Beyonce: Feminist roll model

[barra]

You addressed me as "young lady," which while wildly off the mark (I am neither young nor a lady), is nonetheless personal.

And yet you insist that your prescription of sex only within the boundaries of a committed, semi-permanent relationship is the answer to each and every one of these unique families, persons, and situations.

Do you see an inconsistency there? I do.

I took it personally because you addressed it personally. Your presumption that you know why I think as I do is amusing.

Not at all. You took it personally because it hit some nerves, perhaps in family history.

Statistics never speak for themselves. They have no meaning without context and interpretation. You gave your statistics context and interpretation when you demanded that single parenthood produce a perfect record of raising happy, well-adjusted children, then fell interestingly silent when I asked you to apply the same standard to dual-parent families.

If you find "Young lady" or "Young Sir" on his board too personal? or even insulting - ? I can't change your mind on that, it was not meant to be insulting or too personal. I am 58 and anyone who I think might be 50 or younger is deemed in that category now to me. I don't know your age btw. **I won't do it again to you, so sorry about that.*

And at risk of repetition results board from the government stats I provided on unwanted pregnancies, abortions, STDS and 100,000 never married single moms provide some key to some peoples attitude about sexual activity. Single parenting is a whole other story, and I barely touched on that because it is a new topic and one that has many avenues of thought.*

It is when WE - as TAXPAYERS are PAYING for others - ie health care: abortions, STDS. or at times social welfare for some - then we get to have a SAY and assess what the ROOT of those concerns might be. I never said ALL people are in this category, but many of those concerns I raised are due to "recreational sex" attitude.*

Please find the exact quote where I used the phrase "demanded that single parenthood produce a perfect record of raising happy, well-adjusted children" ------- I never asked for that evidence nor used those words. Neither did I say that committed relationships will produce such children each and every time. So it does not require any proof from me, because I did not claim any such thing.

But many times dual parent families will have more support for raising the children. A father or mother heading to work - and one at home to work raising the children, or both working or one partime, I believe that makes easier to provide for their children. Although providing is not the only measure of raising children it does ease up on some struggles that might happen. And yes married people can have financial struggles. But that is not the topic.

However, if someone cuts their income or level of support in half by creating a single parent household, that starts off more challenges from the get go for that family. I have not met many high income career single never married moms, although they must exist, it is probably rare. I believe many single never married moms, have more struggles to provide than does a two couple family.

My point about touching a nerve - using the word PERHAPS does not mean I know the origin of those nerves, but it does mean it "MIGHT" be part of it. So how you deem I am telling you how to think? If farthest from my intention and of course something impossible. Of course some of my own experience is going to come into play in this discussion. I have no problem with stating that and indeed mentioned it in some of my posts. Stating overall experience without private details is best on a public forum.*

In general, the topic I raised was regarding RECREATIONAL sex and consequences. I am not going to head into a topic about perfect parenting. That is a huge topic and will never all get answered on a forum, nor even a small tip of iceberg.*

My statistics links refers to the current problems with recreational sex mentality in our country. The reason for recreational sex or the people behind that activity I don't know their lives or can judge their whole lives and that is certainly NOT my point. They might all be fine people..... BUT, whatever their lives - as ADULTS - they should know SEX makes babies and it does affect others if STD's and abortions are in higher numbers.*

And yes, married people or those who said they were in committed relationships at times have stepped out outside their marriage and have "recreational sex". I put them as irresponsible and bad mentality, now they throw deceit, betrayal into that pot of chance to make a baby or get STD's.*

In some cases you are putting words in my posts, that I did not say.*
This is going in circles and I am getting off this merry go round of repeating myself in myriad of ways. Using the words. "IF", MAYBE, PERHAPS, SOME, MANY - means that not all the statement put forth applies to all people in that situation.*

That does take into consideration the people who are having "recreational sex" who are ULTRA conscientious and both parties are using birth control, and STD protection and making sure they keep it between themselves. Those people exist, but stats tell us a large number do not follow that protocol.*

I never even got into the broken hearts, or triangling love affairs, or boyfriends(gf's) who beat up the other lover(s) in this topic. Lets leave those consequences for maybe another time.*

There may really be no such true thing as "recreational sex" because consequences are many times not "recreational" if a baby comes (and is unwanted) or STDS occur etc.* That was my original point. People do NOT have to agree with me, but statistics back up my point in some ways.*

I have responded to you the best I can and so thus end with you now on this topic, due to the recycling of thoughts. If you choose to continue that is of course it is your prerogative - but as I said before - all the best.

