marjon9

If you want to order it on line you can find it here: http://www.superiortouch.com/btb.htm Amazon.com has it also.

I can imagine it is very comforting to be that sure about all those things. I'm glad it works for you. I want to make just one comment about some of the things you write. The other day you wrote about how abortions used to be illegal and now the liberal atheists have made things so much worse because they are now at least partially legal. And today your write about the "good ol' days" when homosexuality was considered "sick and underground" just a generation ago, and now it is "mainstream." In your eyes, these changes are signs of the deterioration, and perhaps of the end of the world. For many of us, though, these are signs of wonderful progress. Just keep that in mind when you write about these things. Not everyone thinks it used to be better when homosexuality was considered "sick and underground," and when abortions were illegal. Quite a few of us think it was much worse back then. So it does not help you win over converts by talking about those past times as if they were "better" than today.

Sounds like we should all chip in and get you an electric Montana Tenderloin. :biggrin1: :biggrin1: :biggrin1:

You are probably right. But it seems to me that if a man is doing something that is good and acceptable and beneficial to the family, which I believe attending clubs can be, then there is no reason why a woman should be seen as sacrificing her self-respect by participating in the same thing. But then, that is probabaly a little bit overly-optimistic in the real world.

Speaking for myself, personally, I was not directing my comments toward any one person. But I do think it is fair to say that many religious conservatives are against the hate crime bill not because it is a flawed bill or because it does not contain enough categories of people to be protected. Many religious conservatives are against the bill because the believe gays have it coming based on their sinful acts. And even if that is not true, many do believe that to offer "protection" of gays in a hate crimes bill puts a stamp of approval on the gay "lifestyle" that they cannot accept. These points of view do exist. Yet religious conservatives do not state these points of view. Instead they argue that the bill should contain more categories of people to protect, and that those darned democrats did this or did that. I just don't understand why religious conservatives who oppose the gay "lifestyle" just don't publicly declare the true reasons why they are against the bill.

I'm not sure if you've been following this thread, and others like it, but it has been said many times that these discussions are not directed at "all" Christians. Sometimes you sort of get to where you assume that people understand that. But if you have not been following the thread and just read that one post, I can see how you could get the impression from that post that it was directed at all Christians. But truly, it wasn't.

See, this is the part that is not fully appreciated. Enjoying some of these external stimuli, and then bringing it home to momma, is not nedessarily something that harms to the family or demonstrates lack of self respect. Use of pornography and visits to strip clubs, within limits, can be entirely consistent with being a monogamous, devoted family man.

I agree with a lot of what you are saying, but part of what you said is that there are both internal and external causes of depression. It's not all hereditary/chemical. And I think having 8 children can be phenomenally stressful, especially in a world where you are also expected to be subservient, to be the perfect housekeeper, and to willingly (if not eagerly) sacrifice all your own needs for respect, appreciation, and self-fulfillment. I'm not saying all Mormons are bad and wrong. I'm just saying that the religious life, in general, is usually much tougher on women than it is on men. Women have the same needs men do for respect within the society, creative expression, self fulfillment in career and in family life. Yet with 8 kids and a demanding, insensitive, chauvinistic husband, it can be pretty tough to avoid some of the "externally" caused depression you mentioned in your post. When a women's soul is crushed and she is left without respect and appreciation, the woman loses, of course. But the truth is, all of society loses. Men certainly lose. There is no way a man can be truly happy if his wife is desparate and unhappy. And in contrast, there is no greater force for good on this planet than a happy woman.

When having a friendly discussion about ideas, it seems a bit harsh to state "I personally don't care if you agree with me or not." I would certainly assume that your life would not revolve around whether or not I agree with you. But that's not the point. We are just talking about issues for the fun of it. By the way, I agree that we should reconsider whether crimes against women, because they are women, should be considered hate crimes. I agree with that. But just because one bill does not include every possible category of hate crimes does not make it a bad bill. There is no need to take care of every problem in one bill. The fact is, there is a huge problem with hate crimes against gay people. Why not do something about it? I believe that the answer lies in the fact that people who are against this bill, in their heart, really despise gay people. The people who are against this bill, in their hearts, believe that gay people are going against the Bible, that they are sinners, that they are choosing a life of "abomination," and that essentially they pretty much deserve whatever "hate" comes their way. The thing that I don't understand is this: If religious conservatives have such views, that gay people are sinners and deserve what they get, why not just stand up and say so? Why argue that this is a "flawed" bill. Why not just acknowledge that you believe that gay people are choosing a life of sin, and if they want to avoid hate crimes, all they have to do is change their evil ways. If that is what people believe in their hearts, why not just stand up and say so?

