Sex drives

i think villainous did a good job responding from the female point of view but she dismissed the male point of view. tragically, that is one thing that cause friction between men and women. we each define reality on our own terms. you can't find a middle ground if you ignore the other person's point.

#1 Major Scarlet (Link) on 2009-10-05 11:20 (Reply)

Hmmm. I didn't mean to dismiss 'the male viewpoint'. Can you tell me what I dismissed?

I basically agreed with most of what Stacy McCain had to say but I didn't understand why women are "sluts and whores" when they behave just like men (who are NOT - I repeat, NOT - sluts and whores if they sleep around) :p

If you can tell me what I dismissed or what you wish I'd said, I'll be more than happy to address it. Being female, I don't pretend to have a lock on the male mind - I was attempting to augment what Stacy said with my perspective, which I wouldn't expect him to understand by default!

#1.1 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-05 18:04 (Reply)

[snark]But...but....but... I've been indoctrinated and brainwashed for 30+ years by countless corporate seminars, feminists and Hollywood elite to think WOMEN ARE THE SAME AS MEN. And now you say they AREN'T? Oh, no! We don't have the same goals, desires, emotions, drives, outlooks, and abilities? Amazing! [/snark]

Maybe rationality/reality is beginning to creep back into American culture after all......

#2 JoeC on 2009-10-05 11:33 (Reply)

Unfortunately the link isn't loading for me right now...kinda like she's withholding that too. So I'll take an ignorant stab (and with many women, that seems to be the only kind anyway) and say, if women would chose mates more wisely, perhaps they wouldn't need to withhold (like we would know anyway) anything in the first place. If every dirtbag male didn't have 3-4 or more hot women hanging off of him, perhaps a lot of things would be different. Of course Denmark's tourism numbers might drop, but everything has its downside...

#3 KRW on 2009-10-05 13:10 (Reply)

Dr. Joy & Joe C.,

As I type this, I feel the 'tentacles of entrappment' loosely wrapping around me (I'm putting them there myself!). But I proceed.

Joe, I, too, have been raised in the same indoctrinating and brainwashing environments as well, but my sons (18 & 17) have had it much worse than I.

In an attempt to have men think in terms of equality (which is only fair) the feminists (who have ruined the true Womans' Movement) have taken over control of some key elements of the learning structures of our society (educational, political and judicial).

While I know there was some "tongue-in-cheek" in your comment, Joe, the reality is those who have tried to castrate the real male have promoted the "sameness concept" as an extention of the "equality concept". A real woman knows we are not the same but a growing male doesn't know anymore, IMO.

Having been an involved father in all aspects of my sons upbringing, I've dealt with their schools, teachers, Principals and School Boards on a number of issues.

I am amazed, and somewhat disturbed, by the new male (the "Metro-male"..."Mama-boy") that is now exiting our school system. It's as if the school attempts to keep his gonads in a drawer...to be returned only if requested at graduation. By that time, they have either been misplaced or the young MAN doesn't know they are required!

Men and women are what they are. And there is no sameness about it! And that, my friends, is how we travel life's winding road...figuring out when to move into the passing lane or when to move to the right and smell the flowers.

Oh...let's not forget the newly empowered females who exit the same school system....all this power, perceived on their part, because they truly don't understand it. They know how it works but not why it works!

(too much to put into too few words).

Cheers.

#4 Garry on 2009-10-05 14:34 (Reply)

"i think villainous did a good job responding from the female point of view but she dismissed the male point of view."

Having read over my post, I'm even more confused. What male point of view did I dismiss?

These are the main points in my post:

1. Women shouldn't trade or withhold sex to get what they want.

2. Men and women are very different.

3. Women start thinking about relationships far earlier than most men.

4. Women should realize guys DON'T think about relationships right away, so if we choose to have sex with a guy we need to realize he's probably not thinking what we're thinking...at least not right away.

5. Neither men nor women should be having sex with relative strangers unless they can handle the emotional fallout.

6. Women should value character and integrity in men as much as looks or charm.

7. Women shouldn't blame a man for our own decision to sit at home waiting for him to call instead of going on with our lives.

