Fran is unsuitable mum...

[darkeyes]

One of the less enlightened women at work began a lil tiff in the staff room this morning.. the cause? A ruling in England about Christianity and fostering children.. and that Christians do not have a right to preach that homosexuality is wrong to children they foster.. this daft old bat had the temerity to tell me it was ridiculous that someone quite unsuitable like me can adopt a child and yet a "good Christian couple" cannot foster a child.. which is not what the ruling says but thats what some are trying to tell me it says.. it is not me who is putting myself above the law of the land, ram my bigoted opinions down a child's throat and who wishes preferential treatment on the basis of what I am.. not my personal qualities..

I leave for ur perusal the links which I feel are pertinent.. and please.. try and not go off into a tirade about me being anti Chistian and what the ruling is NOT about.. I had quite enough of that this morning and have a bit of a sore throat...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/feb/28/christian-couple-lose-care-case?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/belief/2011/mar/05/views-on-homosexuality-children-welfare

[tenni]

"the Christian Legal Centre, over their supporters' right to discriminate specifically against gay people and not be bound by equality regulations."

""No one is asserting that Christians (or, for that matter, Jews or Muslims) are not 'fit and proper' persons to foster or adopt. No one is seeking to de-legitimise Christianity or any other faith or belief. On the contrary, it is fundamental to our law and our way of life that everyone is equal before the law and equal as a human being ... entitled to dignity and respect. We are, however, entitled to take judicial notice of the fact that, whereas the sharia is still understood in many places as making homosexuality a capital offence, ... the Church of England permits its clergy, so long as they remain celibate, to enter into civil partnerships. We live in this country in a democratic and pluralistic society, in a secular state not a theocracy." (quote from the court)

"Ben Summerskill, chief executive of the gay rights' charity Stonewall, said: "In any fostering case the interests of the 60,000 children in care should override the bias of any prospective parent. If you wish to be involved in the delivery of a public service you should be prepared to provide it fairly to anyone."
.................................................. .................................................. ........................................
I found the above statements and quotes reflect a society that is implementing equality rights appropriately. The key is that if you wish to participate in accessing public government funds such as foster care then you must abide by the laws of the land. The conflict over religious beliefs justifying discrimination against others and in particular a minority should not be tolerated in spending government funds in a just society. The question for many societies is whether they are a secular democratic country? If they are, then its citizens must be careful to separate religious beliefs from state laws. The problem may be that some religious people find this extremely difficult to do. This would apply to many controversial situations where religion played an overarching position in creating some countries laws. As the country has become more diverse, it needs to re examine past decisions that may have been based on religious beliefs. These countries were not really secular and today must decide if they are secular or a theocracy.

If your country uses the word "god" in its constitution are you a theocracy? ...if so which religion?..It can not be all religions and still be a theocracy? Canada uses the word "god" in the first statement of its Charter of Rights and Freedoms. "Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law" I'm not sure how the courts have dealt with it but like Britain it has placed great emphasis on equality rights for all citizens over religious dogma or interpretations. Maybe the wording about being founded on a supremacy of a god doesn't mean that some people's interpretation? dunno?

[DuckiesDarling]

I'm reading the ruling and thinking it was explained quite well. The children's needs come first. There comes a point in time when idiots get a mirror held up to their face, Fran, and they do not like what is reflected back. The bigotry of this couple cost them the right to foster kids and if England is like the US, they were probably more interested in the payment from the government for fostering than in actually caring for the children.

So don't mind the idiot at work, I think you've posted some of the employment guidelines in Scotland before and she is not allowed to make those sorts of comments. So if she keeps it up, especially in a profession where children are involved, then the school can remove her from contact with children.

Hugs hon, you and Kate are the only ones who know if you are doing a good job with the kids. How will you know? By the attitude that meets you when you tell em it's bedtime :tong:

[Darkside2009]

I would think that any parent or parents, would raise their child or children with the morals and beliefs that they themselves believe in. I would further submit that such an outlook applies whether or not one is Christian; Muslim; Jewish; Pagan; Atheist; Agnostic; Socialist; Communist or Conservative.

I would go further and say it is the moral duty of every parent to impart whatever fund of knowledge they have to their off-spring, as and when the child is of an age to understand the information being imparted. I would also expect the child to be informed that not everyone agrees or shares the same beliefs.

Hopefully, they would have enough in common with their peers and the rest of society to co-exist in peace and harmony, if not true understanding. Most of us, I would suspect, hold much of our moral values in common, irrespective of our religious or political belief.

In Britain there was a similar practice in not allowing white parents to foster, or adopt children of a different ethnic background. To my mind, children need a home where they will be loved and cherished, irrespective of the skin colour of the parents, their religious beliefs, or lack thereof.

Not having been there, I don't know how the argument in Darkeye's staffroom developed, but calling someone,'less enlightened' or 'a daft old bat' is hardly conducive to a civilised debate on any topic. Easier to say,' You obviously have a different opinion to mine' and leave it at that.

Somehow, I think the chances of that happening where slim.:rolleyes:

[darkeyes]

I'm reading the ruling and thinking it was explained quite well. The children's needs come first. There comes a point in time when idiots get a mirror held up to their face, Fran, and they do not like what is reflected back. The bigotry of this couple cost them the right to foster kids and if England is like the US, they were probably more interested in the payment from the government for fostering than in actually caring for the children.

So don't mind the idiot at work, I think you've posted some of the employment guidelines in Scotland before and she is not allowed to make those sorts of comments. So if she keeps it up, especially in a profession where children are involved, then the school can remove her from contact with children.

Hugs hon, you and Kate are the only ones who know if you are doing a good job with the kids. How will you know? By the attitude that meets you when you tell em it's bedtime :tong:

She said it to me, Darlin darlin.. if I heard she was sayin it 2 kids then I would havta say more about it and have summat done 'bout her.. but I do not like gettin peeps in2 trouble for arguin with me.. she has an opinion for better or worse.. she is entitled 2 that opinion.. she can say what she likes to me, and even say it to other members of staff.. much depends on the context she says it and the circumstances.. if it was undermining me in front of students or staff, then I would hav 2 take it further.. but so far at least, that isnt the case..

..and darkside.. I argue logically and coherently as best I can most of the time... but when someone accuses me of something and puts it down to my sexuality and I feel it both unjust and wrong, then I respond.. and I did.. not in terms I have used in in my OP and which you seem to object to, but I am not going 2 say I would not.. that depends on how stung I am, and how emotional I become.. I am a human being and can lose me rag just like ne other.. and if you think someone who thinks her biblical view of homosexuality is more enlightened than mine that leaves me somewhat mystified.. but whether it is your view or not is irrelevant.. for if someone says something with which I disagree and believe it to be unenlightened and bigoted, I am quite easy with telling them so... if I have something to say I say it in terms which I feel are appropriate for the moment..

[darkeyes]

Hugs hon, you and Kate are the only ones who know if you are doing a good job with the kids. How will you know? By the attitude that meets you when you tell em it's bedtime :tong:

Usually met with "O mum.. noooo.. anotha 10 mins" or "O Fran.. after this programme" or " Molly gets to stay up till well after 10" or "Ur really mean to me" ... or in Lou's case "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" .. an course we still havta get their lights out...:rolleyes::tong:

[DuckiesDarling]

Usually met with "O mum.. noooo.. anotha 10 mins" or "O Fran.. after this programme" or " Molly gets to stay up till well after 10" or "Ur really mean to me" ... or in Lou's case "waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa" .. an course we still havta get their lights out...:rolleyes::tong:

Then you are doing excellent ;)

[CuddlyKate]

Darkside, I find myself in agreement with most of what you have said. Both Frances and I agree one one thing about raising the children - not to indocrinate. That we will have influence is unquestioned, that we demand they accept what we say on issues of morality is not. Therefore we discuss and as they grow out of childhood and adolescence, they will formulate their own opinions, many of which we will find ourselves in disagreement with, but they will be their opinions, and that is what matters.

