Mike S. Adams is pretending to knowledge of evolutionary biology again, in service to his insane ideas about feminism. It's ugly and stupid.
My understanding of (and disrespect for) the underpinnings of modern feminism was actually fostered by a biologist who once made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support of Darwinism. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting Darwinism — the fossil record, etc. — he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith in evolutionary theory despite the lack of scientific evidence. He confessed that if Darwinism were not true, he wouldn't be able to sleep around.
At the heart of his support for Darwinism was a desire to get God out of the picture by any means whatsoever. And his desire to get God out of the picture was in turn motivated by his desire to copulate with as many people as possible without feeling guilty. I wonder whether some untenured psychologist would dare to publish a paper called "A Cognitive Dissonance Theory of Human Devolution." I think we all know the answer to that question.
I'm calling Adams out on this one: he's lying. There's this Friedmanesque habit on the far right of inventing these characters who are supposedly informed, knowledgeable agents working on the side the right-winger detests, who nonetheless conveniently make statements supporting their opposition, yet reveal that their mouthpiece knows about as much on the subject as their interrogator. Such is the case with this anonymous "biologist". Ask a biologist about the lack of evidence, and they will not invent some bogus rationale…they'll start ticking off lists of evidence on their fingers to refute the implicit assumption. I know. I've done it. I've seen my colleagues do it. His invented "biologist" does not ring true at all. (Oh, and we'd also correct the questioner on that strange term, "Darwinism". It's a creationist affectation)
For another, his excuse makes no sense. A basic parameter of reproductive success is not a measure of what a human being ought to do; also, biologists are well aware that there is more to reproductive success than copulation. Was the promiscuous biologist also avoiding contraception, and trying to get lots of random women pregnant? Does anyone in their right mind think that is a sensible strategy for propagating one's genes?
It's also simply irrational. Creationists sleep around, too. Biologists who accept the evidence of evolution, like me, do not. There is no connection between belief in a theory and sexual behavior.
All Adams has done is invent a phony puppet to personify his caricature of what evolution says—an utterly ridiculous puppet with no plausibility. The man is an incorrigible liar.
Why would he lie? He needs a few cardboard cutouts around to reassure him that he's right when he says even more stupid things. The point of his "Darwinist" sockpuppet was to justify an even more outrageous accusation.
Feminism is a minority social movement, whose members murder innocent children in order to obtain sexual gratification.
That's also a most contemptible lie. If it were true, would feminists have so readily adopted contraception? Would they lobby for equality in the workplace? For better healthcare? For protection from abusive spouses? For more research into breast cancer? For the right to raise their children as single parents? For lesbian couples to have children, with both having full parental rights? Look at what feminists do to determine what they want. It has nothing to do with Adams' claim.
Actually, I suspect that if you looked at who gets sexual gratification from killing children, you're going to be looking at a seamy minority of almost entirely male pedophiles. And I'd be surprised if any of them could be characterized as feminists.
I'm going to have to remember this article, next time that vile little man comes nosing around college campuses. There's nothing like a blatant series of unbelievable and offensive lies to discredit one of these scumbag wingnuts.
(via Feministing)
- Log in to post comments
Feminism is a minority social movement, whose members murder innocent children in order to obtain sexual gratification.
Of course! Modern-day feminists = Gilles de Rais! How silly not to have recognized this before.
I have to add my voice to those who thank you for exposing the vileness that lurks out there, Dr Myers.
I thought I had a pretty hardy constitution and could stomach a lot, but I felt the bile rise about three paragraphs into his tirade and had to close the browser window.
I know the source of his 'biologist' quote, which he has completely mangled. It's actually meant to be Aldous Huxley, who of course, wasn't a biologist, but was related to several famous ones.
It's all beautifully sourced here.
http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/julian_huxley_lie.html
Of course, Adams has it wrong on several levels at once.
I read this too and pretty much figured it was Shennanigans a-going on. I'm trying to imagine how this wingnut would even have friends in the sciences - let alone ones who would express themselves so crudely and thus back up his predjudices. The most sexually promiscuous people I know can explain their behavior much more sincerely.
Don't buy it at all. My guess is that he's taking some person he met once, taking some things deliberately out of context, and spewing lies.
Has anyone tried to call him on this publically besides the Tentacle-Man?
So Adams is quote-mining a common creationist quote-mine and getting it all wrong?
What.
A.
Freaking.
Moron.
