more complex than that - history often is.

Hitler viewed mainstream religion like Napoleon and Marx did, as a means of keeping people under control. Hitler viewed Christianity as a religion for the weak and instead formed his own quasi-Christian religious views - a muddled mess of Ariosophy, the occult, racism, and select those portions of Christianity he deemed sufficiently Aryan and militaristic.

He wasn't an atheist - in the sense he never publicly denied the existence of God, but his view of God did not resemble the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God. He referred to a more vague "Almighty Creator" and "Providence" rather than to "God."

While he consolidated his power, he sought a religiously neutral Germany, fearing the political power that a state church not completely under the thrall of the Nazis would have.

Hitler tried to replace traditional Christianity with what the Nazis called, "Positive Christianity," which celebrated Christ as a fighter, organizer, and opponent of established Judaism - i.e., a Nazi. The issue of Christ's divinity was left deliberately vague.

In Hitler's view, Aryans were the chosen defenders of civilization while Jews were the enemies of civilization everywhere.

Hitler once lamented to Albert Speer that Islam would have been a better religion for the German people to have embraced than Christianity. He even appointed the grand mufti of Jerusalem an honorary major in the SS.

Documents from the Nuremburg Trials show the Nazis eventually planned to completely wipe out Christianity and substitute their own religion based upon Aryan racial superiority. Whether that religion could be called "Christian" is open to debate.

Hitler was as much a Christian as Ayaan Hirsi Ali is a Muslim. In other words, not.

Whereas Ali decided that the religion was too barbaric and could no longer remain involved with it, Hitler decided that HE was God, and that Christianity wasn't sufficiently ruthless to guide the ubermenschen to their rightful place in the world.

Humans have an innate need to believe in something bigger than themselves. When spiritual religion is replaced by secular religion (as always happened in societies with messianic leaders (mao, hitler, stalin)) you get much larger quantities of slaughter than you ever do in societies led by believers.

Communism, which had as one of its central tenets that organized spiritual religion must be suppressed so that there would be nothing above the state, has killed more people in its short history than all religions combined in all of recorded history.

You could take a shortcut and say that atheism kills, but I won't pull a Ben Stein here. But the simple fact is that non-belief is not a hedge against irrationality as Amy and others here seem to believe.

Humans are not rational beings, they are rationalizing beings. And nothing focuses the mind so well as fear. The smart ones figured out that fear of eternal divine retribution worked out better than just about any worldly punishment they could threaten.

Hitler a Christian? That's a new one. Anyone can call themselves a Christian, that's not the point. It's about following Christ. Hypothetically, let's say he did call himself a follower of Christ, did he follow Christ's teachings? Did Hitler practice the principle of "loving your neighbor"? What about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty and helping those less fortunate?

I don't think so. So it's obvious
your point about Hitler being a Christian holds no water!

Jeff - Analogies with viruses won't work here.

Actually they work very well. The idea is described by Dawkins.

Whether or not any god exists, religions are systems of thought and values which exist inside people's heads. As such, religions need limited resources - people - in order to survive. Once the number of people who believe in a particular religion drops to zero, that religion is extinct. It may exist in a book, and who knows, it may have been the one truthful religion, but it has joined the thousands of extinct religions whose names and rituals we no longer even know. Occasionally you see primitive cave art from some of these extinct religions.

Religions spread mostly from parents to children. This is why religions and nations are roughly coextensive. You can draw maps of religion because of this. To a lesser extent people change religions, or drop in or out.

Thus, religions are a kind of organism that inhabits human minds and replicates. Religions also compete with each other for resources - namely, people's minds. They trumpet how many believers they have, and how fast their numbers are growing. Religions like Islam mention "paying the religious tax" in just about every second breath. Clearly by the time Islam was founded, it was well able to take advantage of a society where money and tax were well established, and was well able to see how important money is to an organisation.

So we have all the requirements for a form of life that is every bit as insidious as a computer virus - and every bit as hard to get rid of.

Finally, consider the following. When biological parasites invades their host, it is common for them to de-sex the host, so that the host does not spend any of its resources reproducing itself. This means that the host has more resources to reproduce the parasite. The Catholic Church requires that its priesthood is celibate - that is, de-sexed. The reason is that when priests were able to marry and have children, they would naturally spend time and money on bringing up their children, and would bequeath their estate to their children on death. Now, de-sexed, they spend all their efforts promoting the religion, and leave everything to the Church when they die. The parallel with biological parasites is striking and horrifying.

This is why the analogy holds.