If I may say this about Frances's disagreemnt with her colleague; by saying what she did, this lady did not only question the right and the fitness of gay and bisexual people to foster or adopt, she called into question the right of every gay and bisexual person's right to have his or her own biological children and to be a fit and proper person to bring them up. If ever such a thing came to pass, and we were forbidden our own children, by extension this would mean the removal from our care of those we already had. This Frances quite rightly objected to, and this is why she is quite so emotive on the subject.

I do know this, were I the one who had the conversation with this lady, I couldn't not walk away from that conversation with the words you suggest, and it is without question I believe, unreasonable of you or anyone else to expect it. She has the right to that opinion I do not deny. But for her to be so inflammatory in stating her opinion was asking for trouble.

I often criticise Frances for dogma and being much too forthright and even inflammatory herself. On this occasion, I actually commend her restraint. I am unsure of whether or not I would have so acted.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Fran-honey, I'm sure you'd be a fantastic mum no matter what anyone says. :}
Hugsss
Mean ole Cat

[void()]

I will jest a bit and say we need to hear Drowning Pool's song _Let the bodies hit the floor_. Of course, at the moment I'm listening to Vivaldi's Four Seasons on violin by John Harrison, quite a delicious treat in itself. :) I'm all sorts of gooey over this music. Perhaps, my gooey state might be useful in smothering idiots.

In all honesty, I have known children of homosexual couples. They're often more well adjusted, better disciplined than of straight couples. Sort of shoots the whole unfit argument for me.

Did this teacher not have basic reading comprehension? I understood it, even on the other side of the pond. Then again, I often enjoy reading Mum's English over American Anguish. Ah, got it Sueesed! She's an implanted teacher spy from New Delaware. They've been indoctrinating them and sending them out to combat the fuzzy dust bunnies in Cairo.

We'll have to inform Sir Bono, he so despises misplaced spies, Lord Connery oft chafes his bum over them. Or we might call the Doctor. There would be a jolly, ha! :)

[darkeyes]

Norra cheep outa 'er 2 day.. hardly outa me eitha, least not 2 her.. think she is broodin' wich is fine wiv me... did pour 'er coffee out this mornin.. but not sure she drank it an she wos buried in work so will take it that she didn hear me tell 'er it wos on table next 2 'er since she didn say ta.. life is 2 short 2 hold grudges dontcha think? Me Head of Department ratha facetiously said 2 me "Dont worry about it Fran, she is only narked cos you havent made a pass at her!" Don't think that was helpful.. but the way he sez it is funny..:tong:

I don't like atmospheres very much.. there isn't much of one, but its there just the same.. rather just hav a gud blow out and let things go.. she will chill I reckon... if not exactly warm 2 urs truly.. but am just glad I'm not in 'er company for much moren half an hour a day.. cudn stand lookin at the mizzy chops for much moren that..:(

[Darkside2009]

If I may say this about Frances's disagreement with her colleague; by saying what she did, this lady did not only question the right and the fitness of gay and bisexual people to foster or adopt, she called into question the right of every gay and bisexual person's right to have his or her own biological children and to be a fit and proper person to bring them up. If ever such a thing came to pass, and we were forbidden our own children, by extension this would mean the removal from our care of those we already had. This Frances quite rightly objected to, and this is why she is quite so emotive on the subject.

I do know this, were I the one who had the conversation with this lady, I couldn't not walk away from that conversation with the words you suggest, and it is without question I believe, unreasonable of you or anyone else to expect it. She has the right to that opinion I do not deny. But for her to be so inflammatory in stating her opinion was asking for trouble.

I often criticise Frances for dogma and being much too forthright and even inflammatory herself. On this occasion, I actually commend her restraint. I am unsure of whether or not I would have so acted.


From the gist of the conversation that we were given in the forum, this colleague of Darkeyes, did not suggest sending the Social workers to rap on your door and take your children into custody. Nor were we given to believe that she had suggested that anyone should be deprived of the right to procreate and raise their own children. So I find your argument specious on this effect.

The court ruling made much of the fact that we live in a Pluralist Society, by it's very nature this should mean equal regard and respect for Christian as well as Secular beliefs. As the couple in question had successfully raised foster children before, what was thrown into highlight was their Christian beliefs, not whether or not they could provide a secure, happy and loving home for some deprived child.

On a number of occasions, in these forums, we have discussed the welfare of children in care homes, especially sexual assaults on children in care homes. You will also be aware of the number of cases in recent years were children were subjected to systematic and sustained abuse culminating in the death of the child at the hand of the parents, whilst supposedly under supervision by Social Services. Yet here we have a case of a couple being denied the chance to offer care and love and security to a child. Their only 'crime' in the eyes of the Social Services, that they held Christian beliefs which are deemed unsuitable to the Politically Correct that infest our Social Services and Courts.

What some might call indoctrination others might call moral guidance. I was raised with a set of morals that have provided a moral compass throughout my life. I feel blessed to have been provided with them, if I felt differently I could have discarded them at any time. As adults we are constantly learning new ideas and re-assessing our beliefs in the light of our own knowledge and experience.

As children we need a secure and loving base to venture forth into the world. Just as we know, as adults, that children need sufficient sleep despite their protestations, we also know that children must have moral guidance as well as having their physical needs of food and shelter met.

The couple's application was rejected, not in answer to a child's question, but in response to a question raised by the Social Services. They could not lie to a child and tell them that they thought something was good or acceptable when they believed otherwise. Likewise they could have lied to the Social Services and told them anything they thought they wanted to hear. They didn't. Far from holding them up for ridicule, I commend their honesty.

[Bluebiyou]

Dear Fran,
Please quote me to your coworker.
Any human being lucky enough to have that dyke Fran as any kind of a parent, is far luckier than nearly all 'Christian' family children... speaking as a Christian.
Deep, caring, wise people are the best parents, and the best influence.

Fran,
next time I'm in Scotland, give me her name and I'll deck her; (that way you won't lose your job!).

With a level of love and respect I give to few,
Blue

[Darkside2009]

What good would that do?

Respect is earned not given.

Fran is a misandrist and likes calling people of the male gender including you Blue, "lesser mortals" and then pretends that it is all perfectly excusable and fine to hate an entire gender this way. :rolleyes:

It might be just a confusion or difference in humour between the UK and America, Suck. Over here that type of humour is called banter and a very dull World it would be without it. I wouldn't believe for one moment that Darkeyes hates all males at all, I think it is just an affectionate form of teasing, to provoke a response. The usual reply is to give as good as you get, not take umbrage where no offence was intended. Cheer up, when they get old they just look old and wrinkled, whereas we Men look more distinguished.lol:) Now put your pot-belly away and stand up straight, man.

[darkeyes]

*Laffs*.. we dont seem to have agreed on 2 much Darkside.. but on this we do... banter makes the world go round an wivout it wot a sad place we wud b in... h8 males? Christ... wot bollox...isuck understands that as well as u or me... thats wy he sucks so much.. me awaits 'is next instalment of dross an trollie propaganda.. keep it rollin isuck.. yas givin me lotsa giggles...

[Hephaestion]

..........Fran is a misandrist and likes calling people of the male gender including you Blue, "lesser mortals" and then pretends that it is all perfectly excusable and fine to hate an entire gender this way. :rolleyes:

Paraphrased from elsewhere. Re. 'Lesser mortals' this is English 'as she is used'. There is nothing offensive being said.

Biologically though - she is correct. The male of the species is a lesser mortal as evidence by the miracles of gestation and birth. If one believes in Christian teachings then parthenogenesis dictates that men aren't even needed. Back to biology, the ground plan is feminine with the male being adapted from this. When male testosterone drops off men go feminine hence the thread asking if men go more gay as they age. Women tend not to alter much.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am just off to powder up, put on my baby doll nightdress and and paint my nails.

[darkeyes]

Paraphrased from elsewhere. Re. 'Lesser mortals' this is English 'as she is used'. There is nothing offensive being said.