Hasn't Adam any females in his family? If so, does he really think that they are content to just clean up and that they like to be oppressed? Does he really think a life as second-class human is acceptable for women?
What's wrong with people who oppose the same rights and opportunities for everyone, regardless of sex, race or creed?
Actually, I think you're misunderstanding him here, though I'm also not sure you aren't doing that deliberately for rhetorical effect. It reads to me as though Adams' imaginary-I-mean-biologist friend didn't mean at all that evolution-I-mean-Darwinism explained or caused his mating urges. Adams seems to mean that, Satanism-I-mean-atheism and Darwinism go hand in hand, while Darwinism and theism are completely incompatible. And if God exists, the biologist would have had to feel guilty about sleeping around, thanks to all that Ten Commandments and stuff; you know, the moral compass we atheists totally lack. So, the biologist had to believe in Darwinism, to support his atheism, so he could live a life free from any conscience about his actions whatsoever. See? It makes perfect sense.
OK, now that I've tried expanding his POV, I think I need to go wash out my brain.
P.S. Is it possible to get strike tags enabled here?
"There's this Friedmanesque habit on the far right"
I can only guess that you're not referencing Kinky...
Not only is Adams lying, he doesn't know Darwin. Darwin defended monogamy as an evolutionary development -- not sleeping around. For that matter, I doubt one could make much of a case that any of the Huxleys would have defended such a view, at any time.
D. James Kennedy's "recollection" of this interview changes from year to year, depending on who called him on it the year before and how they showed his claim was false. One could almost make a career tracking the evolution of Rev. Kennedy's tall tales.
I don't believe a word in those paragraphs. It is so stupid and pointless that he must have made it up.
1. Evolution is incredibly well supported scientificly.
2. Who needs an excuse to sleep around? Great pickup line. "God doesn't exist so go home with me."
3. The reasoning is specious as well. Evolution is a scientific theory and neutral like all of science on religion. People who accept reality are of all faiths and none.
4. Actually it is a really bad pickup line.
Guy: "Evolution is true, god doesn't exist, so let's do it."
Girl: "No way. You are too stupid to be attractive. Evolution has nothing to do with religion. God has nothing to do with who I find attractive. And, if by some miracle or accident our genetic material recombined, this would be a crime against humanity. We don't need any more lying morons running around.
There's more but this idiot has wasted 1.5 minutes of my life already. But it was funny in a sort of grotesque way.
Because christianity tends to have so many bedroom-related rules, they suppose that the non-religious must get their bedroom rules from 'darwinism'...
Which evangelist was it again who called his affair 'helping a neglected woman'?
Valid tags here are a href,b,i,br/,p,strong,em,ul,ol,li,blockquote,pre,s,sup,sub,u.
I think Gerard Harbison meant Julian Huxley, as indicated by his link. This nonsense keeps getting passed around, but Mike Adams is just clumsier than most in trying to make it his own. He's a deliberate liar (unless he's too confused to tell the difference between true and false).
I have, by the way, recently heard a rebroadcast of the original lie by D. James Kennedy. He and his people are shameless and continue to bear false witness.
I don't know which evangelist of which you speak Tilsim, but I'll guarantee a huge proportion of his 'flock' excused him with the ol' "humans are flawed; thus we need to turn to God to save us from our flaws" argument.
Like all people of his ilk, he sees the world as he wishes it would be and makes up crap to support his BS. The reality of the situation is that he obsessed over a girl/woman and that obsession was returned with disgust. This transfered to a general dislike/trust to the fairer of the species. Does anyone know if his physical appearance matches the ugliness of his mind?
Man, how pathetic do you have to be to make up lies to support your belief. I mean, that's just lying to yourself and then believing the lie you just made! That way lies madness.
Randy: The <s> </s> pair works pretty well as an ironic device a strikeout tag. Is that what you're looking for?
Dahan, when you wrote "that way lies madness", I thought you were referring to the comments on Adams article.
Boy, are they mad! In both common uses of the word.
No, I meant Aldous. Creationists confuse him with Julian.
The relevant quote is from "Ends and Means". That's the one the creationists routinely produce, mangle, and then finally attribute to Julian.
It's like 'Whack a Mole". A moron like Adams pops up with the mined quote, gets beaten down with the correct version, then a month later another creationist appears with the same thing all over again.
I think what we have here is some typical right-wing projection going on. I often read conservatives going on about liberals, feminists, whoever and saying outrageous, untrue things about our "lurid behavior" and you can almost hear a little envy like they wish they could do some of these nasty, evil things (of course, some of them do). I expect Adams longs for day when women knew their place and not much else.
