Sex Sells
Dennis Prager is often an annoying and irrational blowhard, but he's right about this -- smart women put out for their husbands and boyfriends. (And vice-versa -- but men and women are different, and he illustrates one difference here, in how not putting out is viewed by a man.) An excerpt from his essay, "When A Woman Isn't In The Mood, Part I":
It is an axiom of contemporary marital life that if a wife is not in the mood, she need not have sex with her husband. Here are some arguments why a woman who loves her husband might want to rethink this axiom.First, women need to recognize how a man understands a wife's refusal to have sex with him: A husband knows that his wife loves him first and foremost by her willingness to give her body to him. This is rarely the case for women. Few women know their husband loves them because he gives her his body (the idea sounds almost funny). This is, therefore, usually a revelation to a woman. Many women think men's natures are similar to theirs, and this is so different from a woman's nature, that few women know this about men unless told about it.
This is a major reason many husbands clam up. A man whose wife frequently denies him sex will first be hurt, then sad, then angry, then quiet. And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant. They are afraid to tell their wives. They are often made to feel ashamed of their male sexual nature, and they are humiliated (indeed emasculated) by feeling that they are reduced to having to beg for sex.
And here's Prager's Part II:
1. If most women wait until they are in the mood before making love with their husband, many women will be waiting a month or more until they next have sex. When most women are young, and for some older women, spontaneously getting in the mood to have sex with the man they love can easily occur. But for most women, for myriad reasons -- female nature, childhood trauma, not feeling sexy, being preoccupied with some problem, fatigue after a day with the children and/or other work, just not being interested -- there is little comparable to a man's "out of nowhere," and seemingly constant, desire for sex.2. Why would a loving, wise woman allow mood to determine whether or not she will give her husband one of the most important expressions of love she can show him? What else in life, of such significance, do we allow to be governed by mood?
What if your husband woke up one day and announced that he was not in the mood to go to work? If this happened a few times a year, any wife would have sympathy for her hardworking husband. But what if this happened as often as many wives announce that they are not in the mood to have sex? Most women would gradually stop respecting and therefore eventually stop loving such a man.
What woman would love a man who was so governed by feelings and moods that he allowed them to determine whether he would do something as important as go to work? Why do we assume that it is terribly irresponsible for a man to refuse to go to work because he is not in the mood, but a woman can -- indeed, ought to -- refuse sex because she is not in the mood? Why?
And no, I'm not suggesting anything remotely close to rape. This is just Prager's rather long-winded restatement of what I said in my Advice Goddess column, "A Tale Of Naked Whoa," from May of 2007:
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?
The real problem for many couples is the notion that "the mood" is something they're supposed to wait around for like Halley's Comet -- probably due to the assumption that desire works the same in men and women. The truth is, just because a woman isn't in the mood doesn't mean she can't get in the mood. According to breakthrough work by sexual medicine specialist Rosemary Basson, women in long-term relationships tend not to have the same "spontaneous sexual neediness" men do, but they can be arousable, or "triggerable." In other words, forget trying to have sex. Tell your girlfriend about Basson's findings, and ask her to try an experiment: making out three times a week (without sex being the presumed outcome) and seeing if "the mood" happens to strike her. You just might find the member getting admitted to the club a little more often.
Sexperts will tell you "a sexual mismatch needn't mean the end of a relationship" -- which sounds good but tends to play out like being hungry for three meals a day and being expected to make do with a handful of pretzels. Expressway to Resentsville, anyone? If it comes to that, breakup sex is a better idea. You're always going to have issues in a relationship, but for a relationship to work for you, the biggie'll have to be something like your falling asleep after sex, not her falling asleep before.
This makes perfect sense to me. I'm 38 years old, been married 15 years. My sex drive is nothing like it used to be; I haven't really felt horny for at least five years. But I make sure I have sex with my husband at least once a week. And I almost never turn him down. Once, I even had sex with him with a bad cold, a half hour after taking Nyquil. I never felt "used", in fact 90% of the time I enjoy it a lot.
Karen at January 1, 2009 9:12 AM
I agree that women should definitely put out - and the more you get it, the more you want it! But at the same time, a lot of men don't understand that women will almost never be as straight-up horny as they are. They take it as a personal insult if a woman isn't soaking chairs 24/7 at the thought of them, whereas if a woman is enthusiastic and initiates a good percentage of the time, a man should count his blessings. It's usually men who think porn stars are representative of a real woman's libido (hint: she is acting).
C at January 1, 2009 10:19 AM
At first I was not sure you were bonafide in your article, but I have changed my mind.
However, where you say "They are afraid to tell their wives."
I disagree.
In my case, I simply refuse to tell her anything, even if she asks. She wanted me to be a mind reader. Well, guess what? It works both ways.
And the refusal of sex - makes me so mad I could just spit.
Daniel at January 1, 2009 10:21 AM
I am always horny, and I'm 39. My husband loves it!!!
I notice I'm hornier now than I was in my 20's...not sure why, could be because he treats me great and I "reward" him with great sex and "BJ's" - most women I know say they do the BJ thing for a while in the beginning then it fizzles out...and the men hate that.
My hubby's lucky.... :)
I guess my advice to men who don't get laid often, treat your lady great, tell her she's gorgeous all the time, make her feel gorgeous and support her in her beliefs and you'll be well taken care of.
Peace.
1/2 Naked Patriot at January 1, 2009 10:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1617817">comment from DanielI simply refuse to tell her anything, even if she asks. She wanted me to be a mind reader. Well, guess what? It works both ways. And the refusal of sex - makes me so mad I could just spit.
Um, Daniel, why are you still together?
Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 10:35 AM
Putting out for your boyfriend is stupid and destructive. Our jails are full of young men whose mothers put out for their boyfriends.
K T Cat at January 1, 2009 10:46 AM
This is the story of my life. I am a 35 year old man, married 12 yrs with a 5 year old daughter. My wife and I have had sex maybe (4) times in the last (3) years.
I am a corp VP, bring home six figures and give my wife what ever she wants. I also do most of the house work,(even though my wife stays home) on top of my (60) hour work week. My wife knows how her refusals make me feel. She does not even sleep in our bed anymore. She sleeps with our daughter, since sleeping in our daughter's bed allows my wife to "helicopter parent" even when she sleeps. Since my wife knows I will not leave my daughter, there is nothing I can do. She gave up on marriage counseling a year ago, and seems content with how unhappy I am. Lesson to all young men out there: they turn into their mothers.
D at January 1, 2009 10:46 AM
This piece is right on. I don't have much libido but I love to make my hubby happy, because then he makes me happy. What is wrong with this? To me this is marriage: making each other happy (and better than either of you is alone). Women build up so much resentment due to little and big things, especially involving the whole man-woman miscommunication thing, that without a doubt for many women the power trip is about denying him pleasure. Gals, that will get you nowhere. It's very easy to "put out" even if you're not in the mood, to make him happy, which then (for those of us in a good relationship) guarantees he will make us happy.
I do find I have to go by his moods more than mine, since, let's face it, if the guy isn't horny nothing's going to happen unless he's happy to give you a treat. (Hey, this happens, believe me.) Plus, we are not youngsters, though plenty of young couples have libido issues as well.
The destruction that resentments, spoken and unspoken, do to a relationship or marriage really can be avoided if you work at it. But you have to work, and part of that is working to keep each other happy. That is what putting out when you may not be in the mood is all about.
Peg C. at January 1, 2009 10:53 AM
I would love nothing more than to have the sex drive I did before my son was born in April. However due to complications during the birth, an iud not put in properly, and a few other conditions related to the pregnancy that I'm still dealing with, painful sex is the last thing on my mind. On top of it all, I'm the sole caregiver of our boy, the housecleaner, etc. Hubby knows what he needs to do to get more lovin' but he's not putting in the effort so why should I? For crying out loud, his idea of foreplay is brushing his teeth and grabbing his nuts. Some women don't like the whole caveman bit.
Kendra at January 1, 2009 10:55 AM
As a side comment: Dennis Prager may or may not be right on this issue - like any other matter - but the last thing he can be called is irrational.
SteveMG at January 1, 2009 11:03 AM
This is often a very delicate situation. In my experience, women of my generation (X) have a generally negative attitude towards sex. They're prone to seeing expressions of male sexuality as depraved and regard any suggestion of a wifely duty as tantamount to advocacy of rape. I think that they'd come of age during an especially hostile period of Feminism and that this has taken its toll on their sexuality.
Jack at January 1, 2009 11:14 AM
As a side comment: Dennis Prager may or may not be right on this issue - like any other matter - but the last thing he can be called is irrational.
Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug crazy" and proceeds through "narcissisticly self-important" before it gets to "irrational."
Charlie (Colorado) at January 1, 2009 11:18 AM
Everyone,
There are more than a few times when the HUSBAND does not want to have sex. And this is not just if the wife becomes ugly. This can happen even with a physically attractive wife, and even in the first year of marriage.
A woman who nags or puts down her husband can kill his sexual attraction for her very quickly, even if she is physically attractive to the outside world. It can happen, and does happen more often than people think.
The woman will be the initiator, and the MAN is the one who avoids having to have sex. Again, this can even happen a few months into marriage.
I agree that the sole purpose of marriage is for each party to make the other happy, without 'keeping score'.
Toads at January 1, 2009 11:27 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1617829">comment from JackI think that they'd come of age during an especially hostile period of Feminism and that this has taken its toll on their sexuality
Well, some of that relates to being nonthinking. I took women's studies at the University of Michigan, and it was the single most enlightening class I had in college, but not in the way the women's studies department had intended. In class, I heard all the stuff about how all men are rapists and oppressors of women, blah blah blah, and I thought about all the men I'd encountered up till the age of 18, and thought about my dad, and decided in short order that the wymyn were pushing a real load of it. I don't understand why so many other women believed it. My dad's not perfect, but he did his best to raise me to be a good person, paid for my college education, and told me I could do anything boys could do. If this is "oppression," more girls should be "oppressed."
Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 11:27 AM
Absolutely correct. There would be way fewer divorces if women would screw their husbands brains out once a week. Men are much happier, and more likely to stay home, when they get laid regularly without a lot of asking/begging, denying, whining, etc., which starts after a while to look like a game they can only lose.
Donald at January 1, 2009 11:30 AM
There's a simpler expression of both Prager's point and Alkons. It has to do with the proper definition of "love." That term and the underlying concept is lost on today's culture.
The former is selfish; the latter is giving, which is the foundation of "love" in its proper sense.
Prager's example of a man choosing to not work is cumbersome. A better example would be a man who chooses, because of mood, not to provide what his wife wants and needs -- sincere signs of affection, devotion and fidelity. But a man who loves his wife will do that because he loves his wife; that is the expression of love. Similarly, a woman should understand the role of physical sex and see that as part of doing what is right and good for the husband.
Arizona at January 1, 2009 11:31 AM
"Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug crazy" and proceeds through "narcissisticly self-important" before it gets to "irrational."
These are just manifestations of Amy Alkon's permanent negativity and dislike for other human beings.
In the election, she said that she hated both Obama and McCain, and thus was voting for Bob Barr, even though she also loathed Bob Barr.
This isn't a very healthy outlook on the world, particularly for such an intelligent woman.
Toads at January 1, 2009 11:31 AM
After 17 years and three children my wife has "successfully" emasculated me to the point where when the moon is blue and she does want sex, I have trouble getting it up due to her expectation of me to take the rare opportunity to knock it out of the park. Now as the years press on, I can't help but feel that even if it is my fate to die alone like a dog, I'll be damned if it's going to be as I lay in front of my empty dish.
jackson at January 1, 2009 11:33 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1617834">comment from ToadsIn the election, she said that she hated both Obama and McCain, and thus was voting for Bob Barr, even though she also loathed Bob Barr. This isn't a very healthy outlook on the world, particularly for such an intelligent woman.
The dime-store analysis of my psychology is always amusing.
The candidate I would've voted for in a hot second: Newt Gingrich. A guy I really like from what I've heard from him (at Reason magazine's 40th anniversary): Arizona Republican Jeff Flake. I'm not a joiner. I saw a lot wrong with both candidates in the last election, and being about 99.9 percent-plus sure that Obama would take California, I chose to vote according to my politics, which are libertarian. The fact that the libertarians ran a loser of a candidate, well, you can't have it all. Had Bob Barr had a snowball's chance in that made-up place called hell of winning, I would've voted for my next-door neighbor. Or, more likely, I would've written in Newt.
A question: How do you know that I have "permanent negativity and dislike for other human beings"? Have we talked extensively? Do you make it a habit of going around telling people what they think? Because it kind of brands you as an idiot and an asshole.
Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 11:40 AM
Men could do a whole hell of a lot to get the woman in the mood, instead of just expecting her to put out, turned on or not. I mean really, how many of these no-sexed husbands have given footrubs or backrubs, WITHOUT expecting a BJ in return, in the last year? Watched the kids while she went and got a massage? Did the damn dishes so she'd have a little energy left come bedtime? Why do men seem to expect women being in the mood to just come around like hailey's comet? It's not rocket science. If she's too tired, she's overworked and YOU need to help do something about that. If she's just not in the mood, maybe do something to change that?? Turn her on, what a radical concept!
I don't think a woman who's ignored till DH has a hard-on owes him anything. But then, I don't see why she's care about keeping him, either. I guess if she did care about keeping such a winner, she would put out no matter what.
momof3 at January 1, 2009 11:50 AM
" This is the story of my life. I am a 35 year old man, married 12 yrs with a 5 year old daughter. My wife and I have had sex maybe (4) times in the last (3) years.
I am a corp VP, bring home six figures and give my wife what ever she wants. I also do most of the house work,(even though my wife stays home) on top of my (60) hour work week. My wife knows how her refusals make me feel. She does not even sleep in our bed anymore. She sleeps with our daughter, since sleeping in our daughter's bed allows my wife to "helicopter parent" even when she sleeps. Since my wife knows I will not leave my daughter, there is nothing I can do. She gave up on marriage counseling a year ago, and seems content with how unhappy I am. Lesson to all young men out there: they turn into their mothers"
Dude your being set up to get royally screwed in divorce court. Stop doing the housework, cancel her credit cards except one and drop the limit to the point you can pay it off in full. When she complains, tell her to get a job or keep up the house and everything else. Otherwise you will be paying alimony and child support while she is doing some other dude.
cubanbob at January 1, 2009 11:51 AM
Amy,
I am merely going off of your own quotes. What is not in dispute is that you strongly disliked 3 different candidates, including the one you voted for. Go read the comments to that post - you will see that my opinion is not held by only me.
Wishing for a candidate who is not running is merely a weak copout.
Here, you quickly declare that Dennis Prager is 'narcissistically self-important' and 'irrational', which adds nothing to the article other than making you look negative.
'Have we talked extensively? '
We see that your articles have far more insults and put-downs of others than would be necessary to advance your greater point.
'Because it kind of brands you as an idiot and an asshole.'
Someone who is easily angered into profanity merely confirms my contention that they are anger-filled, and dislike far more people than they like.
Your articles and general points are good, and I read them often. But you just seem to have to put down someone before you can concede to support them/agree with them, whether Dennis Prager, Bob Barr, or a dozen others.
Toads at January 1, 2009 11:57 AM
"Dude your being set up to get royally screwed in divorce court. "
I agree. Start taking protective measures now. Don't wait until she does it at your own convenience.
Sell your house and force your family to life in an apartment if you have to. Since you both pay everything and do all the housework, this is justified. That way, when divorce happens, your payments of alimony/child support will be lower.
Toads at January 1, 2009 12:02 PM
Refusing sex sets up a vortex of diminishing returns for married women. A woman contiuously refuses to have sex, her husband will be forced to discover that "Hey, there's a lot of cool stuff out there in the world, and I'd just as soon be doing that than coming home to Mrs. Freeze."
WOMEN, you need to realize this:
You used SEX to GET us. You'd better use sex to KEEP us. We don't NEED you. We DESIRE you, and PUT UP with you so we can have sex. Like it or not. It doensn't really matter how you feel about it. The man you leave us for only wants you for your body too.
Ttravis at January 1, 2009 12:08 PM
I don't need backrubs and my hubby does a huge share of the housework. All I ask is we have some meaningful conversation and a bit of mental/emotional closeness prior to a date. I've expressed this and he is happy to give it to me, but before that he had no idea what I needed. Women don't have to be given roses, diamonds, etc. We want our man to show love and appreciation without having to nag for it. If and when they understand this, things fall into place in a good relationship. When this is made clear and one's needs are still denied, the relationship needs emergency care or is already dead/dying.
And yes, feminism is to blame for modern women's attitudes toward sex. A couple of generations of being expected to put out on the 1st or 2nd date rather than to choose when and to whom to give oneself (and the divorce of sex from emotion) has really ruined many women. The gender roles are all screwed up - but this is something Dr. Helen covers frequently and is a whole separate and huge topic on its own. Suffice to say every one of her columns on this subject elicits comments from a torrent of men angry and dissatisfied with women (and vice versa). I feel more sympathy toward the men by far. Women have pretty much everything they think they want and are miserable - because what they've gotten is not what they wanted or needed. Which leads me to one more conclusion: IN GENERAL, women do not want or need sex. But our men do, and we would be very wise and happy to give them what they want to make them happy.
Peg C. at January 1, 2009 12:12 PM
Dennis Prager is "irrational"? Huh? Do you even know what the word means?
I'm not a big Dennis Prager fan, and I disagree with him on many fronts. But the guy is hyper-logical and precise. It's the complete opposite of "irrationality."
As I headed down here to write this comment, I noticed that others have already pointed this out. Believe me: There's a valid reason people are contesting that description.
So, any other judgments or conclusions in your posts that I shouldn't trust?
Thomas T at January 1, 2009 12:15 PM
Hey, Amy, it looks like you won't be outa bizness for while yet. Gee, I hope you guys that don't or won't talk can work something out. I'm not going to presume to tell you what to do if I don't know you well, and I can say with confidence that people I know well won't do what's right when they're locked up in some emotional fantasy.
I have a buddy who went totally gutless when his wife stepped out on him and their kids for the boss's son - thus ruining two good jobs. This moron, whom I've known for 40+ years, just stayed home for three weeks and cried and whined like a baby for her to come back. It's disgusting. Now, she knows he has no spine and she can do whoever and whatever she wants.
-----
"It's usually men who think porn stars are representative of a real woman's libido (hint: she is acting)."
Some, for good or bad, are actually that way. I know someone who was... addictive, even.
For a look at what retired pro Asia Carrera does nowadays, you could look here; the woman doesn't know how not to tell on herself. Yes, the first level is SFW, although it's not safe for your eyes, being green on black. Note the fitness photos, "before" and "after", and you'll see how far you can go and get back in shape...
Radwaste at January 1, 2009 12:18 PM
""Dude your being set up to get royally screwed in divorce court. "
Also, start putting as much money as possible in a 529 plan for your child. That way, your wife cannot get that money, it goes to your child's college education (and cannot be used before college, by which time your kid is an adult).
Also, start documenting how you are a good father. In this era of compact DigiCams, that is easy. Tape instances when you take her to the zoo, buy her gifts, go to her PTA meetings, etc. All this is valuable. If it is true that you do the housework AND pay everything, you might get to keep custody of her (which would also save you child support in addition to forging a closer bond with your daughter).
It will also help in ensure your kid realizes which parent was the better parent, when your kid becomes an adult.
If you get divorced, GET A PRE-NUP NEXT TIME.
Toads at January 1, 2009 12:20 PM
D: You are not alone. Talk to a lawyer-- really.
I've been living through 10 years of emasculation and ego erosion from a wife who is happy to refer to all the guys she screwed before, but can't be bothered to touch me. And I do all the housework, get the kids up, feed and bathe them, put them to bed, tell her she's beautiful all the time, and am perceived by her family and friends as the ideal husband. (I'm Ivy League, leader in my field, make the same kind of money you do, good at dinner parties, etc.)
I finally pushed back, and it's been a revelation. Even HER friends and family have asked "what took you so long?" If you stay on this path, the constant stress and self-doubt will damage your career, your ability to be a good Dad, and your health. Go out and get the meanest divorce lawyer in town, decide what you really want (for me, it's my kids), and let him or her turn up the heat.
You are married to a narcissist. It's not your fault. SHE. WILL. NOT. CHANGE. And you're worth more than that. Maybe after the years of neglect, you don't feel like you deserve to be happy. But you do. You probably have been enabling her (I know I did in my case.) OK, so you helped her destroy your sense of self. Just stop helping her.
Ask "Am I crazy, or is she crazy?" Ask "Do I REALLY believe she will change?" Ask "Is this what my family and friends want for me?"
If you're lazy about this, you'll fall back to the old, comfortable ways. And if you do that, you are not helping your kids. Your kids need a father who's emotionally present more than a father who's down the hall. Whatever her other merits, this woman is BAD for you, and that is bad for your children.
Break the cycle-- you're the only one who will. She has had the option to be a good person, and she has failed.
Hire the best lawyer you can, get the most custody you can, and start thinking about a healthy stepmother for the kids. (She doesn't sound like an entirely healthy mother, either.) You know what being passive has gotten you so far.
At the very least get a good therapist. You've probably got some depression going on (I know I did.).
I know EXACTLY what you're going through. And it can get A LOT better. You will get your mojo back, but you have to stand up for yourself without shame. If not for you, at least do it for your kids.
Happy to email privately if you like. Be strong. This gets MUCH better.
Another Corporate VP at January 1, 2009 12:24 PM
[W]ould it kill you to throw [me] a quickie?
This is a very timely column, since I recently asked my wife this very question. I don't think I ever felt afraid or ashamed to have this conversation, but it took me awhile before I felt it could be a conversation rather than a fight.
I love my wife for many reasons but her libido, at least since her first pregnancy 14 years ago, is not one of them. In addition to whatever changes her pregnancy may have caused, she often feels tired, stressed, fat or otherwise not in the idyllic state of mind she associates with sex. My wife is an extremely intelligent woman but she was astonished to hear how much damage she was causing by insisting on perfect conditions for having sex.
I think Prager is mostly right about the stages of male unrest being hurt, sad, angry and quiet, although I'm not sure I ever felt sad. There is, however, an additional and final stage: gone. As I explained to my wife, unless she expects me simply to squelch my needs, she is asking me either to satisfy them clandestinely or leave. The choice, I made it clear, was hers.
To her credit, she thought it over and now understands that her perspective was dangerously myopic. She never again will be the woman she was when we were dating and would leave a trail of clothes from the door to the couch, but she is doing her best to make sex a positive element of our relationship. She's even been known to throw me a quickie.
ronbo at January 1, 2009 12:28 PM
> Dennis Prager may or may not be
> right on this issue - like any
> other matter - but the last
> thing he can be called is
> irrational.
Dood, anyone, everyone is at risk for irrationality. Hero worship is for young children... If you're old enough to have room in your heart for humility on your own behalf, you should make similar space for the flaws in people you admire. You'll need it.
I admire Prager in many respects and have quoted him here many times. But this guy is a flawed human being. His arrogance is breathtaking, a one-in-a-million phenomenon. Like Andrew Sullivan, his skills as rhetor vastly exceed his gifts as a thinker, and he can't tell the difference. He's merely a a resource, like any other person who says interesting things... He's not an authority.
As regards this specific issue, I think Amy's right to quote him, and it's great that Amy understands that there's a fundamental difference between men and women that needs better exploration in popular thought.
But given the intensely personal nature of these these topics, Prager's private example deserves consideration: He married, had kids, divorced, remarried, adopted a kid, then divorced again. As has been noted earlier, this puts him in close alignment with Tom Cruise as an exemplar of marital romance well-handled.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 1, 2009 12:29 PM
It's attitudes like Ttravis's, I think, that have turned off my generation (X) to sex.
Women don't treat sex casually; we do look at it as an extension of love, of commitment, of a relationship. However, after a decade of serial sexual relationships and one night stands (aka, the dating world), women begin to think that the only thing that men care about getting from women is sex. Period. No other relationship. Ttravis just illustrated that point; no man, in his view, cares about a woman for any reason other than sex. So, why should a woman give a guy sex because he wants it if he's not giving her a relationship that she wants? If enough women my age believe that enough men believe like Ttravis, that's going to take all of the joy out of sex and zap any willingness to do their wifely duty.
This is a destructive mindset; I'm not defending it. And undoubtedly there are millions of people out there who don't share it, but it is still pervasive and is shaping the culture.
For example, for religious reasons, I don't believe in sex before marriage. (As in, I won't do it.) There are dozens of guys on threads like these (not this one, in fairness) who come out criticizing women with little experience as unmarriageable, frigid, or a waste of time. That they won't buy that cow without sampling some milk first. Well, what woman really wants to be a cow? Shouldn't there be something more? A man's worth is not tied up in his job or money; a woman's shouldn't be based solely on her sexual performance or experience. When a relationship comes down to whether or not a guy gets a BJ on a regular basis or whether a woman puts out X times a week, it really drives home the point that men don't care about women at all. It treats us like hookers.
That said, married women should totally be putting out more because it is a way of showing their husband they love them.
Just understand, Ttravis, why perhaps women lose interest in banging you. It's because you obviously don't value them.
Ella at January 1, 2009 12:31 PM
I've quoted him far too often....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 1, 2009 12:32 PM
Word of warning toad and others. A woman that can keep you hanging around for that many years while doing what she wants has probably got the exit plan covered.
Concealing assets will get you in a word of trouble, as well. You married her, it's gonna cost you to undo that mistake. Suck it up and move on.
momof3 at January 1, 2009 12:36 PM
I just want to know that she loves me and feels affection for me. When she commonly reject the whole me and fails to show any other emotional, intellectual or spiritual intimacy it become real difficult to maintain positive feelings about our union.
We have sex a couple of times a week, but never at my suggestion, always as an avoidance of despondance in a husband. Too often it makes me feel guilty as she is largely a "non-participant."
I cannot understand how someone so intelligent cannot see how a relationship can be built better. Here I refer to never wanting to discuss relationship building. I have tried to teach my children to never let their spouse wonder if they loved them, whatever it takes. I have had to work on my boys harder than my daughter in that regard.
Just do not let that wonderful spouse wonder if you feel affection and love.
Have to be anon at January 1, 2009 12:45 PM
Never mind whether Prager is or is not irrational.
Would it have been just too much to simply agree with him on this issue, without the snarky putdown?
I guess so.
mariner at January 1, 2009 12:55 PM
There is nothing that turns me on more or faster than my husband's desire for me. The smallest expression of his naked need is all I need to get going, even if I have a cold, even if I'm tired or stressed... and even if I don't feel up to intercourse. Honestly, how many brief minutes of my day does a blowjob take, and it rewards me a hundredfold in his continued happiness! The point is, I love him, and sexual intimacy is the greatest, most direct way of showing my love that we humans have. DAMN RIGHT I'm going to do my wifely duty, and FREAKIN' LOVE IT!!! :D
Great, now I'm all horny... ;D
Melissa G at January 1, 2009 12:55 PM
Question for D and Corporate VP :
Surely, you must have known the woman for some time before marriage. So why did she change into such a bad person after marriage?
One of you said that 'people don't change', but this is somehow a big change from what she was early in the marriage, and before marriage. Or else you would not have married her.
Why did your wives become this way? How does a man avoid this, post-marriage?
Tom at January 1, 2009 12:56 PM
This isn't news. St Paul pointed this out 2000 years ago:
"The husband should fulfill his wife’s sexual needs, and the wife should fulfill her husband’s needs. The wife gives authority over her body to her husband, and the husband gives authority over his body to his wife. Do not deprive each other of sexual relations, unless you both agree to refrain from sexual intimacy for a limited time so you can give yourselves more completely to prayer. Afterward, you should come together again so that Satan won’t be able to tempt you because of your lack of self-control."
1st Corinthians 7:3-5 (NLT)
DC at January 1, 2009 12:57 PM
I am moved to remark that it is far more accurate to say that the willingness of a woman to give her body to her significant other is but *one*, albeit rather important (understatement alarm sounds), sign to men of this subtle emotion we call "love". Certainly, the willingness to cook for both or a family is another sign (as it is for either, yes, yes, I know), as is the habit of looking out for her man generally.
I realise this is undoubtedly what was *meant*, but was oddly disturbed that it wasn't said explicitly. Men aren't just sex-crazed rutting animals, at least not most of them. A comment (or two) before this one seems to show why it should have been said. Perhaps I missed that part with careless reading of the two-part essay by Dennis Prager.
Crafty Hunter at January 1, 2009 12:57 PM
Actions speak louder than words.
Another rephrasing of Amy's statement might be:
Not having sex says pretty clearly "I'm just not that into you."
Dishman at January 1, 2009 1:31 PM
"Dood, anyone, everyone is at risk for irrationality. Hero worship is for young children... If you're old enough to have room in your heart for humility on your own behalf, you should make similar space for the flaws in people you admire. You'll need it."
See, THERE'S an irrational response: It's logically unrelated to the argument it is presuming to rebut, it employs fallacies such as the ad hominem, and it substitutes an emotional response for reason.
THAT'S irrational rhetoric. And it's not the sort Prager trades in. He simply is not "often" "irrational," as the original post claims. He may be a gazillion other really lame, terrible things. But that's not one of them.
Look, "irrational" isn't just some all-purpose insult with some generic definition. It has a very specific meaning, particularly when applied to the world of rhetoric, which includes radio punditry.
