Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by Kiff '61

My husband is a great guy. Very steady, very patient with me, very flexible, a good father to the kids. We have a lot of fun together, and we are committed to this marriage. I am extremely lucky to have him in my life.

My soul mate is a Boomer ('49 cohort), a former co-worker of mine that I still see from time to time (he's on my bar trivia team). He knows me better than anyone else. He's the one who convinced me to go into therapy when I was depressed. He supported me through my career change. Because the relationship was not romantic, he was able to cut through all the male/female BS and connect with me on a deeper level. I have never been physically attracted to him, yet I love him because he's seen me at my very worst and didn't walk away. And I'm seen him in bad times, too. He's said time and again that the two of us must have been separated at birth. "In another time, another place, it would have been you and me."

That is so sad, Kiff....to be married to someone you merely like a lot, instead of the one you truly love. :cry:

Please don't misunderstand me. I do love my husband; we wouldn't still be together if that weren't the case. We have been through a lot with each other and we are very close.

With my friend, it has never been romantic. He wouldn't want it that way and neither would I. Maybe it's confusing because we are of the opposite gender, and people automatically think that there's more than friendship going on (we did hear of rumors about us in the office because we did spend a lot of our free time talking together).

I really have no close female friends in my life (and haven't since I left college), so perhaps this is how I've compensated. We all tell our friends things that we know our spouses/SO's would not understand. It just so happened that in this case I encountered a man who was probably as emotionally sensitive as any woman I knew, yet would laugh and joke about sports with me and get into long philosophical discussions with me at other times. And he was/is someone who would seek me out for conversation and emotional support.

I really have no close female friends in my life (and haven't since I left college), so perhaps this is how I've compensated. We all tell our friends things that we know our spouses/SO's would not understand. It just so happened that in this case I encountered a man who was probably as emotionally sensitive as any woman I knew, yet would laugh and joke about sports with me and get into long philosophical discussions with me at other times. And he was/is someone who would seek me out for conversation and emotional support.

Kiff, I know what you mean. I also have no close female friends, and have not in a very long time. In fact, I have never made friends with other women very easily. I have no idea why. I just don't "click" with too many women (though perhaps I might with the ones on this board!) Nearly all of my closest and "best" friends since high school have been men, and it doesn't seem to matter whether they are Xers or Boomers. I've had male friends of both generations. Right now my best friend (off this board) is an Xer man. We understand each other. This does not mean we always agree or never get angry at each other. But I've learned a lot from this man and he has learned a lot from me.

I think you can have more than one soulmate. I don't believe there is only one soulmate for each individual, but different soulmates for different aspects or stages of your life. Each person fulfills a different need or set of needs.
A great Eastern philosopher (I forget who, does anyone know?) said that "when the student is ready, the teacher will appear." A given person may be a soulmate when you're 25, but not when you're 35 or 45. I also think relationships with soulmates can be either romantic or non-romantic. Best friends really are non-romantic soulmates. The relationship may lack the intensity of a romantic one and therefore feel less "important," but they are nearly always less volatile, longer lasting, and probably have more impact on a person in the long run.

Originally Posted by Kevin Parker '59

Originally Posted by The Wonk

• One is the case of widowers and widows who enjoyed a "soul mate" connection with their first spouse -- I maintain that such people can find a very different "soul mate" the second time around, which implies that there can be more than one "soul mate" per person.

This is probably Reason #1 why I'm glad I didn't end up dating a widow. I prefer (need?) to believe that we are reunited with our loved ones/families in heaven (or whatever one calls it) when we die. But if our spouses were married in a soulmate-type relationship before, what then? Do we get dumped for Soulmate #1 when we get to the Hereafter? Do I have to "share" her with another man-spirit for all Eternity? That sounds more like That Very Warm Place Downstairs than Heaven to me.

I guess I believe that in the Hereafter, all of that is irrelevent. I suspect that in the realm of spirit, that whole imagery of being dumped and pairing off is like us playing with rattles and teething toys.

