Soxy

*ahem* And I've got it on pretty good authority we're a fun bunch once you start dating us too. We're liberated.

Right. But equal partnerships aren't a bad thing either. And I mean, how often do women nowadays NEED protecting? What is my boyfriend supposed to protect me from? My final exam? Getting rejected from a PhD program? Getting in a car accident--he's gotten in more than me btw...I've never exactly been clear on what EXACTLY women need protecting from. I mean, life happens. If someone breaks into the home--maybe. If a woman is assaulted odds are it'll be by someone she knows (over 70% by an acquientence) not some stranger in the house. So, I'm unclear as to the protector role. No, there's nothing WRONG with traditional roles, with someone in a subordinate position. But wouldn't you rather have a PARTNER than someone you have to look after?

My personal stance on the issue would be love who you love--but do it safely, monogomously, faithfully and in the way that you would like to be loved. Love is a personal choice--one that I'm not willing to make for everyone. And, I'm out of this thread. Good advice CW--as always.

Here, here! Let us all resume our missionary only sex. So let it be written, so let it be done.

Lol, and I'm sure all the self-defense classes we take could really aid in our kicking of butt. Come on--we give birth, PA, don't you dare think we're frail. And my mom and several of my older friends have given birth WITHOUT anasthetic. Women might be physically smaller--but we've got a lot of toughness. And as for you examples of macho men. If I want to be dominated like that I'll go to an S & M place. And yes, there are lots of examples heroism in men. But there are lots of those in the WOMEN that served too. The nurses that went over seas and risked their lives too. That's not passive. I mean, if that's the ideal of masculinity I think we're creating SO MANY problems for our young boys in America. This Cult of Manhood has often actually been linked with domestic and sexual violence (I can e-mail you the citations if you want them)...We shouldn't prescribe what it means to be a man or a woman. That is an OBJECTIVE experience. What it means to me to be a woman is different from anyone else. When we tell people how to be a man or a woman we just run into problems....

Not playing college ball, in my humble opinion, would have cost ND wins--and they were right to fire him. It was a malicious lie that would have hurt the team. Because he wouldn't have had the ability to have the psychological insight to a lot of the playing and stuff. So, that's my clarification of that point. Doing gay porn does NOT hurt the team. That was my point.

No, I think those are 2 different things. Lying and saying you had experience about playing and education and stuff is different from not saying you did gay porn. One will cost a team wins and one means NOTHING in terms of the sport. Apples and oranges. I don't understand how this has anything to do with the team. Porn and baseball are completely unrelated--this won't affect the Indians performance--unless he tore his shoulder doing somehting utterly kinky. Saying that this is equal to what O'Leary did is completely absurd.

Well, next time I need a pool boy so would I...But other than that....

Well, geez, who the hell puts porn on their normal resume? Do you think the College Girls Gone Wild put that on there when they're looking for a job?

The big thing is, I would never, ever, ever, ever do porn. EVER. EVER. Straight, gay, three-way, whatever. No to porno. I think if the cameras weren't rolling some people might reconsider though. People will do some crazy stuff if they think people won't find out.

I have a more and more sneaking suspicion that the family values that were praciticed in my family were not your family...And that the family values my uber-Christian parents pray about might be more than a tad different than yours...So, I guess the question is how do we know that the "real" family values are?

But to consider women's rights emasculating must mean that there was something wrong with masculinity in the first place. I certainly wouldn't want to be defined by something that meant someone MUST be in a subordinate position to me. And often times THAT is what traditional gender roles meant--the woman COULDN'T work. Often because once she was married she was FIRED. The women's lib movement FOUGHT to have that changed. FOUGHT HARD. Women honestly did lose their lives. And while your girlfriend is CHOOSING to stay home it is just that A CHOICE and not something that is taken for granted. I'm also assuming that you have an equal partnership. That you aren't the only one making decisions. That you'll help out around the house. That you'll change some diapers. That you'll not consider it your right to beat your wife. That once your marrid you won't consider sex a marital right. These are ALL tennenant of the feminist movements. If men find them emasulating I have to wonder what kind of men they are in the first place. The feminist movement only says that all people are equal regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, class, etc. And that all people should have equal opportunity to the same kind of living conditions and life opportunities as anyone else. I really encourage you to look at some honest to goodness REAL history of the feminist movement--not just what you hear. Try reading Feminism is For Everybody by bell hooks. Feminism isn't about emasculating--that's the opposite. It's about EQUALITY.

I agree--I think we're not competing to win the world series, but I think the Sox are in it to win the Division this year...Also I think the bullpen is getting noticebly stronger...Pretty much I chalked this one up to a slow newsday, and they needed to counter a nice article about Mr. Zero with this crap. I was so mad when I read it I spent 20 minutes looking for the author's e-mail...