Biologically though - she is correct. The male of the species is a lesser mortal as evidence by the miracles of gestation and birth. If one believes in Christian teachings then parthenogenesis dictates that men aren't even needed. Back to biology, the ground plan is feminine with the male being adapted from this. When male testosterone drops off men go feminine hence the thread asking if men go more gay as they age. Women tend not to alter much.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am just off to powder up, put on my baby doll nightdress and and paint my nails.

Well I neva.. an ther wos me thinkin me wos just havin lil bitta fun wiv yas all..:tong:

[tenni]

LOL Ok..Hep I'll give it a kick at the can.

Your perspective is a most supportive position in favour of fran's sexist comment. Now, I hope that you stand up for "lesser mortal" (of which you are one the next time a feminist rant comes forward putting men down with ridicule...anywhere.) Men grow so weak in their lesser state.

It is reported that the male of the species is threatened and in danger due to chemical changes in the environment and what females are putting (accidentally I'm sure) into their body during gestation. This causes poorly developed and poorly functioning genitals etc.
Men are not needed? Hmm Hep bud..you've definitely been indoctrinated by feminists...lol You are definitely in danger of being endangered..:eek::tongue:

Quick more testosterone for Hep..lol

Ah, another interpretation of this "lesser mortal" is that Fran perceives women as superior. This is supported by much in contemporary pop culture and media. Now, this position is probably there in defiance of men stating their superiority for ...well centuries. "Women need to be kept bare foot, pregnant and tied to the kitchen sink where they belong" theory. A racist is a racist no matter how they try to hide it in humour. A sexist is a sexist regardless of whichever gender that they are proposing superior merely due to their genitals.

Perhaps, if men are really threatened we need to get governments to establish protective shelters for men. Here men would be able to escape the bullying by women and participate in "manly" activities to re energize and bing the balance back to their manly strength..:tong: Make the living room a man cave and banish the family to the garage and kitchen.,,lol

All above comments are said with the same jest (and hidden truths) as Fran's "lesser mortal" statement...:)




Paraphrased from elsewhere. Re. 'Lesser mortals' this is English 'as she is used'. There is nothing offensive being said.

Biologically though - she is correct. The male of the species is a lesser mortal as evidence by the miracles of gestation and birth. If one believes in Christian teachings then parthenogenesis dictates that men aren't even needed. Back to biology, the ground plan is feminine with the male being adapted from this. When male testosterone drops off men go feminine hence the thread asking if men go more gay as they age. Women tend not to alter much.

Now if you'll excuse me, I am just off to powder up, put on my baby doll nightdress and and paint my nails.

[darkeyes]

All above comments are said with the same jest (and hidden truths) as Fran's "lesser mortal" statement...:)

Ther r no hidden truths in the use of the expression "lesser mortals".. they r but jest tween me an peeps I like a lot mostly.. not the 1st time peeps have called me "tart" on site.. men an all.. am afraid Fran takes it in the spirit it was generally meant.. as an affectionate jest tween peeps who r fond a me.. an horror of horrors.. summa them r actually men.. aint they Allbi, me luffly??? An Curio an all... sumtimes peeps take banter all 2 seriously...

Peeps can read inta me use of the phrase or ne otha phrase wotsoeva they like.. I know what is intended.. an yas can discuss, debate an rant bout me alleged mysandry an sexism all yas like... as socialist, feminist and humanist.. every fibre of my being, an everythin me eva learned an believe in specifically precludes belief in the things summa ya seem to think me overtly guilty.. so stuff that inya pipe an smoke it..

[tenni]

Fran
I think that you are probably a very excellent mother to your children.

That said, I also think that there is a grain of truth that you do think of men as "less" than yourself and perhaps other women overall.

I also think and thought that your term was very funny. You may deny it but it is my belief. I think that your sexist unconscious ? meaning is in contrast to a lot of your other views on humanity. It doesn't really matter because I don't think that your sexist words over ride your belief that you want the best for all of humanity. You are not referring to one man as less than yourself but categorize all males as lesser mortals or that is a possible interpretation. As I said before I only bring it up when you enter into equality gender issues. To ignore your sexist language at that point would be to give you a pass for sexist language.

Sorry Goddess...:) We will have to agree to disagree on your "lesser mortals" sexist wording.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Fran is a misandrist and likes calling people of the male gender including you Blue, "lesser mortals" and then pretends that it is all perfectly excusable and fine to hate an entire gender this way.

Since you're new here, you dont really know Fran the way the rest of us do, so you dont understand her ways of teasing the men that she likes. She does this with those men that she Likes teasing and picking on. If she didnt like you, she wouldnt do that.
Since you dont know her, then you cant really make a real comment on her at all.
Cat

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

We? Got a mouse in your pocket, Tenni-Dumplin? Not all of us agree about Fran's terminology, but thats you guys' perogetive. (sp)
Cat

[darkeyes]

Fran
I think that you are probably a very excellent mother to your children.

That said, I also think that there is a grain of truth that you do think of men as "less" than yourself and perhaps other women overall.

I also think and thought that your term was very funny. You may deny it but it is my belief. I think that your sexist unconscious ? meaning is in contrast to a lot of your other views on humanity. It doesn't really matter because I don't think that your sexist words over ride your belief that you want the best for all of humanity. You are not referring to one man as less than yourself but categorize all males as lesser mortals or that is a possible interpretation. As I said before I only bring it up when you enter into equality gender issues. To ignore your sexist language at that point would be to give you a pass for sexist language.

Sorry Goddess...:) We will have to agree to disagree on your "lesser mortals" sexist wording.

I dont take offence at what people think of me thought processes, tenni.. u wanna believe whatya say is fine wiv me.. do think it hysterically funny ya comment bout women tho.. but ther ya r..

Hav nev had a man think a me as a Goddess tho... not even me ex hubbbie.. cool.. not b4 time eitha.. tee hee.:bigrin:;)

[Hephaestion]

I understand what you say Tenni and the tenor of its delivery. Sometimes it can be a bit overwhelming.

There are oestrogen mimetics in the industrial environment eg. plasticizers in food wrappings. IN the 1960's there were complaints about feminisng effects of the drugs (oestrogens) used in caponising chickens. Chicken is now a strong favourite in people's diets.

Other than the chemicals society has changed subtly and consistently.

There are the women who now do all of the chatting up and learing. Professions have widened, female builders, lorry drivers etc. Ladettes is now a common descriptor of young ladies. I have even been patted on the bum by a crowd of young ladies in their car standing next to my motorcycle at the traffic lights.

Yesterday in Marks & Spencer where I went to buy some socks and stockings (thin socks for the summer) I noticed that there was an entire floor dedicated to the female foot (and some truly beautiful specimens were there trying on their glittery sandals - Mmm). The male equivalent was crammed into a dim 20x20ft corner of the next floor. If this is nothing but marketing when are they going to give us men glittery footwear?

A while back, when I went to ShShSh a female only sex store in London (men only allowed if sanctioned by their female owner). They sat me down and gave me a cup of tea and brought a variety of strap-ons selected by my female for me to inspect for suitability; they were most concilietory.

I have accepted that God is in fact a one breasted Amazonian dark skinned lesbian. Soon, I shall be presenting myself for castration (they are large and just get in the way nowadays and the accepted medical view is that testosterone promotes prostate cancer), tie myself to a stove (all the best chefs are 'male') bare my feet (who needs socks anyway) and look forward to trying to get pregnant at every opportunity (I thank her Godliness for silicone lube).

As for Fran, I look forward to being tongue lashed (that means spoken harshly to) by her whenever she wants to - preferably in Gaelic / Garlic. Rather than a 'support the male' movement Perhaps there should be a 'give us back our language' movement instead.

"My am not monster! My am poor misunderstood birdie...." The Griffin in the Luck Child from the StoryTeller.

