Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
eHarmony Hates Gays, Married Guys, Short People
eHarmony--the dating site of choice for those looking to get hitched--has a long-standing "straight people only" policy, which was challenged yesterday in a lawsuit. Linda Carlson tried to use the site to meet a woman, and was declined. She's not the only one peeved at eHarmony:
eHarmony had just prevailed in an earlier lawsuit yesterday. A man sued when his membership was declined because he was “legally separated” from his wife. (Technically, eHarmony felt, the man was still legally married to his wife.) And in April the company also faced complaints that they were rejecting men who weren’t tall enough.
The company issued a statement saying:
The research that eHarmony has developed, through years of research, to match couples has been based on traits and personality patterns of successful heterosexual marriages. Nothing precludes us from providing same-sex matching in the future, it's just not a service we offer now based upon the research we have conducted.
Others have pointed out that eHarmony's founder is an evangelical Christian who once had warm and fuzzy ties to James Dobson's Focus on the Family.
Still, as one article helpfully notes, outcasts who like the eHarmony model of high fees, absurdly long questionnaires, and few matches are not without options:
A rival site launched Friday catering exclusively to gay men. (It’s called myPartnerPerfect.com, and offers its males-only service for just $37.95 a month, or $204 for a year).
These cases have a lot in common with the roommates.com case I wrote about in "SWF ISO GBM Roommate," where the judiciary was called into to decide whether websites that let people specify their desire for roommates of a certain sex, religion, age, etc. are discriminatory.
Via H&R reader D.C.
|6.1.07 @ 12:56PM|#
I tried eHarmony once. Specified that I was looking for somebody close by, didn't want to move for a relationship, and emphatically didn't want anything long-distance. They gave me eight matches, the closest of which was 150 miles from me. That's one hell of a formula.
|6.1.07 @ 12:59PM|#
Yes, lets waste time in court trying to solve a problem the market will solve on its own. It is not like e-harmony is the only government approved way to cruise the personal ads. If gays want to find lovers and married people are looking for hookups, I have no doubt the market will and probably already has responded with services that cator to such needs. If e-harmony doesn't want to take their money, I am sure someone will.
Brian Defferding|6.1.07 @ 1:07PM|#
It's silly to see someone sue over this when you get sites like OkCupid.com that accept everyone (gays/staight/bi), and you can seek out either long-term dating, sex partners only, or just looking for new friends, has really lengthy questionnaires and personality tests that matches others for you, and is 100 PERCENT FREE. If you ask me it's better than EHarmony plus you stay away from the prissy drama queens that watch Oprah and Daily Soaps.
Dan T. asked me to phone this |6.1.07 @ 1:12PM|#
So now libertarians are siding with evangelical Christians in their hatred of gay people? Wow, that's some impressive commitment to freedom and justice ya got, there.
|6.1.07 @ 1:12PM|#
The Court really needs to impose sanctions on the fool attorneys who filed this claim.
|6.1.07 @ 1:14PM|#
If you ask me it's better than EHarmony plus you stay away
from the prissy drama queens that watch Oprah and Daily
Soaps
Brian, we wouldn't have any, well, issues, being raised here would
we?
|6.1.07 @ 1:15PM|#
Free speech, right to free exercise of religion, right of association. Quaint ideas that have no place in the 21st century.
ed|6.1.07 @ 1:16PM|#
See how far you get if you confess your atheism.
I completed the "absurdly long questionnaire" a couple years ago
and the result was something like (and I'm quoting from memory
here) "Go to hell."
|6.1.07 @ 1:18PM|#
"See how far you get if you confess your atheism.
I completed the "absurdly long questionnaire" a couple years ago
and the result was something like (and I'm quoting from memory
here) "Go to hell."
Ed is that really e-harmony's fault? It seems to me that your
experience is the result of e-harmony being populated by mostly
Christians looking for other Christians to marry. That is not
e-harmony's fault. It just means that you are a hell of a lot
better off using a different service.
|6.1.07 @ 1:18PM|#
"the eHarmony model of high fees, absurdly long questionnaires,
and few matches"
Oof.
M|6.1.07 @ 1:19PM|#
I don't want a harmonious relationship. I want a dissonant
relationship.* Can I sue?
*I know, I know, why else would anyone post here.
|6.1.07 @ 1:21PM|#
Dan T. asked me to phone this one in for him | June 1, 2007,
1:12pm | #
So now libertarians are siding with evangelical Christians in their
hatred of gay people? Wow, that's some impressive commitment to
freedom and justice ya got, there.