8. Most men don't make decisions about who to marry based on whether women withhold sex, but rather on a more complex set of criteria. A guy is more likely to want to commit if he thinks his life will be richer and more fun with you than without you.

#5 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-05 18:36 (Reply)

Cassandra,

I enjoyed your thoughtful article, though admittedly felt I was skulking back in time in terms of the seeming pressure for women not to have sex, etc... But #8 says it all, so in the end it doesn't matter.

It might have been fun to interview some guys to see what they had to say about your article and come up with a list from them. But you have their feedback, anyway, so maybe another time for a follow-up article. I didn't care for Stacy's bringing God and religion into his piece... so what. My problem.

KRW said if women would choose more wisely... I am totally against the random fuck, so I am far, far from that, but I would never not have sex before any commitment. Sex is too important, and the idea of holding out for some stupid ideal that is no longer relevant, I want to know if he's worth it - and that includes sex. My only caveat is that the relationship not begin because of sex, so holding out until you realize you like the guy and most things about him, and that he fills whatever categories you have for a mate, then have sex. By then it's bound to be good; if it's not and continues not to be, time to leave. If you think you can tolerate lousy sex, you'll find yourself doing all sorts of weird things to get out of having to have it. Every married woman has been through that, in my opinion.

The thing about your article that seemed like a How-To for women is that it's not reality, sad to say. First, screw the feminists - they've done so much harm it's sickening. But when I was in college, a small private girls' college in SC, we'd all take off on weekends to party the weekend away with Citadel cadets, UNC, USC, Wofford, Clemson, Sewanee. Those good old southern boys, animals in disguise, were wont to say up front as they adjusted their alligator belts with the brass, initialed belt buckle, that they intended to marry a virgin and that was that. De rigueur for those dashing southern gents. Fine. But they were the first to yank your panties down and give you the ride of your life. We girls would play our parts and protest, and Sunday nights we'd do our Kegel exercises in case we didn't get a call back. Can't tell you how many times we self-rejuvenated our virginity when, in the end, it didn't matter. And it didn't. It dawned on most of us that using sex for any kind of manipulation was a loser's game and we weren't playing.

My belief is that these cultural games and dictates about sex do far more harm than good. They diminish everyone, though I will not go so far as to say they 'will leave a girl scarred forever'. What does matter in the long run is 'like'. You recognize that as the only thing that counts, and you know it when you feel it. First, you like yourself... the rest falls into place without a handbook.
`

#6 Meta on 2009-10-05 20:34 (Reply)

First, you like yourself... the rest falls into place without a handbook.

FWIW, I think that's huge. In a world where parents are encouraging their kids to complete grad school and have all the ducks lined up before marriage, I too wonder how single people are expected to hold out for marriage when 10 years may occur between the age of majority and the day your child finally walks down the aisle?

I think virginity is a laudable ideal and I would never make fun of anyone else for choosing to wait, but I also realize that in a time where we're marrying later and later, it may also be an unrealistic standard.

At the very least, if it's so wonderful let's apply it to both our sons and our daughters :p

The talk of "sluts" really bothers me. Women don't neatly divide into Madonnas and whores. It seems to me that some men apply a very nasty standard to women that they are utterly unwilling to live up to, themselves. The Bible doesn't make this distinction - fornication is a sin for both men and women.

Consequently, I'm not a huge fan of selectively applying Biblical tenets! Alternatively, let he who is without sin cast the first "slut"! :)

#6.1 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-05 21:07 (Reply)

Shades of "Lysistrata!" I'm in agreement with you, Meta, and with Cassandra in most of her essay. But I particularly like Meta's comment that "Using sex for any kind of manipulation was a loser's game." I've always thought that, and so I've never done it. Withholding games and 'rationing games' are equally demeaning to both parties in an intimate relationship and cause the relationship to deteriorate eventually.

Having watched today's feminists start from a faulty premise [that men and women are basically identical except for plumbing] I could have predicted our present male/female impasse. We knew better back in the dark ages when I was young. Men and women are basically different -- and hooray for that. How boring it would be if we were all made from the same cloth, the same priorities, the same reflexes. Personally, I adore men because they are different. A woman can get a lifetime's worth of entertainment from that.