[darkeyes]

Now now Heph me luffly.. hav nev eva spoken harshly 2 u... zif me wud do such a thing.. wot's that? Ya wont me 2? O well ur wish is my command ya big gett! Wtf do ya think ya r interferin in a nice difference of opinion tween me an tenni? Bloody pokin ya nose in wer its not wonted.. if me wosn a pacifist wud rip ya bits off..no moren ya deserve.. ya did say ya wer gonna present yasel for castration so ifya like will save ya the bloody journey!!! Interferin boggit!!! Now go 'way an behave yasel like a gud lil boy fore me gets really annoyed.. me big bruvva dus a gud line in protectin me an has dun since me wos jus a lil babba.. he no pacifist an thinks nowt a rippin heads off peeps for fun.. an talkin a bits.. them an all for that matta!! An am not an amazon.. don hav dark skin an so far still hav both boobies.. tho it wos a close run thing a few years 'go.. am lil, pale an dubble tidgied!! Gerrit rite ya divvie!!

God.. feel much betta now..:bigrin:

Harsh enuff or ya wont harsher? Pretty gud for only usin bloody as an expletive.. effin an bassa'in an callin ya an arse an a tosser comes lata... jus don ask me 2 use the "c" word cos am a nice girl an nice girls dont!!:eek:

*Sits on Heph's knee an rubs 'is bruised ego all betta an gives 'im lil peck on cheek* :)

[Hephaestion]

Gulp!

Now 'beat me on the bottom with your Woman's Weekly' (Pam Ayres)

[darkeyes]

Gulp!

Now 'beat me on the bottom with your Woman's Weekly' (Pam Ayres)

Now ya hav upset me u!!! Wudnt hav Woman's Weekly in the house if it wos the last mag on earth... :eek:

[Hephaestion]

Spoil Sport!

[darkeyes]

Spoil Sport!

*rolls up her copy of 2 day's Guardian and waps Heph hard on 'is bottom*:bigrin:

[Maggot]

I think Dolly Parton put it quite nicely. To paraphrase "I have no problem at all with faith, what I have a problem with is enforced Religion". This is the issue at the heart of this debate - at what point does faith become enforced religion? My Mother is Christian with monumental faith and yet in her eyes, there is nothing wrong with gay people having children either naturally or by adoption, the only thing that matters in her view is that the children are loved and cared for and supported in whatever direction their lives take. As children we were given the choice of whether we went to Church with her, or stayed at home with Dad (the closet Buddhist). His views are similar and he's excellent at explaining emotions and feelings to kids in ways that they can understand. If only everyone could have my Dad the World would be a much kinder place.

[Katja]

I think Dolly Parton put it quite nicely. To paraphrase "I have no problem at all with faith, what I have a problem with is enforced Religion". This is the issue at the heart of this debate - at what point does faith become enforced religion? My Mother is Christian with monumental faith and yet in her eyes, there is nothing wrong with gay people having children either naturally or by adoption, the only thing that matters in her view is that the children are loved and cared for and supported in whatever direction their lives take. As children we were given the choice of whether we went to Church with her, or stayed at home with Dad (the closet Buddhist). His views are similar and he's excellent at explaining emotions and feelings to kids in ways that they can understand. If only everyone could have my Dad the World would be a much kinder place.

I agree. I was brought up in the Church of England and indoctrinated by my parents into what they saw as 'truth'. Added to this I have a very doctrinaire Russian Orthodox grandmother who is unable to question her God or the words of her church. It was this family circumstance which has given me so much trouble in accepting myself for what I am. Even if I have lost the faith in which I was raised, its legacy remains and although I am now openly bisexual, that legacy still makes me feel uneasy and riddled with doubt whether I am right to live as I do.

[Canticle]

Fran and Kate are good mothers. That is so very obvious. Straight, Gay, Bi.....doesn't matter what the sexuality of the parents may be, same goes for race, colour and creed. Children need loving and wanting. They need to be nurtured and their best interests looked after. All children makes up their own mind about this and that, no matter what we, as parents may think. We can only hope to guide them....so that they find their own path to follow. I have three children and they have very different ideas from one another, but they are good, decent people and if we, as parents, have helped them to that stage, that is all we can do. Ultimately, what is most important, is love.....the greatest gift we can bestow. I reckon Fran and Kate, have a lot of love to give.

Of course, Fran, you could always kick your colleague in the kneecaps...:bigrin:

[darkeyes]

Of course, Fran, you could always kick your colleague in the kneecaps...:bigrin:

Ta for the kind words Canticle.. but kick 'er in the kneecaps? Hardly dignified or indeed a wise course of action for one who refuses to resort 2 violence an is a pacifist now is it? She aint so bad really..it wos 'er birfday this week an she brought in cakes for everyone at work..includin lil ole me.. she even wos kind enuff 2 make it choccie fudge cake... mmmmmmm me fave... pounds on the bootie but ver yummie!!!:bigrin:

1 teensy weensy wee bit surely cudn do ne harm??? Cud it???:eek:

[Canticle]

Ta for the kind words Canticle.. but kick 'er in the kneecaps? Hardly dignified or indeed a wise course of action for one who refuses to resort 2 violence an is a pacifist now is it? She aint so bad really..it wos 'er birfday this week an she brought in cakes for everyone at work..includin lil ole me.. she even wos kind enuff 2 make it choccie fudge cake... mmmmmmm me fave... pounds on the bootie but ver yummie!!!:bigrin:

1 teensy weensy wee bit surely cudn do ne harm??? Cud it???:eek:

He He........it was cyber kneecaps, Fran :bigrin: OK...kneecaps are out...what about pulling teeth? :rolleyes:;):rolleyes::bigrin: Smiles innocently.....

Chocolate fudge cake...most definitely...says me...eating a large bar of Cadbury's Dairy Milk Caramel Chocolate and those two cream cakes I had this afternoon were delicious and having changed my body metabolism (I think), I can eat what I like now and I don't gain weight. Yippee!!! :tongue:

[Bluebiyou]

(in reply to...
With a level of love and respect I give to few,
Blue)
What good would that do?

Respect is earned not given.

Fran is a misandrist and likes calling people of the male gender including you Blue, "lesser mortals" and then pretends that it is all perfectly excusable and fine to hate an entire gender this way. :rolleyes:

Taken piecemeal:

What good would that do?
Assuming you're not talking about my walloping Fran's dissident coworker, which was poetic exaggeration for the sake of Fran's feelings,
the expression of love, admiration, and respect is probably successfully transmitted and received over the public forum of internet.

Respect is earned not given.
Um... I like you right off the bat for asking certain questions and certain comments you've made (here and elsewhere); but I disagree.
Respect... is a tremendous subject.
Until I shock you by slicing open my friend's abdomen, taking out and taking a bite out of his (or her) liver, you don't have to give me your respect. You don't even have to in that extreme situation (revived here from some person's alleged account of a long ago trip to Africa).
Respect is one of those funny things like love that has all sorts of mysticism and counter intuitive axioms.
I now work with a 70 year old, 100lbs man with "little man syndrone". This man constantly boasts of how great he is. The fact he goes on to tell constant pathological lies about himself (inasfar as how great he is... how many asses he's kicked, how sly he was, etc.) and the fact he has no respect for others outside his ego structure, demonstrates he no self respect.
How can you respect others if you don't respect yourself?
I digress slightly.
Respect is given. It is a gift.

Fran is a misandrist and likes calling people of the male gender including you Blue, "lesser mortals" and then pretends that it is all perfectly excusable and fine to hate an entire gender this way. :rolleyes:
It is true. Fran is a mysandrogist. She's demonstrated it with her 'cleaver' and 'lesser mortals' comment (among a few other things I will not bring up here). I have observed all women possess this (just like nearly all men possess some degree of rape humor/misogynist).
The reason I hold Fran above, well, the population of the world is...
although her personal sexual and sexually related feelings will undoubtedly be communicated to her children. Her female children will more likely be lesbian, bisexual, or (in hetero situation) have preconceived misconceptions about the inferiority of males. Her male children will be skewed - on the bisexual scale - away from hetero - towards homo sexual.
But, (and this is what drives people nuts)
Fran will not cross the line and conform to physical sexual molestation of innocents, thus the bias, her bias, will never manifest itself as physical abuse.
This is above 80-90% of American women who have and will, at conformist whim, physically molest babies. "My baby MUST be like others..."
Ask yourself.
How many American women (supposedly the most enlightened of the world) refuse to harm their children due to their acute sense of harm and ability to differentiate ridiculous appeal to feminism/luring of social conformity.