Hypothetically, let's say he did call himself a follower of Christ, did he follow Christ's teachings? Did Hitler practice the principle of "loving your neighbor"? What about feeding the hungry, giving water to the thirsty and helping those less fortunate?

I don't think so. So it's obvious - thatsagreatquestion

If your going to hold up that as the standdanrd of being a christian, how many christians will acctually qualify?

And brian if you truley belive that communism has killed more people in the last 70yrs than religion has in all of recorded history you have no concept of numbers, time, or history.

Also you faild to provide a direct corrlation between athism and communism

Jeff - The "playbooks" do exist. You need only read the works of Marx, Trotsky, and Mao.

But that's exactly the point: I'm an atheist and I don't need to read these books, and I never have. Well, I think I did look into Das Kapital as a student, but found it impossibly turgid. I wouldn't recommend it (and the ideas in it have been found wanting).

By contrast, every believer is encouraged to read and even memorise their holy book, to take it as absolute truth, and to hold it sacred.

Some people do get carried away by non-religious books; the result is effectively another religion, albeit not supernatural. So I'd say that the various totalitarian governments of last century were evil to precisely the extent that they resembled religions. The Communists with Marx, the Red Chinese with Mao's Little Red Book, the Nazis with Mein Kampf. I don't think you would have been any safer desecrating a copy of Mein Kampf in Nazi Germany in the 1930s than you would the Koran in Islamic Arabia today.

I do hope you can see the difference between atheism and religion. You won't find many atheists who will physically attack you for desecrating a copy of The God Delusion - unless it's a signed first edition or something. If they do, I'll stand with you.

"And brian if you truley belive that communism has killed more people in the last 70yrs than religion has in all of recorded history you have no concept of numbers, time, or history."

Ouch. The relation between communism, atheism, state secular religion, etc. can be debated. The magnitude of the communist death toll, however, is simply a fact. If you don't have time for a trip to the library today, you can find some rough figures here:

http://distributedrepublic.net/archives/2008/05/01/the-red-plague

Note that these exclude deaths related to Nazi Germany.

Interesting link, blame communism for anywhere between 40 million and 260 million deaths in 100 yrs.

In the hunndered yrs after Columbus reache the western hemisphere estimates put the death toll between 40 and 90 million.
And that was just in the new world durring the 16th century. Doesnt even count the deaths in the old world.

And that is just one century, still 18 others need to be counted up just for the AD side of the calender.

Sumerian cuenfor dates back alost 55 centuries before christ.

So lets recap - you are saying brian is right in his assumption that communism killed more people in the last hundered yrs the religion has in the last seven or eight thousand.

Remember a couple of paragraph ago when I showed how religion in the 16th century had the same base death toll estimate in one hemisphere as communism did?

I wonder what the toll is for the other 74 centuries? ANd thats not even counting what might possibly have happened durring pre history

sorry that should read

Sumarien cuneiform dates back almost 35 centuries before christ

Still hoping to hear the debate tonight, if anyone knows where it is, speak up.

"The idea of religions being "false," seems to be a category mistake."

Here you go then: pick the "right" one.

A bunch of these are exclusive. Logically, only three possibilities exist: 1) one religion is "right"; 2) all religions are "wrong"; 3) all religions are irrelevent except as inducements for men to influence other men.

Take your pick.

lujlp - I get it. If anyone was ever killed by a Christian for any reason, they were killed bor religion.

Right.

40-90 million killed where? In the name of what religion? We're talking "convert or die" kind of killing. War, etc. I'm not talking about wars of defense (like the Reconquista).

I'm talking about the kind of killing that Stalin engaged in against the Ukrainians. Or Mao's purges.

If you're going to start calling the colonization of America the product of religious killing, then we've got nothing to talk about besides your irrational hatred.

brian,

sdj uv nnsdnkwj dmfnhf g shnc dmf ns dmm dhfv mdejjjc.

Failure to respond to my messgae will result in my men attacking your town, anyone who resistes will be killed, your women and children will be sold as slaves.

Imagine a boat load of people land on your shore - babble on in a language you have never heard. And when you fail to submit to their demands that you worship their god and bow down to their government they attack.

And I am not saying any time a christan killed someone it was attributable to religion. I'm saying anytime a religous person used their religion as justification it is attributable to religion.

But I am curious, if you think an idea like religion is never resposible for an idividuals actions, then how can you blame communism for the actions of Stalin and Mao?

As for where, I think I was clear, I said the new world in the century after Columbus landed
American Holocust by Stannard

Actually they