The best thing you can do is spend time on this forum. It's good to ask questions but it is also good to use the "search" function and look for things you want to know about. A lot of the basic things have been discussed at length. As for how to find a doctor, it depends mainly on whether you have insurance that covers it. If you do, then you'll want to go to a doctor in your area with a good reputation. When you find doctors, search their name on line here. If you don't find further info here, then start a thread asking about Dr. xxx. A lot of the time you will get good info that way. You can also try the internet. There are doctor rating sites. If you don't have insurance and you are a "self-pay," you will probably be concerned about cost. The least expensive way to get a good, experienced surgeon is to go to Mexico. You can get a lot of info about the Mexican doctors in this forum. More than half the people who are on this forum have gone to Mexico. The price is right, and the quality of the surgeon and facilities is first rate. The only down side is that it can be hard to find after care in the U.S. if you have gone out of the country for the surgery. So be sure to line up your aftercare before you go. This is important. There are also U.S. doctors who do the surgery for just a little bit more than the Mexican doctors. My doctor is one of those. You can check him out at the web site in my signature below. There is also an active thread about my doctor on this forum. He is in Denver. The main downside with this way is that you either need to go back to Denver for your aftercare, or find a local doctor in your area who will do the aftercare. You don't need to do anything before you have contact with the doctor, but it is always a good idea to know as much as you can, so keep researching. These answers are just the tip of the arrow. There is so much more to learn. But, all the answers are here. Ask questions, and people will be happy to answer them for you. We've all been exactly where you are. Just keep moving forward. It will all work out, sooner than you think.

I do think you could make a good argument that crimes against fat people, if committed because they are fat, could definitely constitute a hate crime. I have to say, though, that violent assault happens pretty rarely against people because they are fat. Fat people get rejected, insulted, etc. But rarely do they get beaten up, or lynched. Whereas gay people are beaten up quite frequently. Far more than people hear about. But still, if a fat person was beaten up because they are fat, I think this should be a hate crime. Where I disagree is that crimes against, for example, "senior citizens," or "children under 18" are hate crimes. They are not. They are crimes, yes, but they are not "hate" crimes. There is no great problem with hatred in our society against children and senior citizens. When a 17 year old or a senior citizen is robbed and beaten, they are victims of a terrible crime and they deserve protection. But they don't have to face the additional psychological issues that go along with rejection by the society in which they live. In contrast, when gay people are attacked, beaten, and called "faggot," they understand that they are rejected in this society by a large number of people. This causes psychological damage that is far beyond what people ordinarily understand. Crimes that cause this type of damage are hate crimes, and they deserve special penalties. But yes, I agree, if this type of hate crime is perpetrated against a fat person because they are fat, that should also qualify. wavydaby, if you do answer this post, I hope you will respond to the point I am making. It is not enough to just say "HATE CRIME LAWS SHOULD PROTECT EVERYBODY!!!!" I think it is fair to say that there is a difference when a crime is committed against a group because of who they are. The damage to the person, and to society, is significantly worse. Please have a look at that section from Wikipedia where this is discussed. If you disagree with the points made there, if you don't mind, please let us know why.

Your story about growing up in Libya convinces me that you do understand. Not meaning to pick on you in particular, but if you do understand that, it seems to me you would also understand the type of pain and psychological damage it causes to gay men and women to be pounded relentlessly by the hate directed toward them all their lives because of who they are. It seems so clear to me that a law against robbery in general does not cover a crime based on hate. I honestly believe that the reason many people are against hate crime bills is because they, themselves, harbor hate for gay men and women, and believe that such people are sinners who more or less deserve the hate. I think it is fair to say that many people who fit that description are religious conservatives. I think that this is clear by looking at who is on which side of which issue on this forum. I don't have an agenda against organized religion. But I can't help but notice the obvious, which is that many religious conservatives seem to truly "hate" gay people. I don't see how you can reach any other conclusion if you read this forum. And this is not directed at you Neal. I have not seen any comments from you on this topic. But other religious conservative types seem truly to hate gay men and women as people who are "choosing" sin and abomination. It's so sad that these people are unable to see how much pain they cause this way. It seems so inconsistent with a purportedly "religious" live.

I don't have all the facts on this, but when you look at this list: "senior citizens, children under 18, court witnesses" etc., it is clear that individuals in these groups are not "hated" in particular. There is not a big problem with people "hating" children under 18. Hate crimes are to protect the harm that comes when people are attacked for who they are. That is what makes a hate crime worthy of extra penalty. If all these other categories were added to the bill, it would detract from the reason for the bill, and again just make it a general bill saying it is wrong to hurt anyone. And, yes, of course, it is wrong to hurt anyone. But it is extra wrong, and extra damaging to society, to attack and harm people because of who they are. It goes to the core of existence in a way that is not the same with "children under 18."