This is not just an American woman mental health deficit.

It is quite related (in psychological terms) to what Jews refer to as 'The Holocast'.

Hitler was a bad motherfucker, we all hope rotting and eternally agonizing in the flames of Hell.
Yet consider the social need and scientifically approved action on the Jews.
Is it so dissimilar from American women embracing harm to newborn infants?
There are few humans, during the harming of masses, that stand up and object to the physical abuse.
Fran is one of the few.
As a mysogynist/lesbian, the routine molestation of male children should be given a natural "YES". Yet Fran objects.
Duckies Darling said (in a previous post) she refused to 'second guess herself' after harming at least one innocent child due to American custom.
Fran would not err on the first 'guess' (because she is one of the few that has true empathy).
Duckies Darling is not statistically a bad person, her decision is common for her culture. She posted recently for some women in the middle east, claiming injustice, yet not using that same vision to 'second guess' her injustice and harm to her male children.
Fran is statistically a very rare good person. She empathizes and thinks.
Good God there are only a few who are able to get past themselves and do so.

[DuckiesDarling]

You know what, Blue, I'm gonna make it real simple for you. I circumsized three children, three of the happiest and healthiest children on this Earth. Now what does that have to do with being outraged that rape was viewed as adultery? Interesting you bumped up an older thread instead of posting in the newer thread with your personal opinions. I don't apologize to anyone for circumsizing my children, when my children are old enough to ask, IF they care to ask, I will discuss it with them. Now have a good day.

[darkeyes]

although her personal sexual and sexually related feelings will undoubtedly be communicated to her children. Her female children will more likely be lesbian, bisexual, or (in hetero situation) have preconceived misconceptions about the inferiority of males. Her male children will be skewed - on the bisexual scale - away from hetero - towards homo sexual.


Blue me luffly.. my use of the expression "lesser mortals", and my "use" of the cleaver has always been fun.. it has never reflected for one minute my feelings toward men.. they are not used as expressions of contempt or dislike of man either indivisually or collectively.. mostly my parents and siblings refer to me not as Fran, but as Frankie.. I have never liked it, but its what they do and so I dont object because it has always been.. but they also have another nick for me (a few actually, not all nice.. tee hee).. my parents and siblings are all tall or at least in the case of my sister and mother tallish both being 5'6 and a bit more. At some 5" shorter, apart from being referred to quite frequently as "short arse".. I sometimes get called Midge (as in midget). This does not make my family anti short people... so ffs sake can we put to bed once and for all why I use the "lesser" phrase.. Cleave was never my invention anyway, but I adopted it for fun purposes and mostly people in good humour took the fun generated as it was meant.. not in the least serious.. fun.. a giggle between friends.. not meant nastily.. banter!!!!!

My principle reason for responding is not because of reference to the previous para at all.. but to clear up the part of your post I have quoted above.. nothing that kate and I say and do is aimed at making our children gay or bi or anything else.. with every fibre of our being we are raising two little girls to be themselves.. who they should be. Not who we want them to be. They are no more likely to be gay or bisexual than the children of heterosexual parents. They are not being raised anti male in any way, shape or form. They are being raised to understand that all human beings are equal and that no person is better than any other. At no time have we said to them that being female is superior.. quite the opposite..

Where our children may score over many others, is that they will not have the hang ups and prejudice which is instilled in them from an early age regarding homosexuality and bisexuality. Nor of Transgenderism. Should either actually be gay or bisexual they will be able to express that sexuality with a freedom and lack of shame that evades so many people today. They will be bisexual or gay not because we have influenced them, but because they are bisexual or gay. But equally, they will have no hang up about being heterosexual. None whatsoever. They are not taught that homosexuality or bisexuality is the norm. They are not taught that any sexuality is the norm. They are taught that in their voyage of discovery in this world they will be what they are, not to be ashamed of it, not to boast of it, and not to abuse it... they will be encouraged and are being encouraged to express their sexuality as they feel it.. not as we or anyone else may wish them to see it. They are both being encouraged to be free spirits.. how they will use that freedom will be their affair.. wisely we hope and trust.. but what is wisdom? Our wisdom is not necessarily that of our parents, and nor should it be that of our children.

If either or both grows and turns out to be gay or bisexual, then they will at least be able to live their lives as what they are. That we will have given them. We will not have imposed our sexualities on them, but more importantly we will not, as so may parents do, have imposed something upon them which is a lie to make them fit in and be "normal". They will not be more likely to be gay or bisexual, Blue, but they will, in short, be more likely to express it should that be the case. Compare that to the misery of millions of gay and bisexual children who are hiding and will suppress what they are because of an oppressive and often bigoted upbringing and suspicion from their peers and much of wider society.

Freedom is all to us, Blue.. freedom to develop and make the best of themselves and not have to hide from the world. Freedom of thought. Nothing we teach our children will make them feel themselves to be better than any man or woman.. or to hate them because of what they are. They are not superior any more than am I or Kate or you or anyone else.. they are different.. they are individuals and unique.. they are themselves.. and the way our oldest girl runs after, gets run after and acquires and disposes of lads at a rate of knots that shocks even a battle harded old tart like me provides us with a glimpse of just where she is heading vis a vis sexuality... she is turning out to be who she wants to be and nothing gives either of us greater pleasure..

So Blue me darlin'.. wotya say in the lil para quoted above is in short... bollox!!

[CuddlyKate]

The accusation of manhating has arisen from time to time in forums in connection with Frances. It ticks me off, for I know her like no other and it is an accusation which does not arise in the real world.

Anyone who has seen Frances with men as I have, cannot be but struck by her obvious affection for them. They have always been a large part of her life and always shall be. To view how much genuine affection men have for her is also worthy of mention, and few would seriously accuse her of mysandry. She takes much time with men and their problems, and it would be not the first time a man has been grateful to her for her help.

Seeing her with her father and brother, her nephews and men friends I am struck by how close she becomes with them and how involved she becomes in their problems. Her ex husband still thinks the world of her and if anyone has reason to hate her it is he. My ex husband began by disliking her and now they chat away, laugh and show a great deal of affection for each other. She has a natural way with both genders, is popular and even loved by many.

Of course I would say this wouldn't I? I am her partner. It is but the truth and if she can be short and sharp with men, she can with women too just as often when the need arises. This does not mean she hates them, it only means she has irritated by what they have said or done. Once peace is made, and it is easy to make peace with her, she easily reverts to her more usual self, full of the banter to which she refers, and which seems to get the backs up of some people on this site. Frances very rarely holds a grudge no matter the offence.

My partner genuinely likes people, even those who are opposed to everything she stands for. Her "life is too short" attitude when it comes to grudges is both admirable and quite loveable.

People may believe her to be a mysandrist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

[Bluebiyou]

CuddlyKate,
First let me say how much I admire your position to be the object of Fran's love.
If I could give everything I have (and I'm pretty wealthy) to be that for just a short while, and walk away with nothing, I would consider it a bargain.
I would never interfere with your love. I have too much respect for the principles of love, you, and Frances.
I speak in literal and not poetic verse.
Nor am I proposing a literal offer of my wealth. I will not cheapen myself, you, or Frances.
I truly envy (good envy, not bad) you to be so close to one of the most beautiful human beings I have met.
You, CuddlyKate must be truly exceptional. Fran must see true light in you to love you so.
Yet Frances is as human as the rest of us (by philosophical certainty).
Humorous aside: I'm sure this is evident to you when y'all are fussin'... and I'm sure you know her 'faults'...

