Letters to the Editor
calcareous
Published Letters: 286 Editor's Choice: 48
-
the basis of waiting to have sex until marriage
[Read the article: Choose one: Sex or respect]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I've always thought the basis of restricting sex to marriage was a matter of the church exerting control over the private lives of its congregants. I prefer to think that they did so with good intentions, if misguided in their application. While I think of the Catholic church as I write this, it is applicable to other faiths as well.
- churches have always filled the role of "blessing" a marriage, and thru this exert a degree of control over all but the most hostile non-religious. Even lapsed believers whos religion leave no mark on their daily lives often prefer a church wedding.
- the traditional definition of "bastard" is born out wedlock, not conceived out of wedlock. To put it another way, though you may have sinned, the church (and only the church) are in a position to remove that sin. Unless you would be so irresponsible to give birth to a child who will always be scorned by polite society.
- statistically speaking, with regards to skill, half of all people are subpar lovers. Add to that the variability of individual preference and compatibility, and the odds are in favor of the first person you have sex with not being your best match. Without effective birthcontrol, the odds are also for a pregancy being the result of sex with your first. In a traditional setting, this would be followed by a compulsion to marry. Your marriage is going to be more durable if you don't know what you are missing.
In many ways, it boils down to a difference in emphasis on the rights of the individuals vrs the rights of the community. Traditional culture doesn't consider individual happiness and fulfillment to be all that important. Certainly not as important as supplying a stable and proper home environment to raise your children in the faith.
> men intellectually respect women only when they aren't having sex with them
This argument can also very easily support notions that gender equity has no place in a marriage, and that the woman needs to submit to her husband. Unsuprisingly, this goes hand-in-glove with the rest of picture.
Traditional social structures don't exist arbitrarily, they exist because the serve a purpose, and work more often than not. When some of the basic rules change (ie: birth control decoupling sex and childbearing) it follows that the prior structures no longer fit as well. Unsuprisingly, people have alot of commitment to these things, and culture doesn't change overnight even though technology permits it to do so. The present culture wars are part of that sorting out process.
Don't worry progressives - I think we're ultimately going to be the winners on this one, because one thing you can count on is people wanting to have sex. Now that the genie is out of the bottle with reliable birth control, it is only a matter of time, barring some sort of theocratic dark age that denies people access.
-
sour grapes
[Read the article: Why Hillary Clinton should be winning]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]> The exclusion thus far of these two vital states has come about because of an arbitrary and catastrophic decision made last year by Howard Dean and the Democratic National Committee.
It is not as if this decision came out of the blue. Florida and Michigan chose to disregard the national party in setting their schedule. Could either party expect to retain control over the nomination process at a national level, were states to be given free reign?
> Like it or not, we will choose the president under the indirect and fractured democracy of the Electoral College.
Oh the burdens of our constitutional system of government, whatever are we to do? To bad there isn't some mechanism for changing the way things are done. (sarcasm)
> According to the Obama campaign, democracy is defined as whatever helps Barack Obama win the Democratic nomination.
Oh come on - all successful politicians seek do this sort of thing. You could make a solid arguement that any candidate who is incapable of using rules and circumstance to their advantage is going to have trouble getting things done in Washington.
I'll agree that the clumsy way in which American democracy works leaves much to be desired. However in my opinion, should Clinton lose the nomination to Obama, there will be a silver lining to all the smoke and mirrors.
-
Graph from the Atlantic
[Read the article: Where have all the bohemians gone?]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]I saw an excellent graph in the Atlantic magazine within the last year, and if anybody could point me to an online copy I'd be much obliged. I've looked and not found.
Anyhow, the graph showed the US, broken down by county, in 1950 and 2000. Each county is color coded, and the color indicates the % of college graduates in the county, relative to the national average. If a county has less grads than the national average, it was colored lighter, and the reverse for being above average.
Comparing the 2 years was stunning. In 1950, there was a loose clustering of grads around cities, but plenty of mid-colored areas thru the middle of the country. In 2000, the map had changed to bright pockets of grads around urban centers, and a pale desert across large sections of the country. A few spots stood out in the middle, like Missoula MT, or Los Alamos NM (remember its relative to national average, not absolute number), but even with the exceptions the change was striking.