Re: Robbing the Cradle was Indian cuisine and NT

[Guest guest]

Hah! I have to disagree! Many women will complain but it won't be seen

as taboo as it would with say a 40 year old woman and a 25 year old

man. If you doubt this just look at movies, 40, 50, 60 year old guys

paired up with twenty something " wives " or " girlfriends " .

It is still sociably acceptable for men to date and marry much much

younger women, but if a woman was to do so she'd be the talk of the

town.

I can't speak on Indian cuisine, only had it once and loved it! =)

Dawn

> -

>

> Your only problem is that when a woman does it, it's either cool or,

> at worst, eccentric, but when a guy does it it's pathetic or, worse

> yet, disgusting, vile and perverted. ;-)

>

> >Okay, so I'm not the only one who dates folks who are quite a bit

> >younger, LOL!

>

>

>

> -

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

> It is still sociably acceptable for men to date and marry much much

> younger women, but if a woman was to do so she'd be the talk of the

> town.

My husband's ten years younger and it raised eyebrows in both our

social and familial sets.

Lynn S.

-----

Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

Dawn-

Maybe you live in smaller towns than I've been in?

>but if a woman was to do so she'd be the talk of the

>town.

-

[Guest guest]

Nope! I've lived in Houston, which is what now 3rd in the nation?, Austin

- both in Texas, lived right near Orlando, Florida, San and San

Diego, CA where one of my teachers in junior high married a woman 11

years his senior and our class was mystified! And i'm only 25. =) We

talked about it for months.

Dawn

> Dawn-

>

> Maybe you live in smaller towns than I've been in?

>

> >but if a woman was to do so she'd be the talk of the

> >town.

>

>

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Lynn-

I'm sure that's true, but consider how much ribbing and mockery and

outright anger a guy with a substantially younger woman comes in

for. Personally, my attitude is that neither direction of age inequity

should be cause for any kind of opposition, but I'm definitely in the

minority on that.

>My husband's ten years younger and it raised eyebrows in both our

>social and familial sets.

-

[Guest guest]

> Nope! I've lived in Houston, which is what now 3rd in the nation?,

> Austin

> - both in Texas, lived right near Orlando, Florida, San and San

> Diego, CA where one of my teachers in junior high married a woman 11

> years his senior and our class was mystified! And i'm only 25. =) We

> talked about it for months.

I live in Portland, Oregon, a relatively cosmopolitan burg, and people

were astonished and a bit freaked when they found out the age

difference between us. (He looks older and I look younger, so we look

maybe 3-4 years apart not 10.) It figured into my losing a job, in

fact. It wasn't the reason, but it figured in.

Lynn S.

-----

Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

> I'm sure that's true, but consider how much ribbing and mockery and

> outright anger a guy with a substantially younger woman comes in

> for.

Really? I always thought guys with younger women were congratulated!

Look at on Ford and Callista Flockhart.

Lynn S.

-----

Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/26/03 11:04:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

blaidd2@... writes:

> It is still sociably acceptable for men to date and marry much much

> younger women, but if a woman was to do so she'd be the talk of the

> town.

>

Having dated someone nearly twice my age with every single person I asked

telling me it was perfectly ok and also knowing someone who went to jail for

five

years for carrying out a monogamous relationship with a girl several years

younger than him, I have to disagree.

Besides, they only reason anyone would approve of the old man-young woman

relationship is because they know she's strategically picking a guy who will die

in three years, while she gets all his money.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/27/03 1:46:15 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

editor@... writes:

> Really? I always thought guys with younger women were congratulated!

> Look at on Ford and Callista Flockhart.

