This just made me madder than...

On Tue, 29 Aug 2006 08:22:46 +0100, Linz
wrote:

Educated people have a higher probability to produce educated
^^^^^^^^^^
of producing
You'll not be one of them, then.


Thanks for the correction, but I'm surprised that you found only one
mistake. English is not my first language and I never really studied
it.
Now, if you have an interesting remark to do on the content, I'm all
ears.
Anne

oh my, and I thought things were bad here, I've not been keeping count,
but
it can't be many more than 10 times, but it's not breastfeeding that's
got
in the way, it's the fact that with SPD and a hip recoving from injuries,
it's just too darn painful, I miss it though and it's a hard thing for us
to
talk about

Oh, welll, that's a relief to know I am not alone! I know it's prolly
still
classed as early
days for me at 9 wks PP, but my idea of a great night in bed is one where
the baby stays
asleep!! I'm not totally sure what DH thnks of my post-baby body, but he
still seems in
to it... whereas for me, I'm proud of my changed body, but for totally
different reasons
- I've managed to grow and sustain a baby, both on the inside and outside.
God knows
I don't feel sexy tho! I've a baby in the crib next to me, boobs that want
to feed anything
with a pulse and a head that is happiest when fast asleep on my comfy
pillow. My bed is
not really the place to put you in the mood as there's invariably baby
dribble or breastmilk
on the sheets.

So no, breastfeeding isn't the soul reason I'm not "up for it". I'm tired,
I'm stressed, and
until I have been for my check up and coil fitting, terrified of getting
pregnant again-
breastfeeding put me off sex? LOL, no, sex did that!

You know, it's entirely normal to not get your sex drive back for many
months, did you read the rebuttal of the original article, I found that very
helpful, the way it talked about intimacy, that without sex you loose that
so you don't feel like sex because you are not intimate and it's a bit of a
vicious circle in someways. I'm not sure how to go about being intimate
without the sexual elemant, I find if I'm going to be intimate I want the
whole thing, but then it ends up being painful and I then avoid it for a
while, if we could be intimate without going the whole way then I'm sure
things would be much better.

Anne

"Anne Rogers" wrote in message
...
You know, it's entirely normal to not get your sex drive back for many
months, did you read the rebuttal of the original article, I found that
very
helpful, the way it talked about intimacy, that without sex you loose that
so you don't feel like sex because you are not intimate and it's a bit of
a
vicious circle in someways. I'm not sure how to go about being intimate
without the sexual elemant, I find if I'm going to be intimate I want the
whole thing, but then it ends up being painful and I then avoid it for a
while, if we could be intimate without going the whole way then I'm sure
things would be much better.

Anne

I read the original artical and the OP. DH and I lost some intimacy when
Jess was born as we just didn't have time. We introduced some general
intimacy and bonding back, by making sure, if we're watching the tv, for
example, we're sitting together. We lost more because when we're out with
the pram, we can no longer hold hands, which is another reason I'd like a
sling. We have a ban on using the computers after a certain time, or else we
get lost in our own worlds and miss out on conversation.

As for intimacy without sex... as my mum would say - there's more than one
way to skin a cat. Getting pg at the moment really would be my worst
nightmare come true. I'm by no means ready finacially, emotionally or
physically. But there's many ways to acheive "the end result" without actual
sex. You just have to have fun practising!

As for the article stating that breastfeeding makes a woman less sexual...
DH still sees my boobs as sexual but I don't - quite the opposite. After
having a baby do the world's least sexual thing to them all day, and then DH
expecting me to be able to mentally switch in to his actions in the same
area being sexual is something I can just about put up with, but no longer
enjoy.It's too weird for me at the moment, so yes, intimacy has been lost
there too.

Lucy

"Anne Rogers" wrote in message
...
I find if I'm going to be intimate I want the whole thing, but then it ends
up being painful and I then avoid it for a while, if we could be intimate
without going the whole way then I'm sure things would be much better.

*ahem*

"Everything but"?

Jess

FazBeta wrote:
On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 23:27:27 GMT, "kcarmstrong"
wrote:

Educated people have a higher probability to produce educated
children. It is therefore their duty to have as many children as they
can.

I would have thought it was the duty of all of us to look at how _all_
children can have good opportunities to become educated.

We need new ways to deal with overpopulation

Telling people it's their duty to have as many children as they can
would be one of those new ways, would it?

and to fight pollution.
It is probably not the non educated, who are known to breed more, who
will help to resolve these problems.

And I'm betting that bemoaning how awful it is that the Wrong People
keep insisting on reproducing is not going to resolve any problems either.

I think that the quality of the human species is decreasing because
educated people often think that one or two children are enough
whereas non-educated people don't stop before they can't have more
children. It is a real problem. I believe it will lead to the
extinction of our modern societies, like it certainly did for the
Mayas and other very advanced civilizations.

How exactly did that happen, given that people in those days had no
choice how many children they had (short of celibacy) no matter how
educated they were?


Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

"Leslie" wrote in message
ups.com...

kcarmstrong wrote:

The guy has eight children! In a planet with diminishing resources having
that many children is a form of pollution.