I was re-reading Climbing Mount Improbable a couple of weeks ago, and it jumped out at me that Dawkins uses the word "Darwinism" repeatedly, as far as I can tell without irony, to describe standard evolutionary theory. I had also thought the term was a creationist affectation, since they're the only ones I ever see using it, but he seems to use Darwinism and evolution more or less interchangeably.
Is this something idiosyncratic to Dawkins, or has the use of the word changed since he wrote that book, or am I missing something?
I'm actually kinda relieved. I was afraid it was going to be another of those smug, moronic things where someone's trying to co-opt evolutionary language to argue that women are "naturally" supposed to be submissive, etc. :/
To be fair, I'd interpret the latter quote to mean that feminists want to have abortions so they can have lots of immoral sex without consequences, which at least has a vague, skewed resemblance to reality.
This guy is still a lying asshat, though.
The funny thing about the first "quote" is that all the atheists I know consider themselves to be pretty moral. Their morality may allow an open marriage where each spouse has a homosexual lover, because their creed is not to cause suffering to others. But they don't give a flying fig about what Christianity says is moral. I can't imagine an atheist saying, "I don't believe in Jehovah because if I did I'd be in trouble for my immorality," because the atheists I know think deeply about what their moral code is, and tend to stick to it.
On the other hand, it does seem that many Christians have a moral code which they routinely violate (when mere thoughts are sinful, how can you not?). Maybe there's some projection going on here?
Isn't it wonderful about how these people who allegedly claim to honor Moses' Ten Commandments, and yet, take the time to make a big song and dance number about breaking no less than 5 different Commandments at one sitting?
I think Mike Adams has been documented as a disgusting pig many times before. After reading that, I have to wonder if he actually knows any women.
I also don't understand how "feminists want abortions so they can have lots of immoral sex without consequences" has any relationship to reality.
This is all part of Adams's life-long revenge against the atheist girlfriend who dumped him fifteen years ago (really). Indeed, I think that may be his only motivation in life.
What I find most amusing in the argument that "evolution teaches immorality" is that actually it amounts to "zoology teaches immorality". All Adams' mysterious biologist appears to be saying is that he wants to follow his natural sexual urges - so rather than invoking fossils and gene mutation and adaptation over thousands of years, wouldn't it make more sense simply to refer to observed animal behaviour for justification? Such people do exist, just as some Social Darwinists observed the cruelty that exists in the world of nature and decided that that should be a model for human culture. Basing one's life and values solely on what goes on in nature may be a very bad idea, but that doesn't mean that those who report the facts of nature are lying, or looking for an excuse to sleep around.
Of course, if you want a justification for having multiple partners in order to increase the chances of having offspring, your best bet is to go to the Bible: Abraham, David, Solomon, etc.
I wonder if Adams is the long-hidden alter-ego of Logos, from talk.origins:
The Problem Employee
Can you get rid of the strikeout tags? It just makes for feeble attempts at humour. People should have to work a little bit harder at making jokes.
Well, I can think of one other possible explanation. Perhaps Adams really was talking to a real biologist and is just too dim to realize the dude was making fun of him.
Unstable Isotope, I think we can agree that feminists want abortion to be available so that women are free from the oppressive effect of unwanted pregnancies, yes? Well, to cretins like Adams, wanting abortion to be legal is equivalent to being "pro-abortion," and the oppressive effect of unwanted pregnancies is a desirable behavior modification tool designed by God (much like HPV and uterine perforations from more dangerous abortion techniques). Therefore, pro-choice feminists want abortions (remember, one cannot dislike abortion but still want it to be legal) so they can avoid the natural punishment for illicit sex.
In my defense, I did say "vague" and "skewed." And my point was that, as awful as he is, I don't think we should accuse him of inventing some weird blood libel legend regarding feminism, when pretty standard fundagelical interpretations of reality explain his statement. I.e., never attribute to creativity that which can be explained by sheep-like idiocy.
Gerard: Aldous it is. It's been a while since I've followed the links myself. The case I'm familiar with is Rev. Kennedy's attribution of the statement to Julian, complete with all kinds of detail that convict the preacher of either telling tall tales or hallucinating. They really do hold themselves exempt from the commandments they espouse so vigorously for everyone else.