You know, I have no clue why this is such a big deal. Either the gay porn or if a guy was gay and playing in a major league sport. I saw this thread last night on Pale Hose. I mean, let's be honest--what are the odds that EVERY SINGLE PLAYER in MLB right now is straight. Pretty damn slim. I bet the ones that are bi or gay are in the closet because they fear the reprisals and the homophobia from their teammates and the public. I can't imagine living my life in fear of that--and knowing that my whole life is, essentially a lie. Pardon my language, but that's a s*** way to have to live. And so what if you are hit on my someone of your own gender? It doesn't make YOU any less straight--it just means people (gay and straight) find you HOT. Why can't you just treat it like if someone you wouldn't want of the opposite gender hitting on you? The few times I've been approached by lesbians I've always tried to be very kind and just say no thanks. It's not like they're going to beat me up for try to force me to do anything--I mean homosexuals are decent people too. I'm realy mystified by this fear, distrust and hatred of homosexuals, especially in more "macho" men. If anyone has insight I'd be thrilled to hear it.

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...-home-headlines Reinsdorf waves white flag early on South Side -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By Bob Vanderberg Tribune staff reporter January 27, 2004, 8:31 PM CST Rather quietly in recent weeks, two players who earlier this winter had been thought of as possibilities for the White Sox—pitcher Sidney Ponson and center fielder Jay Payton—signed with other clubs. Payton went to the Padres, Ponson back to the Orioles, his original team. Payton signed a two-year deal worth $5.5 million, Ponson a three-year contract for a total of $21.5 million. How foolish of Sox fans to expect Jerry Reinsdorf to pay $2.75 million per season to a center fielder who—dare we suggest it?—might be even better than Aaron Rowand. Or to expect him to shell out $7.5 million per for a pitcher who might add experience and victories to a rotation of Mark Buehrle, Esteban Loaiza and sure-fire Hall-of-Famers Jon Garland, Scott Schoeneweis, Danny Wright, Jon Rauch and Robert Person. That there was zero reaction in Chicago to the Payton and Ponson signings shows just how far off the map the Sox have fallen this winter. Surely Ozzie Guillen must feel betrayed, although the new manager should be used to this ownership's act by now. After all, he was here for the gory episodes of July 1997, when the Sox rewarded Robin Ventura for his ahead-of-schedule return from a broken ankle by trading off one-sixth of a division-contending roster for a gaggle of minor-leaguers. Since his return to the South Side, Guillen has watched ownership run up the White Flag before the season even starts. He had every right to believe that at least two or three of the team's free agents would be re-signed. Instead, all have departed, almost all for less than break-the-bank money: Bartolo Colon, Roberto Alomar, Carl Everett, Tom Gordon, Scott Sullivan and even Tony Graffanino, Chairman Reinsdorf's "favorite player." (One wonders how much of a favorite Graffanino really was if the chairman couldn't go any higher than $850,000 a year to keep him.) If anything has become clear over the last couple of months, it is this: Now is the time for Reinsdorf and his ownership group to seek a buyer—someone who would be dedicated to making the White Sox viable again, someone who would put money into the team, someone who would laugh at the idea of a $58 million payroll for a baseball team in the nation's third-largest market, someone who would find ludicrous the concept that the Sox can't compete with the Cubs. The rule in pro sports is you have to spend money to make money. But when it comes to the Sox these days, the only people spending money are the season ticket-holders: For a lower-deck seat between the bases Friday through Sunday, they're spending $11 more per ticket than they did only two years ago. Ten years ago this summer, the White Sox were coming off a division title and seemed on their way to another one—not to mention a total home attendance of about 2.7 million—when a work stoppage driven by hard-liners, chief among them Reinsdorf, shut things down until the following April. Say what you will about the sterility of Reinsdorf-Thompson Field at U.S. Cellular Comiskey Place, the Sox drew—in the last three home games before the '94 strike began—41,218, then 42,300 and finally 42,507 for a weekend series sweep of the still-developing Seattle Mariners. The upper deck hasn't become any steeper or higher since that marvelous weekend. What has happened? Three kicks in Sox fandom's gut, that's what. The strike: You don't push for a work stoppage when your team has a legitimate shot at the World Series, particularly when that team hasn't been to a World Series since 1959 and hasn't won one since 1917. Rehiring Terry Bevington: After a decent Sox team managed to drift out of contention in 1996 under the overmatched Bevington, most assumed he would be dumped at season's end. Names like Leyland and La Russa were bandied about as replacements. Instead, the club gleefully announced "Bev" had been rehired for 1997, thus deflating the spirits of Sox supporters everywhere. The White Flag: The following July, the Sox traded a still-productive Harold Baines—to make room in the lineup for Mario Valdez (Mario Valdez!)—and their two best pitchers (Wilson Alvarez and Roberto Hernandez) and another serviceable arm (Danny Darwin) for seven minor-leaguers, only one of whom (Keith Foulke) made a lasting impact. The deal came with the Sox hopelessly behind first-place Cleveland by 3½ games. Now comes this glorious off-season. While the Cubs bring in Derrek Lee and LaTroy Hawkins and pursue Greg Maddux, the Sox bring in guys who last season either were out of baseball or out of the country. Ah, but who needs quality replacements when all you lost from the 2003 team were the No. 1 starting pitcher, the second baseman, the center fielder, the top setup reliever and the top utility man? Should anyone be surprised that interest has dropped so precipitously? The only way to restore it is through new ownership. The fear, however, is that current ownership has turned off so many Sox fans and diminished interest to such a degree that any prospective buyers might ignore the throngs of 1994 and the preceding years and accept the goofy notion "Chicago always has been a Cubs town" and the South Side ballclub is forever doomed to second-class status. In that case, Reinsdorf should move the team to Indianapolis. If he's going to have a small-market team, he might as well operate in a small market. There's a nice new ballpark there that seats about 15,000, perfect for the typical Sox crowd. And the city is close enough for Sox fans here to drive down for a weekend series every now and then. Best of all, the Sox brass wouldn't have to worry about those dreaded Cubs anymore.