A million anecdotes could be brought forth for either side, but with all due

respect I think famous couples are clearly irrelevant to this discussion, as

they are treated as a whole 'nother phenomena, somewhat like Dr. Mike's

experience with bodybuilders differs from his experience with humans ;-)

Chris

[Guest guest]

Lynn-

Sure, some guys figure " good for him " , but a lot of them know to keep their

mouths shut nowadays. I saw a magazine cover a couple years ago that

complained about the fairly common May-December pairing of stars in movies,

including and Gwyneth Paltrow in A PERFECT MURDER. Well,

if you saw APM, he was some kind of tycoon and Paltrow was his trophy wife

-- and things ended badly -- so complaining about that movie was

particularly stupid, but the cover sparked an uproar. More generally, the

topic comes up periodically among my friends and acquaintances (and

especially on a movie forum I've been a member of for, I don't know, maybe

even ten years) and often enough there's a ton of vitriol directed towards

men who date and/or marry meaningfully younger women.

ly, I think people ought to have better things to complain about, and

if everyone's legal and happy, that's enough for me, regardless of how big

the age difference is and in which direction it lies.

>I always thought guys with younger women were congratulated!

>Look at on Ford and Callista Flockhart.

-

[Guest guest]

,

You are perfectly correct that my experience is not a good comparison to his.

However, I do believe that there is a gender issue at work-- it's highly

unlikely for parents to press charges against a 20 year old woman who slept with

a 16 year old boy-- the father might fake some concern in the presence of the

mother, but if he got the chance would probably take his son out for a beer or

something over it. While on the other hand a 20 year old guy who slept with

a 16 year old girl, or especially a 15 year old, would have an astronomically

greater chance of legal trouble.

I'm going to put myself in a smaller minority than is in and say these

statutory rape laws are ridiculous. The idea that a child is a child until 18

and the suddenly an adult and no longer chattel slavery of the parent is

rather inane, and is a modern astronomical extension of childhood than existed

in

early america. Kids are immature today because the immaturity is imposed on

them by a culture that treats them incompetent of maturity. I was greatly

pleased to see that Cambridge, MA lowered its voting age to 16 a few years ago

as

an experiment, but don't know what ever happened with it. The voting laws are

similar phenomenon-- kids for 18 years have no say in anything, no say in

their education, etc, and never get a chance to make decisions of any kind and

suddenly they're expected to vote competently.

The injustice is mediated by the fact that most parents are sensible enough

to judge each situation on a case by case basis, and charges are unlikely to be

pressed without such judgment on the part of the parents. Still, I've known

parents that put their kids in psychological concentration camps because they

didn't like their hair or there school grades...

People mature at widely varying rates. I personally don't see anything wrong

with an 18 year old and a 16 year old for example, which is nevertheless

illegal.

At 21, I'm personally not seeking marriage right now, though if I were to

meet someone ideal to marry I don't have any problem with it, except I'm not in

the financial position to take care of children right now. As for fun, if I

find someone who's attractive and will eat raw liver with me in the future I

won't pay much attention to age, marriage being another story ;-)

As to the gender double standards, I think there are probably examples that

could feed the two opposing theories-- I think it's part generational, part

what part of the culture you're in, etc. Certainly a generation or two above

me,

it's much more common for men to be older.

Chris

In a message dated 8/27/03 3:11:06 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

bberg@... writes:

>

> For him to have gone to jail for it, she must have been under the legal

> age of consent for that state and sleeping with him, which is a

> different story altogether. Likewise, you were presumably above the age

> of consent and/or not sleeping with her. The age of the younger person,

> in most cases, is a much bigger issue than the age difference.

> Involvement between a 20-year-old and a 14-year-old would be much less

> widely accepted than involvement between a 20-year-old and a

> 32-year-old.

>

> Personally, I would never get romantically involved with anyone more

> than five years older than me. In fact, the most difficult decision I've

> ever made was to walk away from an otherwise perfect woman when she

> revealed that she was not five years older than me, but eleven (and it

> was because of her age, not because she had been lying) (the strange

> thing was that I was shocked when she told me her fake age--I had

> originally thought that she was younger than me). I want to minimize my

> chances of outliving my wife, and I'm not interested in wasting my time

> on a woman whom I know I will never marry.

>

> >Besides, they only reason anyone would approve of the old man-young

> woman

> >relationship is because they know she's strategically picking a guy

> who will die

> >in three years, while she gets all his money.