I know. I have.

Marianne

#7 Marianne Matthews on 2009-10-05 21:12 (Reply)

"Withholding games and 'rationing games' are equally demeaning to both parties in an intimate relationship and cause the relationship to deteriorate eventually."

I agree. I did respond in the comments, though, that I do understand why some women don't want to have sex (for instance, if the man is treating her very badly) and why some men clam up and withhold communication (for instance, if the woman berates him every time he opens his mouth).

Don't think it's productive to hold out. But in certain cases, it's understandable.

I liked what Yu-Ain said in the comments: sometimes you have to be the one to make the first move even if a problem isn't your fault.

Regarding our differences, you are so right. I have learned more from my husband precisely because he often doesn't think or react the way I do. I'm a better person for trying to see life his way - often he approaches things from a wholly different perspective that makes everything fall into place for me.

We constantly learn from each other. That would be hard to do if we saw everything the same way :)

#8 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-05 21:30 (Reply)

cassadra,
perhaps dismissive isn't correct.. however.. your comments here confirm my opinion of your response. you want to make an excuse for women to have the same sexual rights as men while dismissing the fact that men and women ARE different. when men have sex.. nothing changes on them.. women aren't that lucky. women have a gift to give a man that proves they are reliable.. thousands of years of procreation have not changed mens attitudes over the sexual revolution of the past 30 years. men still want women they can trust but also they want to respect. respect is huge for men and that was what stacy was getting at. we don't want to have relationships with the average woman today because they THINK that sex with anyone is ok. it isn't. men will use you for what you they think you are worth as a mate. ignore that at your own danger.

#9 Major Scarlet (Link) on 2009-10-05 21:59 (Reply)

Also, I never argued for any sort of sexual "rights", let alone equal sexual rights. I don't believe there is any such thing as "sexual rights" for men or for women.

What I said was, if sleeping around makes a woman a slut or whore, what is a man who sleeps around? A male slut? A male whore?

You won't accept those terms, I suspect.

If giving up one's virginity outside of marriage makes one untrustworthy as a mate, women should insist on men who are virgins? The fact is that men are still more likely to cheat on their wives than the other way around though women these days seem to be gaining on men (more's the pity).

Statistically we have more to worry about in that department. In this age of AIDS and STDs, doesn't a chaste woman deserve a man she can trust? How does she know she can trust him if he will screw anyone who lets him?

#9.1 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-05 22:33 (Reply)

Major,

I didn't get any equal rights voodoo out of Cassandra's initial piece. Warnings, sound warnings, that despite the 'Genital Revolution', things are not what they seem. You just proved it.

"We don't want to have relationships with the average woman today because they THINK that sex with anyone is ok."

You're wrong, but why would you settle for an 'average' woman to begin with? The fact that women gestate babies does not make them any more reliable than the man who helped her make it.
`

#10 Meta on 2009-10-05 22:20 (Reply)

You seem to be somewhat "dismissive" of women's opinions, though.

"women have a gift to give a man that proves they are reliable".

Well, not exactly. It only "proves" that they haven't had sex with anyone else... yet. Virginity is no guarantee of future fidelity.

I'm curious: why don't women deserve a man they can trust to be faithful - that they can respect, too?

If the mere fact that a woman has had sex before she's married causes men to lose respect and trust in them, why should women respect or trust a man who has sex before marriage?

I have a feeling your answer will be, "Because this is how I feel".

But that doesn't answer the question, really. Why would a woman want a man who thinks "sex with anyone is OK"? And what does it say about a man's morals if he uses women?

#11 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-05 22:23 (Reply)

""women have a gift to give a man that proves they are reliable".

I. am. grossed. out. Totally. My mind thought he meant 'baby'. I couldn't even dig deep enough to view virginity as a 'gift'.

ARE YOU KIDDING???? Major, you are in the Twilight Zone. We women owe you? We OWE you a hymen? Else we ain' shit?