Thomas T at January 1, 2009 1:37 PM
After a series of sexual relationships that all end "when the spark is gone," the last guy in line (i.e., the husband) is really going to take it in the shorts sex-wise, because all of the guys that came in front stripped sex of being an expression of love and made it just an expression of physical appetite. And women aren't hungry at the same rate as men. Thank you, sexual revolution! Agatha Christie, of all people, wrote in a couple of her mysteries that she (well, Miss Marple) was disappointed in the commonality of premarital sex; it seemed like sex was hostile or a drudgery because it was so common, whereas in her day, it was called a sin, but at least it was also called fun.
Women need to appreciate that men view sex as an expression of love and approval, and it is unloving to deprive men of sex or make them beg for it. Men need to understand that demands for sex give the impression that you don't care about the *person* at all, only your own satisfaction, particularly when you're not married or committed to a woman or when the relationship isn't given the same weight as sex.
Ella at January 1, 2009 1:47 PM
This "permanent negativity and dislike for other human beings" obviously doesn't apply to Amy's dad, or to other men she met before the age of 18. But it does seem to apply to a lot of career politicians. I'd sum that up as common sense.
On the issue at hand, I think Dennis Prager and Amy Alkon are right, because while adults who cut their partners off without sex deserve the wrecked relationships they get, children, who pay the most important costs in divorces and other breakups, don't have it coming.
Of course if you're childless and planning on remaining so, I warmly advocate cutting off your partner as soon and often as you like. The sooner you partner faces the full truth about what your future together would be like and either knuckles under forever or decides it's not too late to have a real go at life the better.
David Blue at January 1, 2009 1:47 PM
I would put it quite bluntly: you can put out, or you can be put out.
When a woman withholds sex as a power game, there's nothing to salvage. It's better for all concerned if the relationship is ended.
Some Guy at January 1, 2009 1:53 PM
jackson,
After 17 years and three children my wife has "successfully" emasculated me to the point where when the moon is blue and she does want sex, I have trouble getting it up due to her expectation of me to take the rare opportunity to knock it out of the park.
Wow, that sounds an awful lot like me. There is one difference: The moon is never blue for her. No sex at all in many years. In some ways, that's a blessing, as it avoids the embarrassment you hint at.
Not having sex leaves me feeling resentful, no question about it. But I also miss being hugged, being kissed, and having my hand held. I don't get the sense she thinks much of me.
Oh, I know: If I'm that whipped, why should she think that highly of me? Well, how about because I stick around because I want the kids to be raised by both their parents?
For me, there are no solutions; only tradeoffs.
sofasleeper at January 1, 2009 1:54 PM
You're the blowhard, Amy, you fuckin' retard.
David at January 1, 2009 1:55 PM
Melissa G,
Do you have a sister?
Some Guy at January 1, 2009 1:55 PM
To D at 10:46am:
Read cubanBob's response at 11:51am. Then read it again.
I was you. Had it made -- good job, great kids -- except for my wife, who didn't want anything to do with me. Treated me like a housemate, or servant, rather than a husband.
I put up with that. More, I did all the things you're doing, to try to change her mind. (It doesn't work.)
Wife knew that I thought that anything, even suicide, was preferable to divorce with kids involved. (I don't claim this as a universal truth, but it's true for me.) So she treated me like crap, knowing she could get away with it.
Once the youngest kid was in school (no longer a full-time burden for her) she blindsided me with divorce.
I was extremely lucky. My job was flexible and understanding enough to give me the time I needed to deal with all the crap. The court decided that my highly-educated wife had no excuse for not working and therefore deserved no alimony. And I won 50% custody of my kids due to pre-existing traditions in local law. And even with all that luck, my standard of living has fallen drastically. (We still have food, clothing, and shelter, but I now dread the thought of major car repairs, and I can't imagine how I'll pay for the kids' braces, let alone college.)
Prepare yourself now. When (not if) your wife files for divorce, you'll need the equivalent of a couple month's paid vacation to deal with all the legal crap. If you can't take that much time off from work (at the judge's convenience, not yours), you'll lose your job. If you live in a state that's unfriendly to dads, you'll lose your kids. (Maybe you can move before she files for divorce.) In any case, you will likely lose half or more of everything you've worked for.
Talk to a lawyer. Now. I know you don't want a divorce. That doesn't matter. She will, and when she does, she'll get one. You can't stop it. What you can do is prepare for it.
I am not a lawyer, and I won't give you legal advice. But if I had known what I know now a year or two before divorce hit me -- if I had had some time to plan, and execute plans, while I was still comparatively rich -- my kids and I would be in much better shape right now.
Talk to a lawyer, now. You owe it to your kids.
Sam at January 1, 2009 2:19 PM
Someone said:
"Men could do a whole hell of a lot to get the woman in the mood, instead of just expecting her to put out, turned on or not. I mean really, how many of these no-sexed husbands have given footrubs or backrubs, WITHOUT expecting a BJ in return, in the last year? ... Did the damn dishes so she'd have a little energy left come bedtime? ... If she's too tired, she's overworked and YOU need to help do something about that. If she's just not in the mood, maybe do something to change that?? Turn her on, what a radical concept!
Um, wow. Hey, guys, how many of you get backrubs and the like before you screw your wife? Or mow the lawn? Or do anything that (apparently) is a chore?
Me, I would hope my wife wants to have sex with me enough that she would say, "Hey, let's hurry up and get our groove on, leave the dishes in the sink for some other time!"
But then, the problem here is women don't really want to have sex with their husbands, so all sorts of terrible, terrible reasons (back of hand across forehead, sad sigh, swoon) are created so she cannot. Naturally, all of the reasons are *your* fault, men.
I call bullshit on this game. Women's bodies. Women's sex drives. Gals, take ownership of your choices. If you don't want to screw your husband because of dirty dishes, just admit you don't really want to screw your husband and quit blaming him or the damn dishes or your husband.
Spartee at January 1, 2009 2:24 PM
Followup to D:
Some more good advice came in while I was writing my bit. "Another Corp VP" is right on. I hope you're still around to read his take. Others as well.
To Tom at 12:56pm:
Can't speak for the others, but my ex has a family history of pregnancy-linked mental illness. Of course, I didn't find THAT out until after our first child was born.
Sam at January 1, 2009 2:29 PM
Men,
Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup.
It will save you from everything except child support, in most cases.
If you are afraid to ask, is that the type of relationship you want to get into? If she refuses, is that the type of relationship you want to get into?
Toads at January 1, 2009 2:30 PM
Sam,
Why did your standard of living fall so mcuh if you did not have to pay her alimony, AND you get to keep 50% custody of the kids?
I would think that you still have your full income, AND are only paying 50% of the kid's expenses, given that your wife also supposedly got a job.
So why did your standard of living fall? Did it just fall immediately after the divorce, or is that the case even years later?
Tom at January 1, 2009 2:34 PM
It seems as though a few people are castigating our hostess for saying the following:
Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug crazy" and proceeds through "narcissisticly self-important" before it gets to "irrational."
But if you'll look again, that was written by Charlie (Colorado) at 11:18 a.m., not Amy. Just seemed like someone needed to clear that up.
Kev at January 1, 2009 2:36 PM
Do you have a sister?>>>
You read my mind.
sean at January 1, 2009 2:44 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1617891">comment from KevIt seems as though a few people are castigating our hostess for saying the following: Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug crazy" and proceeds through "narcissisticly self-important" before it gets to "irrational." But if you'll look again, that was written by Charlie (Colorado) at 11:18 a.m., not Amy. Just seemed like someone needed to clear that up.
Thanks so much, Kev. Appreciate that! Off working on my book, so I'm not monitoring comments as much as I'd like to.
Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 2:46 PM
It's a two way street, like anything else. Things have changed a lot over the last few months, but momma and I both had a tendency to happily sex the other when they were in the mood. Honestly, it was far more often me who was uninterested, than her. I would have been content to have the sex once or twice a week, she's more interested in sexing almost daily.
She understood that when I had a hella hard, physical day at work, the last thing I was going to want was to have the sex. She accepted that unless she really felt the need for a hard fuck, it wasn't the best time. But beyond that, there were plenty of occasions when I just wasn't all that interested. I had other things I would honestly rather be doing. But I never said no to her and on the rare occasions I initiated the sex, she never said no to me.
There is simply no excuse for not occasionally indulging our partners, just because we don't feel like it.
DuWayne at January 1, 2009 2:51 PM
Tom:
Because I had to buy the house away from her. More precisely, I had to pay her for half the increase in equity since we bought it (community property). A paper gain that I had to pay for with real money. And since I wound up having to do this at just about the tippy-tip-top peak of the recent bubble, that just about doubled the mortgage. Theoretically it was a good investment, and I'd get the money back when I sold the house -- but now the bubble has burst.
Yeah, I probably should have just sold the house. But it was the only house the kids had known, in the neighborhood with all their friends, and they were having nightmares in my ex's apartment ...
Sam at January 1, 2009 2:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1617897">comment from DavidYou're the blowhard, Amy, you fuckin' retard.
Stay classy, David!
I call Prager a blowhard from personal experience being on TV with him. He's a loud, rude, irrational guy who uses his booming voice to talk over anyone he disagrees with. Reminds me of another loud, rude, irrational I've been on TV with, Frank Pastorre. It's one thing to disagree with me (or anybody). These two are bullies who won't let the other side be heard.
As for your comment that I'm a "fuckin' retard," kindly support your argument with examples of my retardation. Or are you just a wounded Prager fanboy?
Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 2:52 PM
I spent most of my 30s regretting not having yet gotten married, still flitting around in romances, dating, the whole thing.
Now at 39, the more I encounter feedback like the posts above, the happier I am to be where I am: single, with a good job, and no wife anywhere in sight.
I love women, and I don't mean that in some cheesy way. I prefer women's company, I like talking with women, I have far more female friends than male. But in the realm of relationships, our culture has turned women into monsters. They've got EVERYTHING now: the respect, satisfaction and worth that come from high education and professional work -- previously the domain of men -- on top of the sexual power they've always had. They get the best of both worlds, because despite now being the on-paper equivalent of men, they still get to be catered to, acquiesced to, lofted onto pedestals, etc., the way women always have been.
In other words, we've created a bunch of freeloaders: women who get the benefits of being treated like men while still getting the benefits of being treated like women. They're freeloading off the lingering inertia of the 99.9% of human history in which the two genders had distinct societal roles and there was thus a legitimate REASON that women were catered to, lofted onto pedastals, etc.
Females have always been less interested in sex then men. That's biological. But until the last century, a woman didn't get to scale down her marriage's sex life at night AND head out the next morning to go reap the fruits of professional work and a salary.
Why did anybody think this whole thing was going to work? Why did we overthrow millennia worth of human history just to heed feminist ideas, as if the relative blink of the 20th century had lessons for us that the previous thousands of years did not?
Absolutely nuts.
Thomas T at January 1, 2009 3:02 PM
Som,
OK, so it was more about unfortunate market timing rather than the law screwing you. Had you sold, OR had the market not tanked, you would not be financially hit much..
Actually, you should have let her keep the house, and force her to pay you after it tanked. Then, the situation would be reversed.
Another thing people should do is not buy a house until the kids are at least in the 1st grade. That way, you get past the 'scribble on the walls' stage, and also have fewer years of child-support/house risk if you get divorced, as there are fewer years left until the kids grow up and leave.
Rent a 3br condo or townhouse until the average age of your kids is at least 6.
Tom at January 1, 2009 3:06 PM
Tom:
Oh, and even though I have 50% custody, I'm still paying 70% of the kids' expenses, due to the vagaries of local law and the ratio of my income to their mother's income. That's a small hit, though, compared to the mortgage.
And I'm not looking for sympathy. As I said, I've been very lucky, especially given how clueless I was going in. There are plenty of folks out there who have fared less well. I know some men who've had really appalling experiences.
I was just trying to give "D" a heads-up that I wish someone had given me.
Sam at January 1, 2009 3:10 PM
>>>It seems as though a few people are
>>>castigating our hostess for saying the
>>>following:
>>>Agreed. The list starts with "bedbug
>>>crazy" and proceeds through
>>>"narcissisticly self-important" before
>>>it gets to "irrational."
>>>But if you'll look again, that was
>>>written by Charlie (Colorado) at 11:18
>>>a.m., not Amy. Just seemed like someone
>>>needed to clear that up.
As far as I can tell, there's just one person castigating our hostess for that statement. Any other similar castigation is taking place because of her post's opening sentence.
The sentiment of which she is still expressing, I see, without even acknowledging any of its emphatic rebuttals.
Thomas T at January 1, 2009 3:10 PM
This is "original OS" stuff (survival of the species).---
Program still running.
Don M at January 1, 2009 3:20 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1617905">comment from Thomas TAny other similar castigation is taking place because of her post's opening sentence. The sentiment of which she is still expressing, I see, without even acknowledging any of its emphatic rebuttals.
I find discussing Dennis Prager any further uninteresting.
I do think that, if you love somebody, you do what you can to make them happy. Rosemary Basson's work is wise on how female and male sexual desire cycles differ. I've written about this in one of my previous "Advice Goddess" columns about how waiting around for a woman to feel desire is exactly wrong:
http://www.advicegoddess.com/ag-column-archives/2006/09/groping-for-mor-1.html
Amy Alkon at January 1, 2009 3:22 PM
"but if they just start fooling around, they’re likely to get there. "
So true. That is why a lot of younger hotties end up with 'jerks', to the frustration of 'nice guys'. It is because the jerk had the courage to make a move, and persist even after her initial protests, while the 'nice guy' waits too long to make a move, or thinks the signals are not strong enough.
So the 'jerk' vs. 'nice guy' contrast is really a 'proactive. confident' vs. 'passive, unconfident, afraid of rejection' contrast.
Toads at January 1, 2009 3:40 PM
You know, Amy ... I've been meaning to tell you this for quite some time.
I love you.
justsayin at January 1, 2009 3:43 PM
Wow...you guys who have been so badly treated by your (ex) and wives. I am so sorry for you. :( There is no excuse for treating any man like a servant or roommate.
I love my hubby and would do nearly anything for him - I'd be thrilled if he were more interested in having sex. *sigh*
sad anon at January 1, 2009 3:44 PM
Tom: Thanks for the kind words. And to answer your question, "What changed?", I wish I had a simple answer.
In my case, it was a bit tepid from the start, which she blamed on childhood abuse. She also promised to get into therapy for it. Like any right-thinking person blinded by love, I thought: "OK, but she'll work on it for me." She didn't.
But that's not even the crux of the issue. We can name the issue "Sex," but what it really is wifely contempt. As in absence of support, hostility to your family and friends, belittling your work (despite your success), et al. After she's been cold to you for a while, like a problem-solving male, you redouble your efforts-- maybe if I work harder, compliment her more, let her pick the movie, then she'll love me. And she was still beautiful and I still loved her, so why not.
But you can't love what you despise. The harder I worked for her love, the more pathetic I seemed to her. PLUS, she probably felt guilty because I actually WAS the one doing all the work.
A lot of it comes down to character. Neither of us had really been tested before we were married. And she abandons everything-- grad school, Job 1, Job 2-- so I don't see why she would behave any differently with me. In retrospect, I should have known, but we live life in real time. Was I complicit? Yes. Could she have worked harder? Hell yes. I can't change her, but I can stop helping her tear me down. And it's lonely, but I've been lonely in the marriage for years, so I know I can handle it.
So I'm solving the problem now-- and I hope D and sofasleeper do the same. Again, you do your kids no favors by becoming a shell of who you can be. They need a strong you, not one plagued by self-doubt. Living away from your kids seems excruciating, which is why I got the meanest lawyer in the state, but the path you're on leads to emotional death followed by early physical death. And that leaves the kids with her as the sole parental influence in their lives.
For people who aren't married yet, I would say that character is the most important thing to screen a mate for. For people like D and sofasleeper, you HAVE to save yourself. You owe it to your kids.
Could I have foreseen the problem? (Which again is not sex, but the refusal to work hard and honor her husband.) Probably. Anything I can do about it? Not really. Just be the best Dad I can, and maybe find a good woman who will honor me. Because I'm worth honoring.
Another Corporate VP at January 1, 2009 4:21 PM
Hey Sam,
Hang in there.
I was married for 12 years to a charismatic and intelligent but messed up guy (drug use etc.) Several years ago I finally got to the point where I was strong & mature enough to take control of my life & leave him.
Now I'm dating a man whose story sounds a lot like yours -- and I pinch myself every day at how lucky I am to have found him. He's the most thoughtful, funny, sweet guy. And I'd do ANYTHING for him. I so admire his strength, his integrity & his steadiness, and I am so blessed that I've been given an opportunity to appreciate him -- and show it.
You deserve a woman who sees you that way -- who will size up what you've done with your life and recognize what a joy it will be to love you. She's out there -- just give yourself some time, find some interests to pursue as you find time that will get you out of the house, and you'll run into her someday.
We're not all pea brains, we're not all users. And some of us, having come up through some tough times ourselves, will be more appreciative to find a guy like you than you can imagine.
name withheld at January 1, 2009 4:35 PM
Another Corporate VP:
I'm still working through some of this stuff myself, and your comments are very helpful. Thanks.
Sam at January 1, 2009 4:47 PM
My husband only wants me to give it up when he wants it. He is not affectionate towards me unless it is going to lead up to sex. He never compliments me and I am above average in the attractive department. I work 40 hours a week and take care of the kids more then he can just because of his demanding work schedule as well. I am usually tired and my libedo is low. He seems to think that I need to give it up more but I have lost my desire simply because I need emotional stimulation which is what makes me horny, I like to be touched throughout the day not just before getting it on. As I write this I am happy to say it is a new year and just the awareness my husband is stirring up is making me hornier. Just remember it takes 2 to tango give more to your wife on an emotional level and she will put out all the more often because she needs to feel needed and not just before sex.
PMJ at January 1, 2009 5:32 PM
All of you guys deserve women who respect you! A real woman has self confidence and is not afraid to be herself with you. No games! I hope that you all find someone who treats you well.
sad anon at January 1, 2009 5:37 PM
My husband and I will be celebrating our 25th wedding anniversary in June. We have always had a good sex life and I've seldom turned down my husband. That is not to say that I walk around in a state of perpetual heat - much of the time, I wasn't initially in the mood when my husband "made a pass" at me, but in a few minutes, he could put me in the mood ;-) I'm a nice Catholic girl who still gets a kick out of being seduced and he figured that out early on and took advantage of it :-)
I think Peg C hits the nail on the head. The two of you should want to make each other happy. Sex makes him happy, but it also makes me happy, even when I don't experience fireworks, because I'm glad he's happy. And I find it reassuring that even in my 50's, with boobs that aren't so perky anymore and strech marks from 3 pregnancies, my husband still wants me. And he is balding and doesn't have the perfect Marine bod he did 25 years ago - and I wouldn't trade him for all the buff himbos in the world.
I was not a virgin when I married, but my sex life had been pretty limited and maybe that is the reason I never got bored with sex after marriage. It always retained a naughty thrill for me, precisely because it wasn't the sort of thing I would do with just anybody. The hooking-up done by today's college kids sounds terribly depressing and just not very erotic to me. If sex is no big deal to you when you're 15 or 16, is it any wonder that a time comes when it really becomes no big deal - something you can do without? That's one of my main objections to casual sex at an early age (my own religious beliefs notwithstanding).
My own advice? To women - don't let yourself go, but don't get overly hung-up on the fact that you don't have the same figure you did when you were 22. I think men will accept that if they know that you love them and want to be with them. It's funny, isn't it? We're bombarded with sexual content constantly, talk about sex much more than our parents ever did, spend fortunes on boob jobs and Botox and hair plugs - and yet so many people seem to be having miserable sex lives. To men: remember that women don't have your sex drive and want love and tenderness more than intercourse. This was difficult, initially, for my husband to get - I had to tell him (men aren't mindreaders). That doesn't mean diamond tennis bracelets and roses - try a little cuddling and kissing. (A friend recently told me after 4 glasses of wine that she hasn't been properly kissed - French kissed - by her husband in 20 years, because he doesn't like kissing. Yet he expects BJs. So it goes both ways.)
Di at January 1, 2009 5:38 PM
Some sad stories repeated here, voices not often heard. Some of the problem is men are not what we have historically been, and women sense this. Hard for me to understand, I'm a fisherman and live off the land, much more of a traditional life, and the women around here often have to share in the labor and the joy of living. The more radically we insulate ourselves from the real world (suburbs, then living in an apartment, then on the 29th floor) the harder 'just living' seems. When men get expensive haircuts and women don't want to get their hands dirty providing for the family, we lose respect for each other. My love hates cleaning fish, but when it's busy she chips in . I do my share around the house, try to pull my share when I'm ashore. We respect each other and it isn't perfect, but we wouldn't change it for a thing. Reminds me of the old farmer couples I knew growing up. When life is artificial and centers around ease of living and entertainment of the self, it seems alot harder to put the work into a realtionship and investing in someone else. Guess I'm just lucky.
Chris at January 1, 2009 6:10 PM
women may not feel desire initially, but if they just start fooling around, they’re likely to get there.
Speaking from terra firma on the far shore of menopause, I've found this to be true. Sometimes you just get rolling with a little faith that the engine will jump start.
I wonder if part of the problem is that many people have come to expect so much from each sexual experience. We think it has to be mind-bending every time, and that can feel overwhelming. I think it's healthier to approach sex as a form of play. Also not every race has to be a marathon...sometimes a sprint is just what the doctor ordered. ;-)
deja pseu at January 1, 2009 6:13 PM
If sex is no big deal to you when you're 15 or 16, is it any wonder that a time comes when it really becomes no big deal - something you can do without?
I think that you're on to something w/ that observation. A lot of women I've known who'd been promiscuous when they were younger seem to resent sex once they get older. I don't know why this is, but it suggests that the insouciance they'd professed as young women wasn't entirely sincere. Otherwise why would they regard the experience negatively as a result?
Marko at January 1, 2009 6:22 PM
I don't agree with the assertion (often made) that women "biologically" are just not as interested in sex as men. If anything, women are MORE interested in sex than men. If you want to throw scientific terms like "biological" into the discussion, I think you have to look at the whole picture. Whe humans were still mainly hunters and gatherers, every woman had sex, and had children. BUT, not every man got to have sex. Only the "alpha male" had that perk. That's the way it was(biologically) meant to be. Then populations grew, clans and tribes(where everyone pitched in to help raise children, because they were all at least distantly related) gave way to nations, where a woman couldn't get the help necessary to both birth and then feed/raise a child made it imperative to "assign"(through a new societal invention called marriage) a woman to a man(whether or not he was an alpha male) so thar HE could be out in the field while she raised/fed the kid(s). If anything, women still want the alpha-male(the "jerk" or the "bad boy" so often referred to) because "bilogically" THAT's who's she supposed to mate with. If you don't think women wat sex as much as men do, look at women's magazines, sex is all they talk about. A woman's orgasm is infinitely more intense than a man's is. Sex is more common early in a relationship because women can fool themselves(for a while) that they're WITH an alpha. Soon enough, they realize the guy they've married isn't, and they lose interest in HIM, not in sex.
B.T.W. I've been married nearly 20 years, the sex is great(the only stumbling block is opportunity, with so many kids still at home) and my wife is, if anything, more beautiful now than she was in college when we met. I'm one of the lucky ones, to be sure. But I know enough of the unlucky ones to have come to the conclusion that "bilogically" not every male horse gets to be the stallion that gets the mare. And That's just biology. I think marriage is a great institution, but while it helps raise children, it DOESN'T make a woman desire the man she married. She'll always want an alpha.
Travis at January 1, 2009 6:48 PM
If sex is no big deal to you when you're 15 or 16, is it any wonder that a time comes when it really becomes no big deal - something you can do without?
I'm not sure who through this out there, but I do find that it fits me. I was really very big on the casual sex for many years, from about fourteen on. Going into my late twenties my desire for Teh Sex went down considerably. At thirty two I find that I can really take it or leave it.
Honestly though, I am tending to look at it as a good thing really. I am heading headlong towards becoming a full time single dad and will not be parading women through the lives of my children. Given that my kids will be with me most of the time I'm not in class or working, dating isn't really going to be an option. My folks will occasionally take the boys for a night or two, not exactly a recipe for fomenting romance.
But I'm finding that I'm ok with that. Not having this driving desire for the sex is extremely helpful. At the same time, I really don't feel like I'm missing something. I've been there and done that - a whole lot with a whole lot of women.
Nowadays I'm pretty much entirely focused on my kids and really need to be. The infant is well pleased with most anything, but even he's having trouble with the changes in momma. The oldest is having a much tougher time. He's finally realizing that momma is getting worse, isn't likely to get better and understanding that she probably isn't ever going to be who she was.
I've got way too much to deal with to worry about Teh Sex.
DuWayne at January 1, 2009 6:53 PM
Yes, leave the dishes (for example). Let them rot and have sex. Fine, in a whirlwind relationship. For the long haul, no. They do have to get done. You going to hop out of the sack after and do them? Or is she going to wake up to all that mess in the am? Or be up till midnight after the sex, doing them? Marriage is practicalities, because life is. Things have to get done. Yard mowing, dishes, laundry, snotty kid noses wiped (boy, is THAT a turn-on for us women!)
My point hat most men who don't get enough sex need to look at what they can to get her mind in that sex sphere is still valid.
momof3 at January 1, 2009 7:20 PM
> It has a very specific meaning,
> particularly when applied to
> the world of rhetoric, which
> includes radio punditry.
Someone insulted your radio friend, and your feelings have been hurt!
We all feel bad about that, and for all I know, I've been a bigger fan of him than you have. But taking such enthusiastic offense on his behalf doesn't betoken a sensible respect as much as idolatry. Alkon's got the right technique here: Admire the good moments, but don't fall into hero-worship.
He's not worth it... But by all means, Thomas, do what you need to do. Have you met Mr. Ford?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 1, 2009 8:12 PM
Wait; why is your point supposed to be considered valid when it's still being trumped, superseded, overruled, and so on by Amy and Dennis's point. Namely, that in the first place, it's irresponsible of women to pretend that their minds and hearts and bodies need to manipulated into "the mood" by someone else before they should make love with their husbands/SOs.
Why should your mere presumed privilege of being gotten into "the mood" before engaging in intimacy take precedence over your own actual real-world responsibility to help get yourself there yourself? Why aren't you getting yourself into "the mood" on your own?
Acksiom at January 1, 2009 9:27 PM
Women do not need romance....they need seduction and men who know how to seduce don't need to ask, cajole or beg their wives for sex. Most men just don't want to make the effort, or they don't know how to seduce their wives.
belle at January 1, 2009 10:04 PM
No, belle; it's men whose partners choose to behave like responsible adults who don't need to ask, cajole, or beg them for sex.
That's because the common masculine standard of frequent, self-starting sexuality is by far the more normal, healthy, adult, responsible one.
Those who want sex often in a committed relationship without having to be manipulated into that mindset by someone else are being responsible, because sex, particularly as an expression of desirability, is one of the best ways to keep a paired relationship healthy.
So why should men be expected to also shoulder women's responsibility to want sex with their partners in a relationship, as you appear to expect of them?
Why, exactly, should men have to do your work for you?
Acksiom at January 1, 2009 10:35 PM
One more thought for our new friend Thomas T:
> But the guy is hyper-logical and
> precise. It's the complete opposite
> of "irrationality."
Prager believes in a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being who takes a personal interest in our lives, but permits suffering.
Is that the stuff of "hyper-logic", or just typical human neediness?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 1, 2009 10:39 PM
"Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup. Get a pre-nup."
Also, don't forget the POST-nup. Prospective divorce terms can be negotiated at any time during the marriage. I personally believe that most red flags are apparant before marriage. But for those of you who are really blindsided by a spouse's contempt, you are not helpless.
snakeman99 at January 2, 2009 1:12 AM
> I personally believe that most
> red flags are apparant before
> marriage.
Agreed. I wish more people were eager to get the counsel of friends about choosing mates, and that people grew up to think that giving good advice about marriage partners was an important part of friendship.
A bunch of commenters today have been sharing bitterness about wives or husbands who won't give comfort, and it's tempting to ask them, after all that sorrow, do you really want to fuck them anyway?
I think people in such marriages with kids too should absolutely do their best to pull things together and raise the kids.
But for the rest, this article came to mind: "The marriage or the couple is an abstraction: it is the individuals who matter."
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 2, 2009 3:10 AM
Why should your mere presumed privilege of being gotten into "the mood" before engaging in intimacy take precedence over your own actual real-world responsibility to help get yourself there yourself? Why aren't you getting yourself into "the mood" on your own?
What exactly do you mean by that? You think women are responsible for making themselves aroused because it's "manipulative" to expect the man to do it? That sounds pretty selfish to me.
If wives should not resent their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, husbands should not resent wives who need to be "warmed up" before engaging in the act, unless "warming up" means expensive presents and dinner at a chichi restaurant. For me, warming up means a little kissing and cuddling and - well, that little thing called "foreplay." It is as unreasonable to expect women to do without it as it is to expect men to be happy in a sexless marriage.
