|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Jan 28, 2010 19:34:19 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 28, 2010 21:56:36 GMT -5
Okay -- fun!
I'll write my point #3, and then go back to read yours, Sea (I did read the PM Manifesto Point #3, in order to try to make it as parallel as I could).
Pole dancers may be aware that the pheromones they emit at various times of their ovulatory cycles, may have have some bearing on men's motivations regarding tipping -- but since they can't spend every day of the month ovulating, they are content to go with the flow (though some may try to work more hours during ovulation, and/or use special pheromone perfumes).
I learned about the relationship between ovulation and tips a while back when I saw an article about lap-dancers. Apparently the ones who aren't on hormonal contraceptives have an advantage for a portion of each month.
No wonder so many religious folks feel the Pill was born of the devil!
And now for the rickroll (if I understand this right) ... drumroll (link broken) ...
Sorry! Click away but there's no link! How's that for a rickroll ...
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jan 28, 2010 21:58:06 GMT -5
Susan, I believe the term you're looking for is "pheromones".
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 28, 2010 22:05:23 GMT -5
Thank you, kisekileia! I fixed it. I'm sorry I can't seem to get the link to work, though.
If you want to see the article, I think you can find it pretty easily by googling "lap dancer ovulation."
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 28, 2010 22:07:52 GMT -5
Oh, and apparently the researchers weren't sure how the men picked up on the dancers' ovulatory status -- whether by scent, behavior, or a combination of both ... or something else ...
|
|
|
Post by badfaerie on Jan 29, 2010 12:17:11 GMT -5
Pole dancers fear that God is in control of their ability to prevent conception, so they add silent (and not so silent) prayer to their birth control rituals to allow them to be blessed with control of their bodies in this area.
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Jan 29, 2010 13:30:22 GMT -5
Hello, ladies! I’m back – funny how 48 hours can turn into 72 in the blink of an eye, right? I have been catching up on this thread and all the other great posts that Vyckie’s been busting tail to get out there – so much really interesting stuff! – but I guess I should respond here first: Do I think it is “misogynist” to deny an individual woman’s choice? Yes I do. Do I think that women are exploited at least 2/3 times more than men in anything they choose to do for a living? That’s affirmative. And do I think male strippers are being exploited? Yes again. (As to why, KR, you’ll just have to wait for Point #48 – Ima make it special just for you! ) Really - we have a whole year’s worth of Points to go through so I’m sure we’ll touch on pretty much * Everything* by the time we’re finished writing this Creed! So go write yours at #3, ladies! Brandy awaits…
|
|
em
Full Member
Posts: 176
|
Post by em on Jan 29, 2010 16:42:54 GMT -5
Okay -- fun! I'll write my point #3, and then go back to read yours, Sea (I did read the PM Manifesto Point #3, in order to try to make it as parallel as I could). Pole dancers may be aware that the pheromones they emit at various times of their ovulatory cycles, may have have some bearing on men's motivations regarding tipping -- but since they can't spend every day of the month in estrus, they are content to go with the flow (though some may try to work more hours during estrus, and/or use special pheromone perfumes). I learned about the relationship between estrus and tips a while back when I saw an article about lap-dancers. Apparently the ones who aren't on hormonal contraceptives have an advantage for a portion of each month. No wonder so many religious folks feel the Pill was born of the devil! And now for the rickroll (if I understand this right) ... drumroll (link broken) ... Sorry! Click away but there's no link! How's that for a rickroll ... If you'll excuse the nitpicky bio-geek .... women are never in estrus. estrus is another cycle is completely separate from the menstrual cycle (ie since we have menstrual cycles, humans don't have estrus). Sorry. I'm just that big of a dork I can't help myself.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jan 29, 2010 17:07:33 GMT -5
First, let me state that this does not in any way mean that I advocate the idea that children are not blessings. It doesn't mean that I don't love and trust God. I would also like to add a disclaimer for my Christian friends, since this religious movement seems to make it necessary that I provide the disclaimer so that I will be heard. (I think it is inappropriate to discuss what goes on in someone's bedroom which includes how many children they have.) But if I don't make the disclaimer, I am labeled and my opinion will be disregarded by certain subcultures and I will be called a self-interested feminist... This issue is very problematic for me personally. I can confidently say that I think that children are blessings, so my comment here is not said in any kind of "pro-choice" spirit. Pro-life Christians with concerns about opening up any kind of discussion that sounds remotely questionable may find my "contributions" to this discussion more palatable with this understanding: I have had no children. I've been married 20 years. I took the pill to treat the cessation of my cycle for three months only in my mid-twenties. I've used NFP and a barrier method whenever I took steroids for asthma because they would hurt an unborn baby. I've had two miscarriages, and they were more than ten years ago now. I always figured that statistics HAD to catch up to me sometime, waiting for babies that never came and taking only part time or temp work so that a job would not interfere with my plans to stay home with a baby and homeschool my kids. I wish you all had been there the day I packed up and gave my "homeschool hope chest" away about five years ago. You could have comforted me as I wept. I figured that I could joyfully replace the things I'd collected if God changed His mind. (We're not in a position to adopt because of our own very life-limiting illnesses now. And BTW, my husband is debilitated due to a genetic disorder that 50% of our children would inherit, but we chose to have our own children anyway. But they never came.) So my big question is this:If Carmon Friedrich thinks that God is sovereign over everything including her womb, how is it that her religious movement treats me as if God is not somehow sovereign over mine? I'm worse than a second class citizen in most every Christian group I find myself, but the QF minded groups are especially cruel. I offer this suggestion for Pole Dancer Creed #3:Pole dancers are aware that childbearing is often used to prove both virility and religious worth,
so the pole dancer exercises reason regarding her sexual health and reproduction so that the children that she conceives will receive the very best of her care and attention.