The quote below is from Wikipedia, which is not the difinitive legal treatise out there but it does give some explanations for hate crime laws that are worth considering. If someone robs a person and beats that person, that is a crime that causes harm to the person. But, if in addition to robbing and beating the person, the attacker also calls him nigger and faggot and all that stuff, many have the view that this causes even greater harm, attacking a person at their core, and that this deserves a stiffer punishment. With all respect, Neal, when you argue that all crime should be treated equally, you do not demonstrate an understanding for how painful it is to be attacked, physically and otherwise, all your life, based on who you are. See the quote below and see if it does not make some difference. The followin is the quote from Wikipedia (the underlining of certain words is from the Wikipedia article). Arguments for hate crime laws tend to center on the notion that, when an offender has a biased motive, that offender’s crime should carry a more severe penalty because the injury suffered by the victim and by society is greater. Proponents believe that hate crime statutes do not conflict with the tenets of the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution because they do not punish an individual for exercising freedom of expression but rather for motivation for engaging in criminal activity, a factor often considered when evaluating the seriousness of an offense. It is said that, when the core of a person’s identity is attacked, the degradation and dehumanization is especially severe, and additional emotional and physiological problems are likely to result. Society then, in turn, can suffer from the disempowerment of a group of people. Furthermore, it is asserted that the chances for retaliatory crimes are greater when a hate crime has been committed. The riots in Los Angeles, California, that followed the beating of Rodney King, a Black motorist, by a group of White police officers are cited as support for this argument.[7] When it enacted the Hate Crimes Act of 2000, the New York State Legislature included legislative findings that offer a survey of the various arguments for hate crime legislation. The legislature specifically found that: "Hate crimes do more than threaten the safety and welfare of all citizens. They inflict on victims incalculable physical and emotional damage and tear at the very fabric of free society. Crimes motivated by invidious hatred toward particular groups not only harm individual victims but send a powerful message of intolerance and discrimination to all members of the group to which the victim belongs. Hate crimes can and do intimidate and disrupt entire communities and vitiate the civility that is essential to healthy democratic processes. In a democratic society, citizens cannot be required to approve of the beliefs and practices of others, but must never commit criminal acts on account of them. Current law does not adequately recognize the harm to public order and individual safety that hate crimes cause. Therefore, our laws must be strengthened to provide clear recognition of the gravity of hate crimes and the compelling importance of preventing their recurrence. Accordingly, the legislature finds and declares that hate crimes should be prosecuted and punished with appropriate severity."

This definitedly sounds like a question for the doctor. Being in "a lot of pain" sounds like a potentially serious problem. Your husband may be pushing things too hard before he is healed from the surgery. It sounds like the kind of thing that could get worse if he keeps doing it. I would definitely contact the doctor before he continues to put that kind of physical stress on his body. Let us know how it goes.

First, you should know that every bandster had the same thoughts when deciding on surgery. So that part is quite normal. In addition to what Marimaru said, I'd like to add that many if not most bandsters find that they actually start to prefer different types of food. It's not just a matter of sitting around craving all the things you like to eat but being unable to do so. There is some of that, but not nearly as much as you would imagine. I used to eat a lot of carbs. pizza, Pasta, subway sandwiches, Cookies cakes and pies, etc. And I still like those things and eat a little, but I miss them far less than I would have thought. So, I think that is part of the "secret" here that I think most bandsters experience. You just stop wanting some of the things you used to like. And to the extent you still do want them, you really do want less. It's not a matter of will power. You really want less. And finally, as for your description of deciding which side of the mountain to fall to, remember that the side without the band probably carries with it some major health problems and shortened life span. So it's not just a matter of picking between two equals. From reading your post I know that you already know that, but keeping it in mind should make the decision easier.

Sanjaya!!!!

These are some of the toughest questions a society can face, and there are no perfect answers. You ask "on what basis do we get to choose to limit freedoms of some and not others." I think that the best we can do to answer that is to follow the Constitution. The Supreme Court has held, for example, that it is constitutional to confine sexual predators in civil confinement past the time of their sentence on the criminal charge, on the ground that they are mentally ill. Scientific evidence supports the proposition that sexual predators can't change. Hence, the ability to keep them past the conclusion of their sentences. I don't know the current state of the law on this, but the Supreme Court made such rulings in the past. But apparently you can't do the same thing with a murderer/robber, white collar criminal, etc. As a society, I don't think we are prepared to say that anyone who commits a crime goes to prison for life, period, because there is a good chance they can't change. That's just not something we are willing to do. These are not perfect answers, but they are probably the best we can do. To me the bigger issues in criminal justice these days is absurdly long sentences for low level drug dealers, etc. I don't remember the statistics, but for African American males the numbers who end up in jail are just beyond comprehension. Is this because African Americans are evil? Or "natrually" criminals. I don't think there are many who still believe things like that. I think we need to face upt to the fact that part of this has to do with common ills of society, and when society gives no meaningful opportunity to rise out of poverty, and instead just puts a whole generation in prison, something is out of balance. I know, I know, the liberal in me is bubbling to the surface, but what the heck. Once I get on a roll spouting truth for the masses, it's hard to stop.