Reading the comments, and thinking about other comments I've heard from people, I'm struck by how many people seem to view the whole thing as some sort of power play. If he gets his way, I lose, and vice versa. The radical feminists of my youth thought that having sex with a man when you didn't really feel like it was like being raped. Some men apparently think it's manipulation to expect them to put you in the mood. Sheesh, how about doing something because it pleases your mate and therefore should please you? It seems to me that starting out with the mindset that any compromise, or taking your spouses preferences into account, is letting yourself be used and suckered and manipulated. If you start out thinking that way, you're better off staying single and getting a cat.
Di at January 2, 2009 4:44 AM
Prager believes in a supernatural, omniscient, omnipotent being who takes a personal interest in our lives, but permits suffering.
Is that the stuff of "hyper-logic", or just typical human neediness?
I am not a religious person, and have plenty of my own doubts about the supernatural being you've described.
But I'm also aware that the process for arriving at faith can be scrupulously rational (cf., Augustine, Aquinas, et al.). The word "theology" has a "-logy" at the end for a reason, after all.
Again, I have no particular affection for Prager. But I do care about rationality, so I like seeing the concept properly identified and appreciated.
Thomas T at January 2, 2009 4:55 AM
If wives should not resent their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, husbands should not resent wives who need to be "warmed up" before engaging in the act
Bingo. It's about accepting and respecting each other's differences, and making loving accommodation.
deja pseu at January 2, 2009 6:47 AM
> Again, I have no particular
> affection for Prager
And yet it was on his behalf that your ire was raised.
> But I do care about rationality
More than it cares about you... Absent hero-worship, there's no need to be so twitchy on behalf of language. It'll defend itself. People on this blog in particular are often far too precious about their belief in the scientific method and "rationality", as if certain that ego, prejudice and fear were not factors in their lives.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 2, 2009 6:50 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1617962">comment from Thomas TBut I'm also aware that the process for arriving at faith can be scrupulously rational
Let's be honest: belief, sans evidence, that there's a big man in the sky who cares about your life is as rational as believing there's a big purple grapefruit up there waiting to give you the winning lottery ticket.
Amy Alkon at January 2, 2009 6:58 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1617963">comment from DiIf wives should not resent their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, husbands should not resent wives who need to be "warmed up" before engaging in the act,
From the perspective of somebody who hears people's marital and sexual problems by the dozen every day, I'll tell you that many women shut down ANY kissing or attempt to get cuddly because they know it will lead to sex.
Amy Alkon at January 2, 2009 7:00 AM
If you aren't going to have sex with your wife then what is the point of being married? Guys can get companionship and love from their dogs or from other guys. Sex is what makes the man/woman relationship special and different from those other types of relationships.
How many relationships would last if one partner insisted that they be the only one to prepare a meal for the other and then failed to do so on a regular basis? Would you really be surprised if you caught your partner at a restaurant or eating at a friend's house under those conditions? Well you shouldn't be. It isn't rational.
Variety is also important. If you only get one type of meal, let's say hash browns, and that is all you are allowed to have then eventually you will have to balance your diet out elsewhere.
The other thing that tears guys up is when a woman looks upon sex as something that has to be endured. If your partner is unenthusiastic then it takes most of the fun out of it. It doesn't have to be fireworks but it doesn't have to be a chore either.
Lastly, as unrealistic as women think pornography is the female version of pornography, soap operas or romance novels, are just as bad. No one acts like that in real life. Emotional exhibitionism is as foreign to most men as sexual exhibitionism is to most women... but we do our best without feeling "used." Any straight man who has ever attended an opera or a Broadway play can tell you all about true love and the sacrifices that have to be made.
Howard Stern at January 2, 2009 7:03 AM
Another Corporate VP:
Thank you for the offer. I guess I stay because I am deathly afraid of what will happen to my daughter if we divorce. Would I probably get custody, yes. Is it 100%, no. I am not willing to take the chance. I am sure my wife would do all she can to turn my daughter against me, and I think it is best for her to have me around as much as I can, no matter how crappy my marriage is.
Pathetically, I am also concerned about what would happen to my wife on her own. She cannot manage anything, and I fear that her life would spiral out of control. I did take a vow to protect her, which I am doing now.
Tom:
My advice to you is look and see what the #1 female influence is like (99% of the time her mom). Your future wife will be like her. For me, it took a child to make this happen. Before the child came along, I could not have had a better wife.
Thank you to all for the comments. It is comforting to see I am not alone.
D at January 2, 2009 7:05 AM
What exactly do you mean by that? You think women are responsible for making themselves aroused because it's "manipulative" to expect the man to do it?
No; I think women in normal, healthy paired relationships are responsible for making themselves aroused because it's their own adult responsibility to do so.
I think it's immaturely irresponsible to expect the man to do it.
If that doesn't clarify my meaning, let's try coming at it from another angle: what exactly do you think women's responsibilities for making their men aroused are?
That sounds pretty selfish to me.
Well, yes; expecting men to be responsible for both arousing themselves and arousing their partners as well is pretty selfish.
If wives should not resent their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, husbands should not resent wives who need to be "warmed up" before engaging in the act, unless "warming up" means expensive presents and dinner at a chichi restaurant.
Except, of course, for how it's about adult responsibility within a relationship, not resentment.
Again, why should men be expected to also shoulder women's responsibility to want sex with their partners in a relationship, as you appear to expect of them?
Why, exactly, should men have to do your work for you?
For me, warming up means a little kissing and cuddling and - well, that little thing called "foreplay.".
And if you're not willing to have sex with your husband when you're not in the mood, and you're also refusing to take normal, healthy adult responsibility for getting yourself into the mood, making him do your work for you instead, then aren't you engaging in exactly the kind of behavior that Amy and Dennis are trying to warn people against?
It is as unreasonable to expect women to do without it as it is to expect men to be happy in a sexless marriage.
Um. . .whom else besides you is supposed to be suggesting that?
Certainly not me. All I'm saying is that if you want foreplay, then making foreplay happen is your responsibility.
That's the point you seem to be missing. You're trying to apply a double standard that says men are responsible for both their own sexual arousal and that of their partners as well, and I'm pointing that double standard out and invalidating it.
All of which is of course secondary to Amy and Dennis's main point that people should be willing in general to have sex with their partners whether they're "in the mood" or not.
Do you understand? Amy and Dennis are telling you that if you want a happy, healthy paired relationship, then being willing to have sex when your partner wants it whether you're "in the mood" for it or not is a better attitude and plan than what you're doing currently.
Reading the comments, and thinking about other comments I've heard from people, I'm struck by how many people seem to view the whole thing as some sort of power play. If he gets his way, I lose, and vice versa.
Yeah, that's pretty much it. Even in supposedly normal, healthy relationships, women often treat sexual intimacy as a commodity.
You're doing it as well, to a certain extent, by trying to shuffle off the responsibility for your getting "warmed up" onto your husband. As you're made clear, if he doesn't do what you want, how you want it done, first, then he shouldn't expect to get any loving from you.
And Amy and Dennis and some of the rest of us are trying to show you how that is not exactly an optimal relationship diet plan.
The radical feminists of my youth thought that having sex with a man when you didn't really feel like it was like being raped.
And your purpose in telling us this was what please?
Some men apparently think it's manipulation to expect them to put you in the mood.
Well, as a matter of fact, it actually is manipulative of women to by-default expect men to put them in the mood.
However, my point is that it's immaturely irresponsible of women to expect men to do women's share of the job as well.
Sheesh, how about doing something because it pleases your mate and therefore should please you?
Very good! And now all you need to do is apply that insight to your own outlook and behavior.
I.e., how about just making love to your mate when he wants to because it pleases him and should therefore please you?
It seems to me that starting out with the mindset that any compromise, or taking your spouses preferences into account, is letting yourself be used and suckered and manipulated.
I think you forgot to finish your sentence there.
If you start out thinking that way, you're better off staying single and getting a cat.
Yes, that's what Amy and Dennis and some of the rest of us have been trying to tell women with views like yours all along here.
You seem to grasp everything about the basic concepts involved except for how they primarily apply to people like you, who think men should be responsible for not only arousing themselves but their partners as well.
Problem is, it doesn't work that way. What you want is to be granted a infantile privilege, and what you're getting instead is an adult responsibility.
Here's yet another hopefully illuminating angle on the matter: do you expect your husband to also be responsible for getting you "in the mood" to eat a midnight snack with him, or watch a movie with him, or work out with him, or go dancing with him, or play Guitar Hero with him, or anything else you do together for shared enjoyment?
I suspect not. So why then are you applying a different set of expectations to making love with him?
The default answer is, of course, because of how you're treating sex like the commodity target of a power struggle.
Acksiom at January 2, 2009 7:38 AM
Crid -
People on this blog in particular are often far too precious about their belief in the scientific method and "rationality", as if certain that ego, prejudice and fear were not factors in their lives.
I am what I like to describe as pathologically credulous. I have an inherent desire to Believe all sorts of notions that may not have the least grounding in reality. I also have a strong desire to believe people who present their position logically and with great eloquently.
It is because I recognize how my ego, prejudices and fears cloud my judgment, that I am keen on seeing evidence to back up assertions. Being rational does not mean that one is insusceptible to irrational thoughts and ideas. Being rational means that one recognizes their susceptibilities and attempts to compensate for them.
Thomas -
But I'm also aware that the process for arriving at faith can be scrupulously rational (cf., Augustine, Aquinas, et al.). The word "theology" has a "-logy" at the end for a reason, after all.
Theology has an "logy" at the end, because there was a time when it was quite reasonable, even rational to believe in a creator God who revealed his words to certain men who were open to it. Doesn't mean it's rational today.
It is not irrational to look at a complex natural world and decide that it must have come about because some kind of god made it happen. It is irrational to look at that complex natural world and look at the evidence gathered using methodological naturalism and still believe that it was poofed into existence by a god or gods.
Put simply, faith is not inherently irrational, maintaining that faith in the face of evidence that what you have faith in is incorrect is irrational.
DuWayne at January 2, 2009 7:38 AM
Acksiom -
No; I think women in normal, healthy paired relationships are responsible for making themselves aroused because it's their own adult responsibility to do so.
You don't get laid very often, do you?
The whole point of sex is to please each other. If you aren't spending at least twenty minutes (unless you're engaged in a quickie) playing with your partner's bits, before you engage in intercourse, you aint doing it right.
When I slide it inside my partner, I do so using the lubrication from her first and sometimes second orgasm - orgasm that was achieved during foreplay. The writhing and spasming of my partner, at the touch of my hands and tongue is a fairly critical aspect of the sexual experience.
Without the foreplay and focus on the pleasing my partner, I might as well put in a video and fuck myself. Because that's all the value I'm going to get out of the experience. And if that's the value, why bother trying to involve someone else?
DuWayne at January 2, 2009 7:47 AM
I agree with DuWanyne. Most of the fun is in building up the tension to high and higher levels. I'd be perfefectly happy engaging in foreplay for few hours.
Who was it that said women were like desiel engines in that once you got them warmed up 'they can run for a long, long, time'
?
lujlp at January 2, 2009 8:20 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1617977">comment from DI guess I stay because I am deathly afraid of what will happen to my daughter if we divorce.
D - I respect you for that. That's good parenting. My feeling: Once you have a child, your needs come second. Too few people are willing to see it that way.
Amy Alkon at January 2, 2009 8:23 AM
Yeah, I should clarify that teh twenty minute rule is only a minimum. I am all for spending more time than that. Unfortunately, as momof3 notes, when you have kids time is an issue.
DuWayne at January 2, 2009 8:30 AM
Di: If wives should not resent their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, husbands should not resent wives who need to be "warmed up" before engaging in the act
deja pseu: Bingo. It's about accepting and respecting each other's differences, and making loving accommodation.
Only in the sense that it's therefore about wives not resenting their husbands for wanting sex more frequently, period, and wives usually giving it to them regardless of whether the wives are "warmed up" or not, period. And wives are not "entitled" to anything because of this.
If wives want to unilaterally make being "warmed up" a sexual precondition, then wives are likewise unilaterally responsible for warming themselves up. It's not their husband's job.
I'm going to take another stab at explaining this, using a comparative model. Suppose, ladies, that you've been cultivating a friendship with someone in a much higher socioeconomic bracket for a while. And one day, this person invites you to a private club party. So you get dressed in your best, and when you arrive, there are bottles of expensive champagne, and delicious catered snacks, and lots of beautiful women and a few very handsome men, who are witty and charming and do their best to make you feel gorgeous and charismatic and attractive.
And then you overhear something that makes you realize that all the other women there are prostitutes, and all these charming, witty, very handsome men who you think have been trying to make you feel gorgeous and charismatic and attractive believe you are just another whore too, and they've simply been toying with you for their amusement. In fact, you're just a paid party favor to them, and they haven't been trying to seduce you; they've just been playing around pretending that a whore like you is worth getting to know as a person. You're just there to be used for their pleasure, with no concern for your own, and then discarded afterwards without consequences.
Not a very nice feeling, eh?
Well, that's what it feels like to many men when they monogamously commit to you and you still expect them, as a default responsibility, to keep doing the shit work of getting you into "the mood". You're the witty, charming, very handsome men, our marriage is the party, and your expectation that we still need to get you "in the mood" first as a default is the sudden awful realization that you think we're just yet another casually degradable whore to exploit and then throw away.
Acksiom at January 2, 2009 8:42 AM
That's not how I understood Acksiom's message at all. I didn't see that he was talking about foreplay. But initiating sex.
Occassionally, the woman could decide Hey, it's a good day to have sex. It's not always on the man to decide when. She could grab his butt & make a pass. Instead of always waiting for him to come on with back rubs & kissy faces.
Once it's agreed that sex will happen, then the physical foreplay starts.
MeganNJ at January 2, 2009 8:43 AM
Megan -
I based my comment on his words. He seems to believe that it is a woman's responsibility to get herself aroused. I disagree with that.
Do you go into sexual encounters aroused, or do you go into them expecting to get aroused? Generally I look at foreplay as the opportunity to get aroused and get my partner aroused.
DuWayne at January 2, 2009 9:12 AM
doing the shit work of getting you into "the mood".
If you consider affection/foreplay "shit work", that speaks volumes.
OTOH, I'm not saying it's someone else's responsibility to get me "in the mood". What I'm saying is that I'm much more inclined to go along with a romp even when I'm not in the mood if my husband regularly shows me affection and respect. And nine times out of ten, once things get going my libido wakes up. Most women I know, especially in my 50+ age group don't *need* sex as often as their men (yes, there are exceptions). As long as we're willing partners most of the time, what's your gripe with that?
deja pseu at January 2, 2009 9:13 AM
Couple three observations:
1) There are some wonderful women commenting here.
2) A lot of this problem would go away very fast if family law handled child custody in a fair way aimed at the childrens' rights instead of the mother's. In most of the stories here the children are being used as human shields.
3)"Guys can get companionship and love from their dogs or from other guys."
Howard, are you aware that in a lot of cultures, the majority maybe, actual romantic love of a woman was considered an unmanly submission and a weakling's indulgence in pleasure, the equivalent of what we call pussy-whipped? The first warrior culture to change this was the pagan Celts, and that tradition came down in the Middle Ages as courtly love, and then finally flowered as what we call romance today. We have writers like Jane Austen to thank for making it even respectable for people to make love matches. Thank God.
Before that, women were for sex and sex was for the family, because the family needed babies. Hmmm....that's still not so uncommon an attitude.
4) Women who don't want to have sex with their men are exercizing their right of bodily autonomy. So are men who step out and get it elsewhere. Do you imagine that a wife owns her husband's body any more than a husabnd owns hers? He at least isn't putting her at risk of him coming home preganant with someone's bastard and saddling her with raising it for 18 years, enforced by law.
Because I'll tell you what ladies, you would be as amazed as I was at the numbers of married and actually basically straight guys I have met cruising gay bookstores and video arcades and even in bathhouses. And bathhouses are pretty strong meat for a straight guy - guys in group sex in public areas and whatnot. It might further amaze you to find out how many married guys like to bottom, so there's a tip for you for some sexual variety - of course first you're going to have to find out where the prostate is, *what* it is for some of you, and of course you'll have to lose the hooker nails for obvious reasons. Try it, you may both love it. At least a lot of your husbands will, and you won't even have to get wet and it's less work than oral.
Jim at January 2, 2009 9:40 AM
Do you understand? Amy and Dennis are telling you that if you want a happy, healthy paired relationship, then being willing to have sex when your partner wants it whether you're "in the mood" for it or not is a better attitude and plan than what you're doing currently
As I said in my first post, I have been happily married for 25 years and my husband and I have a good and satisfying sex life. I don't need a condescending lecture from a stranger on the Internet telling me what I'm doing is all wrong and I'm selfish and immature.
What I understood Amy and Dennis to be saying is that women generally have lower sex drives than men and so should accomodate their husbands even when the women are not in the mood. I have no quarrel with that. All I was saying was that a bit of cuddling, kissing,etc. can change "not in the mood" to "in the mood" in a hurry. I wasn't saying women should not initiate sex because Amy and Dennis were referring to times when the woman is not in the mood, not when she is.
I would not be terribly eager to hop in the sack with any man who sees foreplay, cuddling, kissing as "shit work." Boy, you sure know how to charm the ladies! Thankfully, my husband has never given me the impression he regards kissing the back of my neck (still a guaranteed and surefire hit after all these years) as akin to cleaning the toliet.
DuWayne, you think pretty much like my old man:
Without the foreplay and focus on the pleasing my partner, I might as well put in a video and fuck myself. Because that's all the value I'm going to get out of the experience. And if that's the value, why bother trying to involve someone else?
Well, yeah. As I said in my first post, I have rarely denied sex to my husband. My husband tries to please me, so I try to please him. He does what works for me and I do what works for him. We mutually pleasure each other and we both end up happy. It's worked for us for nearly 25 years, even during the years when our kids were babies and both of us were often tired and stressed by financial worries. I am trying to figure out what is so wrong and manipulative about that and why it would elict such a venomous line-by-line response from someone.
Amy said:
From the perspective of somebody who hears people's marital and sexual problems by the dozen every day, I'll tell you that many women shut down ANY kissing or attempt to get cuddly because they know it will lead to sex.
Well, that's a sad and unfortunate state of affairs, and it makes me glad I'm not in your line of work, Amy. Heck, I just dropped by to say what works for my husband and I (and I recognize that the dynamics of every marriage are different) and I got beat up for making what I thought were pretty uncontroversial statements. I'm staying out of the damn advice business!
Look, what works for us, works for us. Take it or leave it.
Di at January 2, 2009 10:41 AM
Deja Pseu: She *lives*!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 2, 2009 10:41 AM
So impressed to see the nametag, I forgot to acknowledge something...
> If you consider affection/foreplay
> "shit work", that speaks volumes.
...She's right!
I'm not trying to come off like the Crown Prince of All That Is Manly over here or nothin', but I think a big part of masculinity is seeing clearly how a woman's sexuality is not like your own.
And I'd bet the 'foreplay' that comes to mind for most women isn't twenty minute of footsie and nipple-tweaking in front of a crackling fireplace... They're probably talking about two full days without eye-rolling or sarcasm or delayed household chores.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 2, 2009 10:51 AM
You don't get laid very often, do you?
Aw, DuWayne. . .it's okay. You don't have to lash out like that with an Ad Hominem intended to cause me shame and embarrassment. I know it's really intimidating for some people when I threaten their status quo worldviews, but if you calm down and actively try to comprehend my points in their proper context, instead of just striking out in thoughtless kneejerk fear, this will all go a lot easier.
Take a couple of deep breaths, and maybe get up from the computer and walk around a bit to relieve your anxiety. Relax. It's just words on a screen. You're not really in danger.
Okay? Better now?
The whole point of sex is to please each other.
Yes, but for multiple meanings of "please". You don't seem to have clued in to Amy and Dennis' point either: in this case, the relevance is that sometimes, the pleasure for the wife can just be primarily the abstract emotions derived from giving pleasure to her husband, not her own physical, sensual enjoyment, just as men can greatly enjoy giving women orgasms without orgasming themselves.
If you aren't spending at least twenty minutes (unless you're engaged in a quickie)
Well, but then what if you are?
That, again, is the point. What if all you have time for is a quickie, and one that doesn't really do much physically for the wife? Or what about an effectively one-sided blowjob before the husband goes off to work? Or, similarly, what if she likes him to finger her for a bit before he leaves, with no comparable reciprocation?
playing with your partner's bits, before you engage in intercourse, you aint doing it right.
Apparently you've never had a partner who could get herself all worked up on her own during dinner and want to go straight to the intromissive sex afterwards, or who liked to be taken forcefully as soon as the door to the house closed behind the two of you, or who liked to arouse and then mount you in your sleep, etc.
Your way is not in fact the only "right way", DuWayne.
I based my comment on his words. He seems to believe that it is a woman's responsibility to get herself aroused. I disagree with that.
Well, you just go right along being as wrong as you want about it.
Do you go into sexual encounters aroused, or do you go into them expecting to get aroused?
Ah, questions! Well, I have some outstanding questions already posted prior to this, so I think I will wait to answer yours until after you have answered mine:
Those who want sex often in a committed relationship without having to be manipulated into that mindset by someone else are being responsible, because sex, particularly as an expression of desirability, is one of the best ways to keep a paired relationship healthy.
So why should men be expected to also shoulder women's responsibility to want sex with their partners in a relationship, as you appear to expect of them?
Why, exactly, should men have to do women's work for them?
what exactly do you think women's responsibilities for making their men aroused are?
Do you also expect men to be responsible for getting women "in the mood" to eat a midnight snack with them, or watch a movie with them, or work out with them, or go dancing with them, or play Guitar Hero with them, or anything else they do together for shared enjoyment?
I suspect not. So why then are you applying a different set of expectations to making love with them?
Acksiom at January 2, 2009 11:02 AM
If you consider affection/foreplay "shit work", that speaks volumes.
No, I'm not talking about affection/foreplay; I'm talking about what Amy was referring to previously. When I say "shit work" in this context, I mean the gauntlet of rejections of attempts to initiate intimacy that some men have to run. This comment from Amy might help explain it to you if you still don't understand:
From the perspective of somebody who hears people's marital and sexual problems by the dozen every day, I'll tell you that many women shut down ANY kissing or attempt to get cuddly because they know it will lead to sex.
Running that gauntlet of rejection is what I mean by "shit work". It's a paraphrase of Warren Farrell's comments on intimacy initiation in Why Men Are The Way They Are, which I recommend highly.
As long as we're willing partners most of the time, what's your gripe with that?
Actually, I think I already have an outstanding question for you to answer first. And, since it's a socratic question, answering it might even provide you with an answer to your own.
What exactly do you think women's responsibilities for making their men aroused are?
Acksiom at January 2, 2009 11:12 AM
D,
"Before the child came along, I could not have had a better wife."
Wait - she was a good wife before the child? Then how could the dominant female influence have changed her so much only after the child?
If what you are saying is true, then how on earth can anyone know what will happen to their marriage after children?
Financially, here is another idea you could do :
Resign from your corporate VP job and join some charitable non-profit at much lower pay. Make sure it is something that is 'noble' so that your corporate contacts still respect you for your decision. Then move to a much smaller home, or live in an apartment. This will not only reduce the money you lose during divroce, but it may even make your wife shape up, since you are taking charge. It could improve your marriage.
If you do get divorce, not only will you pay less, but you can always return to a corporate exec. role after that.
The trick is to do this now, BEFORE divorce is imminent. Don't worry about your career path. She will take everything anyway, and you could choose a charitable job that actually wins you points when you ultimately return to a corporate VP role.
Tom at January 2, 2009 11:14 AM
D,
"Before the child came along, I could not have had a better wife."
Wait - she was a good wife before the child? Then how could the dominant female influence have changed her so much only after the child?
If what you are saying is true, then how on earth can anyone know what will happen to their marriage after children?
Financially, here is another idea you could do :
Resign from your corporate VP job and join some charitable non-profit at much lower pay. Make sure it is something that is 'noble' so that your corporate contacts still respect you for your decision. Then move to a much smaller home, or live in an apartment. This will not only reduce the money you lose during divroce, but it may even make your wife shape up, since you are taking charge. It could improve your marriage.
If you do get divorce, not only will you pay less, but you can always return to a corporate exec. role after that.
The trick is to do this now, BEFORE divorce is imminent. Don't worry about your career path. She will take everything anyway, and you could choose a charitable job that actually wins you points when you ultimately return to a corporate VP role.
Tom at January 2, 2009 11:18 AM
I'm always amazed by the stupidity of some guys. You want to have sex with a woman and she's not in the mood, and it's her responsibility to get herself in the mood? WTF??? How about you be a little more selfish and a little less self centered. Give her whatever it takes to get her in the mood and when she is in the mood, give her whatever it takes to make her satisfied. I call this being selfish because it will give you the results you want - a woman who want to have sex with you. I can't understand the men who don't take the effort to get their partner off. You're a man, you're almost gauruntied to get off yourself. Make her happy too and she'll be much more interested in doing more ofton.
Duwayne, I don't know if you've stated before what is happening with your wife, but from your comments it sounds to me like she's dying. If so, my heart goes out to you.
William at January 2, 2009 11:21 AM
Di - "I would not be terribly eager to hop in the sack with any man who sees foreplay, cuddling, kissing as "shit work." Boy, you sure know how to charm the ladies! Thankfully, my husband has never given me the impression he regards kissing the back of my neck (still a guaranteed and surefire hit after all these years) as akin to cleaning the toliet."
Di,
As a man amrried nearly 25 years, who still has sex with his wife basically everyday (and not always "quickies", but hot passionate love-making too), I can fully agree with what you are saying.
My wife is quite amorous, but her "drive" is not as instantaneous as mine. Still, it's definately there, and good quality foreplay - starting with compliments and affectionate touches, on to kissing and heavy petting, right through (without getting too crude here) directly "stimulating" her, easily get's her not only in "the mood", but down-right "F*** me NOW!", multi-orgasmic horny.
Guys, I urge you all to find out for yourselves.
slwerner at January 2, 2009 11:46 AM
Acksiom -
I know it's really intimidating for some people when I threaten their status quo worldviews, but if you calm down and actively try to comprehend my points in their proper context, instead of just striking out in thoughtless kneejerk fear, this will all go a lot easier.
You're mistaking my thinking you're an asshole, with feeling threatened. Trust me, I don't feel threatened, I just think you're an obnoxious prick.
You don't seem to have clued in to Amy and Dennis' point either: in this case, the relevance is that sometimes, the pleasure for the wife can just be primarily the abstract emotions derived from giving pleasure to her husband, not her own physical, sensual enjoyment, just as men can greatly enjoy giving women orgasms without orgasming themselves.
One of my very favorite things in life, is carpet munching. I love to lick pussy in a really big way and I really don't care if it's reciprocated. Given that I'm not big on the sex drive anymore, this is really handy.
I understand full well Dennis and Amy's point, given that in the last five years, I've been the less interested partner far more often than not.
Here's the thing; if my partner wants cock, it's her responsibility to get me in the mood. Not mine, hers. Because quite honestly, when I'm not really in the mood, nothings going to happen without some effort on the part of my partner. At the same time, I am more than happy to pleasure my partner without the need to get aroused myself.
And yes, I really want to please my partner, because of the abstract emotional satisfaction I get out of it.
Apparently you've never had a partner who could get herself all worked up on her own during dinner and want to go straight to the intromissive sex afterwards, or who liked to be taken forcefully as soon as the door to the house closed behind the two of you, or who liked to arouse and then mount you in your sleep, etc.
I have actually. But I have never felt it was my partners responsibility to get herself there. I am more than happy to engage when my partner happens to feel that way, but the excitement of that sort of experience is the spontaneity involved. The idea that she's just too fucking horny to wait - she needs it now. That is not something that I would ever expect a women to try to make happen. Trying is counter intuitive to the whole concept.
But you take it even further, claiming that getting a women in the mood is shit work. My point is, that is the bit that makes sex fun. And I have met very few women who would put up with an asshole who referred to it that way.
So why should men be expected to also shoulder women's responsibility to want sex with their partners in a relationship, as you appear to expect of them?
I can happily answer this one from the "woman's" perspective. Not being in the mood nearly as often as my partner, I expect her to shoulder the burden of getting me into it, because I don't happen to be as a particular moment. This doesn't mean that I don't have a responsibility to initiate the sex on occasion, but as a general rule, the one who wants the sex has a responsibility for getting their partner interested in having the sex.
Why, exactly, should men have to do women's work for them?
Because without doing "the woman's work" as you put it, one might as well just jerk off. Sex is and should be mutually stimulating.
what exactly do you think women's responsibilities for making their men aroused are?
That really depends on the circumstances. On a daily basis, none really. On occasion though, I think both partners need to go a little beyond the norm and create an environment that is conducive to an extra special sexual encounter.
One of the more interesting encounters I've had with my partner, was the day she sent the kids off to the neighbors waited in the buff to hear me unlock the door and had my pants open before the door was locked. That was fucking hot and led to a couple of hours of great fucking.
But I don't expect that every day and honestly, if it happened every day, it would stop being all that exciting.
Do you also expect men to be responsible for getting women "in the mood" to eat a midnight snack with them, or watch a movie with them, or work out with them, or go dancing with them, or play Guitar Hero with them, or anything else they do together for shared enjoyment?
Yes actually. While there are many things that my partner and I both enjoyed, neither of us were ever keen on just dropping what we might be doing to do something else. While it may not take a lot of effort to get me in the mood for, say, watching the next episode of a show we both enjoy (we always watch tee vee on DVD), it generally took a bit of discussion.