There's this Friedmanesque habit on the far right of inventing these characters who are supposedly informed, knowledgeable agents working on the side the right-winger detests, who nonetheless conveniently make statements supporting their opposition, yet reveal that their mouthpiece knows about as much on the subject as their interrogator.
Could we dub this the "Fallacy of the False Confessor"?
Zeno (comment #13): Not only was your article on the odious D. James Kennedy worth a read, Julie's response in your comments section is also worth a gander by anyone interested in documenting this fellow's dishonesty.
Also, Zeno, I've finally got around to starting my own blog:
http://monkeytrials.blogspot.com/
I'm a newbie at this, but eventually I intend to (as you suggested) put up an article describing my beliefs and personal experiences, which came up (as I'm sure you recall) rather passionately in an earlier thread.
Re: comment #21
Many English biologists such as Dawkins routinely use the word 'Darwinism' not to refer to a belief system, taken on faith, but simply the idea that evolution occurs as a result of natural selection. An 'arch-Darwinist' in this context (something of a straw man) has sometimes been used to describe thinkers who tend to interpret all features of an organism as presently or formerly adaptive, hence selected for---which Gould and Lewontin famously lampooned as a 'Panglossian' paradigm. Yet, while folk like Dawkins have differed with Gould on this or that point, I don't think anyone denies that processes other than natural selection can lead to evolution, nor that the outcome of evolution is not always adaptive---hence the straw man.
Still, Dawkins' usage of the term is unfortunate. When his works appear in the United States, his straightforward and unabashed endorsement of natural selection as the most important 'force' driving evolution is apt to be interpreted as a declaration of faith. Sigh!
That was one of the more distusting wingnut creeps I've seen so far.
Probably not. It's deliberate dishonesty, not faulty reasoning.
Well, I read his essay - I want my brain cells back!
I did notice that he seems to meet all sorts of people that he can use as bad examples. Let's see, we have:
The bright young conservative woman who almost became a feminist.
The young liberal woman in Spokane who was livid.
The freely-fornicating biologist.
The slut-sympathizer-slash-sociologist
Aaaaaaaaaand -
Charles Manson!!!!!
There's something both funny and pathetic about that - maybe it's my suspicion that all but the last are about as realistic as the monkeys that might fly out of my butt.
If you think that particular Mike S. Adams article on feminism is odious, you need to read this one.
Small sample:
The guy just has no self-awareness that he's an insufferable prick.
Feminism is a minority social movement, whose members murder innocent children in order to obtain sexual gratification.
Plus they make a great soup. Everyone wins.
I dont know if he's lying so much as pretending the immature knee-jerk response a lot of students might first have when learning about reproductive success and the resulting sexual agendas of differing sexes based on maximizing fitness and blah blah, is some serious attitude. Students muse to themselves for an immature laugh about how they have a biological excuse for wanting to sleep around, before getting over it and going back to being human beings. No one takes that seriously in their ethical debates about whats a correct way to act. So yeah I guess he is lying.
Cogito (#30) wrote:
"...one cannot dislike abortion and still want it to be legal..."
Yes, one can, too. There are many things that I want to be legal, which I dislike. Your sentence is sloppy and only detracts from the rest of your post.
Raven wrote:
Actually, that one might work on me.
PZ: don't call this guy a ratbag. I had a pet rat once, and he was very nice and liked women.
I have moderate Asperger's, and it was perfectly obvious even to me that he was rhetorically paraphrasing the opinion of a group he disagrees with but was explaining the stance of.
Without reading any of the foregoing comments (a habit I have heretofore resisted) I have to say that this knucklehead needs to be met head on. His protestations are, as PZ has shown, pedestrian, obsolete, sophomoric, poorly thought out and previously dealt with (he will not be convinced).
Off Topic But
Today I tore out an old electric stove (circa 1960something) and replaced it with a Brand New Stove. After I had sliced through the counter top and wired a new recepticle and installed the anti-tip bracket and fired that puppy up I led the elderly tenants through the basics, such as setting the clock. As I thumbed trough the 60-plus page manual I came upon this entry: "Sabbath Function."
I didn't follow the detailed instructions but in a glance I gathered that the stove itself can be programed to change its behavior according to an imposed calendar. Will wonders never cease! Will it only cook in a certain way? Or certain foods? Beats me. I am not steeped or otherwise brewed in ritual. I'm just the guy who shows up at your house and fixes stuff for you. I do not hazard a guess about why a stove should know the day and one's rituals concerning such days. Unless one has trouble remembering for one's self.