Jennifer IS DAN T. !!!? Dan T. un-masked at last?
|6.1.07 @ 1:24PM|#
I have always said "Dan T" is a comic parody. Know we know the feral genius behind it.
Christopher Monnier|6.1.07 @ 1:25PM|#
> This is as stupid as suing a futon store because they
won't sell you a waterbed.
Great analogy.
|6.1.07 @ 1:30PM|#
"eHarmony Hates Gays, Married Guys, Short People"
Using the word "hate" in this context is really, really lame.
ed|6.1.07 @ 1:30PM|#
"Ed is that really e-harmony's fault?...e-harmony being
populated by mostly Christians looking for other Christians to
marry"
John,
My point is that if e-Harmony is a Christians-only dating service,
they should state it up front and not waste the time of we
intelligent humans.
|6.1.07 @ 1:33PM|#
A barber can tell a woman, "We don't do highlights and women's
hairstyles. Just flat-tops and crew cuts," and be well within the
law.
He cannot, however, tell a woman wanting a men's haircut "We don't
allow women customers."
If e-harmony is willing to set up gay men with women, using exactly
the same process by which they set up straight men with women, I
don't see the problem. It's just a matter of e-harmony not selling
a product that gay men are interested in.
|6.1.07 @ 1:36PM|#
Personally, ed, all I had to do was watch a billion eharmony commercials and listen to that nauseating Natalie Cole song to know that the service not only wasn't for me, but that I would probably vomit all over any woman I met on it.
Robert|6.1.07 @ 1:37PM|#
If ever there were a rational, non-bigoted, cold-blooded,
impersonal, business justific'n for excluding homosexuals from
anything, this is obviously it.
Here we have this database of people looking to marry. You think
it'll be very productive to try to match them with partners of the
same sex? Heh...surprise!
|6.1.07 @ 1:38PM|#
"My point is that if e-Harmony is a Christians-only dating
service, they should state it up front and not waste the time of we
intelligent humans."
But of course they are not a "Christian only" service. It is not
their fault you don't like Christians.
The word was God|6.1.07 @ 1:38PM|#
We intelligenter humans let the direct object take the accusative case, us do.
|6.1.07 @ 1:39PM|#
Having never used eHarmony, I cannot attest to the upfront
clarity of the "unmatchables" but I feel that eHarmony should be
able to match whomever to whomever they want. So what if they don't
match pagans and gays and atheists and feminists and NAMBLA
members*? There should be a diversity in the marketplace and
eHarmony is not, by any stretch, the only player.
*Besides, as Pat Robertson has told us, these people were
responsible for 9/11 and Katrina and deserve no life mate.
LarryA|6.1.07 @ 1:42PM|#
There are already ads on TV saying, "If you were rejected by
eHarmony come on over to our site."
So now libertarians are siding with evangelical Christians in
their hatred of gay people? Wow, that's some impressive commitment
to freedom and justice ya got, there.
Suppose eHarmony took Carlsen's money, knowing they couldn't make
any valid matches for her. Wouldn't that be fraud? Think she would
have sued for that?
If e-harmony is willing to set up gay men with women, using
exactly the same process by which they set up straight men with
women, I don't see the problem.
The straight women would. eHarmony promises compatible matches.
Again, that's fraud.
BTW, the Google ad to the right on my screen is for "Real Jock Gay
Fitness Community."
|6.1.07 @ 1:50PM|#
I just took a look at PlentyOfFish.com, appears to be free
(supported by Google ads) and has a truly interesting forum
community.
They match straights and gays, but conspicuously omit the man-dog
relationships that have been in such demand since states began
allowing gay marriage.
Your dog wants tubesteak.
Jennifer|6.1.07 @ 1:52PM|#
I AM NOT DAN T., for Chrissake.
I may be a former club dancer-slash-phone whore-slash-public school
teacher-slash-pothead, but I have some standards,
dammit!
|6.1.07 @ 1:53PM|#
They match straights and gays, but conspicuously omit the
man-dog relationships that have been in such demand since states
began allowing gay marriage.
BRILLIANT! Sehr klug!
|6.1.07 @ 1:55PM|#
Should you be able to sue J-Date if you are not Jewish and they
reject your membership? Clearly not, that is a forum for Jewish
singles to hook up with each other.
As for the height thing, it is a sad fact that woman consider
shortness an extreme negative in dating matchability. I read a
study that determined being very short, under 5'3" or so was as
negative to a man's dating prospects as being convicted of a
felony.
My wife is 5'7" and I am a 5'8" and she has stated very bluntly
that if I was any shorter she would not have dated me.
lunchstealer|6.1.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Using the word "hate" in this context is really, really
lame.