Please don't take my comments on this web site regarding Fran as derogatory.
You know Fran is different; fundamentally different. Gandhi different.
Fran is on a... whole different level... playing field. You know this, as well as I, probably better than I.
You probably know I'm one of the few (certainly of 'strangers' or 'outsiders') that can truly challenge her on her level.
If I seem attacking of her... believe me, if I was somebody who needed to prey upon weaker... holy shit the world is full of them... but what does that prove/is the use?... I serve a higher God, of love... but even you must admit Frances is a... leader?... I don't know the right word that is most descriptive... I'm not sure if Fran should better Plato or Margret Thatcher... but Kate, I am only challenging her. As much personal growth until Frances says "Blue, stop. That's enough. No more."
I'm sorry that I cannot email you or PM you directly (and thus have discretion). That would be so much better for all. I am on the edge of usa laws by addressing you two in this public forum, still legal and okay, but that's as far as I can go.
If I piss off 'lesser mortals' who molest their children then so be it. They'll return to their natural state of neurotic denial; slowly if they're higher, quickly if they're lower. 99% will get over it fast.
Incidentally, I don't date (let alone would marry - YUK-NO WAY-VOMIT) female American child molesters, in spite of the majority numbers... I've been that way for 30 years at least.

So Kate, if others attack Fran, feel free to stand up beside her.
If I attack her in any way please disregard it.
I have utmost respect for you - if for no other reason than - because Fran loves you.
If Fran loves you, I'm confident you are special indeed.
I love Fran, you already know that.
Sometimes my challenges to Fran are on a higher level with deeper meanings meant as challenges... meant for Fran.
Please forgive me... ahead of time... all past, present, and future rudeness to Fran... except possibly the earliest criticisms of Fran I had 3 years ago... I was truly pissed off with her! LOL :tongue:

With every beautiful feeling and regard...
Blue

[darkeyes]

Ya don haff giveyasel airs Blue.. no wonda I luffya ya daft bugga.. and agree usually wiv bout 10% of whatya say.. tee hee..

...but yas rite 100% on this.. she is spesh.. she is luffly.. an wen me c's 'er stickin up for me as opposed 2 clippin me round the back a the bonce, it gives me lil flutter like lil else.. then me thinks..aye aye??? Wot she afta??? Naaa... perish the thought.. alterior motives r my thing not 'ers... me thats lil Ms Devious... :tong:

[DuckiesDarling]

If I piss off 'lesser mortals' who molest their children then so be it. They'll return to their natural state of neurotic denial; slowly if they're higher, quickly if they're lower. 99% will get over it fast.
Incidentally, I don't date (let alone would marry - YUK-NO WAY-VOMIT) female American child molesters, in spite of the majority numbers... I've been that way for 30 years at least.
Blue

You know what, Bluebiyou, you might think you are so witty but you are nothing but an idiot if you think circumcision equals child molestation. I wish you well in your demented little world, perhaps those people at work after you can finally finish the job.

I am completely offended by your post and wish you would think before you post sometimes. There are things that are not right to say anywhere, regardless of your personal opinion, and calling a loving parent who followed the advice of three separate pediatricians on three separate occasions, a child molester is one of those things.

I don't care to know you, I don't care to hear an apology, I don't care to ever remove you from my ignore list. Have a nice long life with your choices and rest assured most loving parents wouldn't want to marry you either. We don't all have strait jackets on hand when the looney bird falls off the wire:2cents:

[tenni]

re: post 36, 37 & 42

"You know what, Bluebiyou, you might think you are so witty but you are nothing but an idiot if you think circumcision equals child molestation....We don't all have strait jackets on hand when the looney bird falls off the wire"


hmm ?

Attack the idea and not the poster.
a
"Is it so dissimilar from American women embracing harm to newborn infants?" post #37

Blu post #37 made no reference to DD personally as a child molester, why is she personally attacking him and violating the rules? I don't think many of us care if he wrote that in another thread, he didn't in this thread. A reader has to go a bit of a distance from "embracing harm to newborn infants" to circumcision and child molester connection.

I don't think that someone who holds that political belief is an idiot for thinking that way. Maybe a bit extremist.... I don't agree but they are not an idiot or need a straight jacket. On the other hand, someone with such nasty typing fingers throwing out two posts attacking Blu within forty-eight hours apart is rather vengeful. Not idiotic....just plain nasty.

[darkeyes]

God Blue..what havya started.. Darlin' darlin'.. u know how I feel about circumcision on young boys.. I've said it often enough... I believe it to be an unnecessary mutilation of a healthy child... but I live in a culture where circumcision is, outside of the religious speres of Islam and Judaism in particular, relatively rare.. the US is different in that it is still the norm although this seems to be becoming less so than was the case.. a good thing in my view.

Is it molestation? Yes in my view, undoubtedly. The child had no say in a part of his penis being removed. It is a legal molestation and mutilation considered by parents and the US medical profession as a precautionary, yet necessary evil. But legality does not alter the fact of just what it is. This is where I and the medical professions of Europe and most of the rest of the western world part from the view which remains predominant in the US. Only in the last 60 years or so has circumcision in Europe ceased to be the norm. It actually began to stop being practiced relatively quickly after WW2 and gathered pace over the next few decades. Interestingly now there are more circumcisions not because of health concerns, but because of the changes in population demographics.. the numbers of Islamic people in particular is much greater than it was and because of both immigration and emigration, this has resulted in a significant increase in the practice for religious reasons. Yet even then, that is not the end of the story.. for just as there are increasing numbers of people of Jewish heritage who are not having their children circumcised, there is some evidence that in second and third generation Islamic UK citizens, automatic circumcision is no longer the case for every child. It is a case of the culture affecting the belief system to some extent, but also the case that a few are no longer quite so influenced by dogma and tradition to the same extent as their parents.

Of course I shall argue, as I have always done for a complete cessation of male circumcision until the child is old and knowledgable enough to take that decision for himself. I'm little more mellow about the issue as I have increasingly come to understand the reasons why so many millions have actually had it done. It doesnt alter my view of just what it is. Not one jot. Blue is right, if a "tadge" ham handed in his language. Falling out and getting each others knickers in a twist solves nothing, but I have learned one thing in the last few years.. that using colourful metaphors for things and hitting out at people for doing what they believe was best at the time creates anger and bitterness which moves the world back not forward. We have to remember that this is a very different world from that of 20, 30, 40 and 50 or more years ago.. attitudes are different, and we are much more self aware and so much better informed. It is much better to convince and enlist those people into our camp by considered argument and debate.. not by slagging them off, making their hackles rise and pushing them in quite the opposite direction from the one we would much prefer them to go..

I do not like preventative surgery.. instinctively I recoil when it is suggested. Yet I have more reason than most to have it done... but I was mature enough and made myself knowledgable enough to decide against it.. I made the decision.. not my parents or anyone else.. and when it comes to removing parts of our body.. except in cases of pressing medical need when we are too young or in other ways unable to decide for ourselves.. it is with us that the decision should reside..

[DuckiesDarling]

Gee thanks, Fran, I'm so glad to know that you think I'm a child molester.

And before you say no, that's exactly what you said. Do you even know what child molestation is? The act of touching any portion of a child's (under14) body with a "lewd and lascivious" intent, which in no shape or form translates to a routine circumcision provided by medical personnel after medical advice was given.

With this twisted view of the world any pediatrician can be called a child molester when they examine a child.

I have just lost some respect for you, Fran.

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

Ok Ya'll, Simmer down. Circumsizing a child is NOT Child Molestation. If you think that, then you'll have to include me in this also. Both of my Boys were "Snipped" when they were a day old. Its parents perogotive to have this done for cleanliness reasons, health reasons, religious reasons, ect. No matter What the reason, its Their right to do so. It Does Not make them Clild Molesters in any way, shape or form. Blue, I think you've slipped off your cracker here, Sweetie. Everyone has an opinion, you Fran, Me, DD, everyone. Its Ours, and it doesnt make any one of us better than the next person. Dont lump a persons belief in with mutilation or molestation because its two Vastly different things. Sorrry lover, but I think you're wrong on this one.

the US is different in that it is still the norm although this seems to be becoming less so than was the case.. a good thing in my view.