You can lose that membrane riding a horse, falling out of a tree, falling down the stairs. What are you thinking??

Major really is going to have to settle for average. Maybe less.

I can't believe I was so dense...... that anyone could view a maidenhead as a gift to give a man. Actually, I'm not the dense one - he is. Good luck on your cherry picking. You're going to need it. I hope you're a virgin, by the way. She deserves nothing less. Otherwise, you're a cad.
`

#12 Meta on 2009-10-06 00:42 (Reply)

It would seem that for some, respect is a one way street with all the traffic running in their direction :p

It's kind of ridiculous to say I argued that men and women are the same when I explicitly said they're very different. The thing is that I'm not sure men and women are so different that only men deserve a 'trustworthy' partner. I don't really buy the notion that not being a virgin makes either women or men 'unreliable' either.

I can accept that one might view a promiscuous partner as lacking in self control or possibly likely to be unfaithful, though I'm not sure this always follows. But in broad generalities, it's easier to believe someone who showed restraint and self discipline before marriage would be more likely to do after marriage.

But Major Scarlet hasn't provided any rational or logical argument for the notion that sex before marriage makes women untrustworthy but not men (other than "because I said so"). I'd be interested in an argument, if there is one. But I haven't seen it yet.

#12.1 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-06 00:54 (Reply)

"The thing is that I'm not sure men and women are so different that only men deserve a 'trustworthy' partner."

I don't buy this either, Cassandra. No way. Gender has no part in who deserves what: Humans deserve loyalty and good faith when they make a commitment. Otherwise, why make the commitment. Yeah, I know, 60% of men and 45% of women don't agree, but I don't know that that isn't a result of high expectations crashing down to reality after several years of unbridled lust and sex making college more fun than you thought it'd be. We can't live in the past; and we can't hold the past against someone and let it determine their value as a mate because people change. Not to sound corny, but love changes people as does trust. If you don't have either after you have the 'like', don't make the commitment.

To be honest, I wouldn't want a virgin mate. After the simmering, moist, first two years, I'd worry that he would start wondering what he'd been missing. Too bad we talk about human nature all the time only to come to terms with the fact we can only control our own.

Ah well, I'm off to bed. Too bad there's not a throbbing hunk down there waiting for me, virginity intact, so I could give him the thrill of an evening. I'd like the worship for an hour or two, but then I'd have to throw him out. Awe turns me off.

:)

`

#13 Meta on 2009-10-06 02:04 (Reply)

first,
i'm speaking for the point of view of why, historically, women were expected to be virgins and why that trend developed in almost every society around the global at one time.

second,
there is more involved than just being faithful with how the trend developed. it also has to do with the psychology of man's brain.

third,
i never said it was ok for men to be hypocrites so don't put words in my mouth.

fourth,
meta.. you are unhinged. calm down and stop accusing me of things i never said. and on that note, i can see this is an emotional issue for liberated women and some of your comments are hysterical. i'm going to leave it at that.

#14 Major Scarlet (Link) on 2009-10-06 07:54 (Reply)

First of all, let's get the record straight. If anything, you put words in my mouth right here:

"you want to make an excuse for women to have the same sexual rights as men while dismissing the fact that men and women ARE different."

I neither said anything about sexual rights NOR ever maintained men and women were the same. So there is no factual basis for saying either of those things.

Did I "put words in your mouth"? Where? I see where I asked you several questions (the question mark indicating uncertainty as to your meaning):

"What I said was, if sleeping around makes a woman a slut or whore, what is a man who sleeps around? A male slut? A male whore?"

That's clearly a question, not a statement. Further, it's a statement about what I said, not what you said :p

Then I expressed a personal opinion:

"You won't accept those terms, I suspect."

Still not putting any words in your mouth. Followed by another question:

"If giving up one's virginity outside of marriage makes one untrustworthy as a mate, [shouldn't] women insist on men who are virgins?"

Re: this -

"first,
i'm speaking for the point of view of why, historically, women were expected to be virgins and why that trend developed in almost every society around the global at one time."