For Adams, though, and for those who holler "Huzza" whenever he passes, these are just the sort of things that they love. They attempt to address uncertainty with lovely stories and assurances that "when everyone understands everything will be alright." All will be Right, that is.
Foolishness on this scale should be waved about as a warning flag to the generations 'a comin'.
Feminism is a minority social movement, whose members murder innocent children in order to obtain sexual gratification.
I think you're underreaching for what Adams is saying here. He's saying that feminists want to be able to screw around and achieve sexual gratification willy-nilly, and that feminists consequently end up "murdering innocent children" to achieve that aim, and that they don't care. It's a deliberately vicious wording of a commonplace right-wing talking point about sexual morality and abortion politics, but it's not (quite) a contemptible lie.
"life-long revenge against the atheist girlfriend who dumped him"
Well, hell. I had a girlfriend who dumped me and became a Mormon for a while (but she got over it.)
-jcr
@ dveej #41,
I think you may want to go back and read Cogito's post again. The statement you quote was rhetorical sarcasm.
First: The Geek Guide to Kosher Machines
Second:
Yes, that's what it is.
Houdini's Ghost: For a while I have had the hypothesis that it is also used in UK English.
A Sabbath program for a stove would be one that starts itself up on the sabbath, so the kosher-observant can cook something that they had previously placed on the burner, but then don't have to turn it on (work) on the actual sabbath. It also works for the oven, and it should be able to turn itself off, too. The elderly couple wasn't Jewish? or Kosher? The purchase was accidental?
Posted by: Crudely Wrott | June 5, 2007 11:28 PM
This is not a function aimed at Christians, but at observant Jews. Since one is barred from lighting a fire on the Sabbath (and thus cooking between sundown Friday and sundown Saturday) this allows you to program the stove ahead of time and not either waste energy by leaving it on or having to cook ahead and eat the food at whatever temp it happens to hold at without additional heating. For orthodox or conservative Jews who keep a kosher house, this would be a very welcome little trick.
It is, of course, another of those bizarre rationalizations that accompany religions. I have relatives (well, machatunim anyway) that won't drive on the Sabbath or answer the phone because it would be in the same catagory. Yet they also go to a synagogue that allows women to sit with men and directly participate in the services (which no orthodox Jew would ever countenance.) They all (orthodox or otherwise) pick and choose what of traditional law and practice they want to hold to. Just goes to show that you can rationalize anything if you're not to tied to reality or fact. I think that also explains Adams quite well too; he's as divorced from reality as any other religious person you'd care to point to, and he rationalizes what he wants to do without regard for what actually is.
PZ said: Creationists sleep around, too. Biologists who accept the evidence of evolution, like me, do not.
I realize it may just be a persona, but if you start saying things like this it's going to ruin your reputation as a hard-drinking, debauching, pirate type.
Sabbath function.
My guess, it's for those who obsess about work on the Sabbath. So the day before, you put everything in the oven and set the timer. Now all you have to do is figure out how to get the food from the oven to the table, and then from the plate to your mouth.
Wonder if there's a way to keep the food sterile while it sits in the oven.
Clearly, Mike S. Adams' thought processes are muddled on multiple levels. It takes careful consideration to figure out what he means to say. It would not be worth the trouble, except for all those whose prejudices he speaks to.
Tell me your secret Oh Great One. How do you say such things about people at Townhall.com and not get put on the lise of IP addresses that are not allowed to view the site?
I am but a humble blogger who had some mild-mannered criticism and I am banned from even following the link that you put up there to see what they had to say.
Personally, I think it's because I have a small IP address with few users, but maybe there is something I over-looked
Holy crap, that is so similar to Kennedy's screed it's bloody close to plagiarism. I mean from the Julian Huxley story to the connection into anti-feminism. Of course he tells it in a very juvenile fashion, like a teenager re-telling a story, who couldn't be bothered to remember pertinent details.
Diana wrote:
I think the explanation is certainly correct, but I'm not surprised that it wouldn't be an optional feature. Once a manufacturer has decided to include some specific function, they wouldn't decide to have it only as an option unless it's pretty expensive per unit. In this case, it's a software only feature, so no unit cost implication. In that case, they would include it in all models rather than suffer the (considerable) expense of multiple SKUs.
Yeah, that article is brutish and nasty. But it is nothing new. Years ago on Rush Limbaugh's show, I heard say plenty of times how there were only a handful of feminazis and how they took delight in every abortion that took place. Adams is just big more "in your face" about it.