>

> I don't know where everyone is getting this idea. In my experience, it's

> perfectly acceptable for a man to marry a woman 10-20 years younger than

> him. At worst he might get occasional tongue-lashings from feminists, or

> friendly ribbing, but that's about it. On the other hand, if he marries

> a woman 10-20 years older than him, there's often suspicion regarding

> his motives. I think that it's still widely accepted that, all else

> being equal, men tend to seek out young, beautiful women, while women

> tend to seek out men who can provide for them, which often means that

> they are older.

[Guest guest]

----- Original Message -----

From: <ChrisMasterjohn@...>

> Having dated someone nearly twice my age with every single person I

asked

> telling me it was perfectly ok and also knowing someone who went to

jail for five

> years for carrying out a monogamous relationship with a girl several

years

> younger than him, I have to disagree.

For him to have gone to jail for it, she must have been under the legal

age of consent for that state and sleeping with him, which is a

different story altogether. Likewise, you were presumably above the age

of consent and/or not sleeping with her. The age of the younger person,

in most cases, is a much bigger issue than the age difference.

Involvement between a 20-year-old and a 14-year-old would be much less

widely accepted than involvement between a 20-year-old and a

32-year-old.

Personally, I would never get romantically involved with anyone more

than five years older than me. In fact, the most difficult decision I've

ever made was to walk away from an otherwise perfect woman when she

revealed that she was not five years older than me, but eleven (and it

was because of her age, not because she had been lying) (the strange

thing was that I was shocked when she told me her fake age--I had

originally thought that she was younger than me). I want to minimize my

chances of outliving my wife, and I'm not interested in wasting my time

on a woman whom I know I will never marry.

> Besides, they only reason anyone would approve of the old man-young

woman

> relationship is because they know she's strategically picking a guy

who will die

> in three years, while she gets all his money.

I don't know where everyone is getting this idea. In my experience, it's

perfectly acceptable for a man to marry a woman 10-20 years younger than

him. At worst he might get occasional tongue-lashings from feminists, or

friendly ribbing, but that's about it. On the other hand, if he marries

a woman 10-20 years older than him, there's often suspicion regarding

his motives. I think that it's still widely accepted that, all else

being equal, men tend to seek out young, beautiful women, while women

tend to seek out men who can provide for them, which often means that

they are older.

[Guest guest]

Chris-

Actually, I think the law is a little more subtle, at least in some states,

when it comes to situations like that. For example, you could have a

17-year-old guy and a 16-year-old girl having sex (illegally?) without it

being statutory rape. A year later, they're still together, but suddenly

it's statutory rape. Obviously that's absurd, and at least some states

have put laws on the books creating exceptions for cases like that with

small age differences. I don't know how small the difference has to be,

though, or how it varies from state to state.

>I personally don't see anything wrong

>with an 18 year old and a 16 year old for example, which is nevertheless

>illegal.

-

[Guest guest]

>>>My husband's ten years younger and it raised eyebrows in both our

social and familial sets.

----->lynn, are they OK with it now that you're married?

the guy i'm dating is only 12 years my junior which really doesn't seem like

much to me at this point since i recently dated someone who was barely more

than half my age (18 years 8 months younger - i'm 40). i've also dated guys

10 years my junior before and didn't really think much of it, but i've also

dated a guy 10 years my senior and another 17 years my senior. i feel the

same as paul - if two adults want to be together, age needn't be an issue. i

can imagine though, that the fact that i'm 12 years older than my current

boyfriend who is from a traditional indian family, could possibly be an

issue for his parents if the relationship were to get serious. i don't know

this for a fact - i'm just guessing. although he said it's not an issue for

*him* at all and *he* thinks i look like i'm in my 20s and have a perfect

body ;-) which is far from true, but i think his eyesight has suffered from

a lack of nutrient-dense foods...hmmm...maybe i *shouldn't* tell him anymore

about WAP/NT! LOL! but seriously, he said people in india tend to age a lot

faster, so many americans of equivalent age appear younger to him. i do look

young for my age (and was carded a few weeks ago! still scratching my head

over that one...) but not *that* young, imo.