I argued exactly that in my post. So I was hardly being "dismissive" of any male viewpoint. You seem to be reminding me of something I said outright.

I find it's best to be clear about what transpired. I don't see that I put words in your mouth. I did ask you if that was what you believe?

And you answered.

#14.1 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-06 08:07 (Reply)

Cassandra,
re: words in my mouth..you are right.. you asked a question.. i read it as a statement.. my mistake.

#15 Major Scarlet on 2009-10-06 08:45 (Reply)

No biggie :)

Not trying to argue. I just like to be understood! I'm pedantic that way...

Women. Can't live with 'em, can't live with 'em.

#16 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-06 08:49 (Reply)

As I am unhinged, no reason not to post this:

The pastor asked if anyone in the congregation would like to express Praise for answered prayers. A lady stood and walked to the podium.

She said, "I have a Praise. Two months ago, my husband, Tom, had a terrible golf cart wreck and his scrotum was completely crushed. The pain was excruciating and the doctors didn't know if they could help him."

You could hear a muffled gasp from the men in the congregation as they imagined the pain that poor Tom must have experienced..

"Tom was unable to hold me or the children," she went on, "and every move caused him terrible pain. We prayed as the doctors performed a delicate operation, and it turned out they were able to piece together the crushed remnants of Tom's scrotum, and wrap wire around it to hold it in place."

Again, the men in the congregation were unnerved and squirmed uncomfortably as they imagined the horrible surgery performed on Tom.

"Now," she announced in a quavering voice, thank the Lord, Tom is out of the hospital and the doctors say that with time, his scrotum should recover completely."

All the men sighed with relief. The pastor rose and tentatively asked if anyone else had something to say. A man stood up and walked slowly to the podium.

He said, "I'm Tom."

The entire congregation held its breath.

"I just want to tell my wife that the word is 'sternum'."

#17 Meta on 2009-10-06 13:57 (Reply)

Meta ... wonderful joke, my friend.

I probably shouldn't throw further flames on this fire, but I wanted to point out to Major Scarlet that historically speaking, virginity was important when the laws of primogeniture were important. England was one such society where the husband wanted to know if the boy baby his wife bore was indeed his, not some other guy's. Therefore, the young lady in question had to be a virgin when he married her. Only the blood male relatives could inherit the estates. After he had his 'heir and spare', his by blood, things could go downhill in the relationship and it wasn't nearly as important to the future of the family holdings.

America hasn't been run that way. Ever. Especially since the Woodstock Sixties, after which marriage, fidelity, loyalty to spouses became progressively less important to society as a whole. And the young women decided that they could anything they wanted to as far as sex was concerned, and not be criticized for it. It was part of the empowerment thingie.

I have long wondered why the young women so easily gave up the protections our society of the time offered them. The words "mess of pottage" leap to mind. But then, at 81, I'm an old-fashioned girl.

Marianne

#18 Marianne Matthews on 2009-10-06 14:33 (Reply)

Ohh, yes, Marianne. 'Primogeniture'. My mother never wanted children but did so because my father 'had' to have a son to inherit. Their first child was a female. Second child: Me. My mother seemed to think nothing of telling us that she cried for three days when I was born. No penis. Finally, my brother came along.

The Anglo-Saxons, after a royal wedding night would hang the bloody sheet up the next morning, and everyone would get drunk. .... sorry, just got a laugh thinking that had I been of that day keeping the blue blood flowing, I'd have cut a vein so the blood would really be blue.

I think women gave up the protections of our society because society never keeps apace with cultural changes. When the damn breaks, it's chaos until 'we' find our new roles and accomodate them. It's all a part of the process of accepting change that is coming whether we want it or not. I doubt there would be the stigma the sixties had had the feminist movement not moved in and given it a bad name. I truly believe 90% of the women unfettered by those protections you mentioned managed it gracefully and with the aplomb of welcome change. It took a little while, but I don't think any woman looked back with longing.
`

#18.1 Meta on 2009-10-06 20:34 (Reply)

"I have long wondered why the young women so easily gave up the protections our society of the time offered them. "

I have mixed feelings about this. I agree there were definite advantages to the world of my youth.

