anonemouse

That's somewhat of an ironic statement, IMO. In many cases, the same people (not saying you, necessarily) who advocate the rights of Americans to choose to own or carry a gun are the same people who advocate revoking a woman's right to choose.

Like I said earleir, I don't think the intent is bad at all. The method is just one that I don't really approve of. When you tell a very young child to look away from women when he probably doesn't even know why he is looking away from them, I think it can set the stage for trouble later in life. There aren't that many options with a child that young. If you tell him why he is supposed to look away, you are the one exposing him to sex at an early age, not the other woman. If you don't tell him why you are making him look away, I think he would eventually come to the conclusion that there is something bad or dirty about women that he isn't supposed to see. That's my objection to the method, anyway. Like I said, the intent is a wonderful thing. I think more men should learn not to ogle. But I don't think this is the way to do it, in most cases.

Ditto for me. I started my period the day I turned ten. I also started getting quite buxom, at least for a 10 year old. I also hit my full height, wich luckily only turned out to be 5'3". I was always a quiet child, and being so different from my other classmates definitely seemed to isolate me even more. I was experiencing suicidal fantasies within a couple of years. I think I would have probably at least attempted suicide if I had been a little stronger emotionally at the time. It's ironic: I was too weak-willed to attempt to kill myself.

I have to say that I also find this somewhat disturbing. I know what the intent is, and I find that admirable. That said, I don't know whether this would be the best way to go about it. To me, it does teach that women's bodies are not to be admired in any way, and yes, I think it teaches young boys that women's bodies are dirty and that admiring them is shameful. At a certain age, I think that teaching a boy that he can admire a woman's body and not ogle her is a wonderful thing. But to look away in what I can only imagine is disgust? Gadgetlady, you said that the boy is 10 now, and that his mother had taught him from an earlier age. To me, that is too early. To me, that child probably had no idea why he was being told to look away from women, just that there was something wrong that he wasn't supposed to see. I personally think it may serve to sexualize him earlier than he might have been normally. Again, I think the intent was noble, but not so much the method.

That's true, but it has nothing to do with what we are talking about. I have absolutely nothing against private schools. The bottom line is that any school that wants to receive public funding has to play by certain rules, and those rules include the Constitution. If they don't want to do that, then they can't receive government funds. Is public education lacking? Yes. Does that mean our tax dollars should fund schools that are, in many cases, discriminatory and non-secular? No.

I think we should make a distinction between secular private schools and religious private schools. Like I said earlier, I have no problems with government funds going to secular private schools. I do, however, have a problem with government funds going to religious schools that don't have to follow the same standards and regulations that govern public schools. I think that if a school wants to receive government funds, they should follow those regulations, including those regarding prayer in school.

But that isn't tuition. If they want to give their money to a school, that's their business. They aren't required to give the money just so their kids can go to school there. If those private schools (mostly religious) are following the same laws and regulations as public schools (e.g., prayer, science, etc.), I have no problem with them receiving government funds. But until they do, I don't think they should be paid to give a non-secular education. I just can't get past their absolute bigotry and asshole-ishness to listen to them long enough to see if they are insightful or funny.

Why? They are already being funded by the tuition that the parents usually have to pay. Most local private schools I've seen have been better funded than the local public schools. If they get funds from the public school funds, then their private funds should also be redistributed to other schools. And they should have to live up to the same standards and restrictions that public schools have to, if they want those public funds. On the Rush, Coulter, and O'Reilly thing: I don't think I can really articulate just how much I despise them. I think they are antithetical to everything an American should be. They truly disgust me on a level I haven't experienced before. I mean, I don't just dislike them or disapprove of them, I really can't stand them. Just listening to Rush's radio program or watching Coulter or O'Reilly on television makes my hackles raise. I almost literally see red whenever they open their mouths.

I personally think Rush is one of the most racist, homophobic, misogynistic assholes in media. Did you hear about his "HALFrican-American" comment about Obama?

By current peeve is about my students. I taught about microscopes this week, and my students are driving me insane. Do I have a big "IGNORE ME" written on my chest? I tell them how to do something and go over it several times. What do I hear? "Ms. Lewis, how do I do this?" Geniouses, I told you that the little aluminum arm that swings out is supposed to hold the slide in place, which means YOU NEED TO MOVE IT IN ORDER TO PUT THE SLIDE IN THE PROPER POSITION. I tell them to always begin looking at their slide with the lowest power lens. They start with the highest power lens and crank it down until it breaks the slide!:)

If that was his intent, I think he's a few monkeys short of a barrel.