in terms of brandon's comment about not wanting to outlive his mate, that's

funny because i always consider a few things in this regard as a female

NT/WAPer:

a) women live longer than men in general, so subtract 3-4 years from the age

difference for that.

i'm on a WAP/NT diet, so if i date someone on SAD or equivalent,

take....i dunno - 5 to 10 years off the age difference for that, since their

diet will cause premature degeneration! LOL

c) i think each successive generation on SAD or equivalent is weaker/iller

than the previous one, so most x-generationers are, as a rule, not as

healthy as us baby-boomers (i'm at the tail end of the baby-boom gen). so

take off, maybe another 3-4(?) years for that, or more...some

x-generationers are *really* unhealthy as their parents were before them!

with all those subtractions, i would probably outlive a SAD (or equivalent)

eating mate who is 11-18 years my junior!! LOL ;-)

Suze Fisher

Lapdog Design, Inc.

Web Design & Development

http://members.bellatlantic.net/~vze3shjg

Weston A. Price Foundation Chapter Leader, Mid Coast Maine

http://www.westonaprice.org

----------------------------

" The diet-heart idea (the idea that saturated fats and cholesterol cause

heart disease) is the greatest scientific deception of our times. " --

Mann, MD, former Professor of Medicine and Biochemistry at Vanderbilt

University, Tennessee; heart disease researcher.

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

<http://www.thincs.org>

----------------------------

[Guest guest]

>>>> My husband's ten years younger and it raised eyebrows in both our

> social and familial sets.

>

> ----->lynn, are they OK with it now that you're married?

We're such a perfect match no one even thinks about the age difference

any more, or didn't until I had the heart attack last year. I'm 42 and

he's 32 now. We've been together as a couple 11 years and married for 9

and have two little girls. My folks have accepted him completely,

especially since he's stayed with me through thick and thin. And his

folks like me pretty well, especially since I gave them granddaughters.

> with all those subtractions, i would probably outlive a SAD (or

> equivalent)

> eating mate who is 11-18 years my junior!! LOL ;-)

My husband smokes, so we figure we're even.

Lynn S.

-----

Lynn Siprelle * Writer, Mother, Programmer, Fiber Artisan

The New Homemaker: http://www.newhomemaker.com/

Siprelle & Associates: http://www.siprelle.com/

People-Powered ! http://www.deanforamerica.com/

[Guest guest]

> However, I do believe that there is a gender issue at work-- it's

highly

> unlikely for parents to press charges against a 20 year old woman

who slept with

> a 16 year old boy-- the father might fake some concern in the

presence of the

> mother, but if he got the chance would probably take his son out

for a beer or

> something over it.

Interestingly, I believe the age of consent in Netherlands is 12!

For both girls and boys! Personally, I think that's a little too

young. In UK it's 16 which is more reasonable (although still too

young methinks). Adulthood starts at 18 (ie university age) when you

have all the same rights and freedoms as a 40 year old. Would hate

to be a university student in the US where the drinking alcohol age

is 21!! University with no alcohol..... student drinking is a whole

way of life in this country!

Another point of interest.... my grandpa is married to a woman 30

years his junior. He's about 80, she's 50. In fact, she's younger

than her step daughter (my mum, 56!) They've been married about 20

years now. It's a very happy marriage. He gets someone to look

after him in old age (she dotes on him totally) and she gets

financial security and someone with brains to look after her - he's

not at all wealthy, but has a regular pension coming in. She is

totally thick - I don't mean to sound awful, but we are talking IQ at

incredibly low levels here. She doesn't work. Heart in the right

place though.

Jo

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 26 Aug 2003 23:41:58 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

> Lynn-

>

> I'm sure that's true, but consider how much ribbing and mockery and

> outright anger a guy with a substantially younger woman comes in

> for. Personally, my attitude is that neither direction of age inequity

> should be cause for any kind of opposition, but I'm definitely in the

> minority on that.