Using two reallys in this context is really really
hyperbolicious.
|6.1.07 @ 1:56PM|#
Well, I guess if it's illegal to offer a hetero-only dating
site, it's also illegal to offer a gay one. Can MyPerfectPartner
expect to be sued?
These kinds of lawsuits are so ridiculous: If you don't like a
website, find another one that suits your fancy. It's a big net out
there.
Jennifer|6.1.07 @ 1:58PM|#
The next lunch you steal's gonna have arsenic in it, sugarplum. I'll see to it personally.
ed|6.1.07 @ 2:02PM|#
the service not only wasn't for me, but that I would
probably vomit all over any woman I met on it.
Indeed, the commercials are lame and the featured lovers are
nauseating. I labored over the questionnaire just for kicks and I
honestly couldn't care less who they cater to. In fact, by favoring
the mildly retarded, they are doing the rest of us a favor by
keeping us out. So yeah, eHarmony is providing a public
service after all. And suing them for not catering to every
lifestyle imaginable is stupid and misguided.
|6.1.07 @ 2:04PM|#
"They match straights and gays, but conspicuously omit the
man-dog relationships that have been in such demand since states
began allowing gay marriage."
Do they really match straights with gays? How do those
relationships work out I wonder?
|6.1.07 @ 2:06PM|#
I may be a former club dancer-slash-phone whore-slash-public
school teacher-slash-pothead, but I have some standards,
dammit!
Jennifer,
Since you are listed your shameful and sordid professions, why did
you leave out worst and most current: journalist.
Oh yeah, that would undermine your assertion that you have some
standards. ;~)
Franklin Harris|6.1.07 @ 2:13PM|#
I completed the "absurdly long questionnaire" a couple years
ago and the result was something like (and I'm quoting from memory
here) "Go to hell."
What do you expect from a company that got its start with radio ads
on Dr. Laura?
Dave W.|6.1.07 @ 2:16PM|#
Naw, Jennifer is Dave W.
Heh. Over at the Grill-Aide's they say they don't like all the red
versus blue sniping that goes on here in the comments section. But
then you get someone like me who isn't red or blue (that I know
of), and they don't like that either.
I think there may be room for someone to set up a "corporatarian
hegemony" site, and ban people who can't hew close to that mindset.
maybe Grill-Aide's is that site, but it is just that
corporatarian-ness is the kind of love that dare not speak its name
these days.
I like the Jennifer blog because we get to 2d guess her when she
does her 60 Minutes style interviews. I always wanted to be able to
say right to an Ed Bradley or a John Stossel: "No, man, here is
what you really should have asked." Of course, hindsight is 20/20.
The key is that we have a lot of fun over there.
Oh, and jennifer, you are really into talking about sex and
masturbation and stuf. Here is a fun link about something I had
never thought about:
http://juliansanchez.com/notes/archives/2007/05/hungry_like_the_wolf.php
|6.1.07 @ 2:16PM|#
"Since you are listed your shameful and sordid professions, why
did you leave out worst and most current: journalist."
God that is true. Jennifer why did you go to the darkside like
that? Why couldn't you do something respectible like sell drugs or
be a hooker?
|6.1.07 @ 2:18PM|#
I have a friend who was once a patient of the founder back in
his psych days, and she said that he is very cool about the
religion thing. Her Christian background was making her feel guilty
about her sexual urges and he told her that those urges were
natural and therefore from God and therefore nothing to feel guilty
about.
So he may be an Evangelical Christian, but he is not a batshit
crazy Westboro Baptist Church style Christian.
|6.1.07 @ 2:20PM|#
I may be a former club dancer-slash-phone whore-slash-public
school teacher-slash-pothead, but I have some standards,
dammit!
Well...at least, you've never practiced that most vile and
disgusting of all professions - dare I name it - you've never been
a...a literary, uh... critic. You haven't, have you?
;-)
Rhywun|6.1.07 @ 2:21PM|#
eHarmony's founder is an evangelical Christian
I knew it! I looked into them years ago, saw the "we don't do gays"
thing, and moved on (I didn't know about the "no short guys" policy
either--double whammy); but I remember thinking the whole tone of
the place screamed "evangelical Christian". And that was before
they started airing those smarmy television commercials.
I guess the relevant point is that I didn't care that they don't do
gays. I just went somewhere else.
Jennifer|6.1.07 @ 2:28PM|#
Since you are listed your shameful and sordid professions,
why did you leave out worst and most current:
journalist.
Nonsense. I'm one of the good media jackals.
Boasting: check out my latest blog post, which links to my latest
article. I'm apparently the first person in the state to break the
story of how the Department of Children and Families is harassing
homeschooling parents by threatening to take custody of their
children.