Certainly we had protections, but we also lacked freedom and autonomy. Even with all the silly excesses of feminism (which no one forces me to take advantage of if I don't wish to), I am not sure I'd want to go back to a time when women had horrible problems getting credit in their own names. Credit is the lifeblood of commerce and economic independence.

It never bothered me when the military called me a 'dependent spouse' - I was dependent upon my husband's income during my years as a wife and mother just as he depended upon me to take care of the house and children and bills. The thing of it is, now I have a choice.

Whatever arrangements I can freely negotiate with other free individuals are mine to profit by or mess up if I behave like a ditz. I have the luxury of choosing between work, homemaking, or some combination of the two. Truth be told, so does my husband. He could accept a lower standard of living and a less stressful occupation. He just doesn't want to - the competitive urge is too strong in him and he takes pride in his accomplishments.

We women have had trouble figuring out how to handle freedom responsibly precisely because we weren't used to a full range of choices. And also because idiots keep trying to shield us from the tradeoffs inherent in all freely made decisions. The hardest part of freedom is finding the wisdom to choose rightly but I'd rather have that freedom and screw up than never have the choices at all :)

My problem with feminism is the identity politics, the double standards, and the cult of victimization. At the same time, our daughters have options we didn't even dream of. They just need to decide what's important to *them*. I have a daughter in law who's a stay at home Mom and one who's in grad school.

I like that, and I couldn't be prouder of these young ladies if they were my own. Their world is more complicated, but also richer in choices. The tradeoff is that they're poorer in the relationships dept. But I have a feeling they'll figure that out too! I hope so.

#19 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-06 16:13 (Reply)

Cassandra,

You said it about the hardest part of freedom. I keep receiving mind-associations as I read, but have you read "Reviving Opheila" by Mary Pipher, Ph.D.? I had my students write in accordance to her theme, told them their papers would be private and to write to the degree they felt comfortable. I took the stack of papers home that night and I just cannot tell you what went through my mind. Every last paper was a tragedy. The students were 12th grade AP students, and not one held back. It was as if I had given them a camera to relive a moment, incident in their lives with free rein over the cinematography and script. I wrote on each paper much encouragement, praise, 'thank-yous' and handed them back.

Now I can't re-associate where I was going with that other than perhaps things really don't change so much as the the labyrinth just becomes more difficult.

I have a daughter in grad school, and you're right. So much wiser and free than we were. She has choices unheard of, and she is taking her time. Wisdom I was not allowed access to, and if I had been, I'd have blown it, I'm sure.

I wonder about the 'poorer in relationships' dept. Many of them lived through their parents divorces and learned from it. Relationships rank down the scale after job, job happiness, and discarding any sense of 'need'. I believe they might be richer in relationships than we ever were. Know thyself before you commit.
`

#20 Meta on 2009-10-06 21:07 (Reply)

I have heard of 'Reviving Ophelia' but haven't read it.

One of the worst things about blogging is that I don't read books the way I used to. Before I began blogging I chewed through 3-4 books per week (I'm a fast reader). Now I probably read 3-4 books a *year*!

I'm on a mission to reverse that this year.

Re: the relationships thing, what I see with today's kids is breadth but not depth. They have so many other distractions (texting, im-ing, the Internet, blogging, cable TV) that they don't spend nearly as much time simply interacting with others on a substantive level. When I was first married, for instance, I traveled back and forth across the country to make sure I stayed in touch with family. We spent weeks at a time over the summer reconnecting with family and close friends.

Now, everyone works and finding a time when they can all get together is nearly impossible. Time together is rushed and subject to distractions. I see people in the same room together, but not giving each other their undivided attention. I think even marriages suffer from this - between work, hobbies, TV, and the Internet couples don't make their relationship a priority and (I would argue) in many cases are losing the knack for resolving problems constructively. Parents don't spend enough time with their children to really know what's going on in their lives.

I was a very hands on parent. That's why I only had 2 boys - I wanted to spend time with them, to shape their moral and intellectual development. Because I did this, I had no trouble letting go when they grew up and left home.