Just for the record, I listened to Limbaugh i order to try to understand what this thing was.
"There is no connection between belief in a theory and sexual behavior."
Except of course my wildly popular, but hotly contested, "frequent sex improves finals' grades" theory.
MR: If I may paraphrase a recent PZ post: Please. Tell me more about your theory. It intrigues me.
Wow, somehow even with those highlights I wasn't expecting the piece to be quite as bad as it is when I actually read it. Although you have picked out the most hateful bits, there's certainly lots more stupid throughout.
One thing that we don't see in the initial quotes is that, not once but several times, Adams declares that he is "redefining" some term that refers to his ideological opponents, such as "liberal" or "feminist". I suppose that's on the same incredibly stupid level as the "jokes" which he recounts to the reader, where he congratulates himself on his wit for hurling childish insults. Unlike Adams, I do not need to redefine anything to point out that he's a dishonest, spiteful boor.
Seriously, if the anti-HPV prudes and their ilk who worry more that women might have more sex than about their health were as crude and transparently vicious as this fellow, I don't think we'd have as much to worry about from them. I don't see how Adams' piece could appeal to anyone but an extremist.
Of course! Modern-day feminists = Gilles de Rais! How silly not to have recognized this before.
Ah but in Adams world you would expect that of a catholic. A good protestant man could never do such a thing. Scumbag.
Does this mean I can hold every neocon who supported, and every congressperson who voted for, Operation Iraqi FreedomF^ck^p responsible for the murder of all our military personnel and all the Iraqi war dead.
Funny, King Solomon didn't need Darwinism as an excuse to sleep with his hundreds of wives and concubines.
Here's my riff on this.
http://www.anomalousdata.com/PermaLink,guid,188daaec-6190-4f89-be58-ad7…
My understanding of (and disrespect for) the underpinnings of modern Christianity was actually fostered by a theist who made a very candid remark about the foundation of his support for Godism. When asked about the lack of evidence supporting God - the fossil record, etc. - he confessed there was a very human reason for his faith. He confessed that if Godism were not true, he wouldn't be able to rape virgins and crucify their children.
See? I can do it too....
Ah, I see the fictitious biologist is a follower of the Bloodhound Gang school of sexual ethics!
("You and me baby ain't nothing but mammals/So let's do it like they do on the Discovery Channel . . .")
Uh-huh.
A sick, evil man whose writings you have exposed here, PZ. The comfort I have is that if he is right, and the Hell that exists for sinners is indeed the terrible place of eternal demonic torture that he and his fellows paint, they will themselves be going there.
Sometimes I despair for my fellow humans, and wonder whether creatures like this can be counted outside of that august company.
So, anyone read the comments over there? It's like Mike Adams is a jumping-off point for even loopier sacks o' crazy. I think this one's my favorite:
What a weird sense of fear. Who worries about this kind of thing? Is he that scared that some girl will, after much begging, finally let him stick it in, and after all his hard whining, she'll just go and abort it once she realizes what a schmuck he is?
And the kicker:
Because women having options causes male domination. I don't think I can add anything to that.
I'd say this is the worst part:
Mike Adams is a criminology professor at the University of North Carolina Wilmington.
The University should be ashamed.
Isn't Mike Adams the guy who started dating a college student in the young republicans while he was the campus sponsor?
Dan S.:
That song was huge when I was in France last year. The grad students at ENS Lyon played it at every damn party (they had a traditional dance for it, too). I wonder if I should write the physics version: you and me baby ain't nothin' but matter. . . .
It's pretty obvious why the guy who wrote this thinks "feminine lust" is a myth.
Ironically, between the emphasis on prayer as a relationship aid and missionary-only sex, that actually describes the commenter's own attitudes much more closely.
I should keep a collection of these statements to show my daughter when she's older, so she'll know exactly where the right-wing Christian types stand as far as her life goes. And they're so cooperative in producing words that will damn them...
Évidemment, ils sont fous, les Gaulois.
On another note... are you saying you studied at an École "Normale" Supérieure?
#68:
Fear of veto over reproductive action is exactly why opposition to birth control and abortion has appeared like clockwork among all 'traditional values' hindbrain-driven conservative movements world wide. The motivation is rarely conscious, but the biological drive to maximize reproductive power is what underlies opposition to birth control and abortion rights. Religion is just a pretext built up to rationalize what's an innate biological drive.
Évidemment, ils sont fous, les Gaulois.
On another note... are you saying you studied at an École "Normale" Supérieure?