Sideshow, I believe Nixon never actually read that report--he heard a summary of it and threw it away as it contradicted what he thought about the weed.. And I agree with whomever said the go to Canada for it. We're getting all of our other drugs (prescription stuff) from Canada so why not "marihuana" too. Plus, I've "heard" they have better stuff up there...

Woohoo! The Barbarian Invasions--I think it'll go all the way for foreign films. Just for the record.

For where it was found go here (weird, I seem to have remembered it was found in a garbage can--guess I'm getting senile in my old age): http://www.webcom.com/~gnosis/library/thomas_poxy.htm For a more general stuff go here: http://www.gnosis.org/naghamm/nhl_thomas.htm

1 Peter Chap 20 19 For it is a credit to you if, being aware of God, you endure pain while suffering unjustly. 20 If you endure when you are beaten for doing wrong, what credit is that? But if you endure when you do right and suffer for it, you have God's approval. 21 For to this you have been called, because Christ also suffered for you, leaving you an example, so that you should follow in his steps. How's that one? The essence is there--but not the words....

Finally, something we agree on. I love country music--but I'm only allowed to listen to it when no one else is home...I'm the only one in my suite that likes it. That and bluegrass. Oh man! I love it!

I usually agree with Maddox--but hm, well, I have to disagree with him here. And come on "feminazi"--when was the last time feminists murdered 11 million people? AND, men can be feminists too. Several of my male friends--and previous boyfriends, have been feminists. In fact, I bet there are a few feminist men lurking around here too... Sigh, have you hugged a feminist today? I won't even mention the, uh, fringe benefits of loving feminists either...

Oh, yes we did--they might have changed the title--but I think it's still the same... But the thing was Jesus was way easy. I got a 98% on the midterm and a 96% on the final. Heehee. I love St. Olaf College.

Now, I don't think you'll be shocked Alex to find out that I'm a huge feminist. I've never actually burned a bra--but really only because it's quite cost prohibitive. I'm not at all put off by stay at home moms. In fact, I think that feminists that say EVERY WOMAN MUST WORK don't get it either. The point is, women should have the choice. Men should do. At this point in my life I don't know if I want to get married or have children. Maybe I don't want to do either--maybe I'll want to do one. Maybe my husband will want to be the one to stay home. But the point is--that I have the right to make that choice for myself. I have the right to apply for graduate schools and to sit through interviews and NOT be asked about when I want to start a family. Or if I have a boyfriend. Or if I want children. Your significant other has the right to want to stay at home with wee ones. And she has the right to want to go to work when she wants to, if she wants to. Essentially, that's all the liberal movement, as I see it is--creating those equal opportunities. So, I'm not belitting choices made by other women--I may not understand them. But they may not understand my choices either. Some men may not understand stay at home dads--but stay at home dads may not understand men that don't want to chill with their kids. Hope that helps.

Mark has the most human Jesus--that's why I like it. I like that there's no birth narrative and that he's divinely chosen as opposed to born. Also, since it's the earliest I think it's the truest picture....

I read the Gospel of Thomas (the actual Gospel) in my class called Jesus. But my understanding of Q is that it is lost and can't be found. I've had many very interesting discussions with very devout and conservative in their reading and interpretiation of the scriptures Christians about the books of the Bible that were excluded. Leaving the church is something that I've always struggled with--and when I had to ask the college Pastor to speak at an event I was sponsoring I was shocked when he asked me if I'd ever considered going to seminary (obviously the answer is no). The point is, I think that books like the Gospel of Thomas speak to people in ways other Gospels may not--I think that the essence of compassion that is Jesus is very much alive in that manuscript and it belongs in the Canon. In the end I think that books like the Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Mark (the one actually in THE CANON) encapsulate much more my idea of what Jesus and God should be--and how we can and should relate to each other--and how we actually DO relate to each other.