While we had a great many mutual interests, we may not have the same urge at the same time - though we often did. So talking up what I wanted to do, made it more likely she would have an interest and vice versus. And sometimes it was just pure compromise. Neither of us ever pushed the other to do something the other abhors, but we both would go on bents the other just wasn't on. We just tried to keep it relatively equitable.
DuWayne at January 2, 2009 11:56 AM
William -
In a sense she is dying, though her body will be around for a while, barring accidents or other illness. It's personal for people other than myself, so I don't like to go into details. Suffice to say that she is already a very different person than she was even a year ago and the differences will becoming more and more pronounced. Not all of them are uniformly negative, but they are bad enough that she can't be left alone to take care of our boys.
DuWayne at January 2, 2009 12:10 PM
Geez, lotsa comments here! Acksiom, you're an asshole. Good luck to you. You guys having the problems, I feel for you. I wish you and your kids the best of luck. Take care of yourselves.
That said, I love my BF and he loves me. We both make it a point to let the other know when we want it, how we want it, and just exactly where we want it. We can't always, all the time, accomodate each other, but we always make the effort, as often as possible. Why? Because we love each other. And we both make an effort. We both work at it. Because it's the TWO of us in this relationship, and we understand that it takes the TWO of us to make it work. Understand? Why don't people get that?? It ain't rocket science! o.O
Flynne at January 2, 2009 12:13 PM
DuWayne, honey, I'm so sorry. I wish there was something I could do to help. Take good care of yourself and your boys. I know they mean the world to you.
Flynne at January 2, 2009 12:15 PM
DuWayne, I can't add anything to what William and Flynne already said, but you know we're all thinking about you. Peace to you and your family.
old rpm daddy at January 2, 2009 12:26 PM
And I'd bet the 'foreplay' that comes to mind for most women isn't twenty minute of footsie and nipple-tweaking in front of a crackling fireplace... They're probably talking about two full days without eye-rolling or sarcasm or delayed household chores.
Well, Crid, it's both, actually :-) When I was going through a difficult pregnancy with twins, the very last thing on my mind was sex. During that time, I er, helped the hubby along from time to time without expecting (or wanting, at that point) any action in return. What he did in return was take care of the 2 older kids at a time when I was feeling physically miserable. We didn't sit there and make a verbal deal: "Honey, if I make mac and cheese for the kids, will you give me a little action?" No, it just worked out that way. I was feeling pretty bad, but I saw that he was having a tough time of it too, working hard and doing more than his share of childcare. I was very grateful for his help. If he had sat around on his ass doing nothing but demanding that it was my wifely responsibility to service him whenever he felt like it, I would have felt quite differently.
For acksiom, it's all about him - his wants, his desires, the dream woman who is always ready to drop on her knees at a moment's notice and gets herself all worked up during dinner, apparently without acksiom having to do a thing. Nah, he just sits there and lets her play with herself or something. I think acksiom has real life mixed up with his favorite triple-X flick. Damn these real-life woman who want affection and respect and tenderness - why, those manipulative whores! He wants tit but not "for tat." I don't see a glimmer of understanding that sex is about more than his "rights" and her "responsibilities." (And no, I don't think it's about my "rights" and his "responsibilities." How about our pleasure, our fun, our way of expressing love and affection for each other? Cripes, all this talk about "duties" and "responsibilities" - you'd think we were talking about getting a root canal or signing up for KP duty rather than a roll in the hay.)
Again, the big complaint appears to be Professor Higgin's old gripe: "Why can't a woman be more like a man?" Well, because we're not men.
DuWayne, you sound like a keeper to me. Your way might not be the "only way," but it's a hell of a lot more appealing than Mr. "Hey, babe, I need a bj right this second and it's your duty to give it to me. You're a selfish bitch if you don't."
Di at January 2, 2009 12:39 PM
DuWayne: I am new to this blog and did not realize your wife is sick. I don't know you, but you have my sympathy.
Di at January 2, 2009 12:47 PM
I appreciate the sympathy, but I resigned myself to what was happening a while ago. Fortunately, I am rather good at compartmentalizing. My biggest concern in all of it is how my kids are dealing. The baby will probably manage rather well, as he's barely more than a year old now. But the six year old is taking it really hard, especially as it is one of many sudden transitions. We're all in therapy which helps, but I really don't think it sank in for him until a couple weeks ago, when she wandered off after I left for a (thankfully) very short trip to the store.
By and by, we aren't married - neither of us believes in it. And as it works out, this is a good thing given the circumstances
Di -
DuWayne, you sound like a keeper to me.
I wish that were the case, but I'm really not, unless the women keeping me is a singular sort of gal. While I am good at being romantic and tend to think I have a healthy attitude about sex, I am also rather bad at providing much emotional support. I am a solitary person by nature and would much rather lay in bed alone with a good book, than snuggle up with my partner. It takes a lot of work on my part to give a women a small amount of what most women need and deserve in much larger quantities.
DuWayne at January 2, 2009 12:59 PM
If I"m going to get myself all revved up so that all he has to do is stick it in, why not just finish myself off? What is he needed for? Duwayne and I seem to agree here. H'es made great points.
Yes, some women-many who write to Amy probably-do shut down any attempt at kissing because it will lead to sex. Why? because there is NEVER any kissing if he doesn't want sex. Note to men-women exist even you're not horny! One standard marital therapist ploy here is to make sex off-limits for a set period of time. Let the wife enjoy a kiss, knowing she has to go no further. Get the juices flowing again. Engines rust up when neglected, you know.
I am playing devil's advocate here because I have seen this point of view, and it's not always that the woman is a cold manipulative bitch. DH and I personally, when I am not preggers (9 months of dr enforced pelvic rest-not great for the sex life) or breastfeeding, have a good sex life. We've had to compromise and talk, neither of which are always easy to do. A vibrator has worked wonders, since just a penis in me doesn't do much (something men raised on porn don't always grasp, but it's very common) and his tongue sometimes gets tired. And we typically go for quality over quantity. It may be once a month but it's good. If he seems really tense, I am quite capable of dropping his trou and taking a knee, without needing to be turned on. I see that as akin to him rubbing my shoulders when carrying kids has got them KILLING me.
momof3 at January 2, 2009 1:49 PM
Oh, and Aksiom (ass, whatever)-we GET your comparison, and think it's shit. If I want a movie partner, I sidle up and say "hey! POpcorn, relax on the ouch, watch ____. What do you say? It'd be fun!". I don't just say "sit and watch!". Talking up your idea so that others want to join is pretty basic. It's a people skill. Not suprised you don't have it.
momof3 at January 2, 2009 1:55 PM
I really don't think Aksiom is out of line. I would distinguish married couples from GF/BF couples. Sex gets complicated by all the other expectations in a marriage. Everyone "deserves" to be treated with some politeness or a smidgen of dignity - but how many couples do we observe where one treats the other like shit? If the nasty person in that couple is not having their expectation met - does that make it Ok?
The challeging part is to imagine what you are sensitive about - imagine it NOT being met by your partner - in a circumstance wherein you believe they COULD do "it" for you, but just don't want to..for whatever reason. For the ladies, imagine a man who refuses to do any work for his family - for the men, imagine a wife who takes pains to look great and sexy for the rest of the world - but for you it's 'hands off!'
Imagine too that the typical response to "hey, how about a movie!" is "Oh - that's right, you want me to just sit there watching your inane movie while I have soo much work to do, it must be nice to be you, all about the 'entertainment' - wow, thanks for completely ignoring my needs or desires. Yep - I am DYING to watch that movie, with YOU." Yep - bet your\'re eager to keep pluggin away, maybe offer to watch TWO movies next time! And the only time you spouse mentions "movie watching" is when you are at a party and they loudly decry how unromantic you are - " Why we never watch movies together anymore!" Grrrrrrrrrr. Ah, the past.
Now - I don't bother. I prefer to watch movies with interesting people who enjoy them and are open about sharing their movie watching enjoyment...... with me.
Californio at January 2, 2009 10:57 PM
"Let's be honest: belief, sans evidence, that there's a big man in the sky who cares about your life is as rational as believing there's a big purple grapefruit up there waiting to give you the winning lottery ticket."
Ever read a comparison so simplistic and stupid that it makes you question the intellect of the person that wrote it? Well this is one of them. I guess it's what we should expect in an age when anyone can have a blog.
Rich at January 3, 2009 12:09 AM
I love how anyone can have a blog. It's the best of all possible worlds that way. You can visit the ones you want, and if you decided you don't like one, you can just not visit anymore.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 3, 2009 12:22 AM
And most men will never tell their wives why they have become quiet and distant.
So, hang on a second - the guy is having a problem with some aspect of his relationship, and he goes all soft and sad and retreats into himself, and it's all his nasty old wife's fault for not servicing him regularly? We're supposed to sympathise with this douchebag? What a man like this needs is not more sex; he needs for someone to hold him down and forcibly inject him with testosterone until he grows some fucking BALLS. Seriously gentlemen, it is not that hard. Once you've turned to your lady wife and said, "Can we have sex more?" and she dropkicks your dick out the window, then we can start talking about castrating bitches. But when I hear this bullshit about whiny men who can't even open their own mouths when their genitals are ready to dry up and blow away, then brother, it ain't your wife who's emasculated you.
Indigo at January 3, 2009 1:00 AM
My story is like a lot of others above: I've been with my wife for about 20 years, married for about 16, and we have two kids in school. She is a stay-at-home mom and I work outside the home, but I have a fair amount of scheduling flexibility to devote to housework and time with the kids (both "kid chore" time and hobbies/events/fun). I try to do my share: she's never done my laundry, for example, or made me breakfast or lunch, and I make or bring many of the dinners. I try to be kind and loving, do the dishes when I can, bring home flowers for no reason every once in a while, etc. I urge her to buy more clothes for herself, surprise her with some, and jewelry occasionally. I've told her repeatedly that I'll support her decision whether she wants to stay at home or go back to work (she has a good degree and is very bright, but I suspect she lacks confidence about returning to work, so I try to build that up without being pushy, a delicate dance).
She was a virgin when we met, and I tried to go slowly at first (maybe too much so: more than a month between our initial attempts at penetration and final consummation, for example). She seemed to get more interested in sex as she became more comfortable and experienced, but never enough to allow me to go down on her, for example (I've always really missed that, it used to be my favorite part with other women, before I met her).
The sex started to die out a few years after we moved in together. At first I assumed it would get better after marriage, i.e., that she was holding out for marriage, but she refused to talk about it, so I had to guess at that. After our second child was born, she shut me out even more, no coitus for about 4-5 years. For a while she would at least help me jerk off, but now she won't even do that. (Oddly, she has let me get *her* off manually a couple of times in the last year, but won't return the favor any more, much less actual sex.)
I still love her: we have a shared history, common sense of humor, etc. And I'm certainly aroused by her, every night, and now and then during the day. But too much kissing or cuddling tends to get me the brush-off, so I've learned to keep it to a minimum, and mostly just at bed time. I try to be understanding, but it's hard not to be somewhat resentful at the loss of sex. Mind you, she's not especially hostile toward me: I get the sense sometimes that she thinks the situation is normal, although again she really does *not* want to talk about it. (She has no history of abuse or anything like that, by the way.)
Like a lot of guys here, I wouldn't think of divorce because of the kids. And although I'm not religious or tradition-bound, I still take the wedding vows pretty seriously: I've never strayed and it would be hard for me to contemplate divorce even after the kids are grown. (Hopefully the sex issue will fade in importance when I'm older; I'm just past 45 now.)
By the way, regarding the "awkward factor" some guys mentioned, it'll be hard for me not to think that any "next time" might be the last one for my life. I doubt that will help the mood.
As cathartic as that's been, I guess I have a few pieces of advice for others: first, as many have said, look hard at a woman's mother before you marry. And don't expect that the sex will stay the same, much less get better (unless perhaps for a bit, if you marry early in the relationship). I knew enough to realize that I would have more need for it than she did, but I never realized how precipitously it her interest would drop off.
Second, invest in a male masturbation aid ("pocket pussy" or similar): I know it's not viewed as "empowering", the way a dildo might be for a woman, but it's been helpful to me. I waited until this year to do so (again, after being effectively shut out for six or seven years, and after trying every approach I can think of). Although I only get a chance every week or so, It helps take the edge off, and it feels better and more natural with the aid than just my hand.
Anyway, that's my story and my bits of advice, for what they're worth; thanks for letting me share.
shutout at January 3, 2009 1:40 AM
Both women and men are selfish in a way that only they can understand. Amy Alkon dispenses good advice to the women, but to the menfolk, I recommend meditation. It takes the edge off hard urges, and in the long run, decline in testosterone will take care of the rest for you. Sex desires can never be satisfied by more sex. Better to use this opportunity to see how it works, and how the mind gets affected by it.
Besides, some meditative states are even better than sex.
Charlie at January 3, 2009 2:18 AM
Californio -
Sorry, but a great many married men are not bitter, despairing and miserable. While my partner and I never married, we have been in a marriage like relationship for eight years, not including a year and a half separation - wherein we were still sharing the bulk of our live together. Even when we were having troubles, and we've had a great many, we managed to be generally civil with each other and managed to do things we both enjoy together.
Or my folks, who've been together for thirty one years. My mom's a semi-fundamentalist Christian and my dad's an atheist. Guess what? They still manage to do things they both enjoy together. They still manage to have romance in their lives. And at sixty two (mom) and seventy four (dad), they still have Teh Sex on a regular basis.
I am not big on the notion of marriage. I don't care for the baggage it implies. I may eventually engage in a civil union, but given my situation, it's not likely to happen any time soon. But the notion that marriage inevitably becomes what you describe is a crock of shit. I'm disinclined to lay fault with men in general or women in general, because it generally takes two to fuck things up that badly.
Like Indigo said, "it ain't your wife who's emasculated you."
Communication is important in any relationship and it isn't emasculating to use it. It isn't even emasculating to talk about your feelings and emotions. What's emasculating is what happens when we refuse to talk about how we're feeling.
DuWayne at January 3, 2009 5:40 AM
Indigo, you do not see because you choose not to. As many ("shutout" above being the most recent example) have already explained here, a lot of men who become quiet and distant do so after having done the chores regularly, changed the diapers, sent the sweet text messages, brought home the unexpected gifts, watched the chick flicks, gone shopping at the mall for hours with her, and finally attempted to talk it out with her, only to be met then with "you pig, always thinking about getting your rocks off -- you're supposed to do all those things just because, marriage is about me me me me meeee" and I don't give a shit about your desires". Or worse, she claims she would be in the mood if only you changed X and Y, and then you change X and Y only to find new demands W and Z invariably appear; after a few iterations of that, he will feel like Charlie Brown trying to kick the football.
At that point, the man has two choices: (a) man up and suffer the absence of marital love for the sake of his children, while women like you tell him to grow a pair and leave rather than be an enabler; or else (b) divorce and start over, likely losing his children in the process, as women like you tell him to grow a pair and quit abandoning his responsibilities. Appetizing, no?
craig at January 3, 2009 6:02 AM
I'm 38, horny all the time, but my husband doesn't want to have sex often. He never lets me go down on him or give him a hand-job. I had to spend a bunch of money on sex toys so I can get my nut off about half the time I want it. He'll have sex with me about three times a week, but can only ejaculate once or twice a week. His doctor says there is nothing physically wrong with him. I'm going to divorce him. Not for another man, and I don't plan to date. I'd just rather be alone than married and frustrated all to hell. Hey, maybe if he's not married to me he'll want to have sex with me? What do you think?
Rosie at January 3, 2009 6:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618198">comment from RosieRosie, has his sex drive changed? You might want to get him checked out by a urologist. (His testosterone level.)
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2009 7:31 AM
Smart men have mistresses.
cmlt at January 3, 2009 9:06 AM
RICH QUOTES ME: "Let's be honest: belief, sans evidence, that there's a big man in the sky who cares about your life is as rational as believing there's a big purple grapefruit up there waiting to give you the winning lottery ticket."
RICH WRITES: Ever read a comparison so simplistic and stupid that it makes you question the intellect of the person that wrote it? Well this is one of them. I guess it's what we should expect in an age when anyone can have a blog.
I love how Rich cannot, for the life of him, explain what's "simplistic and stupid" about my remark. It's a bitch, huh, Rich, trying to convince people that irrationality is actually rational! Come on...give us a tickle!
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2009 9:07 AM
Shutout,
Start having sex with other people. Seriously. Hire a pro if you have to, but go get laid in the next ninety days. If your spouse shows zero interest in your genitals for that long a period of time, you are free to do with them whatever the @#$% you want. (She is not even at risk of disease, so she gets no say in the matter, to my mind.)
Because you have kids, want to stay in the home, and divorce law would rape you should you dissolve the marriage, be discreet in having sex with other people. Don't bring that stuff into your wife's life or the kids' lives.
Laws regarding divorce and our messed-up societal expecations for men puts guys like you in a cramped box. Amazingly, people expect you guys to suffer this absurdity in silence, with the threats of loss of custody, alimony, child support payments, and general societal disapproval used to keep you in line. The deck is stacked, mi amigo, and that is not going to change anytime soon. So while I advise silence (and stealth), forget the suffering part: go get laid. Now.
When the kids are older, you can decide if you want to formalize your self-declared freedom with either an explicit pact regarding an open marriage or a divorce. Until then, get laid, use condoms, and lie. She busted the marital deal when she cut you off; don't ruin your life honoring a bargain she did not keep.
Spartee at January 3, 2009 10:07 AM
The marriage contract is the only contract you are expected to sign without even reading it first. Why? Few men would marry if they understood the actual terms of the contract (and the associated misandry contained therein).
What is a pre-nuptial contract? It is simply a marriage contract both parties have actually read before they signed it.
Like pre-nuptial contacts, all marriage contracts should be read beforehand. Both parties should have the opportunity to reject, or modify, any of the clauses.
Signing any contract without reading it insane. Any wonder why insane results follow from marriage contracts?
What we need is for an adversarial, misandrous legal system to adjudicate our relationships, or this dissolution?
No thanks. I prefer to keep lawyers, judges and legislators out of my bedroom and out of my family.
Mike at January 3, 2009 10:32 AM
In France they say: L'appétit vient en mangeant. - The appetite comes with eating.
If you like the food and it is well prepared, this will be true every time.
Sex is no different (and almost as good as dessert).
Andre at January 3, 2009 10:57 AM
Ouch. Reading this hurt because it describes my marriage. My wife and I love each other, but we only have sex a few times a year any more. I actually got teary-eyed reading this as all the hurt and (constant) disappointment came flooding back.
Wives, please take this seriously. We men are not the freaky sex-hounds portrayed in the media, but we do have real emotional (and chemical??) needs that are fulfilled by making love. And most of us that are stuck like this would do anything to be free of these crappy needs too...
can't say at January 3, 2009 11:24 AM
The best thing that ever happened to me was when my mate visited her gyno and got told that a lot of sex (2 or 3 times a week or more) is a component of good health.
Did she ever get frisky after that. I wish she had gotten that advice twenty years earlier.
M. Simon at January 3, 2009 12:11 PM
> Start having sex with other
> people. Seriously. Hire a pro if
> you have to, but go get laid
I recently read a girly book from a therapist about love, and was surprised by the understanding (if not patience) she had for people who have affairs.
Good marriage strengthens many of the best qualities in people, but it can also be constricting as hell. That may be especially true for males. Feminine nature is all about connectedness and communication and shared emotion. Prager once suggested that there's no closer rhyme in the English language than "mother" and "smother".
The author (again, a woman) noted that sometimes an affair can give people a sense of renewed autonomy sufficient to sustain a marriage.
Because I hate divorce, especially when people have kids, Spartee's advice shouldn't be dismissed out of hand. I think kids deserve a loving mother with a loving father, and loving people have flaws.
This problem is this part:
> be discreet in having sex with
> other people. Don't bring that
> stuff into your wife's life or
> the kids' lives.
Whether or not families actually have factual awareness of infidelity, I think they can usually tell when something's wrong. I think this is especially true for younger children. Because they're concrete thinkers, incapable of abstraction, all they do is read people's vibes. Partly this is a talent from God (or nature), and it's simple necessity... Survival is enhanced when they have some tool to work with. So kids just sit there and soak up other people's interior states. (The children of alcoholics are famous for absorbing a chemically-depressed mentality, even when those drinkers aren't plainly abusive.) And I think daughters ought to be consciously aware of this masculine need for sex, even depersonalized sex. It needs to be integrated into their appreciation of men.
So what's the vibe that a daughter gets about marriage when Dad routinely bangs hookers or mistresses? What lesson do they take from the first intimate male love of their life?
If they're consciously aware that it's going on (but not discussed) they're going to have a built-in, top-level suspicion of male nature, and maybe an intrusive obsession with fidelity (see "constriction", above). (I've dated women like that. It ain't pretty.)
If they're not consciously aware of the infidelity, they're likely to be naive about what men are inclined to do in their free time... Best case, they won't be surprised when large parts of a man's life are kept hidden, and they'll be more vulnerable to long-term deceptions.
Either way, this ends badly. Run your own scenarios for what happens to a little boy raised under a marriage with lots of cheating.
The thing that will fix this is to have people marry well. I think the best way to encourage that is to have a lot of close & wise friends whose judgment you can trust as they're introduced to your potential spouses.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 3, 2009 12:47 PM
Also:
| Looking at female promiscuity among humans,
| Hrdy said that "what stands out is not so
| much the spectacle of women having fun,
| but of mothers making due under difficult
| circumstances."
It ain't just a guy thing.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 3, 2009 2:10 PM
"The thing that will fix this is to have people marry well. I think the best way to encourage that is to have a lot of close & wise friends whose judgment you can trust as they're introduced to your potential spouses."
Crid you've summed up my mentality. I've never been in a long term relationship, but my friends are able to sum up the guys I date pretty quickly (quicker than I can anyways). So that's how I judge what to expect. They've never been wrong.
Purplepen at January 3, 2009 2:16 PM
A lot of people talk about the need for pre-nups. Better do your research. While I cannot speak for all 50 states, in general most states have specific provisions for a judge to tear them up if in his/her judgment the result will be injust.
What that means is the prenup is worthless, and can be torn up for virtually any reason, as long as the judge gives a scholarly explanation.
If you guys work hard and make a lot of money and take a woman from the slums, speaking allegorically, no matter what she does, she will not be going back to the slums. You may, but she won't.
Lawyers like to tell you prenups are good, because then they get paid for writing them, and later get paid for wasting your money trying to defend them.
Pre-nups are worthless.
irlandes at January 3, 2009 2:34 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618286">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]I just love a man who can reach into his back pocket and pull out a Sarah Hrdy quote!
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2009 2:39 PM
> Pre-nups are worthless.
More importantly, they're beside the point.
We don't want a society where everyone's needs can be put into harsh, black-and-white terms that Daddy Government can settle as a contract dispute.
We want a society where everyone has the sensitivity to the partner's feelings and character to anticipate and prevent stupid dramas from gelling up and spilling into the lives of others.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 3, 2009 2:45 PM
In rereading this thread, I noticed the digs against religion. Now, getting into a debate about religion on a sex advice blog makes no more sense than arguing politics on a food blog, but I seem to remember that a University of Chicago study reported a while back that evangelical Protestant women were more satisfied with their sex lives and had more orgasms than any other group, including the atheists.
I am not an evangelical. I am a Catholic married to a man who was raised Baptist, but is really sort of agnostic. Religious questions basically bore him. We made a truce when we were married: I would not hound him to convert or go to church and he would not denigrate what are deeply held beliefs on my part. And he grew to like some of the people I know through my parish and the social aspect of it. He sometimes attended mass with the kids and me as a sort of family solidarity thing (and also because Catholic ritual was rather exotic and interesting to him - he grew up in a part of the country where there are very few Catholics.)
I'm not saying everyone should convert or believe, anything like that. But in reading over the comments and some of the very sad stories related here, it strikes me that a big part of the problem is that some people (even people who might profess belief in God) have made Me, Myself, and I their god and expect eveything to revolve around their own wishes, their own desires, their own wants. We have examples here of men doing it and women doing it. Men who expect women to arouse themselves so they don't have to do the "shit work" and women who see men at nothing more than walking wallets and expect them to live happily without sex for months and years. God, why get married if you're not going to have sex? Secular married women who want to live like nuns? That is no basis to build a decent relationship on. I've known good and decent atheists with happy marriage and professed "Christians" who were real shits. But if what people replace God worship with is Me, Me, Me, their own miserable little selves, well, sorry, that doesn't look like any great improvement to me. Or a recipe for happiness.
Di at January 3, 2009 4:31 PM
These tales of sexless marriages break my heart. I just don't understand how anyone could do that to another person, least of all the one to whom they committed as a (theoretically) lifelong partner. It really seems like an act of lingering, casual cruelty. My aunt used to quote Elie Wiesel, saying that the opposite of love is not hate but indifference. Indifference really is fatal to relationships.
Melissa G at January 3, 2009 4:54 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618322">comment from DiNow, getting into a debate about religion on a sex advice blog
I'm not a sex advice blogger and I don't even give what would be considered sex advice (where to put it and all that -- is simply uninteresting to me), and I'm a little unclear on why you would toss out that little put-down when you appear to know little about my thinking or my work, which is often based on research you aren't likely to see in many other places in the popular press.
Oh, of all the studies out there, sex studies are the most ridiculous to give any account to. They're largely self-reported (unless they're measuring blood flow to genitals) and...drumroll...people lie about sex.
Furthermore, morality seems to be hard-wired into all of us. So, without religion, we won't kill each other and do all the rest, because there are consequences. Also, there are emotions (Adam Smith wrote about this as well) that contain us from behaving badly.
As a friend of mine says, there's more evidence for Santa than there is for god. (You see Santa at the malls. When's the last time you saw God getting his picture taken with the kiddies?)
Amy Alkon at January 3, 2009 5:51 PM
Well, I would say that one good evidence for the existence of a god is that the overwhelming majority of human beings believe that such a being exists. Maybe that belief is not based entirely on wishful thinking and desires, but on an experience you can't, personally, fathom or understand.
The Canadian novelist Robertson Davies, who was not a conventional Christian, but a believer in God said once that when you say you're in love, nobody demands that you provide water-proof, utterly convincing and unassailable evidence that you are really in love, but that atheists demand such proof from believers all the time. Either you feel God's presence in your life or you do not. If you don't, fine. My husband doesn't either. I don't want to kill either of you or hector and badger you into thinking my way. But I resent being told my experiences and beliefs are childish and immature.
Di at January 3, 2009 6:57 PM
F. Roger Devlin's review of Women’s Infidelity: Living in Limbo by Michelle Langley has some juicy morsels toward understanding the dynamics behind some wives' loss of interest in sex:
"Women in particular may believe that, if hey find the right person, intense feelings can last. They’ve been taught to believe that they should only want sex with someone they love. So when a woman desires a man, she thinks she is in love, and when the desire fades she thinks she is out of love."
"Langley distinguishes, based upon her interviews, four typical stages in marital breakdown.
1) The wives begin to feel vaguely that "something is missing in their lives." Then they experience a loss of interest in sexual relations with their husbands. ...in some cases "the women claimed that when their husbands touched them, they felt violated; they said their bodies would freeze up and they would feel tightness in their chest and/or a sick feeling in their stomach."
More:
http://www.theoccidentalquarterly.com/archives/vol7no2/v7no2_Devlin.pdf
Mike at January 3, 2009 6:58 PM
| people (even people who might
| profess belief in God) have made
| Me, Myself, and I their god and
| expect eveything to revolve
| around their own wishes, their
| own desires, their own wants
Amy, Lady Di makes an important point. No other institution in modern life asks people to approach things with a spirit of humility. But humility is essential, if not central, to growth in almost every realm... Including rationality and sexual fulfillment. A scientist who knows everything doesn't learn, and a lover who takes no notice of a partner's feelings doesn't satisfy.
> These tales of sexless marriages
> break my heart.
Yeah. It's tragic... Instructively tragic. A lot of commenters take pains to present Master-of-the-Universe personas... -'I'm a VP at the firm! And an excellent parent!'- but there's this one little teensy part of life that won't fall into place, and which will have to be dealt with by contractual enforcement....
(Blogger Reynolds once said that when sex is going well it's ten percent of a relationship, but when it's not going well, it's the biggest part of the relationship.)
Listen, I love aggressive personalities. My favorite people in almost every field are hard-assed and focused. But some problems can't but fixed through ambition or crossed arms.
> morality seems to be hard-
> wired into all of us.
Not at all. Not at all. Take it back! You know it's not true. Most people have a capacity to connect that wiring, but plenty of people will never even accept the Golden Rule as a guiding principle, let alone anything more delicate. You know this.
> So, without religion, we won't
> kill each other and do all the
> rest, because there are
> consequences.
Oh, you're stinking up the joint... As if no atheist ever killed anybody.
This is part of that command-and-control, we-don't-let-voters-decide thing of yours. If you (Amy) could just get be seated in the Big Chair, you'd be able to demand consequences for the things that offend you most, and by gum, then you'd have this planet spinning smoothly!
A-my, I adore you and your blog and am atheist besides, but puh-leeze....
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 3, 2009 7:41 PM
Furthermore, morality seems to be hard-wired into all of us. So, without religion, we won't kill each other and do all the rest, because there are consequences. Also, there are emotions (Adam Smith wrote about this as well) that contain us from behaving badly.