>

,

I'm with you on this one.

Recall Arnold

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030812.shtml

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 09:06:02 -0400

Idol <Idol@...> wrote:

More generally, the

> topic comes up periodically among my friends and acquaintances (and

> especially on a movie forum I've been a member of for, I don't know, maybe

> even ten years) and often enough there's a ton of vitriol directed towards

> men who date and/or marry meaningfully younger women.

Really? That is fascinating. What seems to be the beef?

Recall Arnold

http://www.sobran.com/columns/2003/030812.shtml

[Guest guest]

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 17:30:52 EDT

ChrisMasterjohn@... wrote:

>

> I'm going to put myself in a smaller minority than is in and say these

> statutory rape laws are ridiculous. The idea that a child is a child until 18

> and the suddenly an adult and no longer chattel slavery of the parent is

> rather inane, and is a modern astronomical extension of childhood than existed

in

> early america. Kids are immature today because the immaturity is imposed on

> them by a culture that treats them incompetent of maturity.

Here here...

Not only in early America but it is most likely that the mother of

Jesus was 14 when she married ph, a much older man.

>

> The injustice is mediated by the fact that most parents are sensible enough

> to judge each situation on a case by case basis, and charges are unlikely to

be

> pressed without such judgment on the part of the parents. Still, I've known

> parents that put their kids in psychological concentration camps because they

> didn't like their hair or there school grades...

>

> People mature at widely varying rates. I personally don't see anything wrong

> with an 18 year old and a 16 year old for example, which is nevertheless

> illegal.

>

The problem is the law can't recognize varying gradations of maturity.

ly, as the recent flap over gay marriage/adoption/sexual habits is

demonstrating, the gov't ought to get out of the marriage/relationship

business period:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085127 (article below)

and

http://www.lewrockwell.com/tucker/tucker37.html

Abolish Marriage

Let's really get the government out of our bedrooms.

By Kinsley

Posted Wednesday, July 2, 2003, at 8:25 AM PT

Critics and enthusiasts of Lawrence v. Texas, last week's Supreme Court decision

invalidating state anti-sodomy laws, agree on one thing: The next

argument is going to be about gay marriage. As Justice Scalia noted in

his tart dissent, it follows from the logic of Lawrence. Mutually

consenting sex with the person of your choice in the privacy of your own

home is now a basic right of American citizenship under the Constitution.

This does not mean that the government must supply it or guarantee it.

But the government cannot forbid it, and the government also should not

discriminate against you for choosing to exercise a basic right of

citizenship. Offering an institution as important as marriage to

male-female couples only is exactly this kind of discrimination. Or so

the gay rights movement will now argue. Persuasively, I think.

Opponents of gay rights will resist mightily, although they have been in retreat

for a couple of decades. General anti-gay sentiments are now considered

a serious breach of civic etiquette, even in anti-gay circles. The

current line of defense, which probably won't hold either, is between

social toleration of homosexuals and social approval of homosexuality.

Or between accepting the reality that people are gay, even accepting

that gays are people, and endorsing something called " the gay agenda. "

Gay marriage, the opponents will argue, would cross this line. It would

make homosexuality respectable and, worse, normal. Gays are welcome to

exist all they want, and to do their inexplicable thing if they must,

but they shouldn't expect a government stamp of approval.

It's going to get ugly. And then it's going to get boring. So, we have two

options here.

We can add gay marriage to the short list of controversies—abortion,

affirmative action, the death penalty—that are so frozen and ritualistic

that debates about them are more like Kabuki performances than

intellectual exercises. Or we can think outside the box. There is a

solution that ought to satisfy both camps and may not be a bad idea even

apart from the gay-marriage controversy.

That solution is to end the institution of marriage. Or rather (he hastens to

clarify, Dear)

the solution is to end the institution of government-sanctioned marriage.