That was my first story on the topic. It will NOT be my last. My
editor already told me I can do more on the subject.
lunchstealer|6.1.07 @ 2:33PM|#
I've clearly lost it. I've had over an hour and a half and I still haven't come up with a funny J-Date joke.
|6.1.07 @ 2:40PM|#
That was my first story on the topic. It will NOT be my
last. My editor already told me I can do more on the
subject.
Way to go, Jennifer! That's great!
|6.1.07 @ 3:15PM|#
Like Ed, I too put myself through the eHarmony online dating
inquisition where I mentioned my atheism and I also got rejected.
It was only after I heard about Dr. Warren's fundie ties that I put
two and two together.
Fine, If Warren and his fellow bible-beaters don't believe
nontheists, homosexuals, or little people deserve lovin' because
they somehow don't met their ridiculous standards, that's their
call.
I'll take my money elsewhere.
D.A. Ridgely|6.1.07 @ 3:18PM|#
Will URKOBOLD be setting up e-Disharmony for those seeking incompatible troll-mates?
|6.1.07 @ 3:28PM|#
I actually don't like always being a contrarian since I am a Reason subscriber and sympathetic on most issues, so I am glad to say I agree with the post here. eHarmony may be goofy and I believe disingenuous here, but the proper response, espcially in this case where there are many reasonable alternatives, is to punish them by not giving them your business. The law and government should stay out of this fight.
Minion of URKOBOLD (VM)|6.1.07 @ 3:53PM|#
Funny you should wonder that, D.A.R. hier is a venture that the URKOBOLD just launched.
pdog|6.1.07 @ 4:23PM|#
What about transgendered?
Could you in good conscience mark 'female' when ah...
Bee|6.1.07 @ 4:25PM|#
I wonder how they feel about interracial couples. You don't see any featured on their TV ads. Talk about the last taboo....people are better with gay couples than they are with color blends.
Minion of URKOBOLD|6.1.07 @ 4:26PM|#
pdog:
NOT WITH THAT TUCK UNDER. SLOPPY. GO BACK TO YOUR ROOM AND TRY
AGAIN. OR ELSE WE WILL DO IT FOR YOU. WITH SUPERGLUE.
|6.1.07 @ 4:27PM|#
I'm with Ken (and I'm sure others in the above comments I
skimmed through). I don't see the need for eHarmony hate. My
biggest beef with them was they sent me twice as many matches the
week after my subscription expired as they did the month it was
active.
BTW I am an atheist, but may have classified myself as other. I'm
calling myself The Cult Of One these days. I also would have
claimed to be "deeply spiritual" in the Howard Roark sense.
Anyway there are dozens if not hundreds of places to find a mate
online. Plenty of options for gays, transgendered, chubby chasers
(actually I think most dating sites are candy shops for CCs),
whatever your disposition.
|6.1.07 @ 4:30PM|#
> Katherine Mangu-Ward wrote: "...the judiciary was
called into to decide whether websites that let people specify
their desire for roommates of a certain sex, religion, age, etc.
are discriminatory."
Of course it's discriminatory. Any time a person makes choice, they
are discriminating.
The better question is: What business does the government have
prohibiting discrimination between individuals engaging in private
contracts?
At my motel I only rent rooms to black Jehovah's Witnesses who
speak German and wear purple underwear. That's my business, not the
government's.
|6.1.07 @ 5:04PM|#
I guess part of what gets people riled up is the connection with James Dobson and eHarmony's early ties to Focus on the Family. I'm repulsed by the likes of Dobson, but that doesn't mean a website that focuses on a specific client base is bad. According to Alternet.org, mypartnerperfect.com is a gay site that has a similar pseudo-algebraic approach.
|6.1.07 @ 5:40PM|#
Of course they're rejecting short men. They don't add anything of value to the site because women won't date them (or so their online profiles say). I'm 5'6", and I tried Yahoo's dating site for a while. As an experiment, I tried 5'10" in my profile. Plenty of matches. When I changed it to 5'6", the number of compatible matches basically dropped to zero. I dropped Yahoo soon after. Every other online site I've tried the same thing happened, so I no longer bother. The dimwits suing eHarmony for this ought to get a clue and stop. Suing eHarmony won't change women's preferences, so even if they accepted short men they will still be dateless.
|6.1.07 @ 6:21PM|#
Her Christian background was making her feel guilty about
her sexual urges and he told her that those urges were natural and
therefore from God and therefore nothing to feel guilty
about.