Human beings are not pollution. Children are not trash. Children
contribute to society as well as consume. Perhaps his 8th child will
discover the cure for cancer or aids.


What educated person could
justify so many?

I know lots of educated people with big families. Perhaps they don't
feel the need to justify their reproductive choices.

Leslie


A child born in English speaking North America will consume 30 times the
resources of this planet compared to one born into poverty in the poorer
countries. The good rabbi's kids represent the needs of am entire village
somewhere else. Perhaps your friends don't feel the need to justify their
reproductive choices but they do affect others. We live of a finite planet,
what makes them better or more deserving than the rest of us in terms of
allocating the resources of our planet to our children?

The chances of an eighth child contributing anything scientifically
important to manking like a cure for aids are almost nil; it tends to be the
domain of the first or second born.

KC

I know I'm chiming in late, here, but the really funny thing about this
is that under Jewish law and tradition, sex is the wife's right, not
the husband's... and I quote:

"Sex is the woman's right, not the man's. A man has a duty to give his
wife sex regularly and to ensure that sex is pleasurable for her. He is
also obligated to watch for signs that his wife wants sex, and to offer
it to her without her asking for it. The woman's right to sexual
intercourse is referred to as onah, and is one of a wife's three basic
rights (the others are food and clothing), which a husband may not
reduce."

And:

"Although sex is the woman's right, she does not have absolute
discretion to withhold it from her husband. A woman may not withhold
sex from her husband as a form of punishment, and if she does, the
husband may divorce her without paying the substantial divorce
settlement provided for in the ketubah."

(excerpts from
http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/...daism/sex.html

This seems to me in pretty direct conflict with this particular rabbi's
views on obligation and marital relations, don't you think?

kcarmstrong wrote:

The chances of an eighth child contributing anything scientifically
important to manking like a cure for aids are almost nil; it tends to be the
domain of the first or second born.

KC

Geez, I *knew* there was a reason I went to a liberal arts college; it
was pre-ordained as I was the eighth child....

Caledonia

kcarmstrong wrote:

A child born in English speaking North America will consume 30 times the
resources of this planet compared to one born into poverty in the poorer
countries. The good rabbi's kids represent the needs of am entire village
somewhere else. Perhaps your friends don't feel the need to justify their
reproductive choices but they do affect others. We live of a finite planet,
what makes them better or more deserving than the rest of us in terms of
allocating the resources of our planet to our children?

On the other side of that, our children are _part_ of the resources of
our planet. They're the producers of the future, as well as the consumers.

Yes, that rabbi had eight children. But last time I looked at the
statistics for overall reproduction rates in developed countries (which
was admittedly a few years ago, so put me right if I'm out of date), the
USA's birth rates were at replacement levels, and all other Western
countries had birth rates below replacement levels. The families who
have eight children - who are few and far between these days - are
balanced out, or more than balanced out, by the families who choose to
have none or only one. And if the birth rate of any individual country
drops too far below replacement level, then they're setting themselves
up for some potential major problems a generation or so down the line,
as the workforce shrinks just at the time that elderly retired people
are living longer.

The chances of an eighth child contributing anything scientifically
important to manking like a cure for aids are almost nil; it tends to be the
domain of the first or second born.

The chances of any child contributing anything scientifically important
to mankind are almost nil, but that's hardly the only way of
contributing to society. It's also important to have people who make
the food and clothes and take care of the people who can't work.


All the best,

Sarah
--
http://www.goodenoughmummy.typepad.com

"That which can be destroyed by the truth, should be" - P. C. Hodgell

On Sat, 02 Sep 2006 08:58:38 +0100, Sarah Vaughan
wrote:

Educated people have a higher probability to produce educated
children. It is therefore their duty to have as many children as they
can.
I would have thought it was the duty of all of us to look at how _all_
children can have good opportunities to become educated.

Yes for sure, but I don't see any contradiction here?!

We need new ways to deal with overpopulation
Telling people it's their duty to have as many children as they can
would be one of those new ways, would it?

You are quoting me out of context!

and to fight pollution.
It is probably not the non educated, who are known to breed more, who
will help to resolve these problems.
And I'm betting that bemoaning how awful it is that the Wrong People
keep insisting on reproducing is not going to resolve any problems either.

I'm not writing here to resolve problems, just to share my belief that
educated people should have as many children as they can. These
children, who have a higher probability of being educated, are more
likely to find ways to cope with overpopulation. They can find ways to
produce energy and food with no or very little pollution. They can
find ways for human to live on other planets, who knows! They can even
educate other people. If the balance between educated and non-educated
people is broken, it will stop our progress in many fields including
medecine, physics, biology, etc.

How exactly did that happen, given that people in those days had no
choice how many children they had (short of celibacy) no matter how
educated they were?

Celibacy is one probable cause, but I was mostly thinking of late
wedding, especially for women who seem to be able to have a "career"
in those society. Note that this is my BELIEF, I'm not an
anthropologist and nobody really knows why they are extinct.

Anne