 

[gerryh]

a two couple family.

wow, and here I thought you were a prude.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

If you find "Young lady" or "Young Sir" on his board too personal? or even insulting - ? I can't change your mind on that, it was not meant to be insulting or too personal. I am 58 and anyone who I think might be 50 or younger is deemed in that category now to me. I don't know your age btw. **I won't do it again to you, so sorry about that.*

I found it neither too personal nor too insulting. I'm perfectly OK with it. What I have a problem with is your continued denial that your address was personal. It's hard for me to have a conversation with a person who is dodging and ducking so much. Bring it straight. I'm not offended.

I'm 54, by the way.

And at risk of repetition results board from the government stats I provided on unwanted pregnancies, abortions, STDS and 100,000 never married single moms provide some key to some peoples attitude about sexual activity. Single parenting is a whole other story, and I barely touched on that because it is a new topic and one that has many avenues of thought.*

Well, I'll certainly never deny that peoples' attitudes about sexual activity are, at best, inconsistent, and more realistically, screwy. I simply reject the notion that because some sexual encounters outside of exclusive, semi-permanent relationships produce bad results, we should necessarily reject all such encounters.

It is when WE - as TAXPAYERS are PAYING for others - ie health care: abortions, STDS. or at times social welfare for some - then we get to have a SAY and assess what the ROOT of those concerns might be. I never said ALL people are in this category, but many of those concerns I raised are due to "recreational sex" attitude.*

Fair point. But I wonder if you apply the same standard to smoking, unhealthy eating, engaging in risky physical activity, &c. To what extent do "we, the taxpayers" have the right to limit individual freedom because we may (or may not) be paying for the consequences?

Please find the exact quote where I used the phrase "demanded that single parenthood produce a perfect record of raising happy, well-adjusted children" ------- I never asked for that evidence nor used those words. Neither did I say that committed relationships will produce such children each and every time. So it does not require any proof from me, because I did not claim any such thing.

Raht char. From Post #31:

"When you and others can prove no unwanted babies are born from such interactions, or that STDS are not increasing, or the children who do not know their father are all happy as peach, come back and post those stats."

I've boldfaced terms that demand perfect outcomes, such as "no" and "all."

But many times dual parent families will have more support for raising the children. A father or mother heading to work - and one at home to work raising the children, or both working or one partime, I believe that makes easier to provide for their children. Although providing is not the only measure of raising children it does ease up on some struggles that might happen. And yes married people can have financial struggles. But that is not the topic.

Generally, more money is better. And generally, more adults to take care of children is better. I could argue that an extended-family arrangement is better than a nuclear-family arrangement. But I really don't have the mindset of telling folk what's right and wrong, and especially not of basing right and wrong on broad generalisations that may or may not be relevant to individual cases.

However, if someone cuts their income or level of support in half by creating a single parent household, that starts off more challenges from the get go for that family. I have not met many high income career single never married moms, although they must exist, it is probably rare. I believe many single never married moms, have more struggles to provide than does a two couple family.

Really? I know a bunch of them. But again, we're back at generalisations. You seem to believe that because in MOST circumstances two-parent family is better than a one-parent family, that that should be the only solution. I, on the other hand, think that it's merely one factor that should be considered.

My point about touching a nerve - using the word PERHAPS does not mean I know the origin of those nerves, but it does mean it "MIGHT" be part of it. So how you deem I am telling you how to think? If farthest from my intention and of course something impossible. Of course some of my own experience is going to come into play in this discussion. I have no problem with stating that and indeed mentioned it in some of my posts. Stating overall experience without private details is best on a public forum.*

It's basically argumentum ad hominem, the informal logical fallacy of trying to put down your interlocutor by suggesting (without evidence) that she has a motive outside the argument.

In general, the topic I raised was regarding RECREATIONAL sex and consequences. I am not going to head into a topic about perfect parenting. That is a huge topic and will never all get answered on a forum, nor even a small tip of iceberg.*

My statistics links refers to the current problems with recreational sex mentality in our country. The reason for recreational sex or the people behind that activity I don't know their lives or can judge their whole lives and that is certainly NOT my point. They might all be fine people..... BUT, whatever their lives - as ADULTS - they should know SEX makes babies and it does affect others if STD's and abortions are in higher numbers.*

And yes, married people or those who said they were in committed relationships at times have stepped out outside their marriage and have "recreational sex". I put them as irresponsible and bad mentality, now they throw deceit, betrayal into that pot of chance to make a baby or get STD's.*

In some cases you are putting words in my posts, that I did not say.*
This is going in circles and I am getting off this merry go round of repeating myself in myriad of ways. Using the words. "IF", MAYBE, PERHAPS, SOME, MANY - means that not all the statement put forth applies to all people in that situation.*

And using words like "ALL" and "NO" means that all the statements put forth apply to all people in that situation.