That's specious reasoning. Just because you have an urge doesn't
mean it's moral to act on it. Were that so, it would be nearly
impossible to sin; the only way to do so would be to do something
you don't want to do, or not do something you want to do. If there
was no sin, there'd be no need for Jesus, and Christians would be
fools to bother with him.
Then again, I've always suspected that atheists are far more
troubled by truly committed Christians than by the faithless
panderers like this dude who call themselves Christians.
Jennifer|6.1.07 @ 6:34PM|#
That's specious reasoning. Just because you have an urge
doesn't mean it's moral to act on it.
And just because a guy tells you not to feel guilty about an urge
doesn't mean he's telling you to act on it. Do you think this woman
would be better served by being told that Jesus hates her when her
hormones make her horny?
Exactly which glands do you think need to be surgically removed
from your body in order for your soul to qualify for the Kingdom of
Heaven?
|6.1.07 @ 6:42PM|#
He said that these urges came from God, which is a pretty good endorsement from someone who's ostensibly Christian.
M|6.1.07 @ 6:43PM|#
Exactly which glands do you think need to be surgically
removed from your body in order for your soul to qualify for the
Kingdom of Heaven?
Three
guesses.
|6.1.07 @ 6:47PM|#
Also, there's a happy medium between saying that homosexual desires are wonderful gifts from God and saying that anyone who ever has a thought about the wrong genitalia is inescapably hellbound. Hate the orientation, love the person burdened by it. I know that the distinction is sometimes hard to grasp for ambiguity-loving libertines, but there it is.
Jennifer|6.1.07 @ 6:49PM|#
He said that these urges came from God, which is a pretty
good endorsement from someone who's ostensibly
Christian.
So God made humans but the Devil made estrogen and testosterone? Or
did sex hormones evolve independently of the Creator, who would
certainly have put a stop to it if only He'd known what was going
on?
|6.1.07 @ 7:25PM|#
Let's see, I can descriminate by age and sex,
but eHarmony can't use sex based choices?
Oh, they can if they let everyone do it.
About height:
How many want to marry a woman a foot taller?
How many want to marry a woman two feet tall?
See what I mean?
The right man, short or not, can win a woman's heart.
He just needs a chance to have a chance.
See a short ugly guy with a tall babe in tow
and you know he's got something not showing!
|6.1.07 @ 7:55PM|#
No, God (indirectly) made estrogen and testosterone in order that humans and animals could be fruitful and multiply. The free choice of Adam/Eve to originally sin turned these hormones from instruments of goodness to instruments of evil.
|6.1.07 @ 7:59PM|#
crimethink, you're too smart for this. Helpful hints:
1. Quit playing with your instrument of evil.
2. Get a girlfriend, or boyfriend if my suspicions are
correct.
3. Start living for yourself instead of your imaginary friend.
|6.1.07 @ 8:04PM|#
Right on Colonel, go on playing the "if you oppose homosexuality you must be homosexual yourself" card. If you oppose Christianity, doesn't that mean you must be a closet Christian yourself?
Jennifer|6.1.07 @ 8:20PM|#
Right on Colonel, go on playing the "if you oppose
homosexuality you must be homosexual yourself" card. If you oppose
Christianity, doesn't that mean you must be a closet Christian
yourself?
It's not even that, Crimethink; it's just that you keep pushing
this contradictory theme about how people think too much about sex,
which is often sinful but no big deal because it's just sex, just
don't have it unless you want to make a baby, big deal. It's like
dialogue from an old bodice-ripper novel.
The entire topic of sex, let alone the thought of having or
thinking about it, is personified here by the main-character
super-stud alpha-male pirate captain or whatever. And you're like
his captive who keeps moaning "No, no, please don't, I hate sex
gasp oh no don't I hate that I hate you oh this
is horrible sto-o-o-p it this instant" while her bosom
heaves right the hell out of her dress.
I mean, certainly your language is richer and more varied than
hers, but the way you view sex, Crimethink -- it's just got this
heaving sort of vibe to it.
Jennifer|6.1.07 @ 8:21PM|#
No, scratch that. More like the indignant Victorian lady captive who stiffens and demands "Unhand me, my lord" in an imperious voice.
M|6.1.07 @ 8:23PM|#
crimethink - without facetiousness, I (and Thomas Aquinas) would
say the answer to your question is Yes.
And btw, Mt. 6:6 suggests you were being pleonastic ;-)
|6.1.07 @ 8:27PM|#
Jennifer,
When I post in a thread whose topic revolves around sex, I'm going
to have to think about sex. That doesn't mean I enjoy doing
so.