Can you tell that this PMM point really ticks me off? It is exquisite in its holier than thou elitism.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Jan 29, 2010 17:15:03 GMT -5
If you'll excuse the nitpicky bio-geek .... women are never in estrus. estrus is another cycle is completely separate from the menstrual cycle (ie since we have menstrual cycles, humans don't have estrus). Sorry. I'm just that big of a dork I can't help myself. Oh, thanks em! cindy, I'm so sorry about how you've been treated! And you're right that the QF attitudes about God being in control are totally hypocritical. It's like, God gets the credit when things go well -- but humans always get the blame when things don't go as the QF people think they should go. One of my friends who's been married for many years with no pregnancies, has found church-people to be extremely intrusive into her marital life. It's awful.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Jan 29, 2010 18:31:40 GMT -5
I've been in mainstream evangelical churches with people who pride themselves on being reasonable and not sucked into faith healing beliefs. It is striking to me that these (completely non-QF, probably never heard of it) Christians can accept that people get cancer, don't get cured or healed and die and that people can live with chronic health problems. They don't point to these people and question what they are doing wrong, they accept that ill health and death is a part of life. But STILL the woman who cannot have children can be the subject of whispered spiritual innuendo. She will be encouraged to find some spiritual reason for her barreneness. Not everyone is like this of course but I think it's a deep cultural bias against women that comes out in the church without any real thinking going on. I've had a few animated "discussions" about this topic with Christians in the past and they usually whip out some bible verse to explain why infertility is a spiritual matter but cancer or asthma is not.
|
|
|
Post by jemand on Jan 29, 2010 18:40:26 GMT -5
I've been in mainstream evangelical churches with people who pride themselves on being reasonable and not sucked into faith healing beliefs. It is striking to me that these (completely non-QF, probably never heard of it) Christians can accept that people get cancer, don't get cured or healed and die and that people can live with chronic health problems. They don't point to these people and question what they are doing wrong, they accept that ill health and death is a part of life. But STILL the woman who cannot have children can be the subject of whispered spiritual innuendo. She will be encouraged to find some spiritual reason for her barreneness. Not everyone is like this of course but I think it's a deep cultural bias against women that comes out in the church without any real thinking going on. I've had a few animated "discussions" about this topic with Christians in the past and they usually whip out some bible verse to explain why infertility is a spiritual matter but cancer or asthma is not. they do the same thing with mental illness and "demon possession" as well.
|
|
|
Post by kisekileia on Jan 29, 2010 19:03:24 GMT -5
Arietty, I think it is because of the Bible passages that portray having many children as a sign of God's blessing and use "barren" as a metaphor for the lack of God's favour. Likewise, there are Bible passages that refer to demon possession, and not all modern readers are able to recognize that 'demon possession' was a primitive way of understanding problems that we now know to be biological (and social, in some cases) in origin.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jan 29, 2010 19:47:22 GMT -5
Thank you for your kind words, everyone. I didn't want to hijack the thread, but I am concerned about a certain subgroup interpreting my comment as something potentially supportive of a non-pro-life position. But this PMM point does point out another issue related to what I call their "spiritual eugenics." Though there are trite answers for lots of things in this mindset (such as Gothard's health perspective that all diseases should be addressed as potential spiritual issues FIRST), there are no quick and easy solutions for messy problems like disease unless someone can make a buck off of it. Those who are born into "covenant families" enjoy a higher status than those from secular families or those who convert. Likewise, the group tends to favor only those who can meet their high standards of performance which has a physical eugenics element to it. "ONLY THE PERFECT AND PERFECTLY HEALTHY MAY APPLY." They don't really have good answers for the spinster, either. They are also problem people who don't make Doug Phillips blog as eye candy. There is a definite "survival of the fittest" element to the religion they've created, and they offer little compassion or tolerance for those who do not fit the mold. That said, I'd like to try to redirect the discussion back to the PDC. Whatta ya think of this suggestion for #3? Pole dancers are aware that childbearing is often used to prove both virility and religious worth,
so the pole dancer exercises reason regarding her sexual health and reproduction so that the children that she conceives will receive the very best of her care and attention.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jan 29, 2010 20:01:52 GMT -5
This point also brings out the fascist overtones of the mindset. (Fascist in the literal sense of the word and referring to some form of authoritarianism.) Everyone is wrapped up into a neat little bundle (a fascia) and placed in their proper bin. I'm in the sin bin.