• Third, it implies that if you never meet your soul mate, or you meet him/her and the situation is wrong, or something fluky happens and your soul mate is killed on the freeway before you ever meet him/her, then you are doomed to either lifelong celebacy or making do with casual flings.

Um....yup. There are lots of people who appear to be in this precise situation. I suppose it might give them some amount of solace to believe that even if they miss out on finding their soulmate when they are alive, they might meet up with them in Heaven, or even in their next life/incarnation (should God send them both back to Earth for further Training 8) )

Hon, do you believe in reincarnation? :-?

[list][*]Finally, the concept of one and only one soul mate can be used to justify adultery and breaking up viable marriages that have gone a bit stale and need some attention (I'm not talking about horrid marriages where one partner is abusive or refuses to work with the other partner -- however, in such cases, my preference is to end that relationship before tackling a second one. However, I realize that life is messy and lightning can sometime strike at the most inconvenient times!) [list]

Now THIS I don't get at all! How can the concept of a one-and-only soulmate in any way be used to justify adultery??? To be certain, my own central outrage concerning the late Sexual Revolution was that by encouraging people to be promiscuous, its Swingin' Silent purveyors (may they burn eternally in Hell) essentially duped Boomers and Xers into betraying their soulmates before they even had a chance to meet them. And for what?

The idea is that if you are married and it is feeling a little stale, instead of trying to work out your problems, you fall in love again and say "Oh, this is my true soulmate".

However, if you believe there is one and only one Soulmate, and you don't meet him or her until you are married with children and the marriage is okay, what do you do? I'm not talking about a platonic friendship-type of soulmate that Kiff apparently has, but the whole big thing -- the Love Of Your Life type of Soulmate. Do you go for it and end your marriage? Or do you part and hope that later in life or in the Hereafter, you can be rejoined?

Woah. See, now this is the crazystuff we get into! :lol:


Soulmates in different stages of life? That sounds like people who teach us life lessons, but my idea of a soulmate was someone you connected with (romance involved or not) on a deeper level, that was more or less permenant.

One problem amoung Gen X these days has been this thing of "starter marriages". Many of our parents are divorced, and now many of our gen who married early have had the same thing. How does one know when it's meant to be? Not that I expect an answer, because this is a question people have asked since "romantic love" started. What is love? is it commitment, and caring, and trust? Or is it passion and deep understanding that goes beyond words?

Eastern religion/philosophy was mentioned. In western religious beliefs, there is a split. In the jewish faith, a couple that is not compatable sexually can divorce, from what I am told. In the Catholic faith, you stay married unless there is adultry, and then you can have a procedure separate from divorce where the marriage is said "never to have existed".

Is it more pragmatic to say "There is no passion here, there never was, we were too young, and since we can't have children together, the sensible thing to do is split." OR is it more pragmatic to say "well, we are married anyway, who cares if there is any passion left. We have economic stability together, and might as well do the deed just have have children and our friendship". Is happiness being married to your best friend? ?

I don't know.

Help?

Rowland Nethaway has a great column out today...

People aren?t ready for airport peep show

Friday, July 11, 2003
ROWLAND NETHAWAY

In the sexually repressed post-World War II era, special X-ray glasses advertised in the back of certain magazines allowed dirty old men and curious kids to see through clothes . . .


Stop!

Originally Posted by Infoplease.com

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3,965,000 25.1
1954 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Rowland Nethaway has a great column out today...

People aren?t ready for airport peep show

Friday, July 11, 2003
ROWLAND NETHAWAY

In the sexually repressed post-World War II era, special X-ray glasses advertised in the back of certain magazines allowed dirty old men and curious kids to see through clothes . . .


Stop!

Originally Posted by Infoplease.com

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3,965,000 25.1
1954 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Rowland Nethaway has a great column out today...

People aren?t ready for airport peep show

Friday, July 11, 2003
ROWLAND NETHAWAY

In the sexually repressed post-World War II era, special X-ray glasses advertised in the back of certain magazines allowed dirty old men and curious kids to see through clothes . . .


Stop!

Originally Posted by Infoplease.com

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3,965,000 25.1
1954 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Originally Posted by ....