Fran Hon, this isnt declining. The Doctors here are finding out more everyday that circumsizing is on the rise. It is done a thousand times a week because some parents, you'll note I said Some, are finding that it is healthier for a little boy to have this done. When we got my Grandson, he was 3 months old and his little penis was so infected under the foreskin that he had to have the skin removed. My idiot daughter-in-law didnt keep him clean enough, and it infected so badly that we had to hospitalize him and have the surgery done.
Does this make me a molester? If it does, oh well. The surgery saved his life, for if it hadnt been done, we were told by a Urologist(sp) he may have died from all of the infection that had built up under that skin. It was the size of a shooter marble...the size of a quarter under the skin. I dont regret what decision we made and never shall.
So again, its that right of perogitive, and no more dangerous or sadistic as wireing a childs teeth together with bits of wire and rubber bands and head gear to make their teeth straighter and more attractive for the future.
So lets all simmer down and get back to the fun parts of life.
Mauhs to all of you.
Cat

[darkeyes]

I'm sorry you feel as you do darlin' darlin... but I was simply using one definition from Webster as my definition of the word molest.. and that is

"to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect"

To remove a foreskin is surely to disturb, and arguably to persecute and inflict injury.. and even a new baby who has been sedated while the procedure is done will surely be annoyed when pain takes hold as it surely will at some time... legally allowable and medically recommended or not if that is done without the informed consent of the child... and since it is inflicted upon a child it must therefore by definition be a form of child molestation. We have always taken a different position on this and I have used far more inflammatory language in the past than anything I have used in this thread. I am unable to change how I feel about the issue simply because I may have lost the respect of one I like and care about.. I have made my argument and you have said your piece, and what friends do, if friends they are is do all they can to understand the others position while remaining friends..

..and actually when it comes to paediatricians.. as with any who performs circumcisions on little babies who can have no say in losing their foreskin.. yes I do believe them to be child molesters and mutilators.. but the law allows them to be just so in both our countries and therefore until such times as there is a change in law this practice will continue.. I wish to see its end. No more.. no less.. and to change the law to have it made illegal then we must change attitudes.. and without debate and argument.. attitudes never change...

[Cherokee_Mountaincat]

and actually when it comes to paediatricians.. as with any who performs circumcisions on little babies who can have no say in losing their foreskin.. yes I do believe them to be child molesters and mutilators

Well, then we're just going to have to agree on disagreeing, my sweet. :} Ta each their own..
Muah
Cat

[Long Duck Dong]

to lump innocent people in with a group of the most vile people on the face of the earth... is something that is so dangerous..... the males at least should have a single working brain cell that understands the danger of making a statement about anybody being a child molester, without 100% clear and legal proof.... as accusations like that, even as a opinion, can be life destroying......

not only that... accusations of anybody being a child molester, in a public forum..... good way to draw attention to the site of a negative nature, the type of attention the site DOESN'T need and nor the type of people we want to attract here either.........

it would only take one person to misread the remarks being levelled against people... and a report made to the authorities... and this site would come up for review and attention.... and so would the people in it..... specially the people with kids....... the innocent people with kids.....

we all know how opinions about people can lead to more shit that we want or need...... and this is a public forum..... so for gods sakes think about what statements you make about anybody..... specially statements about people being child molesters....

it could cost us all the site.......

[void()]

If I could give everything I have (and I'm pretty wealthy) to be that for just a short while, and walk away with nothing, I would consider it a bargain. I would never interfere with your love. I have too much respect for the principles of love, you, and Frances. I speak in literal and not poetic verse. Nor am I proposing a literal offer of my wealth. I will not cheapen myself, you, or Frances.

Excuse me, you can not speak in the literal and then contradict as you have. First, you express a desire to give your vast wealth to have Fran. Then you say that you are not saying that, but you are speaking literal. See the contradiction and further the disconnect?

And this is the domino what started the tower of Babel falling, Governor.

If I seem attacking of her... believe me, if I was somebody who needed to prey upon weaker... holy shit the world is full of them... but what does that prove/is the use?

The same use as your posting this bit, egoism. It creates an illusion or perceived image of you. And what I am reading out of this is not very handsome, pretty. What I read is someone quite insecure. If you indeed had great wealth, more than likely security would follow. But I'm a humble uneducated back water country bumpkin who has lived in the have not's column all my life, what would I know?

Suspect, that if I had money, then by damn I would ensure a decorum of safety. Of course, likely I would not bother on this site or
many at all. I have been around quite a few people, families of money. The one key element most, if not all stress, less is best. They don't want or need all this drama. Why lug around a twenty pound wallet filled with hundreds when you can have someone carry a credit stick for you?
Yes, credit sticks exist. They are like credit cards but might be better in some ways, interesting use of usb flash drives, really.

These subtle bits you strewn out here. See? I pick up tiny bits, collect them, draw pictures. Sometimes the picture comes in real clear. Other times it might be a tad fuzzy. Been told I've a natural knack at it, though. I read a lot in a little.

Besides being a Marine, my real father was a private investigator for twenty years. He also did a bit of hypnotherapy, was certified and had a degree at it. I asked him to guide me one night. The next few weeks got pretty weird. He did guide me and it was not in any way malicious or coercive. He knew I'm an atheist and never once tried hog tying me to anything.

What did happen over the course of those few weeks involved something akin to what we do using computers. He instilled about ten
or so years of his private investigator work into me. In a sense I downloaded his experience. And yes it can be done. It is a little
disturbing and should not be done without experience. He and a friend had swapped experiences during hypnosis sessions.

You using the term/s 'need to prey on weaker' is an interesting phrase.

I am on the edge of usa laws by addressing you two in this public forum, still legal and okay, but that's as far as I can go.
If I piss off 'lesser mortals' who molest their children then so be it. They'll return to their natural state of neurotic denial; slowly if they're higher, quickly if they're lower. 99% will get over it fast.
Incidentally, I don't date (let alone would marry - YUK-NO WAY-VOMIT) female American child molesters, in spite of the majority numbers... I've been that way for 30 years at least.

Why is having a discussion in a public forum bordering on illegal? What are you discussing that creates such urgency or need of egress? Not sure I follow this whole bit, don't worry, I'll just collect it as another bit of picture.

Ah, and yes it is clear you do 'prey on weaker'. In conclusion you've granted me a clearer frame of reference. Thank you. Have a nice day.

[darkeyes]

For goodness sake Duckie dont be so melodramatic.. nothing said on site about the issue of male circumcision will cost anyone anything... my accusation of child molestation and mutilation of children is aimed at the medical professionals who advise and perform the procedure, and the legal systems which allow this in my view, serious assault on children.. it is they on the one hand who decide on the advice and inform parents that it is in their child's best interests to have their children circumcised and on the other who allow it to be a legal assault.. and most parents faced with such advice will follow that advice.. if blame there is thats where the blame lies.. the vast majority of parents will do almost anything in the best interests of their children.. and so they follow medical advice.. which in the US is.. snip snip snip... In Europe the advice goes the other way and in general, although not exclusively circumcision is performed for religious reasons normally.. both sets of medical practicioners can't be right in their advice.. for good or ill in fact while I am deeply suspicious of the US systems motives ie profit, at least they are consistent.. in Europe it is allowed although seldom performed on most children, but it is still practiced..

What parents decided decades ago, and even today to some extent, cannot be held against them for the very reasons I am getting fed up with repeating.. it was done out of love and concern for the best interests of the child.. yes it is molestation and yes it is mutilation and yes it is an assault on the person.. but it is a legal procedure for which parents, pressured by culture and medical advice, cannot be held accountable and should not be considered in the way both you and darlin' darlin' are taking my comments to mean.. it is not they who are the molesters and mutilators, but the system and its professionals who advise and perform circumcisions, and the legal system which allows them to do so. My argument is simply that it is time that it was put an end to... except in times of pressing medical need...