Yeah, that's the problem with America. We make prisons too comfortable. Life in prison is such a picnic. I see exactly what you mean. And if we just had more capital punishment, everything would be much better. I see your point.

Yeah, but remember, debates about cats in heat can be very controversial.

I don't know how to raise this issue without offending, which is unfortunate because I don't intend to. But I'm really curious, isn't a closed mind a virtue in many religious contexts? Isn't it more or less the same thing as "faith"? If you have faith, you don't need to think things through for yourself. Indeed, if you do question, and wonder, and think, you are demonstrating a lack of faith. Is that not true? Am I missing something? I'm really curious.

Speaking of Hank Hanegraaff, I took a look at the Wikipedia entry on him. A divisive figure, to say the least. You can find the entry here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hank_Hanegraaff The thing that was most interesting to me about the Hank Hanegraaff article in Wikipedia is to see just how much division and almost vicious competition there is among various Christian denominations, each accusing the other of being false. So, I wonder how Christians would explain this. If each and every one of the many Christian factions believe their way is the only truth, and all others are "lost," what does that mean? There can only be two possible resolutions to that question. Either one is right and all the others are wrong, or they are all wrong. There is no other possible resolution. So, how is a person supposed to know which is the one and only truth? When a "believer" looks at these issues, how are they reconciled? Even if a person believes in "faith," wouldn't they want to have faith in something that makes sense and reflects love? How is it possible to have "faith" in something that leads to the inescapable conclusion that most of humanity will burn in hell for eternity? Does there ever come a point where it is legitimate to question your belief in something that you accept just because your parents told you it was so? Just wondering. Here is a short clip from the Wikipedia article on Hanegraaff: In the early 1990s Hanegraaff came to international notoriety for his strong criticisms of the Word-Faith teachings of Kenneth Hagin, Kenneth Copeland, Benny Hinn and other prominent Pentecostal and charismatic televangelists. In his 1993 book Christianity in Crisis, Hanegraaff charged the Word-Faith movement with heretical teachings, saying that many of the Word-Faith groups were "cults", and that those who "knowingly" accepted the movement's theology were "clearly embracing a different gospel, which is in reality no gospel at all"

One thing to keep in mind is this: After banding, people often find that they actually *want* different things. People don't just sit around feeling deprived for all the things they can't have. They just start to want different things. I know it is hard to imagine that your taste for beer would actually change, but there is a good chance that could happen. That type of thing happens to a lot of people with the band.

Leatha, I appreciate that, but that "answer" is really not at all satisfying. It's just a circular response blaming people who live in Tibet for not wanting to find god. I guess I am not surprised at this type of answer. It lets Christians off the hook for believing in something that involves so much unfairness and cruelty. I certainly do believe that I am more compassionate than god if god blames people from some far off land for not finding their way to Christianity. Another thing about this answer is particularly offensive. It says that men and women are not condemned to hell based on whether or not they heard of Jesus Christ. Rather they are "justly and fittingly" condemned because they are sinners. I feel so sorry for people who believe that human beings are essentially "sinners." And I feel so sorry for people who believe that your everyday human who is out there living life the best way he or she can "deserves" to be condemned to hell. What a horrific world view. I truly feel sorry for you. Oh, but that's right, I should not feel sorry for you because you, after all, are "saved." I am not sure whether there is a god or not, but if there is one, I could never disrespect him or her enough to believe that god's creations are born "sinners." As a child of god, I would always know that I could never be less than perfect exactly as I am. When I asked my question earlier, I really had expected to hear answers that explained how a person from another land who never heard of Christ would somehow be forgiven. Silly me. Now I know that these people actually "deserve" to go to hell because they failed to find their way to Christianity. I'm really disappointed. It just takes my breath away that my fellow human beings could believe such things. It's even worse than I thought.

Wish I had good news for you, but anything with carbonation is pretty much off limits. Some people do drink a beer or soda here and there, but they are not really supposed to. And six beers is not going to work anyway because your stomach pouch will not be able to hold that much. Especially at first, you'll need to sip liquids little by little. Another thing is, beer is really high in carbs and calories, etc. It's probably not the type of thing that fits well into the bandster lifestyle in general. It might be good to talk to your doctor/nutritionist about this, and see what others here say about it. But once you get banded it will involve some changes in lifestyle, there's no way around it. And the beer drinking is probably one of the first changes that the doctor will recommend.