Whatever heaving quality you notice must be due to the fact that
it's almost solely on sexual issues that I'm passionately
disagreeing with people here.
|6.1.07 @ 8:29PM|#
Hate the orientation, love the person burdened by it. I know
that the distinction is sometimes hard to grasp for
ambiguity-loving libertines, but there it is.
Nonsense - the distinction is not hard to grasp; disagreement with,
or non-acceptance of, a point of view is not the same thing as an
inability to grasp it. After all, a few of us
ambiguity-tolerating libertines make the
identical distinction every day with respect to those who
exhibit a religious orientation. :)
|6.1.07 @ 8:37PM|#
I take that back, Crimethink's untapped sexual energies are clearly redirected into posting here. I don't know anyone else who can post 100 times on a 300 post thread and still be wound tighter than a cheap watch after everyone else gives up and goes home. I think his form of batin' is de-batin'!
|6.1.07 @ 8:39PM|#
OK, I see the identity thieves are back with us. I'm all for parodizing people, but when have I talked about myself in the third person?
D.A. Ridgely|6.1.07 @ 9:21PM|#
When I post in a thread whose topic revolves around sex, I'm
going to have to think about sex. That doesn't mean I enjoy doing
so.
Then you must not be thinking about it the right way.
Jennifer|6.1.07 @ 10:56PM|#
When I post in a thread whose topic revolves around sex, I'm
going to have to think about sex.
Like in last week's post about paranoid guys who worried that
keeping their cell phones in their pockets might cause testicular
trouble, and you interpreted this as more proof that society--but
certainly not you--thinks about sex too much.
Unhand me, you filthy, filthy sex thoughts, you!
(slap)
Grotius|6.1.07 @ 11:26PM|#
crimethink,
Let me get this straight, you believe that there was an actual Adam
& Eve? Is that right?
|6.1.07 @ 11:54PM|#
I have to agree with Bob Smith. When it comes to eharmony's bias
against the short, it is not their fault - it is womens' fault.
Like Bob, I am also 5'6" - short but not unusually so. About 80% of
women exclude me based on my height in all the major personals
sites, including at least half of those shorter than me. Apparently
unlike Bob, however, I write some of them anyway.
It is funny, however, how women think men are so superficial....yet
how many men write in their profile "no fat chicks"? About
zero...and even then, being fat is largely a choice. Women have
proven themselves both quantitatively and qualitatively more
superficial than men. How embarassing.
|6.2.07 @ 12:12AM|#
Rob, how has writing to those women actually worked for you? I tried that but I'm not interesting or witty enough since none ever wrote back, so I stopped. No reason for them to, really, since they probably get messages from dozens of men who match in every particular. Am I a better catch than many of them? Sure, but when you live in the land of plenty you can afford to throw out some of your food. As for "fat chicks", I see men being a lot more tolerant of a woman's weight than women will be of a man's height, and there are always attractive "big girls" like Sara Ramirez (Grey's Anatomy).
|6.2.07 @ 8:48AM|#
Actually, Bob, I have gone out with several women somewhat
taller than me that I met online, including one who seems to be on
the path to "working out". I also had a very pleasant relationship
with a 6'0" Japanese woman once, but that is another story
entirely. It's not impossible, but it is far harder than it should
be.
The odd thing about women is that they honestly believe themselves
to not be so superficial. The problem is that they are unable or
unwilling to articulate what the issue is. They really believe they
"just aren't attracted" to some decent-looking, educated,
professional, nice guy....but they darned well would be if he was
5'11" rather than 5'5".
Men, on the other hand, do know what the issue is. Most of the time
here in the US, the issue is that she is a tub of lard.
|6.2.07 @ 9:20AM|#
Jennifer,
1. It was primarily a joke; I believe I alluded to the fact that
tinfoil hats were being replaced by tinfoil underwear. Not exactly
my most serious post ever.
2. It's not like testicles and sperm counts -- you know, the
subjects of the article -- have nothing to do with sex. The subject
didn't just spring out of some repressed desire deep in the bowels
of my id.
Grotius,
Must I remind you again that what I do or do not believe is not at
issue here?
|6.2.07 @ 9:29AM|#
Also, of course, I never said that I was perfectly free from disordered sexual desire myself. As I alluded to above, if I were that perfect I wouldn't need to bother with Jesus.
|6.2.07 @ 9:33AM|#
And if you're questioning whether sex is an obsession of our
society, go to your local supermarket checkout and calculate the
percentage of magazines that have SEX in big bold letters on the
cover. I'd be surprised if it's below 50%.
Even Reason did this back in '04, with their "Voting is a lot like
SEX" cover. For a magazine called Reason.... (gulp)
|6.2.07 @ 9:39AM|#
Then again, people have always been obsessed with the forbidden fruit, I guess. In victorian times all it probably took to get a guy going was an exposed ankle, while nowadays so long as the areolae are safely stowed away it's just another Calvin Klein ad.