That does take into consideration the people who are having "recreational sex" who are ULTRA conscientious and both parties are using birth control, and STD protection and making sure they keep it between themselves. Those people exist, but stats tell us a large number do not follow that protocol.*

I never even got into the broken hearts, or triangling love affairs, or boyfriends(gf's) who beat up the other lover(s) in this topic. Lets leave those consequences for maybe another time.*

There may really be no such true thing as "recreational sex" because consequences are many times not "recreational" if a baby comes (and is unwanted) or STDS occur etc.* That was my original point. People do NOT have to agree with me, but statistics back up my point in some ways.*

Yes, you are focussing only on the risk, not on the reward. I choose a more balanced, comprehensive view. Silly me.

I have responded to you the best I can and so thus end with you now on this topic, due to the recycling of thoughts. If you choose to continue that is of course it is your prerogative - but as I said before - all the best.

See ya. Or not.

 

[barra]

True but neither of those will likely make you enjoy an orgasm. And having casual sex isn't guaranteed to cause babies. We do have such things as contraceptive devices. lol No argument.
Why more so for women? Aren't men equal partners in parenthood? Wifey and I are equal partners in our parenthood. I kinda like it like that. I can't be the ONLY one. And since our last child was born, all we have had was casual sex. Even spur-of-the-moment kinda sex.
Oh, I see. You're limiting the male responsibility to just the physical aspects.

Well, as you may have noted, in my other posts I did point out that not all sexual encounters make babies and that sex is for enjoyment and not just making babies. Indeed I emphasized that point - due to many attacks stating that my stance of responsible sex somehow meant sex can't be passionate or fun.

My points in other posts of "recreational sex" is not referring to such sex that remains in strong, committed relationships or marriages in my posts. I am referring to sex with many partners, or casual sex without realizing one could potentially make a baby or sex without due precautions.

Yes, so true - birth control for both man and woman exist. As you can also see, my issue was that stats Canada proves many people don't know how to use birth control or are not using it at all.

Yes, absolutely a huge part of my points is about two parents are involved in making babies. And lovely to hear your view of equal partners.
Sex = making babies (the potential of) = two parents make those babies = two parents should be responsible for those babies. (Note, this is not a discussion about invitro fertilization). That is a whole other story, because then basically 3 parents many times exist).

Fathers are critical as are mothers. Absolutely! or at least a good father figure - in cases of widows etc. and same for widowers. Although single parenting many times is unavoidable and a personal choice to not remarry if one has children from prior relationships. And again, I emphasize that children in single parent households are valuable and worthy and many of those parents do the best they can and some superior jobs. But I think we see many times the struggles of single parenting.

However, part of my points with single, never married stats of 100,000 or more each year in Canada alone? means that the fathers many times are not stepping up to their role and responsibility - or perhaps the mothers have not told the fathers, that they are a father? Very unfair, IMHO.

But....if a father does not step up or sometimes the "father is not known", it is left up to the woman to carry the baby and deal with the consequences of single parenthood. So that does make the onus more on women for having a baby and being a single parent. Is it wise at times, does she have a choice? yes, but many will not want to give up their baby or abort. They don't realize this until they get pregnant many times. Otherwise stats Canada would be much lower in numbers.

My point was never to take away from critical importance of a father and indeed was to emphasize that the role is so critical so not to be taken lightly by women to have a child without a father in the picture to stand by her and the baby. LBGT couples have another strategy, but is not for this discussion.

Our not so distant history it was worse for women who got pregnant without a father in the picture. Because they were ostracized and the babies labelled as illegitimate, which carried huge stigmas and obstacles for those children their whole lives. But back then there was little or NO birth control knowledge and ineffective for the most part with following cycles. But this is now, ....we all know better ...or should know better.


It seems to me that many single (or people having an affair I suppose can be included) people do equate having sex along the same parallel as eating pizza or just a casual fun experience or thrill, but forget that it can and may lead to babies and other issues if one is not cautious. This is reflected in part on Stats Canada.

Sex in a committed relationship is different, and lots of "casual sex" between the two happens in committed relationships devoted monogamously. For many at least. The difference is these relationships in that most will be more committed if a baby might happen and of course no worry about STDS if they are faithful partners.

I believe the latter point is one of the main distinctions between casual (ergo many times causal) sex with many different partners.

If I am long winded, sorry about that.

Eventually, one can get to the "sex is fun" part - but I always think it must come with responsibility and honouring self and ones partner too.

Well, as you may have noted, in my other posts I did point out that not all sexual encounters make babies and that sex is for enjoyment and not just making babies. Indeed I emphasized that point - due to many attacks stating that my stance of responsible sex somehow meant sex can't be passionate or fun.