Rowland Nethaway has a great column out today...

People aren?t ready for airport peep show

Friday, July 11, 2003
ROWLAND NETHAWAY

In the sexually repressed post-World War II era, special X-ray glasses advertised in the back of certain magazines allowed dirty old men and curious kids to see through clothes . . .


Stop!

Originally Posted by Infoplease.com

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3,965,000 25.1
1954 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Because the people making that decision are basing all their views on the TV shows of the time. If Lucy and Ricky, or Ozzy and Harriet, weren't getting it on on TV, well, then, there must have been no sex in real life either. Watch the incredibly dumb movie Pleasantville sometime; it says almost exactly that.

Originally Posted by ....

Rowland Nethaway has a great column out today...

People aren?t ready for airport peep show

Friday, July 11, 2003
ROWLAND NETHAWAY

In the sexually repressed post-World War II era, special X-ray glasses advertised in the back of certain magazines allowed dirty old men and curious kids to see through clothes . . .


Stop!

Originally Posted by Infoplease.com

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3,965,000 25.1
1954 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Because the people making that decision are basing all their views on the TV shows of the time. If Lucy and Ricky, or Ozzy and Harriet, weren't getting it on on TV, well, then, there must have been no sex in real life either. Watch the incredibly dumb movie Pleasantville sometime; it says almost exactly that.

Originally Posted by ....

Rowland Nethaway has a great column out today...

People aren?t ready for airport peep show

Friday, July 11, 2003
ROWLAND NETHAWAY

In the sexually repressed post-World War II era, special X-ray glasses advertised in the back of certain magazines allowed dirty old men and curious kids to see through clothes . . .


Stop!

Originally Posted by Infoplease.com

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3,965,000 25.1
1954 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Because the people making that decision are basing all their views on the TV shows of the time. If Lucy and Ricky, or Ozzy and Harriet, weren't getting it on on TV, well, then, there must have been no sex in real life either. Watch the incredibly dumb movie Pleasantville sometime; it says almost exactly that.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Originally Posted by ....

Rowland Nethaway has a great column out today...

People aren?t ready for airport peep show

Friday, July 11, 2003
ROWLAND NETHAWAY

In the sexually repressed post-World War II era, special X-ray glasses advertised in the back of certain magazines allowed dirty old men and curious kids to see through clothes . . .


Stop!

Originally Posted by Infoplease.com

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3,965,000 25.1
1954 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Because the people making that decision are basing all their views on the TV shows of the time. If Lucy and Ricky, or Ozzy and Harriet, weren't getting it on on TV, well, then, there must have been no sex in real life either. Watch the incredibly dumb movie Pleasantville sometime; it says almost exactly that.

I saw that movie.
People weren't sexually repressed, they just didn't talk about it. It wasn't something you discussed in mixed company.
People had plenty of sex, they just didn't use birth control.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Originally Posted by ....

Rowland Nethaway has a great column out today...

People aren?t ready for airport peep show

Friday, July 11, 2003
ROWLAND NETHAWAY

In the sexually repressed post-World War II era, special X-ray glasses advertised in the back of certain magazines allowed dirty old men and curious kids to see through clothes . . .


Stop!

Originally Posted by Infoplease.com

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3,965,000 25.1
1954 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Because the people making that decision are basing all their views on the TV shows of the time. If Lucy and Ricky, or Ozzy and Harriet, weren't getting it on on TV, well, then, there must have been no sex in real life either. Watch the incredibly dumb movie Pleasantville sometime; it says almost exactly that.

I saw that movie.
People weren't sexually repressed, they just didn't talk about it. It wasn't something you discussed in mixed company.
People had plenty of sex, they just didn't use birth control.

Originally Posted by Dominic Flandry

Originally Posted by ....

Rowland Nethaway has a great column out today...

People aren?t ready for airport peep show

Friday, July 11, 2003
ROWLAND NETHAWAY

In the sexually repressed post-World War II era, special X-ray glasses advertised in the back of certain magazines allowed dirty old men and curious kids to see through clothes . . .


Stop!