M|6.2.07 @ 9:43AM|#
people have always been obsessed with the forbidden fruit, I
guess
By defintion:
obsess 1503, "to besiege," from L. obsessus, pp.
of obsidere "besiege, occupy," lit. "sit opposite to," from ob
"against" + sedere "sit." Of evil spirits, "to haunt," is from
1540. Obsession was originally (1513) "the act of besieging," then
"hostile action of the devil or an evil spirit" (1605)
M|6.2.07 @ 9:45AM|#
Mark Twain: "Adam was but human - this explains it all. He did not want the apple for the apple's sake, he wanted it only because it was forbidden. The mistake was in not forbidding the serpent; then he would have eaten the serpent."
Grotius|6.2.07 @ 11:38AM|#
crimethink,
Must I remind you again that what I do or do not believe is not
at issue here?
You made an argument which dealt with original sin, Adam and Eve,
etc. It thus seems fair to ask you a question that I did. If you
can explain to me why it is unfair to ask you that question please
do.
In the future if you don't want folks to question your religious
(or other) beliefs then don't mention them.
Grotius|6.2.07 @ 11:42AM|#
crimethink,
And if you're questioning whether sex is an obsession of our
society...
Yeah, I am. Humans evolved to have lots of sexual relations for
both procreative and other uses. Viewed from this naturalistic
perspective there is no obsession with sex by merely being
interested in sex.
|6.2.07 @ 12:40PM|#
Grotius,
I was not making an argument. I was stating the Christian belief
about the source of disordered desire. This guy is dressing up very
un-Christian ideas as Christianity.
Grotius|6.2.07 @ 12:45PM|#
crimethink,
This was your response to Jennifer's query:
No, God (indirectly) made estrogen and testosterone in order
that humans and animals could be fruitful and multiply. The free
choice of Adam/Eve to originally sin turned these hormones from
instruments of goodness to instruments of evil.
Looks like an argument to me.
|6.2.07 @ 1:28PM|#
That's not an argument, it's an assertion. It doesn't start from
first principles and reason to a conclusion; it just states a
couple of propositions.
Perhaps I should have prefaced it with "Christians believe that..."
and then all would be hunky-dory.
Grotius|6.2.07 @ 1:37PM|#
crimethink,
It still looks like an argument to me.
Anyway, are you suggesting that you don't believe these things?
|6.2.07 @ 1:54PM|#
I am remaining silent on whether I belive these things. I have found in the past that anything I say can and will be held against me in the court of H&R opinion. Since these things are not essential to any actual arguments I'm making, I choose not to risk that.
Jennifer|6.2.07 @ 2:11PM|#
Perhaps I should have prefaced it with "Christians believe
that..." and then all would be hunky-dory.
Except for the Christians who don't believe that, who according to
you aren't really Christians at all. Real Christians, according to
you, might know that sexual urges are natural, but not from the
part of nature that God had anything to do with.
Are hunger pangs and feelings of thirst also something to feel
guilty about?
M|6.2.07 @ 2:22PM|#
Jennifer, as a RealChristian (TM) myself, may I say I profit from your posts. I won't butt in here though.
Grotius|6.2.07 @ 2:45PM|#
I am remaining silent on whether I belive these
things.
You're a Christian, right? And you say that Christians believe
these things?
I have found in the past that anything I say can and will be
held against me in the court of H&R opinion.
Dude, that is true of all of us. You are in no way special or
unique.
Since these things are not essential to any actual arguments
I'm making, I choose not to risk that.
If they aren't "essential" why do you mention them? Note that your
statements on this thread has all sorts of religious language in
it.
Grotius|6.2.07 @ 2:55PM|#
crimethink,
BTW, didn't Jesus say that you aren't supposed to hide your light
under a bushel?
|6.2.07 @ 3:06PM|#
Jennifer,
A person who does not believe in original sin is not a Christian.
Were it not for those things there would have been no need for
Christ.
Grotius,
Yes, but sometimes my light is darkness.
M|6.2.07 @ 4:08PM|#
For those unfamiliar, crimethink is self-deprecatingly alluding to Matthew 6:23 - "If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!"
Grotius|6.2.07 @ 4:31PM|#
M,
One of the things that takes away from the Bible's authority is its
vast number of contradictory statements, etc.
M|6.2.07 @ 4:57PM|#
Grotius - I'm acquainted with that inference. Because I'm
preparing to go hier* http://www.mises.org/upcomingstory.aspx?Id=96
I must resist the temptation to discuss this much at the moment.