[Long Duck Dong]

fran... you know what you mean..... but ask any person called / labelled a child molester by false means and see what they have to say......

ask them just how devastating it can to be called a child molester and how its a stigma that they can not get rid of........

saying anybody is a child molester, cos they do circumcisions, is a dangerous thing to do.... cos most people read a totally different meaning into the words and its the different meaning that carries more weight.....

there is a guy in nz that has served 10 years behind bars.... his crime... being a kindergarten male teacher, and teaching kids how to pull up their pants.... the accusation, touching kids.......
it doesn't talk much for a single remark, to destroy a life....

no there is no medical evidence to support any evidence of sexual conduct or anything remotely connected to a sexual crime..... the guy was convicted and charged by a jury of his peers, normal people that heard the words, child molestation and decided he was quilty immediately........

you want to label people as child molesters.... call them it to their faces, don't hide in a forum and call it a opinion........

[TaylorMade]

The accusation of manhating has arisen from time to time in forums in connection with Frances. It ticks me off, for I know her like no other and it is an accusation which does not arise in the real world.

Anyone who has seen Frances with men as I have, cannot be but struck by her obvious affection for them. They have always been a large part of her life and always shall be. To view how much genuine affection men have for her is also worthy of mention, and few would seriously accuse her of mysandry. She takes much time with men and their problems, and it would be not the first time a man has been grateful to her for her help.

Seeing her with her father and brother, her nephews and men friends I am struck by how close she becomes with them and how involved she becomes in their problems. Her ex husband still thinks the world of her and if anyone has reason to hate her it is he. My ex husband began by disliking her and now they chat away, laugh and show a great deal of affection for each other. She has a natural way with both genders, is popular and even loved by many.

Of course I would say this wouldn't I? I am her partner. It is but the truth and if she can be short and sharp with men, she can with women too just as often when the need arises. This does not mean she hates them, it only means she has irritated by what they have said or done. Once peace is made, and it is easy to make peace with her, she easily reverts to her more usual self, full of the banter to which she refers, and which seems to get the backs up of some people on this site. Frances very rarely holds a grudge no matter the offence.

My partner genuinely likes people, even those who are opposed to everything she stands for. Her "life is too short" attitude when it comes to grudges is both admirable and quite loveable.

People may believe her to be a mysandrist. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Some of my best friends are black. . .:p

*Taylor*

[DuckiesDarling]

Fran,

I'll come at this another way so maybe you can finally understand. Are you a mandatory reporter of child abuse in Scotland due to being a teacher? Our teachers in the states are mandatory reporters. If a child came to Scotland and was a student in your class, would you report his parents for child molestation if he made a comment about being circumsized? If you wouldn't then you really need to stop making such comments to parents here. If you would, I have a strong feeling you wouldn't be teaching anymore.

DD

[darkeyes]

Some of my best friends are black. . .:p

*Taylor*

One is Taylor..and horror of horrors.. that friend is a he...

[darkeyes]

Fran,

I'll come at this another way so maybe you can finally understand. Are you a mandatory reporter of child abuse in Scotland due to being a teacher? Our teachers in the states are mandatory reporters. If a child came to Scotland and was a student in your class, would you report his parents for child molestation if he made a comment about being circumsized? If you wouldn't then you really need to stop making such comments to parents here. If you would, I have a strong feeling you wouldn't be teaching anymore.

DD

Thats a bit silly darlin' darlin.. male circumcision is not illegal act, and it is not illegal for parents to make the decision for a child that the foreskin, a perfectly healthy body part, is removed.. and I am not stupid whatever else I am.. I repeat for what must be about the zillionth time.. unless there is pressing medical need, the only person who should make the decision to have any body part lopped off, is the person whose body that part is attached to, which means making a decision based on the best information, knowledge and advice of the day.. that I argue and contend, is what the law should be framed to say...

[DuckiesDarling]

Thats a bit silly darlin' darlin.. male circumcision is not illegal act, and it is not illegal for parents to make the decision for a child that the foreskin, a perfectly healthy body part, is removed.. and I am not stupid whatever else I am.. I repeat for what must be about the zillionth time.. unless there is pressing medical need, the only person who should make the decision to have any body part lopped off, is the person whose body that part is attached to, which means making a decision based on the best information, knowledge and advice of the day.. that I argue and contend, is what the law should be framed to say...

Right, it's not illegal, it's a personal choice. It doesn't make anyone who signs a paper to have it done a child molester, it doesn't make any medical personnel who perform it a child molester. Child molesting is a vile thing and it's against the law. You like to play fast and loose and only look at the molest definition in Webster's dictonary. I gave you the exact legal definition of child molestation and you ignored it in favor of pressing your point. It's not beyond the realm of reason to think that if you would consider a child molested because they had been circumsized you would be in danger of reporting a great deal of the human race. You don't like circumcision, fine, you are also not the mother of a son and have never had to make the choice. We can disagree on the point but I will not have it referred to as molesting my children. Anyone who ever touched my kids in a fashion that would fall under child molestation, I would bury in a heartbeat with no regrets and plenty of quick lime.

[darkeyes]

It is a personal choice.. for now.. my contention I repeat.. is that the only person whose personal choice it should be is the person whose bit it is... and babies cannot make that choice.. I quoted Webster to you.. there is more than one definition of the expression molest.. the one I quoted was less specific and more appropriate to child circumcision.. the one you use much more specific and not appropriate in this instance. I will say what I have said to you in private.. I am NOT accusing you of being a child molester.. my accusation is to those who advise and carry out the procedure of circumcision on baby boys, and legislators have a culpability in that they allow it to legally happen.. by the strict definition of American English I contend that it is so.. parents are driven down an alley out of love and concern for their child.. based on the advice they received from people considered caring professionals, I do not, though I admit once did, hold parents responsible for having done to their child something which their medical practitioners have said is advisable.. proper culpability and responsibility does not lie with a parent.. that lies in quite other quarters...

[Darkside2009]

Hmmm! Bit of an egotistical ramble by Blue led to this can of worms being opened again.

I'm sure that DD, only has her children's best interests in mind. Any loving parent, can only act, in what they perceive to be the best interests of their children. The fact that medical advice differs in America and Europe is to be regretted, however nothing will be achieved if the debate is not discussed in a dispassionate manner.

To bandy about epithets such as,'Child Molester' does not do anything to enhance the debate, or to persuade anyone of alternatives, or even if circumcision is a necessity.

Remain calm, think rationally, and examine the ideas propounded not the person. Think of the forum as an opportunity to persuade, rather than attack. If the other person can't be persuaded at least you have left them with ideas to think about. They might in time, come around to your way of thinking, once they've had a chance to mull it over in their own mind.

A big hug to DD, who has had her feelings hurt by these accusations, I still love you kid. lol

[TaylorMade]

One is Taylor..and horror of horrors.. that friend is a he...

You missed the joke... I'll explain.

In the states... "some of my best friends are black (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=some%20of%20my%20best%20friends%20 are&defid=2208630)" is a common fig leaf used by people to deny any prejudice they may have toward that group. IOW, yeah, some of your best friends are men, but - - doesn't make you any less of a perceived misandrist.

And the funny thing, with the lack of logic and running of emotion you've shown in this thread. . . you are coming across as the stereotypical hysterical woman.

*Taylor*

[sammie19]

Taylor I think you miss the joke. In this country we have precisely the same saying. She is taking the piss.

[TaylorMade]

Taylor I think you miss the joke. In this country we have precisely the same saying. She is taking the piss.

Wasn't sure. Fran can be a little thick at times.

*Taylor*

[darkeyes]

Wasn't sure. Fran can be a little thick at times.

*Taylor*

.. but only at times Taylor... there are those howeva who r a bit dim mosta the time an those who dont have an original thought in their poor lil bonces!!;)

[void()]

Apologies Blu. Because this is also what rational, mature adults do.

I read far too much into Blu's earlier post. We've talked privately. I was compelled of my own violation to apologize here.

Please continue with the pie fighting. Pies? See Blu and Duckie.

Void wanders along whistling some tune from the early twenties, which he can not place.

[void()]

"howeva who r a bit dim mosta the time an those who dont have an original thought in their poor lil bonces!"

I had an original thought, once ... years and years ago. Then Steven King wrote it as a story. I try to avoid original thoughts now. No, not really but I must say that in order to avoid deja vu. Vans are expense to rent. *dons best innocent face*