Originally Posted by Infoplease.com

Live Births and Birth Rates, by Year

1935 2,377,000 18.7
1940 2,559,000 19.4
1945 2,858,000 20.4
1950 3,632,000 24.1
1952 3,913,000 25.1
1953 3,965,000 25.1
1954 4,078,000 25.3
1955 4,104,000 25.0

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Because the people making that decision are basing all their views on the TV shows of the time. If Lucy and Ricky, or Ozzy and Harriet, weren't getting it on on TV, well, then, there must have been no sex in real life either. Watch the incredibly dumb movie Pleasantville sometime; it says almost exactly that.

I saw that movie.
People weren't sexually repressed, they just didn't talk about it. It wasn't something you discussed in mixed company.
People had plenty of sex, they just didn't use birth control.

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Compaired to now the 1950's was a sexually repressed era, it was worse in Australia than in the USA (censorship laws were way tougher for one and the churches held a lot of political power). Compaired to other eras this not necessarly the case.

The Baby Boom was caused by the large number of people who delayed getting married during the great depression and WW2. Average family sizes changed little from the 1920's until the end of the Last High.

Interesting enough the higher rate of marriage and earlier marriage ages in the United States than other western nations is behind the higher birth rates which the United States has (even Whites in the USA have a higher birthrate than Europeans or Canadians or Australians)

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Compaired to now the 1950's was a sexually repressed era, it was worse in Australia than in the USA (censorship laws were way tougher for one and the churches held a lot of political power). Compaired to other eras this not necessarly the case.

The Baby Boom was caused by the large number of people who delayed getting married during the great depression and WW2. Average family sizes changed little from the 1920's until the end of the Last High.

Interesting enough the higher rate of marriage and earlier marriage ages in the United States than other western nations is behind the higher birth rates which the United States has (even Whites in the USA have a higher birthrate than Europeans or Canadians or Australians)

Can somebody please help me out here? First of all, I can't understand how folks were "sexually repressed" when they was making babies like rabbits! And secondly, how come it's always the "post-World War II era" that was so "sexually repressed" and not the 1930s?

Compaired to now the 1950's was a sexually repressed era, it was worse in Australia than in the USA (censorship laws were way tougher for one and the churches held a lot of political power). Compaired to other eras this not necessarly the case.

The Baby Boom was caused by the large number of people who delayed getting married during the great depression and WW2. Average family sizes changed little from the 1920's until the end of the Last High.

Interesting enough the higher rate of marriage and earlier marriage ages in the United States than other western nations is behind the higher birth rates which the United States has (even Whites in the USA have a higher birthrate than Europeans or Canadians or Australians)

Paradoxically, the whole point of sexual repression is to promote large families and high birthrates. It's part and parcel of female subjugation, intended for the same purpose.

You can't actually repress sex over a whole culture in the sense of making it disappear. It's too powerful for that. What you can do, is channel it into accepted pathways. That's what people actually mean when they say "sexual repression": not that sex is stopped or stoppered, but that it is forced to flow only in certain artificial paths.

Since the dawn of civilization, and until quite recently (like the last century at most), those artificial paths have involved the subordination of women to male authority, their confinement for the most part to breeding duty, and the restriction of sexual activity to heterosexual unions conducive to the raising of children, all for the purpose of maximizing birthrates. Although sexual activity was not curtailed in this arrangement, female sexual pleasure often was, as part of women's subjugation. In that sense, the word "repression" really is literally true. But not in the sense of actually stopping sex. That would have been counterproductive.

Paradoxically, the whole point of sexual repression is to promote large families and high birthrates. It's part and parcel of female subjugation, intended for the same purpose.

You can't actually repress sex over a whole culture in the sense of making it disappear. It's too powerful for that. What you can do, is channel it into accepted pathways. That's what people actually mean when they say "sexual repression": not that sex is stopped or stoppered, but that it is forced to flow only in certain artificial paths.