Well, gee, the emotions expressed on this thread don't seem to stop a lot of people from behaving very badly.
"Without religion, we won't kill each other." I note Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro and other 20th century mass murderers killed an awful lot of people without religion entering into the picture at all. Amy, you have much more faith in human beings than I do. And your faith strikes me as being just as naive, given human history, as you think the faith of believers is.
I know there are atheists and agnostics who are moral, kind, and ethical and are upright citizens and good spouses and fine parents. I'm married to one and know others who fit the description. The thing is, (and this is something I've never been able to get my hubby to see) they are outliers. They are a tiny fraction of the entire human race. Most people who drop God latch onto another god, whether that God is Communism or the greatness of Leader X or, in comfortable Western societies, the god of Me, Me, Me.
I have been a better person, a better spouse, a better mom because of my own faith, because I felt bound to (sometimes) act according to the precepts of my faith rather than doing whatever the hell I felt like at any given moment. I've always thought that religion is something that makes good people better and bad people worse.
Di at January 3, 2009 8:25 PM
. . said once that when you say you're in love, nobody demands that you provide water-proof, utterly convincing and unassailable evidence that you are really in love, but that atheists demand such proof from believers all the time.
-Di
Thats because "god" isnt an emotion. It is supposed to be a creature capable of creating an entire universe.
Emotions are subjective, if a god exists it should be verifiable thru something other than a feeling
"Without religion, we won't kill each other." I note Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao, Castro and other 20th century mass murderers killed an awful lot of people without religion entering into the picture at all. Amy, you have much more faith in human beings than I do. And your faith strikes me as being just as naive, given human history, as you think the faith of believers is.
-Di
People always mention 20th century killers and fail to grasp that moden technology is what made the difference not the people themselves. Can you imagine how quickly the inqusition whould have torn thru europe with elecrtoshock and todays poisons?
Anyone who bothers to study anthropology can see how we begin to value the of other people less the further removed the are from are imediate circle of familly & friends
lujlp at January 3, 2009 8:54 PM
> It is supposed to be a creature
> capable of creating an entire
> universe.
Why are you always telling religious people what their religions are supposed to mean to them?
> moden technology is what made the
> difference not the people themselves
Loojy, that's frogwash. That's just silly, and you don't believe it for a moment.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 3, 2009 9:08 PM
Well, what about 18th century killers, then? What about the many thousands who were killed in the Terror during the French Revolution? If you remember, the revolutionaries also extolled reason and abolished the Christian Calendar - they also killed anybody not willing to go along with the program. Those who stubbornly clung to Christianity - ordinary villagers in Nantes - were sentenced to "revolutionary marriages." They were tied together naked and put on barges, which were then sunk. I might not know as much anthropology as you do, but I've studied history.
Technology changes. The human heart does not. Neither does the human proclivity to want to force other people to see things their way and to kill those who will not. That will not change,even if belief in God vanishes tomorrow.
Di at January 3, 2009 10:10 PM
if a god exists it should be verifiable thru something other than a feeling
Well, so say people who have never had the feeling. Personally, I'm not in a position to dictate to God what he should and shouldn't do. Yes, I would prefer it if he made a grand appearance on the Mall in Washington DC and fired thunderbolts from his fingertips or gave teddy bears to every child on earth, or whatever would convince you that he exists, but he chooses not to - and I, a believer, can live with that. My personal view is that God really doesn't think in the same way as humans do and I think it's pretty presumptious to demand of the Creator that he must do this, that, or the other, as if he were some politician scrounging for votes.
Like I said, I believe that trying to follow the precepts of my faith (something I don't do well or faithfully much of the time - I'm not trying to present myself as Mrs. Catholic Believer) has enriched my life and inspired me to be a better person than I would have otherwise been. If it turns out I'm wrong, who did I hurt by believing that?
Sheesh, the hubby has been sick as a dog for 2 days now and now I think I'm following suit. Goodnight, all. No hot sex tonight, that's for sure;-)
Di at January 3, 2009 10:38 PM
Working from memory, I knew I didn't have the "revolutionary marriage" thing correct, and it was bothering me. So I googled it and came up with this tidbit:
In Nantes a reign of terror commenced under the brutal, sadistic Carrier. He devised the Noyades in which boat-loads of priests were taken out into the Loire and sunk. Calling the Loire a "truly revolutionary river" he invented the "republican marriage" - two Vendeans tied naked together, a man and a woman, displayed and mocked in a public place and then thrown into the river to drown.
Then a new republican general arrived in the West, Louis-Marie Turreau, formerly Count de Carrambouville, infamous for commanding the "infernal columns" which marched through the Vendée burning, pillaging, raping, bayoneting and attempting to kill every living thing. This was undertaken by order of the Committee of Public Salvation (Safety) in Paris: "Exterminate every brigand to the last - that is your duty." The Vendée was renamed Vengé meaning "avenged." The columns marched all over the Vendée for seven months from January until July 1794, wreaking havoc. The naked bodies of women and children were left fallen or hanging from trees and posts. No prisoners were taken.
Undoubtably they would have killed more if the technology had been more advanced. Just a cautionary tale for those who imagine that humans will become more humane and all killing will end if they only give up religion.
Di at January 3, 2009 11:07 PM
> Technology changes. The human
> heart does not.
Listen carefully to this woman, Loojy! She's right about this.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 3, 2009 11:33 PM
> It is supposed to be a creature
> capable of creating an entire
> universe.
Why are you always telling religious people what their religions are supposed to mean to them?
-That what religous people tell me, its also in the bible.
> moden technology is what made the
> difference not the people themselves
Loojy, that's frogwash. That's just silly, and you don't believe it for a moment.
-I do crid I really truly belive that had Stalin, or Pol Pot lived six thousand yrs, or even six hunndred yrs ago they would not have been able to kill as many people
lujlp at January 3, 2009 11:37 PM
> -That what religous people tell me,
Well, some NFL fans say this is San Diego's year. Other's say Arizona's goin' all the way, bay-bee!
But since I don't believe in football, I don't listen to ANY OF 'EM!
> they would not have been able to
> kill as many people
Dude, absolutely true! But they'd have wanted to! They did the best they could! You just came close to saying that atheists never do anything bad without technology, which just ain't so
Crid at January 3, 2009 11:58 PM
Well, what about 18th century killers, then?
-What about them?
What about the many thousands who were killed in the Terror during the French Revolution?
-You overthrow a govenment and choas is usually the result
If you remember, the revolutionaries also extolled reason
-how is that a bad thing?
and abolished the Christian Calendar
-politics, the church was agaisnt the french revolution
they also killed anybody not willing to go along with the program.
-most regimes did that, still do today
Those who stubbornly clung to Christianity - ordinary villagers in Nantes - were sentenced to "revolutionary marriages." They were tied together naked and put on barges, which were then sunk. I might not know as much anthropology as you do, but I've studied history.
-Then you should know that those 'stubborn christians' kidnapped a few hunndred pro revolution men, at the behest of catholic officals who refused to swear loyalty to france, had them dig their own graves and then killed them
Technology changes. The human heart does not. Neither does the human proclivity to want to force other people to see things their way and to kill those who will not. That will not change,even if belief in God vanishes tomorrow.
-I agree with you there, but think how many conflicts are clashes between religions, do you imagine that Isreal would be being pounded by rockets were it not for religion?
if a god exists it should be verifiable thru something other than a feeling
Well, so say people who have never had the feeling. Personally, I'm not in a position to dictate to God what he should and shouldn't do.
-I am. We have all these people running around claiming they KNOW how god wants us to behave. And they are all willing to inflict their world views on others.
My point is if god wants to tell me what to do he needs to make a personal effort
Yes, I would prefer it if he made a grand appearance on the Mall in Washington DC and fired thunderbolts from his fingertips or gave teddy bears to every child on earth, or whatever would convince you that he exists, but he chooses not to - and I, a believer, can live with that.
-I'm not, I am not going to waste my life holding myself back because someone somewhere at sometime might have considered my actions a sin unless I have proof. By the way, as a belive suppose someone showed up on your doorstep claiming to be an angel and commanded you to kill your kids? Would you do gods will or call the cops?
My personal view is that God really doesn't think in the same way as humans do
-why not, werent we created in his image?
and I think it's pretty presumptious to demand of the Creator that he must do this, that, or the other, as if he were some politician scrounging for votes.
-I think its pretty presumtous to expect me to guess which of the thousands of religions is the right one and be damned to hell for picking the wrong one
Like I said, I believe that trying to follow the precepts of my faith (something I don't do well or faithfully much of the time - I'm not trying to present myself as Mrs. Catholic Believer) has enriched my life and inspired me to be a better person than I would have otherwise been. If it turns out I'm wrong, who did I hurt by believing that?
- Depends, did you go around voting for laws that hurt other people because you 'felt' it was the right thing to do?
Or did you live your life your way and let others live theirs without interference form your belifs?
Working from memory, I knew I didn't have the "revolutionary marriage" thing correct, and it was bothering me. So I googled it and came up with this tidbit:
-acctually you did
and it wanst motivated by religon, it was politics and stamping out a counter revolution. The only part religon played in that mess were the catholic preists who encouraged the local populas to murder representitives of the new government.
lujlp at January 4, 2009 12:22 AM
Perhaps I wanst clear enough crid.
Most people like to point out that "athiest" regimes have a higher body count than "religious" regimes.
Many like to see this as PROOF!!! that athiests are more likely to kill that believers. Personally I see it as belivers are more easily able to justify the deaths they cause as 'god's will' and therefore not their fault.
The point I was trying to make is that advanced technology in weaponry and communications is what enabled modern leaders to amass such counts in so short a time, and not their religous views.
lujlp at January 4, 2009 12:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618402">comment from DiJust a cautionary tale for those who imagine that humans will become more humane and all killing will end if they only give up religion.
Di, you argue dishonestly. Nobody is saying this. What should end is killing in the name of The Imaginary Friend. Obviously. Do you see a lot of atheists blowing themselves and others up in the name of Allah?
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 1:23 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618403">comment from Di. My personal view is that God really doesn't think in the same way as humans do
And you believe this, and believe in god based on what actual evidence?
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 1:25 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618404">comment from Crid [cridcridatgmail]Most people have a capacity to connect that wiring, but plenty of people will never even accept the Golden Rule as a guiding principle, let alone anything more delicate. You know this.
There's cheater detection and reciprocal altruism and a host of other factors that make up what we think of as "morality."
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 1:27 AM
Point being? A lot of people will never care about others.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 8:35 AM
Ooo, I step out for a day, and it's religion! Cool. I think God is unknowable, and can't be assigned human emotions or motivations. I do believe he intervenes in life, but also think for the most part he created the universe, with natural laws, and let's it go. I do pray.
I believe in Jesus being the son of God. I also believe most of the bible is either history, or allegory. Sort of a guide, but not a word by word law. I believe this because it did not arrive from heaven via fax. Lots and lots of fallible humans have been involved in it, and that needs to be factored in.
Amy seems to frequently make the mistake many atheists make-that atheists aren't irrational and have no prejudices. They are, and do. They just back them up differently. We are all human. Get rid of religion, and we aren't all going to be personally fulfilled, prejudice-free equals. Far from, I imagine. Which is not to say I agree with people committing atrocities in the name of religion, any more than I do for any reason. I have no doubt God wept at the inquisition, like he did at witch burnings and the holocaust. Humans free will creates massive sorrow.
momof3 at January 4, 2009 9:22 AM
Whoops, I bungled the markup... I meant to link this with the word context.
The vast majority of suffering on this planet, including that of all the creatures who lived and died before we had two legs to walk to church with, happened because M3's omnipotent, omniscient creator wanted it to happen.
Human will has nuthin' to do with it.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 9:48 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618492">comment from momof3Amy seems to frequently make the mistake many atheists make-that atheists aren't irrational and have no prejudices.
momof3 seems to frequently make the mistake of thinking she knows what I think.
I think nothing of the sort. Atheists can be irrational and have prejudices. Obviously.
Personally, I have a strong desire to think rationally and to apply reason. I am constantly looking at my thoughts and behavior for irrationalities.
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 9:48 AM
> momof3 seems to frequently make
> the mistake of thinking she
> knows what I think.
Just as you and Loojy are eager to tell religious people what the practice and consequences of their faith should be.
I really bungled the posting of that comment a few minutes ago. I meant to comment on this passage:
>I have no doubt God wept at the
> inquisition, like he did at witch
> burnings and the holocaust.
We should hope so. He had the first and last
responsibility for both.
> Humans free will creates
> massive sorrow.
Human will has nothing to do with sorrow like what's shown in the twenty photos I linked a few minutes ago. The pain depicted in them is not an attitude problem.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 9:57 AM
Just a cautionary tale for those who imagine that humans will become more humane and all killing will end if they only give up religion.
Di, you argue dishonestly. Nobody is saying this. What should end is killing in the name of The Imaginary Friend.
Well, I got the idea that you were saying killing would end completely from your earlier words, Amy. You wrote this:
Furthermore, morality seems to be hard-wired into all of us. So, without religion, we won't kill each other and do all the rest, because there are consequences.
You didn't specify "killing each other in the name of religion."
Lujlp wrote:
I am not going to waste my life holding myself back because someone somewhere at sometime might have considered my actions a sin unless I have proof
Most happy religious people do not view religion as "wasting their lives holding themselves back." You seem to think we're all grimly sitting in the pews restraining ourselves from going out and having sex with the neighbor because we'll go to hell if we have any fun. Some people might think like that. (Since the overwhelming majority of human beings believe in a Higher Power of some sort and always have and always will, religious beliefs and responses will encompass a very wide variety of behavior and belief, for both good and ill. The Quakers and the jihadis might both believe in God, but that's about all they have in common.) The religious people I know well see it as a positive, something that adds joy and satisfaction to our lives. Most people adhere to some sort of moral code, whether they regard it as divinely inspired or not. If you see a religious moral code as wasting your life and holding yourself back, then perhaps you do indeed adhere to the faith of Me, Myself, and I. I could just as easily say that atheists are atheists because they have authority issues, are in perpetual rebellion against Daddy, and want to live utterly selfish lives without worrying about the consquences. That is not true of most of the atheists and agnostics I know personally, but it certainly can be true. If religious people are sometimes religious for superfical and silly reasons, so are atheists. It's a great conceit to think that all of you represent Cool Reason vs. the stupid and needy believers.
Lujlp also wrote that the Inquisition would have killed more people if technology had been more advanced. Well, sure, OK. Then Lujlp writes:
I do crid I really truly belive that had Stalin, or Pol Pot lived six thousand yrs, or even six hunndred yrs ago they would not have been able to kill as many people
So, Stalin and Pol Pot would have killed fewer people with less technology and the Church would have killed more. Well, so what? What does that prove? For someone who believes him-or herself to be the logical one in this debate, you seem to have some problems in this area:-) I am not trying to deny that people have been killed because of religion, just that if religion comes to an end, killing and mass murder will continue, no matter what John Lennon's sappy song said.
(And would you really call Pol Pot's regime high tech? Yes, the Khmer Rouge had AK-47's but the regime was anti-technology, remember? Their method of killing was predominately through starvation and hacking people up.)
People bring up Stalin and Pol Pot because atheists always bring up the Inquisition and jihadis. You want to compare the worst examples of religion to the highest ideals of atheism, but then howl and scream "no fair" when believers point out that in the real world, it has not been the Bertrand Russells and Carl Sagans who have held political power in officially atheistic countries, but the Robespierres and the Stalins. The religious impluse is so deep that the only way it will ever be eradicated is through force and force means the piling up of many, many bodies. Europe today is the most secular place on the planet. Its population is also aging, they have not reproduced themselves, and the natives are being gradually replaced by a population which is not at all secular. Sweden and France might be secular now, but when Mohammad is the number one name given to boys, that is not going to be the case 30 years from now. (And I hasten to add that I do not regard that as a happy state of affairs.)
Religion has not just produced pogroms and massacres and Tammy Faye Bakker. It has also produced some of the world's finest art (if all of the religiously inspired art in the world vanished along with religion, there would be a hell of a lot of empty spaces in the art galleries). If personalities as varied as Bach and Handel and Donne and Giotto and Dostoyevsky, Gerald Manley Hopkins, Chesterton, Waugh and Tolkien hadn't been inspired by Their Imaginary Friend, the world would be a much poorer place. The university system in Europe was started by the Church (the University of Paris was founded to train clergy); so was the hospital system. Is an accident that many hospitals in America, even today, have some sort of religious affliation? Two charities which were especially effective during Hurricane Katrina were the Salvation Army (in the predominately Protestant Gulf) and Catholic Charities (in New Orleans). They were more efficient at helping people than the government precisely because the churches have a long history of charity work. If religions sometimes pander to people's worst instincts, they also are capable of bringing out the very best in people - something rabid atheists are loath to admit. But where are the atheist soup kitchens? Or perhaps you see volunteering in a soup kitchen, which I and my eldest daughter did together for years, as something that "held us back" from having fun, fun, fun buying shoes at the mall or something.
Amy, no, I can't provide "evidence" for God's existence in the same way I can show my birth certificate and provide evidence of my age, or produce a deed to prove I own my car or house. "Faith" is called faith precisely because it is a belief in the unseen and unverifiable. There are many subjective things in the world. That doesn't mean they don't exist. If God turned up on your doorstep in 5 minutes to shake your hand, you wouldn't then "believe" in him. You would know, in the same way you know the cable guy exists. Really, the only way any of us will really know is if there is an afterlife. If there isn't, well, I will have lived my life in a way that has made me happy and more useful to others and if it turns out I'm wrong - well, I'll never know it, will I? (And you won't know if you've been right all along. No gloating opportunities for atheists:-)
I'm not seeing any downsides here.
Di at January 4, 2009 11:04 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618520">comment from DiWell, I got the idea that you were saying killing would end completely from your earlier words, Amy. You wrote this: Furthermore, morality seems to be hard-wired into all of us. So, without religion, we won't kill each other and do all the rest, because there are consequences. You didn't specify "killing each other in the name of religion."
Perhaps if you were more practiced in rational thought you wouldn't leap to such conclusions. I never said killing would end completely. I didn't realize I had to explain it remedially. I will now: People, in general, will not kill and rape because it is not in their self-interest, and in many ways, from self-concept to punishment from others if caught. This is true regardless of whether there's religion and the belief that there's a big man in the sky who gives a shit about whether you keep the extra change you get from the grocery store cashier.
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 11:23 AM
> It has also produced some of
> the world's finest art
A friend of the blog has described religion as "the crazy hippie mother of science, law and philosophy." Sure.. The first people to explore those fields were working in the church...
Of course they were! The church was the seat of economic and social power, the only corner of the impoverished village that had money to pay people to sit around and think about science and law and philosophy... Instead of doing something useful, like going into the forest and finding something to fucking eat. Which is what the rest of the villagers, whose offerings have been forcibly extracted from them, was doing that day.
So yeah, the church had all the art galleries, too. These were indoor spaces that might have been better used to shelter toothless peons from the rain.
But let's not pretend there was no human impulse to investigation, order, reflection or melody before the church got here. Humanity had all those interests as it crawled out of the muck. But it also had a head full of superstition, which gave us the church.
> "Faith" is called faith precisely
> because it is a belief in the
> unseen and unverifiable.
No one here is mistaken on this point. The atheists (such as myself, though I try not to blow too much snot) think that believing in things unseen and unverified is a really bad and childish habit. The "downside" is a fundamental failure of intellectual reflex, a muscle that doesn't grow naturally, but must be trained.
> No gloating opportunities
> for atheists:-)
Your smiley face is too glib. The eagerness to gloat and look down on others, a universal human weakness, is an important component of churchgoing throughout history.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 11:34 AM
were doing, not was doing.
Sorry. I feel bad.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 11:39 AM
Practiced in rational thought? How did I misinterpret this statement:
"So, without religion, we won't kill each other and do all the rest, because there are consequences."
Perhaps, Amy, if you wish to make yourself understood, you should write what you actually mean.
"The eagerness to gloat and look down on others, a universal human weakness, is an important component of churchgoing throughout history."
And it also is an important component of atheism, as Amy demonstrates. Don't tell me atheists don't get emotional satisfaction from believing they are smarter and more enlightened than the majority of not only their fellow citizens, but most people on the planet. It must be a heady feeling indeed.
The smiley face was intended to lighten up a serious conversation. Still, my point remains - we can argue religion until we are blue in the face, but the fact remains that if you are right and I am wrong, neither of us will ever know. If I am right and you are wrong, well, then we will both know. (I'm not saying hellfire and brimstone for you and angels with harps for me - I really have no idea what an afterlife is or would be like. I expect to find out, but I don't kid myself that it is something imaginable by humans) In the meantime, I will live my life as if there is a God I am accountable to and I am happy to do so.
Di at January 4, 2009 12:02 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618536">comment from DiI really have no idea what an afterlife is or would be like. I expect to find out,
Why? There's no evidence there is one, or that we become anything more than dinner for dung beetles.
And Crid is right: "The atheists (such as myself, though I try not to blow too much snot) think that believing in things unseen and unverified is a really bad and childish habit. The "downside" is a fundamental failure of intellectual reflex, a muscle that doesn't grow naturally, but must be trained. > No gloating opportunities > for atheists:-) Your smiley face is too glib. The eagerness to gloat and look down on others, a universal human weakness, is an important component of churchgoing throughout history."
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 12:30 PM
(if all of the religiously inspired art in the world vanished along with religion, there would be a hell of a lot of empty spaces in the art galleries).
-unless they were filled by art that the church cencored.
Whats the downside you asked. How about that it wasnt until the last half of the 20th century that the catholic church admited the earth did revolve around the sun?
So tell me before the church reversed itself there did you take it on faith that thousands of years of scientific reaserch was wrong, or did you ignore the church on that subject?
lujlp at January 4, 2009 12:38 PM
the belief that there's a big man in the sky who gives a shit about whether you keep the extra change you get from the grocery store cashier.
And who said I believe in a "big man in the sky" who will send me to hell if I keep extra change? I have read Dawkins and Hitchens and needless to say I disagree with them. (And the "New Atheists" don't make any arguments people like G.B. Shaw weren't making 100 years ago - the only difference is they're nastier about it. Shaw debated Chesterton and the two of them managed to be friends despite their disagreements.)
Amy, you appear to be ignorant of any form of religion besides the most cartoonish and silly stereotypes you can come up with. You spend all of your time huffing and puffing and screeching about a God no mature religious person believes in. Have you ever met an intelligent and educated believer? They are out there and not that terribly hard to find.. (Of course, if you met them and managed to have an adult conversation without telling them immediately 'you're fulla shit,' you might be forced to reconsider your own prejudices.) Most universities have schools of theology where the debates that go on are a little more sophisticated than "big man in the sky."
Di at January 4, 2009 12:42 PM
Amy: you keep calling for evidence. Tell me, what evidence do you have that human beings are or would be better off without religion? You seem to accept as a given that that would be a positive development, but how do you know that? The offically atheistic regimes have not exactly been paradises on earth. As I said, it's not Carl Sagan who runs such places, but Pol Pot and the Stasi. You can't point to some atheistic Golden Age in the past, because there hasn't been one. Why be so sure that it would exist in the future? Would the majority of people really be happier and healthier and kinder and nicer if they believed they were going to be nothing but worm food after death? You have absolutely no basis for saying "yes, they would."
You're acting on faith too - a faith in human beings that I think is entirely unwarranted and much more simplistic and naive than belief in the Big Guy in the Sky.
Di at January 4, 2009 12:55 PM
Tell me, what evidence do you have that human beings are or would be better off without religion?
The Inqusition
The Crusades
Manifest Destiny
Slavery(after the catholic decree making race rather than religion a deciding factor)
Witch Burnings
Now how about you answer a few of the question put to you for a change?
lujlp at January 4, 2009 1:23 PM
> And it also is an important component
> of atheism
I said "universal" and meant it. It's a 'component' of human nature. At its best --and I've seen this in my own life-- faith can equip a person with reflexive humility towards towards the lives and feelings of others. (This was the point of my first, admiring response to your comments.) But only at its best: Church is a degenerative bureaucracy like any other. And that fact that it can do something well doesn't mean it always does it perfectly or even reliably.
> It must be a heady feeling
> indeed.
As if you wouldn't know: Comes your next sentence--
> The smiley face was intended to
> lighten up a serious conversation
A smirk is a smirk, and that you'd offer it (you believe) to the damned from the cusp of eternal life tells us much about your impulses.
> neither of us will ever know.
So much of life, and adulthood, is about dealing with uncertainty.
During Israel's last security crisis I read an article about life in Gaza, and how the Jews were so much better about protecting their mutual interests than the Arab residents. Someone asked an Arab on the street if he had homeowner's insurance, and he laughed out loud. "Of course not! We don't have insurance, only the Jews have insurance!"
Man, I wished I'd saved that article. Because the question comes to mind: Why don't Muslims insure each other? It's not faith that causes Israelis to protect each other from the ravages of nature and chance... It's wisdom and discipline. Insurance is a lot of work, but it can pay off when you need it, and there's nothing like it. Having the sociable will and foresight to invest in earthly insurance --and wager against the providence of a loving God-- is a courageous, challenging thing to do.
I admire the clear-minded, clerklike Israelis who willfully improve each other's lives to the fearful, gambling Arabs who welcome tragedy as evidence of their defenselessness.
> the two of them managed
> to be friends
None of these guys has ever actual spit or thrown a punch. Prager (there he is again!) and Hitchens seem to get along OK... They may not share whiskey and women, but I bet that in a hundred years, hurried historians will describe them as "friends".
> Have you ever met an intelligent
> and educated believer?
I disagree with you in the larger argument, but with this parry you'll draw blood. Amy greatly prefers to think of faith as a distant and foreign condition, not something quietly at work in the lives of people all around her. She won't go to church (and maybe not even synagogue) for fear of having some rub off on her.
> but Pol Pot and the Stasi.
Hitch convincingly argues that these monsters take root in the fertile credulity of faithful populations.
> a faith in human beings that I
> think is entirely unwarranted
> and much more simplistic
> and naive
No, backwards. Every time humanity made a leap forward in science or medicine or law or philosophy or music or architecture, the church did its damndest to stomp the brakes.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 1:36 PM
So tell me before the church reversed itself there did you take it on faith that thousands of years of scientific reaserch
"Thousands of years of scientific research?" Where the hell do you get your numbers from? Copernicus published "Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits" (dedicated to the Pope) in 1543. He was the first to posit that the sun, rather than the earth, was at the center of our solar system. Galileo's case (which is what everyone latches onto to "prove" the church always been hostile to science) was certainly unfortunate, as due to Vatican politics and personality clashes as anything else.
Roger Bacon, a forerunner of modern scientific method, was a Francisan who taught at Oxford. Father Nicolaus Steno came up the principles of modern geology. Fr. Francesco Grimaldi measured the height of lunar mountains as well as the height of clouds. Some of his work is in the Air and Space Museum. A Jesuit wrote and published the first textbook on seismology in America in 1936.
Those are just a few examples (I could list many more clergymen-scientists and believer-scientists like Louis Pasteur) of people who didn't feel that science and religion cancelled each other out. That is because they don't - they operate on separate planes.
Some believers and some faiths have a more of a problem with science than others. I personally do not, because I do not believe, like fundamentalists do, in the literal truth of every word of the Bible. I was taught evolution in my Catholic grade school and deplore the attempts to get "intelligent design" taught in schools..
I am not trying to push Catholicism here, I'm just using it for reference because it is the religion I am most familiar with and I know a fair amount about church history. (And yes, that includes the bad stuff, past and present. Rabid atheists always pull the Inquisition and Galileo out of their hats like they're dropping some great bombshell on you that you've never heard of before. Guess what? I learned about the Inquisition in Catholic school too. And nobody was telling me that it was some great thing.)
Di at January 4, 2009 1:44 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618557">comment from DiDi, you are in need of such a huge education and I have to read extensively on the brain this weekend -- hundreds of pages of studies -- please, somebody else set her straight.
I'll do a little. There's no such thing as an "atheistic regime," as there's no particular atheistic doctrine. "Mad Russian" Roman Genn will tell you that there was a religion in Russia, and it was communism. Furthermore, atheists are not connected and are very different and believe many different things. We simply share a naturalistic orientation to belief: If it doesn't exist we don't believe in it. Yet, simplistic thinkers will always tell you that there were atheistic regimes simply because leaders didn't believe in Jesus. How tedious. Can you tell me the specific atheistic priniciples in effect in Stalin's Russia? Of course you can't, as there were none. Yet, in a Muslim country, Sharia law is very, very religious and totally based in Islam. And very nasty and evil. The Inquisition was religiously based as well, as were the murderous crusades.
Why might the world be better without religion: Christians wouldn't be preventing gay parents from marrying, Muslims wouldn't be blowing all of us the fuck up, and nasty little Catholic children wouldn't have chased me around and called me dirty Jew, just for starters. And Jews wouldn't be puffing their chests about how they're the chosen people. What a bunch of hooey. Religion is us/them snobbery with iconography. It's primitive and silly. There are church ladies who do nice things for others -- but so does my highly rational sister, out of that empathy built into humans that Adam Smith talks about.
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 1:49 PM
> due to Vatican politics and
> personality clashes as
> anything else.