My points in other posts of "recreational sex" is not referring to such sex that remains in strong, committed relationships or marriages in my posts. I am referring to sex with many partners, or casual sex without realizing one could potentially make a baby or sex without due precautions.

Yes, so true - birth control for both man and woman exist. As you can also see, my issue was that stats Canada proves many people don't know how to use birth control or are not using it at all.

Yes, absolutely a huge part of my points is about two parents are involved in making babies. And lovely to hear your view of equal partners.
Sex = making babies (the potential of) = two parents make those babies = two parents should be responsible for those babies. (Note, this is not a discussion about invitro fertilization). That is a whole other story, because then basically 3 parents many times exist).

Fathers are critical as are mothers. Absolutely! or at least a good father figure - in cases of widows etc. and same for widowers. Although single parenting many times is unavoidable and a personal choice to not remarry if one has children from prior relationships. And again, I emphasize that children in single parent households are valuable and worthy and many of those parents do the best they can and some superior jobs. But I think we see many times the struggles of single parenting.

However, part of my points with single, never married stats of 100,000 or more each year in Canada alone? means that the fathers many times are not stepping up to their role and responsibility - or perhaps the mothers have not told the fathers, that they are a father? Very unfair, IMHO.

But....if a father does not step up or sometimes the "father is not known", it is left up to the woman to carry the baby and deal with the consequences of single parenthood. So that does make the onus more on women for having a baby and being a single parent. Is it wise at times, does she have a choice? yes, but many will not want to give up their baby or abort. They don't realize this until they get pregnant many times. Otherwise stats Canada would be much lower in numbers.

My point was never to take away from critical importance of a father and indeed was to emphasize that the role is so critical so not to be taken lightly by women to have a child without a father in the picture to stand by her and the baby. LBGT couples have another strategy, but is not for this discussion.

Our not so distant history it was worse for women who got pregnant without a father in the picture. Because they were ostracized and the babies labelled as illegitimate, which carried huge stigmas and obstacles for those children their whole lives. But back then there was little or NO birth control knowledge and ineffective for the most part with following cycles. But this is now, ....we all know better ...or should know better.


It seems to me that many single (or people having an affair I suppose can be included) people do equate having sex along the same parallel as eating pizza or just a casual fun experience or thrill, but forget that it can and may lead to babies and other issues if one is not cautious. This is reflected in part on Stats Canada.

Sex in a committed relationship is different, and lots of "casual sex" between the two happens in committed relationships devoted monogamously. For many at least. The difference is these relationships in that most will be more committed if a baby might happen and of course no worry about STDS if they are faithful partners.

I believe the latter point is one of the main distinctions between casual (ergo many times causal) sex with many different partners.

If I am long winded, sorry about that.

Eventually, one can get to the "sex is fun" part - but I always think it must come with responsibility and honouring self and ones partner too.

And first and foremost, forgot to mention, honouring the children.

wow, and here I thought you were a prude.

Whoops, hehe. Interesting mistake. always amazed that people read the whole thing.

 

[WLDB]

It is sad due to the degrading tone of what is supposed to be a beautiful act between loving people. Reducing "sex" to degrading words, does not equal "sex" in a loving form. It helps perpetuate stereotypes and using people as sex objects for lust, rather than respectful relations.

Some like it rough. If its consensual and what they like then its not degrading in any way. No one has to conform to the standards of others when it comes to sex or anything else for that matter. To each their own.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Didn't she have the best video ever?

 

[aiza55]

share some picture buddy

 

[spaminator]

Beyonce is subject of new college course
WENN.com
First posted: Monday, July 07, 2014 11:45 PM EDT | Updated: Monday, July 07, 2014 11:47 PM EDT
Beyonce's impact on popular culture is to be examined by students at the University of Victoria.
The class, which will be offered next year will "explore how we can situate popular music as a cultural construct" and examine the singer’s career.
Educator Dr. Melissa Avdeeff says, "It's kind of a way for people to think more critically about their listening and their watching habits because, obviously, Beyonce is very visually focused with her videos.
"It's just a way to develop a framework to understand why and how we listen to popular music and its role in society and having to think more critically about that as opposed to being passive consumers."
This isn't the first Beyonce-based college course offered to students - in 2012, bosses at New Jersey's Rutgers University launched Politicising Beyonce as part of the school's Women's and Gender Studies curriculum.
Beyonce is subject of new college course | Celebrities | Entertainment | Toronto

 

[gopher]

Halle Berry shows how to be a proper roll model:




[youtube]32FbVRrVVNE[/youtube]