I have to say that I agree with Weetsin and Alexandra. When I have lost loved ones, I also think that the people who do believe in heaven or an afterlife have it so much easier than we who are atheists. You mourn and remember the loved ones you lost, but you also realize that they are gone and that you will never see them again. You celebrate the time you had with them and you learn to never waste a single day with the loved ones you have left. In short, you deal with it. It's a part of life, no matter how unpleasant it is.

That's about the way I feel, too. I think the fact that he went out of his way to shove the relationship in your face absolves you of any guilt in trying to remind him of his marriage. Your DH should get mad at him, not you, because you have trying to stay out of it.

I see you decided to rejoin us, Ron.

Carlene, to an Atheist, that's like telling someone that lives in Kansas that they should worry about the next big hurricane.

I don't consider "swinging" to be cheating, because it isn't happening behind one spouse's back and is hopefully occuring with the permission of the other spouse. I mean, I don't think it would be for me, but whatever floats their boat, I guess. To me, cheating is done without the knowledge or permission of the other spouse.

All I can tell you is to stay stong. I hope you can work everything out with your daughter. Hopefully, her teachers will let her turn in the things she didn't, if you tell them what has been happening. Otherwise, all I can recommend is that you try to find a way to move out of the house and take your daughter with you.

Me, too. I believe that if your relationship is bad enough that you are turning to other people, it is time to end it.

I've seen statistics saying 60% of men and 40% of women cheat on their spouses. I'm sure that those percentages weren't just the ones who weren't virgins on their wedding night.

I think I'm with Lisah25 on this one. Most of these don't necessarily happen because you didn't sleep with other men, they happen because you love your husband. I would imagine that there are still plenty of men and women who were virgins on their wedding night and still cheat on their spouses or think about other people in bed or imagine what sex would be like with past dates and wonder what they missed. One thing I object to that the absinence crowd is known for (not saying anyone here has done it) is a holier-than-thou attitude about sex. Not having sex before marriage doesn't necessarily mean you are a better person, or that you have more self-control, or that you love your husband more than the women who do have sex before marriage. In many cases, it just means that you were never put in a position where you had to say "no".

I just read back over the post I made last night, and I think I came across as a little insensitive to Puddin, and that wasn't what I intended. I was trying to say that while it sucks that you guys had to break up that way, maybe it was for the best. After all, I would imagine that you wouldn't want your future daughter to date the type of guy that would leave her if she slept with him. I think, in that situation, you would probably consider him to be a creep. I know you love him and that you will probably continue to feel something for him, but that doesn't mean you can't recognize him for what he is. Any guy that deserts his girlfriend just because she slept with him isn't the type of guy you want to marry.

I am originally from Crossville, but I am living in Kentucky right now. I was originally going with Dr. Olsen in Nashville, but found out that the only two surgeons in Tennessee that were in-network for me were Dr. Boyle at Parkwest and Dr. McGrath-Weaver in Memphis. I considered Dr. Boyle, but I ultimately decided to go to Dr. McGrath-Weaver instead. I haven't heard anything bad about Dr. Boyle, but I haven't really heard anything good, either. From what I have been able to find, he isn't that experienced with lap-bands. According to the Obesity Help website (which I know isn't up to date), he has only done about 20 lap-bands. Have you looked into the surgeons in Nashville? Dr. Hugh Houston at Centennial is supposed to be an expert in lap-bands.

But it is still more reliable than faith. With faith, you have no evidence at all, or at least none that can't be explained by other factors. Faith is just that, faith. And I would argue that science is reliable, as long as you realize that claims are never made with 100% certainty. Yes, science can be wrong and the definitions of scientific categories can be changed, but it always requires proof, or at least as close to proof as we can get with modern technology.

That's definitely true. But I do think that "feelings" are an important part of a marriage, and I think that feelings, logic, and good judgement should be treated equally. If I was uncomfortable being around a person and was totally unattracted to him, I don't think I could marry him. If you can't be yourself with the person you are marrying, you shouldn't be marrying them, even if it is otherwise a good match. Likewise, even if you are wildly attracted to the hot drug dealer down on the street corner, he wouldn't be a good mate. If you don't like the person you are marrying, you shouldn't get married because you are going to make life miserable for yourself, your mate, and probably your future children.

I'm going to be blunt, and I don't want you to take offense at this because it isn't meant to be offensive. If your relationship breaks up because you have sex, you didn't have a good relationship. An ass is an ass, so if your boyfriend was an ass now, he would have been an ass after you married him. I personally think you should probably thank your lucky stars that you didn't marry him.