Hardly an excuse... Without the church, those Vatican politics and personalities wouldn't have been a problem, now would they?
That's like saying the only problem with drunk driving is the damaged property and maimed people.
We're, like, ...yeah!
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 1:54 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618560">comment from DiCopernicus published "Six Books on the Revolutions of the Celestial Orbits" (dedicated to the Pope)
There's a name for this sort of diplomacy: "If I kiss your Popely ass, maybe you let me live."
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 2:21 PM
> Those are just a few examples (I
> could list many more clergymen-
> scientists and believer-scientists
> like Louis Pasteur) of people who
> didn't feel that science and religion
> cancelled each other out. That is
> because they don't - they operate on
> separate planes.
"Seperate planes"?
Read this page, think about America during the Reagan administration, and then type those words again. I dare you.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 2:21 PM
No, backwards. Every time humanity made a leap forward in science or medicine or law or philosophy or music or architecture, the church did its damndest to stomp the brakes.
Well, gotta disagree with you on this one, crid. My source for the history of science and the church is Stanley Jaki, a Jesuit physicist who has written extensively about the relationship between religion and science. He's at least as educated as Amy and his theology goes a bit beyond "the big man in the sky." I found that Dawkins and Hitchens both neglected very wide swathes of church history to make their case.
The church is a big, messy and yes, often wrong-headed institution, because it is filled with messy and imperfect human beings. But my day to day experience of it does not consist of either Jesuit physicists or Torquemadas, but of imperfect humans trying to connect with something bigger than themselves, taking comfort in rites, rituals, and traditions, and, sometimes, trying to translate their beliefs into helping others.
If the track record of the church, and religion in general, was 100% positive, we won't be having this discussion. But I resist the idea that it is nothing but negative, which is what I'm being told here. If Christians once condoned slavery (which existed long before Christianity), Christians were largely responsible for ending. ( lujlp : try googling "Rev. Wilberforce") If many churchmen made shameful agreements with the Nazis, other clergymen like Dietrich Bonhoeffer resisted it. Christianity isn't an easy escape; it's a very, very difficult thing to live out in your own life and most of us fall short. That doesn't mean that the striving to live according to those precepts is an ignorable thing. Crid, if you can live by a code of ethics without reference to a Higher Being, that is fine. I don't think the majority of humans ever will regard that as either possible or even attractive. And there are those who will bristle at the idea of having to live by any code of ethics.
I apologize for the smirk. I've been enjoying this debate immensely, actually, but it does become difficult to not slip the smirk in when the "rational" arguments you are presented include gems like "without religion, we won't kill each other and do all the rest, because there are consequences" followed by "the belief that there's a big man in the sky who gives a shit about whether you keep the extra change you get from the grocery store cashier."
The Muslims of the West Bank are idiots for not getting insurance. Just because I have faith and Mohammad in Gaza has faith, that doesn't mean I feel constrained to defend every religious person on the planet. There is very much about Islam that I find abhorrent and I don't always agree with the actions and beliefs of my fellow Christians either. But the day to day practice of faith in my life doesn't have much to do with belt bombs and suicide bombers. Or speaking in tongues or "intelligent design," for that matter.
Amy: One of the first things Lenin did was establish a "Chair of Anti-God" at Moscow University. Enforced atheism was not a bug of the system, but a feature. If you are going to establish a Worker's Paradise on Earth, you don't want the workers having any ideas about a paradise not of this world. A theocracy is not any more attractive to me. What I like is what we have here in the US - the freedom to believe or not believe, with legal protections for both groups.
Why might the world be better without religion: Christians wouldn't be preventing gay parents from marrying, Muslims wouldn't be blowing all of us the fuck up, and nasty little Catholic children wouldn't have chased me around and called me dirty Jew, just for starters. And Jews wouldn't be puffing their chests about how they're the chosen people.
All of those things are deplorable. But you have no way of proving the course of history would have been any better without religion. How do you know it wouldn't have been worse? It might have been - humans would have found other things to kill each other over. We simply have no way of knowing and it is, yes, a leap of faith to imagine that everything would have been hunky-dory without religion.
Di at January 4, 2009 3:30 PM
Crid, how did you get the idea that I am a follower of Jerry Falwell? Yeah, I'll repeat those words, because you're saying all Christians have a cookie-cutter mentality about all issues. Biblical literalists are going to have a hard time with science. I am not a bible literalist.
Di at January 4, 2009 3:34 PM
> The church is a big, messy and yes,
> often wrong-headed institution
Let's be rid of it! Ta-da!
> I resist the idea that it is
> nothing but negative
Me too, but I'll let go of the good to be rid of the bad.
> Christians wouldn't be preventing
> gay parents from marrying
Tell me again... What is a "gay parent"?
> how did you get the idea that I
> am a follower of Jerry Falwell?
I didn't. I got the idea that you believe that "science and religion... operate on separate planes." Because that's what you said.
Which is, y'know, not true.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 3:41 PM
There's a name for this sort of diplomacy: "If I kiss your Popely ass, maybe you let me live."
Yes, that could be, although I don't recall that Copernicus was ever in danger. There's another explanation possible - maybe he was a genuinely devout man.
Nah, couldn't be!
Di at January 4, 2009 3:48 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618593">comment from DiThere's another explanation possible - maybe he was a genuinely devout man.
Irrationality seems to be a comfort to you.
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 3:51 PM
Let's be rid of it! Ta-da!
Except that the same holds true for every other human institution as well - name one that isn't messy and complex and often wrong-headed.
They are that way because human beings are that way.
Di at January 4, 2009 3:52 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618595">comment from DiAmy: One of the first things Lenin did was establish a "Chair of Anti-God" at Moscow University. Enforced atheism was not a bug of the system, but a feature.
This is not atheistic behavior. There is no central church of atheism. And atheism isn't a belief system, it's simply not believing in unproven crap.
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 3:54 PM
"Thousands of years of scientific research?" Where the hell do you get your numbers from?
Ever hear of Yajnavalkya?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heliocentrism#Ancient_India
In 8th century BC he proposed the earth revolved around the sun and calculated the relative distances between the earth moon and sun fairly accurately.
In the 4th century BC Aristotle ridiculed followers of Pythagoras for believing the earth revolved around the sun. 100yrs later another Greek scientist Aristarchus claimed the same, but backed it up his theory with mathematical calculations. 100 yrs after that a Babylonian astronomer showed further evidence with work on how the suns gravity affects the tide
So to recap 800BC = 2900yrs ago
400BC = 2400yrs ago
300BC = 2300yrs ago
200BC = 2200yrs ago
Are four examples enough?
And that not even taking into consideration marvels like Stonehenge or the pyramids in Egypt and Mesoamerica.
lujlp at January 4, 2009 3:54 PM
And your desire to hold the vast majority of your fellow countrymen and women - the vast majority of the human race - in sneering contempt is clearly and obviously a comfort to you.
A rather cold and sour one, I might add.
Di at January 4, 2009 3:55 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618598">comment from DiIt might have been - humans would have found other things to kill each other over. We simply have no way of knowing and it is, yes, a leap of faith to imagine that everything would have been hunky-dory without religion.
Di, you have the intellectual orientation of an 8-year-old. Nothing is ever utterly "hunky-dory," but religion and the irrational and evidence-freebelief in god promotes the irrational following of the stuff god's people say to do: like go kill them, or listen to how the Jews killed Jesus. The god-believing mind is primed to believe all sorts of hooha -- and to rise up in service of it; usually against "the other."
Amy Alkon at January 4, 2009 3:57 PM
Yajnavalkya - that's an interesting bit of information. The Vedic texts, are, you know, Hindu religious texts.
Did you think the ancient Indians were atheists?
Di at January 4, 2009 4:02 PM
we crashin' and burning on this whole religious thing again? the only answer I can think of is the central premise of the original question, right? not enough sex?
SwissArmyD at January 4, 2009 4:33 PM
Amy: you are simply ignorant as dirt of the entire subject, have apparently never read any serious theological texts, do not seem to know -or even to have met - any educated religious people, and refuse to consider any other viewpoint besides your stupidly simplistic and reductive one. Why someone's faith (something, I repeat, I am not trying to push on you) is so intensely angering to you is beyond me. I, and millions of other people, have no interest in killing non-believers, flying planes into the WTC, or persecuting anybody. We believe in a God and in trying to live according to the precepts of our faith as best we can. Why that throws anybody into a spitting rage is beyond me. You're the one being juvenile here.
You're a bigot. You are every bit as much of one as a person who hates Jews or blacks or gays.
And with that, I'll take my leave, since this is your blog and if anti-religious views are the only ones tolerated here, I see no reason to try to continue a debate. I leave you to your echo chamber.
SwissArmyD wrote:
the only answer I can think of is the central premise of the original question, right? not enough sex?
Ha! I'm OK on that score, can't speak for anybody else.
Di at January 4, 2009 4:48 PM
> name one that isn't messy and
> complex and often wrong-headed.
I can name organizations as messy and complex and wrong-headed, but none that are tax-exempt and famous in recent decades for diddling little boys and girls.
> I see no reason to try to continue
> a debate. I leave you to your
> echo chamber.
I love that, when people very theatrically shoot their noses into the air and announce that this is all beneath them. I get the feeling that if it really were, they wouldn't have been around to being with.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 5:18 PM
Begin with, I meant. Though it had some nice phenomenological implications....
> You're a bigot. You are every bit
> as much of one as a person who
> hates Jews or blacks or gays
People love to say that. It's the new favorite way to look down on people. It's holding a place high on the charts even though lame Vegas comedians have been making fun of it for many years: "Don't be a hater, man...."
I think it's part of our psychotherapeutic obsession. You can fault someone for their interior life and get away with it, because how could anyone possible prove that their emotions are correctly aligned?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 5:29 PM
If Christians once condoned slavery
- If?!?!?! Did you acctually write that word?
(which existed long before Christianity),
-Never said it didnt, I just said it became a matter of race under the territory and domain of the catholic church
Christians were largely responsible for ending.
-After athiests started the charge
Also wasnt one of Wilberforces main arguments against slavery that owners were not doing enough to convert slaves to christianity?
He was anglican too right?
This is the part of religion I love. Tell me Di, how can a church founded by a serial killer so he could get a divorce be valid in any way?
luljp at January 4, 2009 5:45 PM
Wow. How did this thread get so far away from the topic, and so far away from polite and reasonable discourse? Yeesh.
BTW, I am sure those Khmer Rouge guys were atheists. Killed lots of people, I hear. I cite that as an example--there an many others, of course--to remind people that it is not religion that causes people to kill each other by the millions, it is fervency of belief coupled with a willingness to impose that belief on others, rather than persuade others.
As for me, I see little difference between the book-waving fundamentalist radical and the bullhorn-toting Maoist. Both would kill many if given they get to put power behind their idiocy.
Spartee at January 4, 2009 5:55 PM
You know, its funny how I keep answering your challenges and question but you refuse to answer any of those put to you.
I’d ask you why that is, but given your track record you probably wouldn’t answer.
lujlp at January 4, 2009 5:55 PM
"how can a church founded by a serial killer so he could get a divorce be valid in any way?"
Well, Christians believe their faith was founded by a guy who sinned during his mortal life. If *he* was not without blemish...
Similarly, I think Protestant sects generally feel that Henry VIII's activities have no effect on the chances for salvation of Christian followers of Anglican teachings. Hank's sins are his own.
Didn't anyone go to Sunday school? =)
Spartee at January 4, 2009 7:25 PM
Acctually spartee mosy christians belive that christ was perfect and without sin.
And I'd be willing to bet protestants do beilve anglicans are going to hell for at least one reasons.
The protestat branch of christianity broke off from catholocism in the 1517 with Martin Luther, the anglican church broke in 1534 so Henry could fuck someone else.
Incedentally the anglican church still consideres itself as part of catholocism.
Therefore if protestants belived catholic were right and going to heaven then they wouldnt be protetants, would they?
lujlp at January 4, 2009 7:54 PM
I like Di. And I think Amy was much more scarred than she cares to admit by the little catholic schoolgirls who chased her and called her names. As if there's any kid ever who HASN"T had that happen.
If people who don't want gays married are bigots, as we are frequently called here, then yeah Amy's a bigot for hating the religious.
"Why might the world be better without religion: Christians wouldn't be preventing gay parents from marrying,": that's the most presumptuous statement you've made yet. How might gays being married make the world better? Because you and the gays say so? You are different than the religious how? As far as I can see, both sides are trying to push unwanted crap onto others.
momof3 at January 4, 2009 8:14 PM
Didn't anyone go to Sunday school? =)
Heh. Lujlp didn't even go to English class.
Goodnight, all!
Di at January 4, 2009 8:24 PM
Thanks for the support, momof3.
crid: I'm trying to figure out where I said all atheists are bad, evil people. I think I mentioned that my husband is an agnostic (he's bored by religion, but not at all threatened by it). And yet Amy has made clear that she regards all religious people as stupid and childish fools. That's bigotry. just as it would be bigotry if I said all atheists are bad and selfish people. I'm sorry she had bad experiences with Catholic kids as a child but if that's what she bases her vehement prejudices on she's just as emotionally driven and irrational as she claims religious people are. Hitchens mother had an unhappy affair with a defrocked priest and then committed suicide. Might that have a little something to do with his detestation of religion? Wouldn't blame him, really, if it does,...,
Lujlp, trust me, I'm not ignoring you because I'm in awe of your marvelous intellect (not to mention your awesome spelling skills). I'm ignoring you because I think you're an illiterate ass. Tell us some more though, about those ancient atheist civilizations.
Di at January 4, 2009 8:38 PM
Lujlp, trust me, I'm not ignoring you
- And what is your reasoning for ignoring the questions of everyone else who disagreed with you?
because I'm in awe of your marvelous intellect
-'bout time you noticed(
not to mention your awesome spelling skills).
-dyslexia, you should hear me speak a sentence or two out of order when I get agitated.
I'm ignoring you because I think you're an illiterate ass.
-fair enough(I am asuming you're using illeterate in reference to spelling and not history as I responded to everyone of you posts) I should point out though that refusing to engage someone in a debate and simply moving from subject to subject as a defelctive manuver makes you look illiterate(from a knowledge stanpoint as your spelling is quite good
)
Tell us some more though, about those ancient atheist civilizations.
-I'd love to, but I dont recall mentioning one to begin with, care to refresh my memory? Oh thats right you dont respond to someone who doesnt think like you
lujlp at January 4, 2009 8:58 PM
> I'm trying to figure out where
> I said all atheists are bad,
> evil people
Well, I never said you did say that. Amy's a little twitchy about this topic, is all... In fact, she's NOTORIOUSLY twitchy.
But nowadays, calling people bigots doesn't buy you a lot of higher moral ground. In recent centuries, civilization has made great improvement in respecting the lives of its different members. (We have a ways to go.) I think typical folks --blog commenters, voters, people like that-- realize that all this improvement happened through the courage of predecessors. But they don't want to be too grateful about it... They'd prefer to think that all their niceness and egalitarianism is the product of their own personal courage and insight. And they don't want to miss out on the thrill of accusing someone else of being primitive, either!
But that's the paradox of our age. Everything goes better when we reflect thoughtfully on the worth of our fellows; but looking down on others, as discussed above, is a fundamental human need. (I'd list it around position #5 or #6, very close to the importance of music. There are some people who don't care about music at all. There's a similar number who don't need to look down on others to feel good about themselves. Both groups are minorities.)
> Hitchens mother had an unhappy
> affair with a defrocked priest
> and then committed suicide.
> Might that have a little
> something to do with his
> detestation of religion?
Dime store psychology, and not that sturdy analysis anyway. If he was a defrocked priest, I can't see how you'd connect that to Hitchens' religion or lack thereof. What "little something" do you mean? You might as well describe it as the source of his fondness for scotch over gin, or for button-downs over pullovers, or for allusions over punctuation. He's written that his atheism gelled much earlier in his life. And that long after his mother's death, he learned that she was Jewish, and that he found himself lightly pleased at the revelation. What random consequence would you assign to that?
As noted above, I think these generations have psychotherapeutic fascinations that aren't good for much. (I chide Amy for those when I can, too.) People very badly want to pretend that other peoples interior lives have no mystery.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 4, 2009 9:18 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618700">comment from DiAnd yet Amy has made clear that she regards all religious people as stupid and childish fools. That's bigotry. just as it would be bigotry if I said all atheists are bad and selfish people.
Anyone who believes, sans evidence, in The Imaginary Friend is childishly irrational. To say all atheists are bad and selfish people is also childishly irrational.
Hitchens has a pretty awesome mind. To attribute his rationality to his personal circumstances (which, by the way, I find rude of you to mention -- if they're even true, and don't go into it any further; this isn't the National Enquirer's site, but mine) simply suggests that you find it unbelievable that people could actually think rationally.
Luj is anything but illiterate, and the fact that you think so also says much about you. I find his spelling charming, and his comments highly worthwhile. Now that he's revealed he has dyslexia, I admire him even more -- for his confidence in posting despite that.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 12:52 AM
Jesus. I get up to do work on the computer and I find this site on the screen. I was wondering what Di was doing tapping away in here like she was writing a novel. Now I know. She was getting shit on by a bunch of asshole strangers. What the hell difference does it make to you if my wife prays and goes to church?? Is she making you go?? shit, I'm married to her and she doesn't make me go.is it any of your fucking business how other people live if they're not harming you?? A bunch of people screaming at each other online like they're going to change someone's mind. Like someone will read some goddamm comment of theirs and say oh,shit, I used to believe in god but I read this fuckin' brilliant comment on line telling me I was stupid so wow that settles it! I'm an atheist now!
"Luj is anything but illiterate, and the fact that you think so also says much about you. I find his spelling charming, and his comments highly worthwhile. Now that he's revealed he has dyslexia."
It doesn't say a goddamn thing about Di, because you don't know my wife. She's beautiful and kind, a good mom, and helps people all the time. She should feel bad because now because she was just supposed to just know that some Luj character who's been insulting her is dyslexic?? Why she spends any time at all on these stupid sites is beyond me, she's got a life and this looks like a bunch of idiots jerking each other off.
Advice Goddess my ass. more like Asshole Godless that would be truth in advertising. You give advice and you think people are childish for not thinking and believing exactly the same way you do. yeah, that's someone I really want advice from. Real open-minded there. if you're not married, I'm not surprised.
Di's husband at January 5, 2009 2:10 AM
Well Di's husband, aside from Amy calling her irrational and questioning her reasoning skills I cant thin of anything else said to her that could be considered mean.
And oddly enough for all her typing she never responded to question out to her, but just moved on to something else once I or someone else engaged her on her previous points.
Personally I have no problem with reliious types so long at they dont insist on making others live by their world view, but when I asked your wife if she was the pushy type of christian she never answered.
In any event aside from her refusal to engage anyone who challanges her assertions she is one of the few people who can accuraly bring up relevant istorical data in short order - and that makes her interesting
lujlp at January 5, 2009 2:40 AM
Christ,it looks like she said only about 15 times or so that she wasn't trying to convert anybody. Does that look like a pushy Christian to you. It's early, I'm tired, but it looks like she answered some of your questions and you kept asking them anyway.
I'm pissed when I read shit about my wife written by people who dont know her. Di graduated magna cum laude with a B.A. in history. She reads a lot, mainly history. She has done volunteer work teaching adults to read and visiting people in hospice. She works at her church handing out food and clothes to homeless. She just bought a crapload of pizzas for the IDF the other night. and ms. superior bitch tells Di she's immature and childish. oh, you're so much better? Are you "god" ms. snotty asshole, that you can see into peoples hearts, millions of hearts, and you "know" they're immature, compared to who? You? What the hell are you? Have you raised 4 kids? Have you been married 25 years? What have you ever done to help people besides write a crap website that you probably get paid for anyway? Billions of people believe in god, and you think you're smarter than all of them? Get off your fucking high horse, lady.
Di's husband at January 5, 2009 3:58 AM
Million of people belive in a god that command them to kill everyone who disagrees with them - are they wrong?
Millions of children belive in santa - is he real?
Millions of hindus belive in reincarnation - are they wrong?
Millions of babalonians sacrificed infants - were they wrong?
Aztecs riped the hearts out of their fellow men in a bid to keep the sun shining - were they wrong?
Ancient assyrian beilved that their souls sank into a giant canvern at the center of the world where they spent the rest of etern ity eating dust and sorrow - were they wrong?
How exactly is it riding a high horse to point out all the religions and belifs that christians find to be irrational and ask them to critically examine their own belifs with the same mindset that allowed them to find "other" beliefs wrong?
Seriously, prove your god is more real and more effectual than Zues, Odin, Kalika, Marduk, Tezcatlipoa, Osirus, Saturn, Anuibs, Thor, or Ishtar
lujlp at January 5, 2009 5:13 AM
You have me mixed up with the religious one. I can't answer your questions and furthermore I could care two shits. I've been to enough masses and church services though to know that they arent sacrificing infants and ripping out hearts at christian services for christ's sake. there's a difference between how the gospels say to live your life and whatever the babylonians or the aztecs said. I'm no believer either but it's fucking retarded to lump all religions in together. I'm missing all those rabbis and lutheran grandmas from minnesota flying planes into skyscrapers.
Really, you think you're better, smarter, know more than every single damn christian in the country? I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you or Ms. Asshole.
Di's husband at January 5, 2009 5:31 AM
I don't care what people believe. i care about how people act. Anybody can profess anything, but if you act like a prick, who cares? If my neighbor thinks the universe was created when a giant turtle crapped out a big egg, its none of my concern. if he minds his own business, doesn't force me to believe in his giant turtle, mows his lawn keeps his dog poop out of ours, he can pray to whoever the hell he wants. Someone can be Mr. Rational atheist but if he's a piece of shit, he's a piece of shit. it looks like Asshole godless makes these snap judgements about people soley on the basis of what they believe. that's why I get along with Di and her church friends even though I don't share their beliefs. They do good things and are good folks and if they tell me their faith helps them, I buy it. I don't say no, no, thats stupid, how babyish,you really should give it up, its bad for you. Why? so they can be more miserable? I'm not going to tear down something that makes her happy and doesnt do me a damn bit of harm.
especially since I'm not sure you guys have it right anyway.I dont know how anyone can say for sure one way or the other. How do you KNOW there's no god? If god is out there, he's like we are to ants, so beyond our understanding that any religion is just going to be guesswork. I'd rather go fishing and not think about it at all.
Well, it's been fun, not really, but I have to go to work. and get Di's butt out of bed.
Di's husband at January 5, 2009 5:58 AM
You have me mixed up with the religious one.
- The religious one didnt answer either
I can't answer your questions and furthermore I could care two shits.
- Apparently your wife did, though not enough to defend her reasoning
I've been to enough masses and church services though to know that they arent sacrificing infants and ripping out hearts at christian services for christ's sake.
-Immatreial to the argument, and only a small fraction of the argument
there's a difference between how the gospels say to live your life and whatever the babylonians or the aztecs said.
- I thought you didnt care?
I'm no believer either but it's fucking retarded to lump all religions in together.
- Why they all belive in something unprovable
I'm missing all those rabbis and lutheran grandmas from minnesota flying planes into skyscrapers.
- Show me where I said there were any, just becasue someone belives in a kinder magic unicorn doesnt maje it more real.
Really, you think you're better, smarter, know more than every single damn christian in the country?
-yes. I am smater than anyone one who beilves in an
all powerful(who never exersises power),
all knowing(but never shares his knowledge),
caring(but not enough to do anything)
benvolant(but will send to to hell for getting chemo on a sunday, or pick the wrong building to celebrate him in)
I wouldn't be so cocky if I were you or Ms. Asshole.
-you havent really given a compelling reason not to
lujlp at January 5, 2009 6:09 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618735">comment from Di's husbandI don't care what people believe. i care about how people act. Anybody can profess anything, but if you act like a prick, who cares? If my neighbor thinks the universe was created when a giant turtle crapped out a big egg, its none of my concern.
How people believe is what affects how they act. People who believe in an afterlife tend to live as if this life doesn't matter. People who believe that Armageddon is coming tend to think it's okay to rape the planet. How cutely naive to think that people believe things and nothing comes of it.
it looks like Asshole godless makes these snap judgements about people soley on the basis of what they believe.
Actually, I require evidence. The statement above -- the fact that you come on my site and make it (action!) -- says everything about you. Was it Aristotle or David Mamet who said "action is character"?
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 6:20 AM
As we were saying ...
http://www.newyorker.com/humor/issuecartoons/2009/01/12/cartoons_20090105?slide=7#showHeader
This cartoon is obviously (given the early part of this blog) hitting on a nerve that really exists. How would it be if the roles were reversed? If a woman's natural wants and desires were seen as base and wicked?
It might be something like demanding that women cover themselves from head to toe so they could not show off their beauty, or calling them selfish baby factories - nobody ever wanted a baby for the baby's sake!
Anyway, that was just a brief interlude. back to the main show ...
Norman at January 5, 2009 6:29 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618737">comment from Di's husbandWhat have you ever done to help people besides write a crap website that you probably get paid for anyway?
Plenty, but I don't need to drag it out in an argument about whether there's a god.
Belief in god is childish and irrational. That's because there's no more evidence for god than there is for a giant purple gorilla orbiting my house.
That's the issue here. Calling me "ms. superior bitch" and "ms. snotty asshole" doesn't distract anyone from the fact that you can't argue the point and win: there's no evidence there's a god and therefore, belief in god is childish and irrational. Same as belief in Santa, except we'll give the Santa people a few points, because, as my friend Sergeant Heather points out, there's far more evidence there's a Santa than a god. (All those Santas you see in mall's.)
If you're going to attack me, don't do it like a big girl's blouse. Tell us your name, Di's husband.
P.S. Perhaps it takes more reason than you can muster to comprehend this, but people pay you for your opinions because they're worth something. And best of all, because I get paid based on my traffic, you just paid me a few times by coming here and posting.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 6:32 AM
I'd wager Di & her husband are the same guy. Soon we'll her from her cat, her boss, and her real estate agent.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 5, 2009 7:30 AM
No the writeing styles were different, that could be faked but the way people write is kind of like an accent.
One thing Di husband said was he doent care if his neihbor belived in a giant turtle so long as he wasnt forced to believe.
I asked Di if she was the oushy kind of christian who used the law to force her beilfs on others, and neither she or hur husband have yet answered that question.
lujlp at January 5, 2009 7:45 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618777">comment from momof3I like Di. And I think Amy was much more scarred than she cares to admit by the little catholic schoolgirls who chased her and called her names. As if there's any kid ever who HASN"T had that happen.
The point is, kids were prejudiced about me and my family before they ever met us, thanks to the teachings of the Catholic church. And thanks for the dime-store psychoanalysis, but I don't think you'll meet as many people who are as open about their lives and mistakes and shortcomings as I am. I don't splay all here because there's no reason to. It's not important that everybody knows every nook and cranny of me, just that I have self-knowledge.
And if gays can marry their children are protected under the law the way children of straight parents are. Very important. I know it galls some of you to think of two men in love. Poor dears. Their children shouldn't suffer because you can't get your head around it, probably thanks to the teachings of the Catholic church. Also, consider the way priests aren't allowed to marry. Conveniently, this means no wives or children suck money out of the Catholic church. So...we've got a bunch of sexually frustrated guys in the priesthood. Smart!
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 8:52 AM
My husband's name is Jim.
I've been to enough masses and church services though to know that they arent sacrificing infants and ripping out hearts at christian services for christ's sake.
-Immatreial to the argument, and only a small fraction of the argument
Of course it's not immaterial to the argument. There's a big moral difference between the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount and believing in sacrificing infants. People's understanding of God has evolved with time. The basic moral code of the West springs from two sources the Greco-Roman (and the only reason we know about Aristotle, Plato, etc. is because monks preserved their writings during the Dark Ages) and the Judeo-Christian. Christianity posited the belief that every individual, no matter how lowly, is loved by God. That belief, although often disregarded in reality, is one reason democracy and the language of rights evolved in Christian Europe and not in, say, India or the Far East.
That's why it's rather ridiculous to bring up Aztecs and Norse Gods.
Incidentally, I like how any historical fact I bring up (from very recent history) can be airily dismissed as "immaterial." Pol Pot? Stalin? Ah, that's not atheism, that's just those crazy Commies, nothing to do with us! But you can dig up any examples of The Religious Behaving Badly from any era and toss it my way, and what the Norse or the Druids or the Aztecs did is supposed to be relevant. I've ignored your questions because as I said earlier I don't feel compelled to defend jihadis or Borgia Popes or Aztec rights or whatever you want to dig up next. You think you've compiled a brief; I think you've said nothing at all (and appear to know nothing at all) about how ordinary people in America live their faith.
there's a difference between how the gospels say to live your life and whatever the babylonians or the aztecs said.
- I thought you didnt care?
Jim doesn't. But he was raised Baptist and has paid enough attention when he's come to church with me on occasion to realize that "Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself" is different than let's chop up this baby. Only an idiot can't tell the difference.
People who believe in an afterlife tend to live as if this life doesn't matter.
Again, Amy,do you actually know any religious people? The people I do charity work with do it precisely because they take to heart "love thy neighbor as thyself." They believe that in doing good, they are serving God. Now, you might sneer at their motivations, but the charity does get done. This whole brohaha got started when I suggested that for many people God got replaced with the Religion of Me. Perhaps the most useful function of religion, from the point of view of society, is that it reminds you it's not all about you, that you have obligations to God and others.