Since the dawn of civilization, and until quite recently (like the last century at most), those artificial paths have involved the subordination of women to male authority, their confinement for the most part to breeding duty, and the restriction of sexual activity to heterosexual unions conducive to the raising of children, all for the purpose of maximizing birthrates. Although sexual activity was not curtailed in this arrangement, female sexual pleasure often was, as part of women's subjugation. In that sense, the word "repression" really is literally true. But not in the sense of actually stopping sex. That would have been counterproductive.

Paradoxically, the whole point of sexual repression is to promote large families and high birthrates. It's part and parcel of female subjugation, intended for the same purpose.

You can't actually repress sex over a whole culture in the sense of making it disappear. It's too powerful for that. What you can do, is channel it into accepted pathways. That's what people actually mean when they say "sexual repression": not that sex is stopped or stoppered, but that it is forced to flow only in certain artificial paths.

Since the dawn of civilization, and until quite recently (like the last century at most), those artificial paths have involved the subordination of women to male authority, their confinement for the most part to breeding duty, and the restriction of sexual activity to heterosexual unions conducive to the raising of children, all for the purpose of maximizing birthrates. Although sexual activity was not curtailed in this arrangement, female sexual pleasure often was, as part of women's subjugation. In that sense, the word "repression" really is literally true. But not in the sense of actually stopping sex. That would have been counterproductive.

"Sperm that runs like tap water will do."

Generation of taboo breakers are a selfish lot


As with the RC priests and their little boys with hairless chests, there is plenty of blame for that Gen that preceded the Crown of Creation. Ms. Miranda Devine has identified the problem but not the
guilty (Boomer judgementalism kicks in) party.

"Sperm that runs like tap water will do."

Generation of taboo breakers are a selfish lot


As with the RC priests and their little boys with hairless chests, there is plenty of blame for that Gen that preceded the Crown of Creation. Ms. Miranda Devine has identified the problem but not the
guilty (Boomer judgementalism kicks in) party.

"Sperm that runs like tap water will do."

Generation of taboo breakers are a selfish lot


As with the RC priests and their little boys with hairless chests, there is plenty of blame for that Gen that preceded the Crown of Creation. Ms. Miranda Devine has identified the problem but not the
guilty (Boomer judgementalism kicks in) party.

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

"Sperm that runs like tap water will do."

Generation of taboo breakers are a selfish lot


As with the RC priests and their little boys with hairless chests, there is plenty of blame for that Gen that preceded the Crown of Creation. Ms. Miranda Devine has identified the problem but not the
guilty (Boomer judgementalism kicks in) party.

As if a 40-year-old and a 25-year-old dating can be compared to a 64-year-old dating a young 'boy'? What do you think about my own relationship (with a 42-year-old whom I've been dating - and loving - for over a year)? I like the fact that women in their early 40s are into men in the 18-25 age range, because women within 3 years of my age certainly seem to be much less interested in me than Krista!

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

"Sperm that runs like tap water will do."

Generation of taboo breakers are a selfish lot


As with the RC priests and their little boys with hairless chests, there is plenty of blame for that Gen that preceded the Crown of Creation. Ms. Miranda Devine has identified the problem but not the
guilty (Boomer judgementalism kicks in) party.

As if a 40-year-old and a 25-year-old dating can be compared to a 64-year-old dating a young 'boy'? What do you think about my own relationship (with a 42-year-old whom I've been dating - and loving - for over a year)? I like the fact that women in their early 40s are into men in the 18-25 age range, because women within 3 years of my age certainly seem to be much less interested in me than Krista!

Originally Posted by Virgil K. Saari

"Sperm that runs like tap water will do."

Generation of taboo breakers are a selfish lot


As with the RC priests and their little boys with hairless chests, there is plenty of blame for that Gen that preceded the Crown of Creation. Ms. Miranda Devine has identified the problem but not the
guilty (Boomer judgementalism kicks in) party.

As if a 40-year-old and a 25-year-old dating can be compared to a 64-year-old dating a young 'boy'? What do you think about my own relationship (with a 42-year-old whom I've been dating - and loving - for over a year)? I like the fact that women in their early 40s are into men in the 18-25 age range, because women within 3 years of my age certainly seem to be much less interested in me than Krista!