Or, framed to appeal to conservatives: End the government monopoly on

marriage. Wait, I've got it: Privatize marriage. These slogans all mean

the same thing. Let churches and other religious institutions continue

to offer marriage ceremonies. Let department stores and casinos get into

the act if they want. Let each organization decide for itself what kinds

of couples it wants to offer marriage to. Let couples celebrate their

union in any way they choose and consider themselves married whenever

they want. Let others be free to consider them not married, under rules

these others may prefer. And, yes, if three people want to get married,

or one person wants to marry herself, and someone else wants to conduct

a ceremony and declare them married, let 'em. If you and your government

aren't implicated, what do you care?

In fact, there is nothing to stop any of this from happening now. And a lot of

it does

happen. But only certain marriages get certified by the government. So,

in the United States we are about to find ourselves in a strange

situation where the principal demand of a liberation movement is to be

included in the red tape of a government bureaucracy. Having just gotten

state governments out of their bedrooms, gays now want these governments

back in. Meanwhile, social-conservative anti-gays, many of them

Southerners, are calling on the government in Washington to trample

states' rights and nationalize the rules of marriage, if necessary, to

prevent gays from getting what they want. The Senate Majority Leader,

Bill Frist of Tennessee, responded to the Supreme Court's Lawrence

decision by endorsing a constitutional amendment, no less, against gay

marriage.

If marriage were an entirely private affair, all the disputes over gay marriage

would become irrelevant. Gay marriage would not have the official

sanction of government, but neither would straight marriage. There would

be official equality between the two, which is the essence of what gays

want and are entitled to. And if the other side is sincere in saying

that its concern is not what people do in private, but government

endorsement of a gay " lifestyle " or " agenda, " that problem goes away,

too.

Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are children,

there are finances, there are spousal job benefits like health insurance

and pensions. In all these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for

other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence

or devotion to offspring. It would be possible to write rules that

measure the real factors at stake and leave marriage out of the matter.

Regarding children and finances, people can set their own rules, as many

already do. None of this would be easy. Marriage functions as what

lawyers call a " bright line, " which saves the trouble of trying to

measure a lot of amorphous factors. You're either married or you're not.

Once marriage itself becomes amorphous, who-gets-the-kids and

who-gets-health-care become trickier questions.

So, sure, there are some legitimate objections to the idea of privatizing

marriage.

But they don't add up to a fatal objection. Especially when you consider

that the alternative is arguing about gay marriage until death do us

part.

[Guest guest]

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 18:45:17 -0000

" jopollack2001 " <jopollack2001@...> wrote:

> Another point of interest.... my grandpa is married to a woman 30

> years his junior. He's about 80, she's 50. In fact, she's younger

> than her step daughter (my mum, 56!) They've been married about 20

> years now. It's a very happy marriage. He gets someone to look

> after him in old age (she dotes on him totally) and she gets

> financial security and someone with brains to look after her

http://content.health.msn.com/content/article/14/1687_50744

[Guest guest]

>Yes, yes, marriage is about more than sleeping arrangements. There are

children,

>there are finances, there are spousal job benefits like health insurance

>and pensions. In all these areas, marriage is used as a substitute for

>other factors that are harder to measure, such as financial dependence

>or devotion to offspring.

Here here! Marriage was traditionally a tribal or church thing, I'm not sure

when the government got involved (probably when the king became

head of the church? THAT wasn't a great idea either!).

But we DO need another declaration to make the legalities easier.

Roommates (non-sexual roommates) have a real problem ... one of

them goes to the hospital, and the other can't carry on their

finances without a lot of legal paperwork. There should be an easy

legal declaration that people can make that says " We are a family

unit " (or whatever you want to call it) -- that means " we trust each

other to handle our finances, be our heirs, or whatever, without

additional paperwork " . Or make the paperwork easier. I ran into

this when I was in a roommate (not gay, for what it is worth)

situation. I wanted to bring my best friend to family gatherings

etc. and get her medical insurance etc. but she " didn't count "

because she was " just a friend " so I had to go by myself while

everyone else brought their live-ins or spouses.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/31/03 1:58:47 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Here here! Marriage was traditionally a tribal or church thing, I'm not

> sure

> when the government got involved (probably when the king became

> head of the church? THAT wasn't a great idea either!).