I can just as easily argue that atheism promotes a "have fun today, because tomorrow you will croak" attitude that leads to selfishness and irresponsibility. Mark Steyn has posited that one possible reason for the present decline of Europe (where I note, anti-Semitism remains strong despite the fact that Europeans have become irreligious), is that the most secular people on earth have also lost the will to reproduce themselves. Another faith is now rushing to fill the religious vacuum in Europe and the results won't be pretty.
I ask again, where are the atheist soup kitchens? Why are most hospitals in the country religiously affiliated? If atheism makes you a better person, prove it.
People who believe that Armageddon is coming tend to think it's okay to rape the planet.
Wrong, once again. I am constantly hearing sermons about how we are called upon to be good stewards of the earth. Maybe if you're going to publicly pontificate about religion, you should try going to the source, and not relying whatever Hitchens and Dawkins tell you believers think.
people pay you for your opinions because they're worth something.
People pay Maureen Dowd and Robert Fisk and Keith Olbermann for their opinions. I'm not terribly impressed by the fact that you're paid.
Actually, I require evidence.
Yes, yes, I know. Well, guess what? I can't snap my fingers and summon God up for you, which is the only evidence you would accept. So you will continue to think I'm irrational and I will continue to think you're blind and bigoted.
Di at January 5, 2009 8:59 AM
> How people believe is what
> affects how they act.
Well, that's no excuse for getting all mind-controlly. See "pscyhotherapuetic fascinations", above.
If Orwell had lived to see our fascination with people's feelings as a means of matering their behaviors, he'd not have been impressed.
(PS- Maybe Di & Jim are the SadlyNo guys! They probably had lonely holidays, and have come back for more lovin'!)
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 5, 2009 9:04 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618784">comment from DiSo you will continue to think I'm irrational and I will continue to think you're blind and bigoted.
Here, let me clear up why calling me "blind and bigoted" is Jell-O-headed.
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2007/07/23/theres_nobody_u.html
See the Walter Benn Michaels excerpt from the bottom on the difference between prejudice and disagreement.
I'm so sorry you aren't a sharper thinker, as it's a bit of a time-suck for me to explain these things. But, thanks to Mr. Michaels, I've literally got my work cut-out (and pasted in) for me. Does your husband normally go around calling people "assholes" and "bitches"? Classy!
P.S. I'm a little busy today with a stack of research on the brain, and on deadline, so can somebody else please bat cleanup when necessary? Thanks!
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 9:08 AM
Look, anybody can believe whatever the hell they want to believe! It's when you (collective "you", not singling anyone out here) try to enforce your beliefs on others, or start with the calling of names and questioning others' character and intelligence that things get ugly. So, ya know, agree to disagree fer petesakes! It's obvious you're not going to change each others minds about it all, so let it go. Sheesh, let's all go look at the cartoon that Norman posted the link to, it's pretty damn funny, and actually on topic! The horror!
(Hey, I love all you guys anyways, ya know?) o.O
Flynne at January 5, 2009 9:20 AM
Wow ... somebody read my post!
Norman at January 5, 2009 9:30 AM
First I'm asked to prove God exists, now the existence of my husband is questioned. Because, gee, spouses never use the same computer and nobody ever forgets to shut their computer down at night. Well, there's no way to disprove your clever detective work, Crid, unless I post family photos or put my phone number and address up on the Internet. Think whatever you want.
Di at January 5, 2009 9:51 AM
Does your husband normally go around calling people "assholes" and "bitches"? Classy!
What would you know about class, exactly?
Jim was in the USMC before we were married and when he's mad and he thinks someone is an asshole and a bitch, yes, he does in fact tell people that. It happens very rarely.
Di at January 5, 2009 9:59 AM
I've been to enough masses and church services though to know that they arent sacrificing infants and ripping out hearts at christian services for christ's sake.
-Immatreial to the argument, and only a small fraction of the argument
Of course it's not immaterial to the argument.
-Sorry but how christians worship is indeed immaterial to whether or not aztecs were wrong to sacrifice humans, and both of you failed to note reicarnation or the assyrian view of heaven
There's a big moral difference between the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount and believing in sacrificing infants.
-According to your beilfs. But wait wasnt jesus killed? around 30 or so? Now in the lifespan of god wouldnt that have made jesus an infant?
People's understanding of God has evolved with time.
-Why? According to most chrisatian schools of thought god is unchanging, and humanity began with Adam and Eve. So can an unchnging god in constant contact with humanity thru prophets be incapable of getting his meeasge across properly until now?
The basic moral code of the West springs from two sources the Greco-Roman (and the only reason we know about Aristotle, Plato, etc. is because monks preserved their writings during the Dark Ages) and the Judeo-Christian. Christianity posited the belief that every individual, no matter how lowly, is loved by God. That belief, although often disregarded in reality, is one reason democracy and the language of rights evolved in Christian Europe and not in, say, India or the Far East.
- so it had nothing to do with the death of 90% of the serfs and the remaning populations new found value in the job market? After all the smaler the work pool the more training they need to work the machines that replaced the plauge corpses. And a person who knows his work is more likey to demand their rights
That's why it's rather ridiculous to bring up Aztecs and Norse Gods.
-And what in morse mythology is so horrible in comparison to christian mythology?
Incidentally, I like how any historical fact I bring up (from very recent history) can be airily dismissed as "immaterial." Pol Pot? Stalin?
-never said it was immaterial, as I recal I took the time to respond
Ah, that's not atheism, that's just those crazy Commies, nothing to do with us!
-Acctully I said their death tolls were due to modern weapons and not their belifs
But you can dig up any examples of The Religious Behaving Badly from any era and toss it my way,
-Thats beacuse there are so many examples
and what the Norse or the Druids or the Aztecs did is supposed to be relevant.
-It is in that their actions were based on what they assumed to be a 'resonable faith'
I've ignored your questions because as I said earlier I don't feel compelled to defend jihadis or Borgia Popes or Aztec rights or whatever you want to dig up next.
-I've never asked you to
You think you've compiled a brief;
-If I were to complie a brief I'd probably crash Amys site
I think you've said nothing at all
-Im not the one hopping from one subject to another everytime my point is countered
(and appear to know nothing at all) about how ordinary people in America live their faith.
-As I recall you were doubtful as to wether or not christian supported slavery at one point, doesnt bode well for your knowledge
. . .realize that "Love Thy Neighbor As Thyself" is different than let's chop up this baby. Only an idiot can't tell the difference.
-Or god apparently, he did sacrifice his son after all
They believe that in doing good, they are serving God. Now, you might sneer at their motivations, but the charity does get done.
- So whos more noble, people kissing gods ass to get into the vip lounge, or athiest who do good works?
This whole brohaha got started when I suggested that for many people God got replaced with the Religion of Me. Perhaps the most useful function of religion, from the point of view of society, is that it reminds you it's not all about you, that you have obligations to God and others.
-Those obligation being to pay for church strutures and the defense of pedophiles even though the catholic church is the wealiest orginazation on the planet? How many starving children do you suppose that golden trone could feed?
I can just as easily argue that atheism promotes a "have fun today, because tomorrow you will croak" attitude that leads to selfishness and irresponsibility.
-Then why dont you?
Mark Steyn has posited that one possible reason for the present decline of Europe (where I note, anti-Semitism remains strong despite the fact that Europeans have become irreligious), is that the most secular people on earth have also lost the will to reproduce themselves. Another faith is now rushing to fill the religious vacuum in Europe and the results won't be pretty.
_I thought you thought faith was a good thing, oh thats right it has to be YOUR faith to be correct
People who believe that Armageddon is coming tend to think it's okay to rape the planet.
Wrong, once again. I am constantly hearing sermons about how we are called upon to be good stewards of the earth.
-there are religious folk on both sides of that argument
Maybe if you're going to publicly pontificate about religion, you should try going to the source
-so should you
So you will continue to think I'm irrational and I will continue to think you're blind and bigoted.
-So if she is bigoted for disagreeing with you, wouldnt you be a bigot for disagreeing with her?
lujlp at January 5, 2009 11:05 AM
Amy, there is no proof you love Gregg. There is no proof 2 men love each other. And yet, they want to push their beliefs (that they are in love and deserve marriage) onto the rest of us. So again, they and you are different from the religious how? Oh, yes, because it's A-ok when it's your beliefs being pushed onto others. No harm there.
If they hadn't been calling your a dirty jew, they would have chased you because you wore glasses or because your name rhymed with stew. That's what kids do. I am not catholic, by the way, and that's pretty obvious from my views. But I suppose there are no atheistic anti-semites in the world, are there? Certainly you weren't calling me one, given that I give to Israel and have no doubt they are god's chosen people (why, I sometimes wonder, given some of their views, but hey).
Oh, and in defense of the marine (what a laughable concept, actually, that one would need it) saying fuck and shit and bitch are no less classy than your "I'm sorry you are so thick" insults, they are just less long. If you want tot say your posters are held to a higher standard than you, well then say that. Say what you mean.
momof3 at January 5, 2009 12:03 PM
Emotions are bio chemical feedback in the brain and can indeed be measuerd.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emotion#Neurobiological_theories
But god, an entity capable of creating everything in the universe is impossible to prove? And actively conceals himself while at the same time demaning fealty from us, wont tells us how to worship but promised eternal hellfire for those who chose wrong?
Gimve me a break
lujlp at January 5, 2009 12:19 PM
Didn't anybody else read Norman's post? O.O
Flynne at January 5, 2009 12:24 PM
Aproppos, but NYer cartoons have always made my flesh crawl. They're jokes for people who don't like humor, i.e., liberal media elites. They used to say Yanni and Andrew Lloyd Webber made music for people who dont like music.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 5, 2009 12:34 PM
Yes, you can measure biochemical activity in the brain. Who's to say it's proof of love? Chocolate binges create almost the exact same biochemical signature, as do any number of other pleasurable activities. Maybe it's proof you like hersheys. It's certainly not exact enough to force something on large groups of people who don't want it.
So again, no difference in the goals of our groups, really, is there?
momof3 at January 5, 2009 1:00 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618842">comment from momof3Amy, there is no proof you love Gregg. There is no proof 2 men love each other. And yet, they want to push their beliefs (that they are in love and deserve marriage) onto the rest of us.
There's plenty of evidence Gregg exists, and Gregg has plenty of reason to believe I love him and vice versa (action is character). The marriage contract is a business contract, offering rights and protections that are pretty important for parents with children.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 1:48 PM
momof3: "Amy, there is no proof you love Gregg."
Depends (like all proof) on what evidence you will accept. If you insist on defining "love" as something mystical, intangible, ineffable, metaphysical etc then you are probably right. That's the same reason you can't pin anything on God.
But if you define love as a state of mind or emotion that causes a person to behave in certain typical ways (eg choosing to be with the other person, giving gifts, making love, choosing the other's happiness over one's own, cooperating on projects, being gentle, etc) then you can infer that one person loves another.
"But," you may say, "perhaps it's all an act. There is no *real* love there." Well then you're back to the metaphysical stuff that no-one can say anything useful about.
Do you know any couples who have a loving relationship? Perhaps they have been together for ever and a day. He always remembers the important dates. He never belittles her. She glows when he's around. Would you say they love one another?
If you are still hesitating before you are willing to accept that love *can* be proved beyond all reasonable doubt, consider the opposite. Imagine two people who avoid one another, never give each other any gifts, have no physical relationship, who don't care about each other's happiness, who can't cooperate about anything, and who try to hurt one another. Would you say they are love one another? If not, why not?
What about other animals. Swans mate for life, and the survivor pines when its mate dies. Do they love one another?
Can a court decide if a mother loves her children? Did Karen Matthews love her daughter? http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/west_yorkshire/7717800.stm She's a bad mother," said Julie Poskitt, Matthews' sister. "She's not normal, is she? You have kids and you love them. "I'm ashamed of my family, and thinking what people out there might think of me, knowing that it's my sister." Apparently her sister was able to see that Karen Matthews did not love her daughter.
There's plenty proof of love, if you think about it for just a moment.
Norman at January 5, 2009 2:23 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618860">comment from NormanNorman, thanks so much. Well said.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 4:36 PM
If you're going to attack me, don't do it like a big girl's blouse. Tell us your name, Di's husband.
On a site where most people post anonymously you think I was SCARED to call myself Jim? oooh, Amy knows my first name, noone else has it whatever should I do LOL!! like it's so much braver and more manly to call yourself crid rather than Di's husband. actually I called myself Di's husband because with the reading skills around here I could say "I am Di's husband" 10 times in my comment and lup would still say " hey, I asked Jim if he is Di's husband but he wont say."
Now though in all seriousness, something motherof3 said made me think of something I want to say that is honestly well meant. I think I can actually prove Amy that you are acting irrationally. i know you dont want christians as friends, but youre acting as though the Jews have all the friends in the world to pick and choose from, so they don't need dumbAmerican christians who are like the nerd kid nobody wants to be seen with. so you feel free to insult christians who are US supporters of Israel call them jello-heads, morons whatever. Diane and I are not about to change because one Jew on a website was snotty to us. But over time, if enough of you call enough christians dopes and idiots, the christians might start to think 'Why am I friends with people who call me names and laugh at me? screw it, I'm not putting up with this shit anymore. Bye." And will the cool nonbelievers, the hip kids you really want to hang out with, will they want to hang out with you?hell,no they're hanging with the Palis. The media? Oh sure they're really Israel's buddies. The europeans? Yeah, the french and the germans, you've had such a good history with them. so here comes Iran to kick ass and your alone in the playground, because I dont give a damn if you like it or not, the strongest gentile support you have in this country doesn't come from non-religious gentiles it comes from the people you like to kick in the teeth.
I'm not saying run around saying I believe in god or I love Jesus or fake ass-kissing. I think a little tact and sensitivity would be a good though when you are dealing with people YOUR side needs not vice versa. I dont lie about my lack of religious beliefs but there are ways to do it without offending and disrespecting and pissing everyone off. If you were really trying to persuade religious, you wouldn't start out by telling them they're no different from kids who believe in santa. you don't want to persuade you aim for the insult right off the bat because you like that. well, if you meet your friend and say, man are you a dog, you're stupid, what awful clothes, I hate you, you won't have that friend forever. In the case of jews and Israel, pissing off friends is not only irrational, it's fucking INSANE.
that is, honestly, well meant advice from someone who wants to see Hamas get the almighty snot kicked out of them.
Still Di's husband at January 5, 2009 6:00 PM
Norman, that's not proof of love. That's proof of any number of things. If you've chosen to be with a person, that can be for financial or sexual or other reasons than love. Treating that person well ensures you get to stay in that relationship, for whatever reason you're in it. But Amy and Norman are right. It's metaphysical and can't be proven hard and fast. Yet, they believe in it because they feel it. No one else can feel it for them. They can see the actions, that's all. No one else can feel God for a believer. But you can see their actions. So why, then, is belief in God childish and immature and irrational, yet belief in love is not? Plenty of bad shit has been done in the name of love too. It's because you happen to believe in one but not the other. That's all. That's your whole entire argument.
There are people who do not believe in love. They've never felt it, and think others are fooling themselves, or being self-serving when they act loving. Does that mean the majority of the world, who does believe in it, are wrong?
momof3 at January 5, 2009 6:00 PM
because with the reading skills around here I could say "I am Di's husband" 10 times in my comment and lup would still say " hey, I asked Jim if he is Di's husband but he wont say."
-Your right Jim peoples reading comprehention sucks, like yours for example. Why would I harp on anyone to answer a question no one asked of them?
Diane and I are not about to change because one Jew on a website was snotty to us.
-By snotty do you mean wasnt nice enough to humor your wife beliefs?
But over time, if enough of you call enough christians dopes and idiots, the christians might start to think 'Why am I friends with people who call me names and laugh at me? screw it, I'm not putting up with this shit anymore. Bye."
-So what your saying is even you doubt the ability of belivers to maintian their faith, kind of a 180 there dont you think?
I dont lie about my lack of religious beliefs but there are ways to do it without offending and disrespecting and pissing everyone off.
-So telling people you dont respect their beliefs in a calm tone works?
No it doesnt, no matter how nicely you say I dont belive in you god people always take offence. Thats how Amy and your wife who didnt want to "hector and badger you into thinking my way" started.
Hell thats how youe wife and I started, but I quickly caught onto her pattern of inoging arguments against her postion and jumping ahead to the next example.
And quite frankly your wife was the first one to get mean about the whole thing when I called her out on that behavior. Look at her post January 4, 2009 3:55 PM.
Before that it was point, counter point, move onto a new subject without defending the challanges to the last one, and of course I dont belive in your unprovable god. No one was cruel of hurtful or mean(unless you consider anything less than acquiescence to be mean). We just asked that she defend her ideals rationally
lujlp at January 5, 2009 7:08 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618868">comment from momof3Feeling god isn't proof of god. Neither is feeling that there's a big monster in the room with you proof there's a big monster in the room with you.
People believe in god because they're told there is a god, and they don't use their ability to reason.
Love isn't a being or an object. You're comparing things that aren't comparable.
I don't "believe in love." I have an attachment to Gregg for reasons I can list (in no particular order, and not necessarily a complete list): he's tall, handsome, sexy, kind, rational, very smart, very inventive, and a lot of fun. And takes very good care of me and always has my back. I really don't feel a need to name my feeling for him; I just miss him a lot when he's not around, and care enough about him that I slept next to his bed on a sheet on a cold hospital room floor at Cedars-Sinai when he was admitted overnight. (He's fine.)
Will this feeling/set of feelngs last? No idea, but it seems likely. The truth is, I don't "believe" in anything. I think it's likely that I will call Gregg up tomorrow morning, and he'll say something sweet, not hang up on me and never call me again. I don't know this for sure, and I take nothing for granted. Part of being rational. I think this may play a part in why I feel grateful for everything I have. I know that I could be dead tomorrow, and I see no evidence of an afterlife, so I don't believe in one.
Emotions aren't wrong or right, they're simply emotions. Brain imaging research, some of which I've been reading all weekend and all day today, increasingly shows that people have similar reactions in their brain to similar circumstances; sometimes divided along male female lines, but there are exceptions. Emotions, and the specific emotions, tend to be human universals; again, with some exceptions. Lisa Zunshine, for example, talks about mind reading (Theory of Mind -- our ability to guess what other people are thinking, feeling, etc., based on their observable actions) in her book, Why We Read Fiction, and notes that autistics have a problem with it.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 7:12 PM
Also Di's husband, how exactly does an athiest of jewish decent(and one who has suggested Isreal should move), in arguging the rationality of you wifes faith, get you so riled up that you suggest christians should withdraw their support of Isreal if Amy(and only Amy) isnt nicer to your wife and other christians?
So is she a bigot for suggesting all religous people are irrational?
Or are you a bigot for suggesting that christians the world over should withdraw their support of Isreal because one non pracicing jew wasnt nice enough to your wife?
lujlp at January 5, 2009 7:17 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618870">comment from lujlpDiane and I are not about to change because one Jew on a website was snotty to us.
-By snotty do you mean wasnt nice enough to humor your wife beliefs?
That's exactly what he means. She isn't able to defend her beliefs using reason, and neither is he. It's obvious that that's why they're lashing out. They never offer proof there's a god -- because, of course, they can't.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 7:19 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618871">comment from lujlpin arguging the rationality of you wifes faith, get you so riled up that you suggest christians should withdraw their support of Isreal if Amy(and only Amy) isnt nicer to your wife and other christians?
How creepy.
Again, I'll point to Walter Benn Michaels' book, The Trouble With Diversity, which points out that religious beliefs are simply beliefs, no different from Republican beliefs or Democratic beliefs -- contrary to the notions of those who equate being against somebody's beliefs with bigotry.
If Di can't offer proof of god, and proof that there's a flying purple gorilla orbiting my house, why isn't believing in god or the gorilla irrational and silly?
And the fact that you've been told there's a god isn't proof, and the fact that there's a lot on earth you can't explain isn't proof.
The Israel threat luj posts about above shows just how ugly and divisive the irrational belief in god, and each particular brand-loyalty, can be. Would you say that about somebody because they, say, aren't that fond of your hometown or favor a different sports team? I think that sort of venom is reserved for those who question things the believers cannot rationally defend.
Amy Alkon at January 5, 2009 7:27 PM
Yeah it would be creepy, if that's what I actually said.
lup; you really get on my last fucking nerve, because you put words in peoples mouths they never fucking said. then Ms. Rational Genius reads lups translation of what i said and says oh my, creepy. You really don't know how to read. Oh, no, am i gonna get told now that you have mange or lupus or pinkeye or something else wrong that I should know about?
"get you so riled up that you suggest christians should withdraw their support of Isreal if Amy(and only Amy) isnt nicer to your wife and other christians?"
I wasn't one bit riled when I wrote that. I was writing actual friendly advice. READ what's fucking there, man. THIS is what I said:
"Diane and I are not about to change because one Jew on a website was snotty to us. But over time, if enough of you call enough christians dopes and idiots, the christians might start to think 'Why am I friends with people who call me names and laugh at me? screw it, I'm not putting up with this shit anymore. Bye." "
Where do you see SHOULD in that?? I'm not saying SHOULD, I'm saying MIGHT because people get sick of being disrespected. that is human nature. you don't stay friends with people who call you names. the strongest gentile supporters of Israel are evangelical Christians. if those people feel OVER TIME that Jews look at them with contempt it could backlash in a way that is bad for Jews i'm not applauding that. And when the hell did I say (AND ONLY AMY). yeah, like i think christian U.S.A. is gonna collectively say 'up yours, Israelis" because of this site. she should dream of that kind of readership. Amy writing on a site I never heard of til this morning isn't gonna do it all by her lonesome but it's a little bit of adding fuel to the fire, a little bit of making people say what the fuck is the use. it's a cumultive thing.
Still Di's husband at January 5, 2009 8:16 PM
>> I've been to enough masses and church
>> services though to know that they arent
>> sacrificing infants and ripping out
>> hearts at christian services for christ's
> >sake.
> -Immatreial to the argument, and only
> a small fraction of the argument
Loojy, if it's even a small part of the argument, than by logic it's material. I think it's material.
What we want people to do is behave well. Not behave well for just the right reasons, just behave well. We just don't know how much religion does to help people keep a lid on their misconduct... Nor do we know how much it helps people soothe their pain. But think both those numbers are pretty high. You don't have to be happy about it.
But before you force people to give up those constabulary and analgesic blessings, you better have something else to offer them. Something besides mockery.
> they would have chased you because you
> wore glasses or because your name
> rhymed with stew. That's what kids do
That's kinda true. Only American wasp males are forbidden to whine about schoolyard bullying like that. (I'm not complaining! That backstop of responsibility and stoicism --imperfectly observed on my part-- was one of the best things every given to me.)
Just sayin'.
These are some of the most powerful forces at work in the human heart. You don't collapse them by making fun of people.
People on this blog are ferocious, absolutely rabid in their demand for gay equality. Addressing a homosexual by an epithet, or even speaking to them disparagingly, would be an unthinkable violation.
But there are a lot more people on this planet who have love for a God in their hearts than people with erotic love for someone of the same gender.
Even if you don't mind being seen in such bitter, closed-minded company, you ought to recognize the magnitude of the challenge you face by sailing in such a disparaging tack.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 5, 2009 8:38 PM
Hey, that was a pretty good blog comment! If I'd known that was gonna happened, I'da fixed the typos and fortified the metaphors.
Ah well. Where are we, 243? Is someone writing this all down to mail to Google?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 5, 2009 8:50 PM
Two day train ride and I find this. Di, I really appreciate the sympathy but fear I'm about to change your feelings.
Amy: you are simply ignorant as dirt of the entire subject, have apparently never read any serious theological texts, do not seem to know -or even to have met - any educated religious people, and refuse to consider any other viewpoint besides your stupidly simplistic and reductive one.
Ok, I'm not ignorant on this topic at all. I've got a childhood of fundamentalism. I've got years studying theology, including a great deal of theology I didn't agree with at the time. I've been a leader in a few churches and have written a great deal of worship music, on top of having been a worship leader. I've also spent a great deal of time talking with and even debating modern theologians.
Di, when it comes to theology, I understand and know what I'm talking about. I'm an ex-fundie and have the fucking scars to prove it.
Of course it's not immaterial to the argument. There's a big moral difference between the Beatitudes and the Sermon on the Mount and believing in sacrificing infants.
Moral difference yes, but the belief is the same. When I was younger, I had the same absolute Belief that allows some people to strap a bomb to their chest and kill theirself and others in the name of their god. The only difference is in what we believed our respective god's were commanding us to do, the Belief was the same.
But if you want moral comparisons, I'm happy to provide.
Millions in several African nations have been victimized by your churches barbaric stance on condoms and other birth control. Between rampant HIV and AIDS, and making far more babies than can be cared for, your church is directly responsible for a hella lot of suffering on that continent. Sending a little help over doesn't make up for it.
Of course that's not restricted to African nations, I know personally a young women who tested positive at fourteen. Why? Because when she asked her priest point blank if using protection was really that much worse than having the sex in the first place, he responded that while she should absolutely abstain from having sex, using a condom would compound the initial sin of having sex.
That would be a priest of your fucking church.
Thousands of children have been molested by your church's priests, because your church refuses to allow them to be prosecuted and for years, just shuffled the pedos from parish to parish. The really bad ones just got moved into admin positions.
Need I continue about the moral superiority of your church?
DuWayne at January 5, 2009 9:39 PM
lup:
"And quite frankly your wife was the first one to get mean about the whole thing when I called her out on that behavior. Look at her post January 4, 2009 3:55 PM."
I raise the bullshit flag on that one bud. Look, this was the post by Di that opened this whole can of skunk, at 4:31 Jan 3:
Di- "I'm not saying everyone should convert or believe, anything like that. But in reading over the comments and some of the very sad stories related here, it strikes me that a big part of the problem is that some people (even people who might profess belief in God) have made Me, Myself, and I their god and expect eveything to revolve around their own wishes, their own desires, their own wants."
Di said she clicked on a link from instanpundit and here she is people talking about sex. she didn't know religion is a dirty word here she didn't did know she should have read amy's whole fucking cv and done research on every friging post here before she made some comments. I'm not saying, it strikes me, even people who believe, that is Di being her usual lala let's not ruffle feathers self. Jesus, that doesn't strike me as that controversial, some people worship themselves, havent we all known people who do.
but,without knowing it, she's uttered the forbidden word god here and so then Amy has to set her straight and so Amy brings out tada! santa claus. Well di says she resents that comparison, then you all move from talking about getting laid to god. yeah, she finally got mean herself, but shit what do you think a person feels like when they're told a belief they cherish is shit and they're stupid for holding it? they're just supposed to go oh, ok, I see, no hard feelings there? you dont see it as hurtful because you dont believe in the same thing they do. Its like someone saying your mother is a whore, but don't take offense.
Still Di's husband at January 5, 2009 10:36 PM
Hi MomOf3.
Well, I think you're defining "love" in one particular way that makes it metaphysical. It becomes a bit like wondering whether you see the colour "green" the same way I do. I'm not sure it's ever going to be possible to answer this, even in principle, and that makes me wonder if the question really has a meaning at all. I tend towards logical positivism in my outlook. But your original question was not about what love feels like, but whether it can be proved. So I have to ask you (a) what exactly you want to prove, and (b) what you will accept as proof.
I can think of these possible predicates (Excuse me if I appear to be putting words in your mouth - I am just making suggestions. Please feel free to correct me.):
I can think of 4 levels of proof:
The book Why we love goes into great detail about how researchers investigate the nature of love experimentally, and what they have discovered. It also does not take much imagination to see how love might have evolved. I don't see it as something metaphysical and rosy and so on: it is just part of our biology, which we share with lots of other animals. (I'm much more impressed by humans' ability to do maths, music, poetry and so on - which animals generally don't do.)
As regards belief in God being revealed by people's actions - yes, I agree with you, but all that these actions reveal is people's belief in God. I don't doubt that people believe in God. I can see how that belief might have evolved. But it does not tell us much about God himself, any more than my youthful love for, say, Barbarella. The feeling of love may be real, but the object is a fiction.
Funny, I seem to be trying to convince you that love is real! Here's a thought experiment. If the Sun exploded today and incinerated the Earth, and there was no life form anywhere else in the entire universe, would there be any love in the universe? I would say no, though it might evolve in the future. I suspect that you would say yes. This is because I think love is real and can therefore be destroyed, by destroying the places where it exists, ie inside people's heads. Alzheimer's destroys love, for example.
Norman at January 6, 2009 12:19 AM
Amy doesnt ban people, so no subject is 'off limits'
If your wife had shown up and said she lived her life according to any faith, or claimed to believe in anything for which there is no proof, she would have been met with the same.
I'm sorry that you find someone who says 'I disagree' to you wife such a threat.
And quite fankly the satna claus thing is relevent, children who belive they've seen santa have seen someone one dressed as santa.
While even the most devout person will assume someone claiming to have 'seen' god is of their rocker.