It was time, and I'd done my job as well as I could.

I think this is the aspect that troubles me - we drift, rather than live according to our intentions. On the otter heiny, I'm an introvert so that undoubtedly colors my impressions of the world.

It just seems to me that modern society is very like our public school curricula: a mile wide and an inch deep.

#21 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-07 08:32 (Reply)

Any chance you live nearby, Cassandra? :)

The other night my daughter was home from school. My son is living with me, and he was in his cool 'lounge' in the basement. I was up here, second floor, in my office, and my daughter was in the living room. We three were emailing each other and sending hilarious YouTube videos. If a plumb bob were dropped, it would probably have touched us all. We laughed to death and put silly stuff on each other's Facebooks all the while simultaneously making comments on blogs, emailing friends, and just reading stuff. Around midnight we met in the kitchen and stood around crying with laughter face-to-face over personal stories.

That was one night. I think back to the days before my computer and wonder - which was better. My family lives all over the country and letter-writing was a chore, phone calls, more so because father griped about waste and made my mother nervous. I'll take it now when I can 'talk' to my kids and friends any time, anywhere.

I understand the intimacy of face-to-face and despair for the times our family went to great effort to get together, often involving several days of travel, only to get into some kind of snit over something ridiculous - usually some ancient childhood rivalry surfacing causing the hurt feelings or someone having one scotch too many. I could write a book that would match anything Pat Conroy ever wrote about military families, so, I choose the tips of my fingers to talk. It is very intimate; just like driving the car with your kid beside you and having one of those talks knowing not having to make eye-contact is making the talk possible.

There's no going back, and as with every generation, they'll accomodate and make it work. They have no other choice as we are all Red Queens running and running to keep up with progress that threatens to leave behind those who truculently hold on to the past.

Check this out to address your closing line: "Usually, historians are hard-pressed to find any original source material about those who have shaped our civilization. In the Internet era, scholars of science might have too much. Never have so many people generated so much digital data or been able to lose so much of it so quickly, experts at the San Diego Supercomputer Center say. Computer users world-wide generate enough digital data every 15 minutes to fill the U.S. Library of Congress.
In fact, more technical data have been collected in the past year alone than in all previous years since science began, says Johns Hopkins astrophysicist Alexander Szalay, an authority on large data sets and their impact on science. "The data is doubling every year," Dr. Szalay says."

As a former teacher, who does not want to bore you with my feelings about the education system, I'll let that quotation answer for the wonderful, myriad, personal things we've discussed with your gracious presence in attendance, Cassandra.

Meta
`

#22 Meta on 2009-10-07 18:20 (Reply)

"Usually, historians are hard-pressed to find any original source material about those who have shaped our civilization. In the Internet era, scholars of science might have too much"

Somewhere in my archives there's a post on just that topic :p I agree.

I wrote it right after my spouse got back from a year in Iraq.

As for 'nearness', not sure where you live. I'm in Maryland, otherwise known as The Land of Bedwetting Socialists :p

#23 Cassandra (Link) on 2009-10-07 23:54 (Reply)

I'm just south of DC. That's pretty amazing.

I just read the threads on yours and LMA's post about RSM's post. What a nice group of commenters you both have! It was a pleasure.

If it's okay, I may email.

Meta
`

#23.1 Meta on 2009-10-08 00:59 (Reply)

Marriane..
you are right with an additional comment: the modern female equality movement is rooted in an irrational belief system. women and men aren't equal. that is reality. modern women don't want to believe this. their mantra is "what is good for the goose is good for the gander". well. that isn't true. delivering heirs to their mate isn't the only reason society after society adopted the same rules for virginity. there are many other reasons. the problem with discussing this issue is many women simply won't listen. as meta has demonstrated. things are "gross" or whatever.. anything but dealing with reality. men and women have different rules in sexuality. the end.

#24 Major Scarlet on 2009-11-03 21:04 (Reply)

Maggie's Farm

Our Recent Essays Behind the Front Page

Categories

Quicksearch

Links

Blog Administration

RSS Readers

Monday, October 5. 2009