Perhaps I can be abstemious enough to leave it at suggesting that
Whitman's demurral
Do I contradict myself?
Very well then I contradict myself,
(I am large, I contain multitudes.)
will apply a fortiori, without necessary loss of
authority, to an anthology of genres compiled for various and
multiple purposes over many generations.
*a bug is preventing hyperlinking
|6.2.07 @ 5:20PM|#
Gay folks need to get over themselves with regards to things like this... Just because everything doesn't cater to you or your desires doesn't mean it's a bad thing.
|6.2.07 @ 5:23PM|#
Holy crap M, have you got Matthew 6 memorized? Not that it's necessarily a bad thing... ;-)
|6.2.07 @ 5:24PM|#
One of the things that takes away from the Bible's authority
is its vast number of contradictory statements, etc.
Consistency is the hobgoblin of ... well, you know the rest.
Jennifer|6.2.07 @ 6:20PM|#
A person who does not believe in original sin is not a
Christian.
So original sin equals the sex drive? In that case, why bother
baptizing babies? After all, original sin doesn't kick in until
puberty.
M|6.2.07 @ 6:40PM|#
doesn't kick in until puberty
So who's denigrating prophylaxis
now?
Speaking of kicking, y'all make what you will of the inerrant word
that "it is hard for thee to kick against the pricks" (Acts
26:14).
M|6.2.07 @ 7:10PM|#
By the way, it needn't shock Gentle Reader that not all
believers will charge forward in response to every casual challenge
swatted their way by self-styled gadflies insufficiently animated
to have investigated other resources.
Even when we realize that our approach to the word is
incomprehensibly alien to others, we do recall that teh itertoobz
hold vastly more introductory information about Christianity than
about, oh, say, libertarianism.
When hostile non-Christians take up every statist's "Oh yeah,
Stupid? Well, who's gonna keep the bad guys down?" with the same
devoted persistence that our terribly simplifying interlocutors
solicit, we Christers will respond with alacrity, gladly to snatch
your inquiring souls from the maws of Hell.
Just as fast as we can wriggle on our arctic mittens to do so.
|6.2.07 @ 7:20PM|#
Christians believe that original sin is the source of disordered sexual desires. That does not necessarily mean that such desires are the only effect of original sin.
Jennifer|6.2.07 @ 7:39PM|#
original sin is the source of disordered sexual
desires.
What's the difference between ordered and disordered sexual
desires? (By the way, I'm asking specifically about
desires, not actions.)
|6.2.07 @ 7:58PM|#
Ordered desires tend toward, or at least are not incompatible
with, intercourse with one's spouse with semen being deposited in
the vagina.
Disordered desires are everything else.
|6.2.07 @ 8:00PM|#
That's actually a pretty sloppy definition but hopefully you get the idea. Desires that lead to something besides union with spouse & possible procreation are disordered.
Cat. of the Catholic Church (1|6.2.07 @ 8:04PM|#
2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of
sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought
for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive
purposes.
2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation
of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the
Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition,
and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have
firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely
disordered action."
Jennifer|6.2.07 @ 10:11PM|#
Ordered desires tend toward, or at least are not
incompatible with, intercourse with one's spouse with semen being
deposited in the vagina. Disordered desires are everything
else.
So basically, any sexual thoughts are evil unless you're married
and thinking about your spouse? Though hormones created by God
cause sexual thoughts, the thoughts are evil until after
marriage?
Lord Chesterfield|6.2.07 @ 11:54PM|#
The pleasure is momentary; the expense is exorbitant; the position ridiculous.
Grotius|6.3.07 @ 11:17AM|#
crimethink,
Consistency is the hobgoblin of ... well, you know the
rest.
Religions and "revealed texts" call for absolute consistency and
uniformity until it suits their purposes to call for something
else.
Anyway, it is the blatant "factual" inconsistencies which make one
giggle the most.
M,
...will apply a fortiori, without necessary loss of authority,
to an anthology of genres compiled for various and multiple
purposes over many generations.
Actually, they create an absolute loss of authority since it is
quite reasonable to assume that they are merely human created,
edited and copied texts.
Grotius|6.3.07 @ 11:22AM|#
M,
Sort of odd that the suggested readings at the conference don't
include anything by Leo Strauss.
Grotius|6.3.07 @ 11:28AM|#
M,
...to an anthology of genres compiled for various and multiple
purposes over many generations.
Furthermore (and here we will lapse into a bit of historicism
here), it is rather bizarre for moderns to basically ignore the
historical contexts of these works. Which is what religionists do
on a daily basis.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245