Heidi,

If by " the church " you mean the Christian Church, it was more the opposite

case, that the church accepted the Roman marriage contract already in existence.

In fact the Roman Empire had legal penalties for men and women who did not

marry, and Christianity's ideal of chastity was liberating particularly to

women but also in some ways to men (though I think women could be fairly said to

have gotten the short end of the marriage stick), although within a century

most of the liberating effects Christianity had on women were pretty quickly

undermined by some forged ine letters, infiltration of the intellectual

class

into the Church, etc.

I don't think the " King " ever became head of the " Church " and I'm sure the

Pope would have had a fit over that one :-) Some people accuse the Byzantine

Emperor of being the head of the Eastern church, which is absurd.

Chris

[Guest guest]

>Heidi,

>

>If by " the church " you mean the Christian Church, it was more the opposite

>case, that the church accepted the Roman marriage contract already in

existence.

Those Romans had a rather rigid society. The more I read about them

the gladder I am I'm not one.

> In fact the Roman Empire had legal penalties for men and women who did not

>marry, and Christianity's ideal of chastity was liberating particularly to

>women but also in some ways to men (though I think women could be fairly said

to

>have gotten the short end of the marriage stick), although within a century

>most of the liberating effects Christianity had on women were pretty quickly

>undermined by some forged ine letters, infiltration of the intellectual

class

>into the Church, etc.

Hmmm. THAT sounds controversial ...

>I don't think the " King " ever became head of the " Church " and I'm sure the

>Pope would have had a fit over that one :-) Some people accuse the Byzantine

>Emperor of being the head of the Eastern church, which is absurd.

I was thinking of the king of England ... Henry the 8th, I think it was? Made

himself

head of the church when he wasn't granted a divorce? (And yeah, the Pope had

a fit). History wasn't my strong suit though.

-- Heidi

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/1/03 3:23:33 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

heidis@... writes:

> Those Romans had a rather rigid society. The more I read about them

> the gladder I am I'm not one.

Haha, oh get this then. Once they adopted Christianity and started enforcing

morality they got even stricter-- in the fourth century girls who ran off

with their boyfriends were burned alive and if anyone assisted they had molten

lead poured down their throat. Fun, huh?!

> >In fact the Roman Empire had legal penalties for men and women who did not

>

> >marry, and Christianity's ideal of chastity was liberating particularly to

> >women but also in some ways to men (though I think women could be fairly

> said to

> >have gotten the short end of the marriage stick), although within a century

>

> >most of the liberating effects Christianity had on women were pretty

> quickly

> >undermined by some forged ine letters, infiltration of the intellectual

> class

> >into the Church, etc.

>

> Hmmm. THAT sounds controversial ...

Sounds it, but it isn't really. Not among scholars anyway, Christian or not.

If you read the " pastorals, " i.e. letters to and Titus it's just

rather hard to believe they were written by the same person that wrote all the

other ine letters. If you get a good scholarly Bible, like the Oxford

Annotated, it'll say it in the intro even.

> I was thinking of the king of England ... Henry the 8th, I think it was?

> Made himself

> head of the church when he wasn't granted a divorce? (And yeah, the Pope had

> a fit). History wasn't my strong suit though.

Yeah, I'd overlooked the English Church. State marriages were around way

before that though in Christian societies.

Chris

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/1/03 8:32:35 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

jopollack2001@... writes:

> Ever heard of the Church of England? Well , the head

> of the Royal family heads that church! Right now of

> course, that's . The church of england was

> created by Henry 8th so he could divorce one of his

> wives (catherine of aragon I believe, but don't quote

> me!) Since then, the king or queen has always been

> head of that church.

Right... I know, it had slipped my mind simply because it's waaaaaaaaay later

historically than the use of state marriages within Christian society.

Chris