Last person I saw who claimed to be god was taken away by people in white coats
lujlp at January 6, 2009 1:24 AM
well now duwayne was a new one to me so I had to go way up to where everyone is still talking about the really interesting stuff to see who you were.
and up there you say that you were fucking like a jackrabbit all thru teens and 20's up to your neck in poontang, so much so that now your sick of it. now youre saying you were once a fundie and a church leader and wrote music for church, believed in it like atta believed in mohammad and my neice believes in Obama. christians might have sex before marriage, but they know its against the offical rules. so there was just this little tiny bit of difference between what you were believing and what you were doing fucking around and then sitting to write church hymns. if you were a church leader, believed everything the bible said, and at the same time screwing babes left right and sideways, you were leading a pretty interesting double life. if this was the common thing in your church well, christ, if my church had been hopping like that I would have stayed baptist.
that the catholic churches view on birth control and other things is crap no arguments from me there.
i am seeing more why people like this blog thing, show up shoot your mouth off blah blah hi how are you, my online friends i can make without leaving my living room. i still dont know what anybody thinks they are accomplishing here though or that they're gonna convince anybody of a different mind about anything. here is blog x and everyone here thinks this and here is christian blog z and they all think that and here is obama blog and GOP blog and so on. everyone is in their little fucking hives agreeing with everyone else in their little hive and if someone comes by that doesn't agree, its shit storm time, fuck you moron you're an idiot. its a circle jerk. the only way I can see this being useful is if you want some actual practical info like hey what is the best bolt action deer rifle or lure to use or engineering school, how do I do this, fix this and so on. for lifes big issues and personal beliefs i don't see what anybody thinks theyre solving or accomplishing. here somebody writes some big long thing on religion is bad and all the atheists agree and say how brilliant is that and mr. holy at catholic blog writes how the catholic church is the best thing since jesus walked across the lake in a very special way and everyone there goes oh yeah that's right oh great insight there. well big deal, so duwayne agrees with amy agrees with lup agrees with crid and agrees with atheist tom dick and harry. yeah its fun for you but basically youre all preaching to your own little choirs.
Still Di's husband at January 6, 2009 4:08 AM
Di's Hubby - we can't be both preaching to our own choirs *and* having a shit storm at the same time.
Assuming you really want to know why we post here, well, believe it or not, the audience is usually pretty sharp. This forces you to polish your own half-formed ideas, to do some research, and to be prepared to change your mind. Some topics - for some reason, religion comes to mind - get pretty heated and don't usually go anywhere. But other topics can be informative.
It can be fun.
Can we get back to sex now please?
Norman at January 6, 2009 5:01 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618907">comment from Still Di's husbandThis blog actually has a very interesting audience -- it's not homogenous. Also, very often, I'll post something I know a little about and learn a whole lot more from the people here commenting on it. I posted about the stock market last week, for example, and got quite the education. And then, I post stuff about my thinking, which is rather different from most people's (this post, for example) and that probably changes other people's thinking and/or opens their eyes. Also, I'm a woman and I'm fair to men in my column and blog and care about men's rights (paternity fraud, etc.) -- and I think this makes a difference to men who come here.
I get that you want to put it down because it doesn't high-five your views. See, the thing is, here you win by being very smart and articulate and highly rational. As in any argument. You don't just get glad-handed for being a Christian. Which seems to be what you're waiting for and shocked by.
if you were a church leader, believed everything the bible said, and at the same time screwing babes left right and sideways, you were leading a pretty interesting double life.
I get mail every week from Christians who are big-ass hypocrites. It's a common thing.
Amy Alkon at January 6, 2009 6:11 AM
Damnit Jim youre a moron
>I raise the bullshit flag on that one bud.
>Look, this was the post by Di that opened
>this whole can of skunk, at 4:31 Jan 3
I never said that was your wifes first comment, just where she started getting mean twords the people who disagreed with her.
There is a world of difference between telling someone you find their belief irrational and attacking their charecter for not agreeing with you.
>i still dont know what anybody thinks they
>are accomplishing here though or that
>they're gonna convince anybody of a
>different mind about anything.
and yet we occasionally do
>here is blog x and everyone here thinks this
>and here is christian blog z and they all
>think that and here is obama blog and GOP \
>blog and so on. everyone is in their little
>fucking hives agreeing with everyone else in
>their little hive
If we all thought the same thing we wouldnt bother to write anything
>and if someone comes by that doesn't agree,
>its shit storm time, fuck you moron you're
>an idiot. its a circle jerk.
And yet your wife fired the fisrt personal attack, she was the one to have the shit storm beacuse she didnt like the fact that someone challenged her assertions
>the only way I can see this being useful is
>if you want some actual practical info like
>hey what is the best bolt action deer rifle
>or lure to use or engineering school, how do
>I do this, fix this and so on. for lifes big
>issues and personal beliefs i don't see what
>anybody thinks theyre solving or accomplishing.
Well you see some of us think that practicality and rationality should be a part of every facet of our lives. We feel it wrong to act rationaly in some instances, and to do as the magic leperchaun commands us without bothering to think in other insatances
>here somebody writes some big long thing on
>religion is bad and all the atheists agree
>and say how brilliant is that and mr. holy
>at catholic blog writes how the catholic
>church is the best thing since jesus walked
>across the lake in a very special way and
>everyone there goes oh yeah that's right oh
>great insight there. well big deal,
Without opposing forces we cannot grow, you ever see photos of the plants they tried to grow in zeroG? Just as life must strain against the force of gravity to survive, and indeed thrive. So too must we be willing to push against the ideas of others to grow and to learn
>so duwayne agrees with amy agrees with lup
>agrees with crid and agrees with atheist tom
>dick and harry. yeah its fun for you but
>basically youre all preaching to your own
>little choirs.
One its lujlp, or just lu,
Two crid and I hardly agree on a great many subjects but that doesnt mean I dont find him insightful
Three if this were indeed just preaching to the chior the only comments on Amy's board would say 'I agree'
Four as I've already stated, aside from your wifes annoying habit of bouncing from subject to subject in an atempt to avoid defending ideas that someone has questioned, there arent many people on this board who have whipped out on point and accurate historical references in such short order. I may not respect your wifes belief in god but I do respect her grasp of historical data
lujlp at January 6, 2009 6:38 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1618911">comment from lujlpCrid and I agree on a number of subjects but he's stubbornly wrong on gay marriage. When I started blogging, I didn't worry too much about women who were single mothers. But, pretty much because of Crid's insistence against this, I started reading the data and thinking about it, and now, well, when it comes to parenting, I'm just to the right of Dr. Laura. E-mail me and tell me you're a single mother by choice, and my response will peel a layer of your skin off.
In general, I love discussion and debate because it advances my thinking. This blog has been a fantastic endeavor for me, both because I truly enjoy the minds of the people who come here (well, many of them) and because it makes me a better thinker or writer. If I post something sloppy, my ass will be kicked in short order in this comments section, and I think that's just great. (I'm one of those people who likes to know when they're wrong, and I employ an assistant and have an editor and boyfriend who read my stuff before it goes out with exactly that in mind. My assistant's job, especially, is to tell me I suck and why -- before my writing goes out -- so I can improve it.)
Furthermore, personally, I look for the ways I suck so I can suck less the next time. More people should try this.
Amy Alkon at January 6, 2009 7:03 AM
duwayne- "I was really very big on the casual sex for many years, from about fourteen on. Going into my late twenties my desire for Teh Sex went down considerably."
so ok either you were writing church music at 4 like mozart and were church leader at 12 like boy jesus at the temple and by 14 it was all over or you were fucking like a monkey at the same time you say you really truly deeply believed in the bible. youve had an action-packed life.i remember a lot of really boring potlucks and ice cream socials at my family church but I dunno maybe i wasnt gettiing invited to the right parties. if you were doing this jekyl hyde thing when you were a kid than all that means is you were a lying little hypocrite. it reflects on you not on other peoples lives and belief.
people shift beliefs all the time and what does that prove? some go from religion to none some go from none to faith some leave and go back most stay right where they started. three of the people at Di's church are ex-atheists and i run when I see them coming because they want to talk jesus morning noon and night. and a few years ago they probably sounded like amy.
Amy you keep talking of my beliefs but I have none. you apparently cant imagine that an agnostic can be married to a believer without ripping each others throats out but such marriages are more common than you think. my own plan is i'm steering clear of the fanatics on both sides but on my deathbed maybe i'll have the priest sprinkle water on me, just to hedge my bets. didn't wilde do that?
oh yeah, everyone here is smart and rational and tells each other 'we're smart and rational my aren't we smart and rational, yeah we're smart and rational pity the fools who aren't smart and rational' constantly. i think you're a helluva lot less rational than you think, there's been a lot of pretty selective reading and twisting of other people's words to make them fit your own ideas but dont let me get in the way of the ultra-rational super smart circle jerk.
Norman, i'd rather talk about sex too.
Still Di's husband at January 6, 2009 7:30 AM
I'm not in the mood to talk about sex now.
Norman at January 6, 2009 7:41 AM
Norman, i didnt say i wanted to talk about it with you.
Still Di's husband at January 6, 2009 7:52 AM
Di's fucking moronic husband -
Guess what dipshit? People make lots of changes in life. I have gone through a great number of cycles with my faith, most recently, finally going for absolute rejection. But it hasn't just been one even keel.
When I was eleven, I started writing music - mostly Christian. When I was thirteen, I was part of my churches worship team and traveled to other churches to share my music. At fourteen I was occasionally the worship leader and was always the worship leader when we went on the road. I was also considered a leader of the church with the attendant responsibilities. This lasted until a young women in the youth group got pregnant and was being basically shunned by most of the church. When I realized what was happening, I used my position in the church to chastise folks for not providing this girl with the support that the bible demanded we give her. I was escorted from the building.
That led to my first time completely going off the deep end. I had already lost my virginity, at that point I went off and started smoking tobacco, smoking pot and fucking about anything that moved. I had never really experienced hypocrisy on this scale before - kind of fucked me up. So for about six months I went through my first bout of being a total whore.
Then I was back in church, though a very different one. At that point I was again slowly inundated as a church leader and at this time I was actually getting paid for the music I was writing. Unfortunately, I had also developed an addiction to tobacco and had some issues with a few other drugs. But I felt properly guilty when I succumbed to temptation and mostly avoided all but the cigs.
Along this route, I was developing some rather strange theological notions. I was also becoming friends with a lot of queers and learning about them. This pushed me in the direction of understanding they were who they were, because they were "made" that way and began my quest to reconcile homosexuality and my faith. It wasn't long before this led to an outright rejection of the bible, but not my faith. OTOH, while I held onto my faith, I also embraced fairly extreme debauchery and drug use. Something that was so easy for me to do, that I was convinced it must me ok, that my god was helping me in my endeavors to get high and fuck.
Then I got sober and tried to find biblical ways to justify my attitudes about homosexuality. This had become especially important, because by this time most of my friends were gay. I reembraced the bible and started on a quest to reinterpret it. I also moved out to Portland, OR.
Next thing I know, I'm in a leadership position in a church again. I didn't look for it, wasn't trying - just filling roles that I was asked to fill. Until I was worship leader and had been pushed into studying to be ordained, so I could officially be one of the church counselors, something I was already doing unofficially.
The problem of course, was that I had rather lost the drive to try to reconcile anything. I didn't want to accept it, but I was rejecting outright, revealed religion. I stuck around for a while, even after talking to my pastor about where I was. The roles I was filling still needed someone there who could manage. And with my experience with theology and music, I was rather ideal. I think he also hoped that I would come around if I stuck around.
What he didn't understand, was after a lifetime of justifications and reconciliations, I was finally done. Through everything, I believed absolutely in my god and Jesus Christ. I just went through a lot along the way and dealt with some truly dizzying mental gymnastics - not because I was a lying hypocrite, but because I was very desperate to hold onto my Belief and my Faith.
DuWayne at January 6, 2009 8:13 AM
Oooh! Meow!
Norman at January 6, 2009 9:05 AM
"But it does not tell us much about God himself, any more than my youthful love for, say, Barbarella. The feeling of love may be real, but the object is a fiction."
Word.
Chang at January 6, 2009 12:08 PM
> tell me you're a single mother by
> choice, and my response will peel
> a layer of your skin
How did you come to decide that what kids needed came from the magic number two --any two-- parents?
Did this insight come to you before --or after-- you decided that gays were oppressed by not being able to marry each other?
When you were a younger person --and possibly less atuned to the very real oppression which gays have suffered than you are now-- what did you imagine the suitable configuration for a loving family to be?
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 1:03 PM
Amy -"I posted about the stock market last week, for example, and got quite the education."
well,yeah,thats what I said - "the only way I can see this being useful is if you want some actual practical info like hey what is the best bolt action deer rifle or lure to use or engineering school, how do I do this, fix this and so on."
I looked at the front page and your not that different from me politically,really, but religion bothers you in a huge way and it doesnt me if people dont force it on me,i can see where it does some good socially, know people who are bright good people who believe in it, act better because of it and i dont think they need to be mocked and bullied out of it.
all this you should believe in god, not believe in god, others say don't hunt, dont eat meat, dont drink, dont fuck that person, my way is better, its the only possible way, the whole world should think like me, i have it all figured out for everybody, i'm just sick of this. it isn't only rev Billy bob who wants to do it. i got enough of it in the Marines to last me 3 lifetimes. I understand the reasons for it in the military, but i don't want to tell adults theyre full of shit and stupid if they dont think and believe or not believe like me if theyre not forcing it on me.
Still Di's husband at January 6, 2009 2:36 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1619001">comment from Still Di's husbandi don't want to tell adults theyre full of shit
Um...isn't that kind of what you're doing here?
Amy Alkon at January 6, 2009 2:43 PM
besides this is all unneccesary anyway, because the messiah, king of kings,and lord of lords will be making the second coming in DC on Jan 20, the dems will be in power, and lollipops will rain down from heaven. all pain and suffering will end and every child will get pony. that's the idea i'm getting from MSNBC anyway.
Still Di's husband at January 6, 2009 3:00 PM
Wow. If reading this thread were the only contact I'd ever had with atheists, I'd have to conclude that most of that lot consists of snobbish, stuck-up, know-it-all pricks whose only means of supporting their position consists of name-calling and dismissing all dissenting points out of hand. If you're trying to convince me with the arguments in this thread, you FAIL. Big time.
I cannot prove the existence of God (god, whatever). Can any of you prove that God *doesn't* exist? And don't give me that "you can't prove a negative" bullshit. Michelson and Morley proved, conclusively, that the luminiforus ether does not exist. And scientists of that day, including many atheists (and in fact, Michelson and Morley themselves) spent the rest of their lives fighting that result, because they *believed* in the luminiforus ether.
Amy, why should I believe that Gregg exists? It's not like you've introduced him to me. I have yet to inspect his drivers' license. There have been photos on this blog, which may or may not have been Photoshopped. In fact, Amy, by the "show me" standard, I have no real evidence that *you* exist. For all I know, you could be a 55-year-old guy blogging in his underwear.
Before you dismiss that last paragraph as nihlistic sophistry (which, admittedly, it is), talk a bit about standards of evidence and what we should require before we accept that something is true.
Cousin Dave at January 6, 2009 3:07 PM
> Before you dismiss that last
> paragraph as nihlistic sophistry
> (which, admittedly, it is), talk
> a bit about...
Dude, no fair being boring.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 6, 2009 3:40 PM
After reading this at the urging of my husband, it makes a lot of sense. It also makes sense that a woman may lose her desire to be intimate with a man who is over-bearing and unnecessarily harsh towards the children. Listening to him yell at the kids doesn't exactly put me in the mood. In fact, it diminishes his sex appeal and puts my emotions of love for him on the back burner.
Beth at January 6, 2009 4:48 PM
I skimmed. I saw the words "Barbarella" and "gymnastics." I came. ;)
Melissa G at January 6, 2009 4:53 PM
Wow. If reading this thread were the only contact I'd ever had with atheists, I'd have to conclude that most of that lot consists of snobbish, stuck-up, know-it-all pricks whose only means of supporting their position consists of name-calling and dismissing all dissenting points out of hand. If you're trying to convince me with the arguments in this thread, you FAIL. Big time.
-Umm, it was the faithful doing that Dave, us atheists started out by responding to her point and saying we found belief irrational
lujlp at January 6, 2009 5:24 PM
See, it's not that Crid and Amy disagree on gay marriage. It's that he's stubbornly wrong on it. Because she, of course, is right.
Norman, I think if every being in the universe ceased to exist, then yes love would too. UNless you're a believer and want to argue god can never cease to exist and is love. So no, comparing god and love is not the best example. One depends on beings to feel it, one does not. I was merely pointing out there's plenty of improvables we-including atheists-do believe in.
momof3 at January 6, 2009 5:41 PM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2009/01/01/sex_for_men.html#comment-1619042">comment from momof3See, it's not that Crid and Amy disagree on gay marriage. It's that he's stubbornly wrong on it. Because she, of course, is right.
And Crid was right about single parenting and I was wrong. I thought about what he said, investigated, and determined he was right.
I'm one of the least fundamentalist people you'll encounter. Show me evidence that I'm wrong and I'll come on over to your side in a flash.
Amy Alkon at January 6, 2009 6:18 PM
MomOf3 - I think the key difference is that some people think faith is a good thing, and some people don't. There's some elbow-room because "faith" has several shades of meaning, like "confidence," "trust", "self-assurance" and so on, which I would agree are good things, if they are well founded. It is a mistake to trust someone like Bernard Madoff for instance.
But when "faith" means "a vision of Jesus Christ as the master key to the meaning of the cosmos, the Lord of history and King of the individual mind and heart" as one faith-promoting website puts it, in a tumult of similar but incompatible claims, then it is a different kind of beast altogether.
I value skepticism and constructive criticism, not that kind of faith. I don't try to bolster my faith: I try to reduce it. I don't do "help thou my unbelief." I think this is the fundamental point of disagreement between us. I'm not trying to convert you, BTW, just getting to the bottom of things.
Norman at January 7, 2009 1:39 AM
> because "faith" has several shades
> of meaning, like "confidence,"
> "trust", "self-assurance"
> and so on
Exactly. Exactly. (See also the comments here.)
(BTW, the word "love" has that same problem. Meanings get shoved into the wrong purposes and people wind up getting hurt!)
I regret, earlier in the thread, saying of religion that "I'll let go of the good to be rid of the bad."
First because it was so dumb and ham-handed. There's no big lever that we can throw that will cause people to be less religious. And there's no reason to think they'd be more rational if they did.... It's more likely that if people's faith went away, they'd fill that hole in their hearts with abject stupidity, like astrology or something.
Second, because we have to remember that people get things from religion. Personal things. Real things. The fact that those of us without faith don't see the satisfaction or comfort or courage doesn't mean that it's not real.
And again, we shouldn't demand that people surrender that comfort until we're sure we're giving them something better.
And simply saying "Look at pictures from the Hubble Telescope!", as Hitchens is wont to do, doesn't cover it.
Again... Faith has many meanings, but religion is personal... Each individual selects the meanings they prefer. The rest of us don't get to choose for them.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 7, 2009 12:02 PM
The rest of us don't get to choose for them.
I'd agree with that but for the fact that the religious feel they get to choose for us how we live
lujlp at January 7, 2009 12:17 PM
Can you imagine a life where you don't have to thoughtfully police your personal boundaries?
Modern America may be as close as it comes.
Crid [cridcridatgmail] at January 7, 2009 12:52 PM
Darn, where'd everyone go? It was just getting fun!
lujlp, let me hit on this one thing first. Where do you get the idea that all or most Christians want forced conversions? Do you have any data to back that up? I ask because the assertion, besides being contrary to my own observations, seems highly improbable: considering that Christians still greatly outnumber any other belief group in the U.S., if your assertion were true, I would think that we'd be a theocracy already. Certainly, a great many of the would like to pursuade you into following their beliefs. Nothing wrong with that, as long as they aren't invading your privacy to present their arguments.
Second: I claim that holding an atheistic viewpoint does not, in and of itself, make a person more rational. There is a subset of atheists who are atheist not because they have carefully considered the matter and concluded that God doesn't exist, but because they *don't want God to exist*: they are libertines, and the existence of a supreme being with some power to enforce a moral code might interfere with their fun. Atheism can be a properly considered viewpoint, but like any other belief system, it can also be a cop-out, and you have to look closely to determine which is which.
Third: I'd like to hear from some of you who have concluded that God does not exist, and what your thought process was in getting to that viewpoint. What would be especially interesting was what you started from: what were you taught as a child, how true did it strike you as being at the time, and when in your life did you start to examine it. (I'm presuming that few people in the U.S. of my age, and I assume I'm not too far from Amy's age bracket, were raised as atheists. It just wasn't that common back then.)
Cousin Dave at January 7, 2009 12:59 PM
Tell you what Dave, give me a day or so to write up my response - I have a couple of hectic days comming up, and I'll post it here then
lujlp at January 7, 2009 5:08 PM
Cousin Dave -
I'm not actually an atheist, except in the very broadest sense, but I'll shoot. In fact, I already did and in this thread. Scroll up to my last comment.
Short version. I grew up in a fundamentalist Christian faith and was a fundie golden child. I studied theology and wrote beautiful music that many claimed blessed them. Then I realized that gays aren't evile and learned about evolution. I had my ups and downs and went through truly dizzying feats of logic to justify my libertine lifestyle and reconcile it with my faith. Got over said libertine lifestyle and became golden boy again. Finally gave up on the gymnastics required to reconcile my stance on gay rights and acceptance of evolution, with my faith.
And here I am.
I think I should clarify that I have my very strong doubts that god exists and completely reject the notion that any god that might exist, would provide some arbitrary set of rules like those set forth in the bible or the koran. I have yet to meet a single atheist who actually Believes there is no god. Nor have a met one who wouldn't be an instant convert if evidence that god exists was actually presented.
DuWayne at January 7, 2009 5:58 PM
Cousin Dave: gosh, how I love to write about myself. Thank you so much!
I wasn't raised atheist but religion never played much of a role in my childhood. I was told I was a protestant. I only went to church with the school at end of term, or for someone's marriage, funeral, etc. My father was a bit of a naturalist so Sundays were usually spent in the great outdoors, searching for and observing wildlife.
In my early 20s, I was definitely searching for some credible answers to the question of life, the universe and everything. I answered various adverts in the paper from churches such as the Rosicrucians and the RCC. The adverts promised to reveal the secrets. They didn't. I was astounded at how anyone could be taken in by such rubbish.
All this time, I read widely - I still do. This included the Old testament, the New Testament, the Apocrypha, the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Bhagavad Gita, the I Ching; philosophers like Russell, and Ayer; and ancient books like the Epic of Gilgamesh. I did New Age stuff like TM. I found the religious books to be unreadable, and what was readable to be primitive, unhelpful, incredible, and contradictory - not just internally, but also with other religious texts and with the natural world and the evidence of my own senses. The history of religion - the oppression of dissenting views - didn't help its case either. It showed that the argument was too weak to stand by itself. The New Age stuff was happy-clappy touchy-feely nonsense that required far more credulity than I could muster. I moved to agnosticism and then to atheism (and physical materialism) when I realised that I simply did not possess any actual belief in the existence of a god.
I have since realised that I cannot think of any evidence that I would accept to convince me that God exists. I think I would reject such evidence as coincidence, hallucination, trickery or superior technology, before I would believe in a supernatural creator. This is not exactly my choice; it is how I imagine I would react if, for example, the stars rearranged themselves overnight into a picture of Jesus. Or if the words "there is no God but Allah" appeared in Arabic inside a cut tomato. But surely if the supreme being wished for me to believe, he/she/it could find a way. Surely my unbelief is just a product of my limited, human, perceptions and abilities. These barriers could be swept away in an instant. Meantime, as I have said elsewhere, even a flea can convince me of its existence, so if the supreme being can't do likewise, the conclusion is obvious.
Norman at January 8, 2009 2:02 AM
I was wondering: Where is all of the regulars on this thread? Where is Pirate Jo? Is she on vacation? I'm certain she must have a great response to this thread.
Amy, you ROCK for putting this thread out there, and for your blog on the topic.
mike at January 9, 2009 10:58 AM
I was raised Mormon, and Mormons believe that the head of the church is a man who receives direct instructions from god. And upon those instruction he appoints other high level church officers, and those church officers thru gods guidance appoint lower level officials, who in turn appoint regional officials and in turn they appoint the local leadership of each geographically demarcated ward - often up to 4 wards will share one building.
Bishops are analogous to catholic priests, their immediate supervisors are called ‘stake’ presidents, and they generally oversee upwards of two to five churches, or between three and fifteen wards. Also all church officials are volunteers and unpaid, until you get really high up in the churches ranks.
Mormon children are baptized at the age of eight, I was not until ten. I though that something like religion should be taken seriously so I, in what I thought was a good exercise, I read the scriptures, I prayed, I sought guidance from god as we were taught that anyone who asked for gods help would be given it. I never did.
I finally got baptized just to shut my father up and get him to stop hassling me. In retrospect I always found it odd that no church officials were willing to council me and discuss matters of faith, and instead spent all their time with me insisting I had to be baptized rather than explain to my why I should, or even what the source of my reluctance? reticence? reservations? were.
It was remarkable how everyone’s attitude towards me changed once I was baptized, I was not longer an outcast, and for a while it was easy enough to put aside my doubts and reservations, but around the age of twelve boys are placed in different classes and taught more about the ‘mysteries’ of the faith. How once we are baptized gods special messenger is with us at all times telling us what to do. How we are given a special power to heal the sick(why you needed magical oil was never explained though).
And I thought to my self if that were true than why has no church official ever known about the way my step mother beat my sister and I, after all if god is whispering in their ears telling them how to make the lives of their congregants better, why had no one ever made my life better?
The solution was obvious, they weren’t worthy priesthood holders and that was why. But soon I began to ask myself if the bishops were unworthy why hadn’t they been removed and replaced by men who were. Unless the stake president were unworthy as well, and if they were unworthy then what did that mean of then men who were their superiors? What did that say about the prophet a man who was supposed to have face to face conversations with god?
So I started looking at other religions, and found some interesting things.
The Anglican church was formed solely so Henry the 8th could get a divorce, its nothing more than Catholicism with divorce predicated on the divine inspiration of a serial killer.
Catholicism at one time denied the divinity of Jesus, which is odd given that they view Jesus and god as one being even though Jesus never said he was god. Their faith also violates the rules Jesus set down about rote prayers. And in having their followers pray to saints violate the commandment regarding idols.
Lutheranism preaches faith alone is enough to attain heaven, even though James 2:20 stats that faith with out works is not enough. What I find especially telling about Lutherans is their belief that the bible is the final authority on all matters, except about faith apparently, but they never bothered to add any of the books that the catholic church refused to include in the compilation.
I could list dozens of religions and the points of their own doctrine which contradict themselves but that isn’t the point of this post. Needless to say I was disillusioned with man made religions which were clearly false, what is it that parent say to children? “If you tell the truth you don’t have to remember what lie you’ve told and to whom.” I saw the same printable at work in religion, if a particular faith were ‘true’ why did it contradict itself or the bible?
So I abandoned organized Christian religion and sought out pure faith. Only to find more questions.
How did an all powerful being allow his garden to be infiltrated? How could an all knowing being not be aware of the serpents intent and Eve’s reaction? Why would god punish billions of people for the acts of two individuals? And how could anyone ever have free will without knowing the difference between good and evil? Did god intend for things to unfold the way they did? Was it possible that the fall of Lucifer was intended as well? Could god have created Lucifer for the express purpose of rebelling, and if so was the devil really evil incarnate or just another hapless victim of gods plans?
Why? I asked myself constantly, why did an all powerful, all knowing and supposedly benevolent god always have to resort to schemes and subterfuge and quite frankly outright cruelty to reach his goals?
Growing up in most christian churches children hear very little more than excerpts from the old testament, but if you read thru that you find a god who I anything but kind, you find a capricious tyrant who kills, and maims. Did any of you ever wonder how many people died during the seven year famine which brought the house of Israel so much wealth during their time in Egypt? Why? Why couldn’t have god directed them to a diamond bearing lava tube? Or given a member of the family the ability to turn lead into gold? Why did thousands of people have to starve to death?
Or when the Jews returned out of Egypt why did god command them to commit genocide and rape? Why did he not convert them? Why did a god who loves all of us and wants us to worship him drive his followers to murder those he loved? Unless he did not love them.
So I began to study other religions and found them little better, in fact I began to notice similarities between older religions and the traditions of newer ones. I discovered the true origins of Christmas as an attempt to convert the few Germanic pagans the didn’t mange to kill. I noticed similarities between the resurrection of Osiris and his betrayal at the hands of Set the story of Jesus’ betrayal and resurrection.
Even in the genesis creation myth the all powerful all knowing god made a mistake, he didn’t create woman until day 8 or even later, seems he forgot that mankind needed two sexes.
All these inconsistencies, contradictions, outright plagiarism of other religions beliefs and legends. Its all as plan as day for those who are willing to look.
The pope has never preformed a miracle, and neither has any other self proclaimed prophet. I’ve never seen the dead brought back to life, I’ve never seen a man walk on water, or part it. I’ve never seen the lame walk or the blind receive sight.
I never set out to become an atheist, I set out to find my faith, I am just honest enough to admit there was nothing to find - no matter how badly I wanted to.
lujlp at January 10, 2009 3:13 PM
It's attitudes like Ttravis's, I think, that have turned off my generation (X) to sex.
Here, here, Ella!
AM at January 14, 2009 4:52 AM
Leave a comment