Notice how there are also no acceptable bins for people with two or three kids? They are "not as equal as others" in the movement are -- like those who have ten kids? In some circles, they may as well be pole dancers, too.
They don't tolerate exceptions. Can't have kids? Have only one or two kids? You must adopt more! How many do you adopt? Well, how many does the model family have in the group? I guess Phillips has stopped at eight, so you need at least that many.
Too unhealthy to adopt? Then you are not healthy enough to be having sex either! (Some of you will know better than I which QF author makes that statement.) And what gives these people the right to poke their noses into the bedrooms of people at this point? But people do it with me all of the time, and they don't bat an eye. It never occurs that this is "immodest" discussion over lunch at a table in the church basement.
|
|
|
Post by cindy on Jan 29, 2010 20:10:09 GMT -5
Again, as I am particuarly peeved by this particular PMM point, it looks like the suggestions for the PDC #3, to date, are: Susan: Pole dancers may be aware that the pheromones they emit at various times of their ovulatory cycles, may have some bearing on men's motivations regarding tipping -- but since they can't spend every day of the month ovulating, they are content to go with the flow (though some may try to work more hours during ovulation, and/or use special pheromone perfumes). Badfaerie: Pole dancers fear that God is in control of their ability to prevent conception, so they add silent (and not so silent) prayer to their birth control rituals to allow them to be blessed with control of their bodies in this area. Cindy: Pole dancers are aware that childbearing is often used to prove both virility and religious worth, so the pole dancer exercises reason regarding her sexual health and reproduction so that the children that she conceives will receive the very best of her care and attention. Did I miss any? (I should go get a life now!! )
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 1, 2010 19:47:51 GMT -5
Well, then... Here's mine (I shant be judged, Ladies!) for what it is worth: Pole Dancers are aware that men are in control of their ability to provide for their children, and they are beholden to them to rack up as major a tab as their families budgets may allow. I really wish that more of the Inputress' from Point #2 would *input* here, too! Don't be shy
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 1, 2010 20:33:00 GMT -5
Hmmm ... well, the Vintage 50s Decal prize is so kewl ~ I'm submitting two entries to double my chances of winning. LOL Pole Dancers are aware that control of their ability to conceive and bear children is a heavily-weighted bargaining chip, and they are careful to place their bets on the least risky gamble in this area.or ... Pole Dancers are aware that their ability to conceive and bear children carries with it both ecstatic joy and enormous responsibility, and they are conscientious to excercise self-control in this area.Kinda lame ~ but there you go. You all can do better, I'm sure! I'm planning to set up the poll here sometime tomorrow ~ so get your entries in, ladies!
|
|
|
Post by dangermom on Feb 2, 2010 11:50:47 GMT -5
Arietty, I think it is because of the Bible passages that portray having many children as a sign of God's blessing and use "barren" as a metaphor for the lack of God's favour. So what about Sarah/Abraham? They were 'barren' but I seem to recall that they were pretty righteous. They got one in the end. Rebekah/Isaac only got two. Rachel/Jacob only got two (Leah got more as a consolation prize, not because God liked her more). Elisabeth/Z. got one. The Bible frequently shows a righteous couple unable to have children unless a miracle occurs, and even then it's pretty rare. I mean, I'm no Sarah. And there are plenty of wicked people who have lots of kids, in the Bible and out of it. So I don't get that either. Oh well. Another case of twisting scripture to suit an agenda, that's nothing new.
|
|
|
Post by Vyckie D. Garrison on Feb 5, 2010 13:59:25 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 5, 2010 15:58:48 GMT -5
Vyckie, I hope you're feeling better soon!
I ended up voting for Sea's point #3 -- though I really liked badfaeirie's, too.
I just realized that since poledancing doesn't necessarily involve having sex, Sea's analogy about men being in control of how much money they have left-over to support their children after visiting the poledancer's place of employment, is probably the most true-to-life.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 5, 2010 16:01:38 GMT -5
Also, Sea's point brings out the following parallel between the world of Prairie Muffins and the world of Pole Dancers --
In both worlds, the excesses of the men are primarily paid for by the suffering of their wives and children.
|
|
|
Post by arietty on Feb 5, 2010 17:42:38 GMT -5
I realize this series is supposed to be about parallels but none of it really fits the pole dancers/strippers I have known (and yes I have known quite a few women in this profession).
Mine would be very non-parallel:
Pole dancers know that if they get pregnant they will LOSE THEIR JOB and no man will want to stuff dollars down their panties in the foreseeable future. They are particularly vigilant that this should not happen.
|
|
|
Post by susan on Feb 5, 2010 21:06:23 GMT -5
Ooh I think Ariety's is good, too! Can I vote more than once?
|
|
|
Post by sargassosea on Feb 10, 2010 13:48:04 GMT -5
Well said, Arietty! Susan - Well, I voted about 178 times I think. And: Can we call a winner yet, or what? (we're losing daylight here...)
|
|