Married working mothers hurt society condoms rob women

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Married working mothers hurt society condoms rob women

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:16 pm

Social Security official: Married working mothers hurt society, condoms rob women of “remarkable chemicals” in semen

Robert W. Patterson also suggested that homosexuality is a mental disorder and sexual orientation can be forcibly changed

January 11, 2019 9:04 AM EST

Melissa Joskow / Media Matters
Patterson’s work with The Family in America led to his resignation as a special assistant in Pennsylvania’s Department of Public Welfare in January 2012. The Philadelphia Inquirer reported at the time that Patterson weighed in on “what he described as a woman's ideal role in society: married and at home raising children.” He also “wrote about research that he said showed that if women wanted to find ‘Mr. Right,’ they should shun birth control pills; and if they wanted to improve their mood, they should not insist that their men wear condoms lest they miss out on beneficial chemicals found in semen.” The Inquirer explained of Patterson's views:

After the paper asked the Pennsylvania state government about “Patterson's side job as editor,” he resigned and then-Pennsylvania Republican Gov. Tom Corbett’s “administration swiftly distanced itself from the views expressed in the journal he edits.” The Inquirer later reported: “Department officials said Patterson had decided to resign because he had been denied his request to remain the editor of the Family in America journal while working for the state.” (Patterson defended himself at the time by claiming “that The Inquirer distorted his views, and that his writings cited respected studies published elsewhere.”)

The SSA did not respond to a request for comment.

Media Matters recently examined Patterson’s writings and found additional sexist commentary about married women in the workplace along with anti-LGBTQ bigotry.

Patterson complained that the government “has facilitated the movement of mothers out of the home economy and into the market economy, undermining the family as an economic unit, marriage as a lifelong partnership, and the well-being of children.” Patterson wrote a 2011 Washington Examiner op-ed (which is no longer available on its website) that complained about mothers in the workforce:

Congress incentivized family breakup by creating a child-support system that virtually guarantees divorcing mothers and their children an income stream without requiring those women, who initiate two-thirds of marital disruptions, to demonstrate any wrongdoing on the part of the father.

All this needs to go. As does another policy monstrosity of the 1970s: sex-based affirmative action that favors not just women over men in the workplace but the privileged career woman over the homemaker-wife who depends on her breadwinning husband. According to a 2007 Pew Research Center study, this blatant rent-seeking has resulted in employment patterns that neither American men nor women consider ideal.

Most important, the workplace bias that Uncle Sam sanctions, in collusion with big business, has facilitated the movement of mothers out of the home economy and into the market economy, undermining the family as an economic unit, marriage as a lifelong partnership, and the well-being of children.

Moreover, by advantaging young women over their male counterparts, affirmative action has disrupted the marriage market and helped lead to dramatic increases in cohabitation and single households.

Patterson has worked for two virulently anti-LGBTQ organizations. Patterson has worked for extreme anti-LGBTQ groups Family Research Council (FRC) and the International Organization for the Family (formerly The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society).

He worked for FRC from 1998-2002, serving as its senior director of publications and the editor of its Family Policy journal. FRC is an influential and extreme anti-LGBTQ group that has tried to prevent equal rights for LGBTQ individuals.

During Patterson’s time at FRC, the group’s website stated that it “believes that homosexuality is unhealthy, immoral and destructive to individuals, families and societies. Compassion — not bigotry — impels us to support healing for homosexuals who want to change their orientation. FRC opposes any attempts to equate homosexuality with civil rights or to compare it to benign characteristics such as skin color or place of origin.”

One issue of Family Policy that Patterson edited included a piece by Frank York and Robert Knight arguing that “parents, teachers, social workers, and clergy need to challenge the nonsense set forth by homosexual activists that homosexuality is simply an alternative lifestyle or a harmless diversion. They need to view homosexuality in a more realistic fashion, seeing it for what it really is: a life-controlling addiction like smoking or drug abuse.” In a section about “available resources,” the Patterson-edited issue also recommends conversion therapy, a dangerous and discredited practice that seeks to change the sexual orientation or gender identity of LGBTQ individuals.

FRC’s website today still states that the organization “believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed.”

Patterson was also the editor of The Howard Center for Family, Religion & Society’s The Family in America journal from 2009-2012. In 2016, the organization retooled and became the International Organization for the Family (IOF).

The Howard Center was openly anti-LGBTQ. A statement from its 2011 website read: “The complementary natures of men and women are physically and psychologically self-evident. These differences are created and natural, not primarily socially constructed. Sexuality is ordered for the procreation of children and the expression of love between husband and wife in the covenant of marriage. Marriage between a man and a woman forms the sole moral context for natural sexual union. Whether through pornography, promiscuity, incest or homosexuality, deviations from these created sexual norms cannot truly satisfy the human spirit. They lead to obsession, remorse, alienation, and disease.”

Patterson criticized the American Psychiatric Association for removing “homosexuality … from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders” and pushed false and dangerous propaganda that sexual orientation can be forcibly changed. Patterson co-wrote in a 2010 piece for The Family in America: “When homosexuality was deleted from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association was motivated not by the scientific evidence but by a therapeutic desire to weaken prevailing social attitudes that allegedly damage the self-esteem of homosexuals. Consequently, much of the discussion of homosexuality by public-health officials and professional associations ignores the large body of empirical literature that casts homosexual behavior in an unfavorable light.”

Patterson then cited purported research from the discredited anti-LGBTQ and conversion therapy advocacy group National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality (NARTH; the group has since been folded into The Alliance for Therapeutic Choice and Scientific Integrity), which concluded, “Homosexuality is not innate, immutable, or without significant risk to the medical, psychological, and relational health,” adding:

The review of 600 reports and studies contains three review essays, two of which refute claims of the American Psychological Association that sexual orientation is fixed and that attempts to change it can be harmful. The third review finds that the literature demonstrates, contrary to another claim of the APA, that “problematic behaviors and psychological dysfunctions are experienced among homosexuals at about three times the prevalence found in the general population—and sometimes much more.”

In contrast to the junk science cited by Patterson, major medical associations have rejected and discredited conversion therapy and stated that gender identity and sexuality cannot be forcibly changed. Further, such organizations have concluded that conversion therapy leads to dangerous consequences, including suicidal ideation.

Patterson said same-sex marriage goes against “nature, history, and reason.” Patterson wrote for National Review in 2009: “Because it predates society and the state, wedlock actually creates, builds, and renews society. Same-sex marriage — a construct that depends on the state for its very existence — can never duplicate these functions. Of course, insisting that marriage law should reflect what nature, history, and reason affirm risks offending not so much homosexuals as cultural elites who care little about America.”

Patterson: “Gay marriage, like all the liberal ideas of the 1970s--including no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, cohabitation, and daycare--does not and cannot serve the common good.” Patterson complained about same-sex marriage in a 2004 piece for Human Events Online (which is no longer available on its website):

[The] communal dimension is virtually nonexistent when it comes to same-sex relationships, evidence that such relationships should never be deemed equivalent to, or even an alternative to, marriage. Unlike marriage, same-sex relationships are static, self-focused, and center almost exclusively on what the relationship delivers for the two partners, not what it represents to the supportive families or to society. Does a homosexual partner even solicit the blessing of his prospective partner's family? Do his aunts and uncles travel cross-country to celebrate the occasion? Who are the third parties to these pairings? Rarely conducted in a community setting like a church or synagogue, these new-fangled arrangements are essentially private affairs with no organic ties to anything. Ironically, this private identity is praised by advocates like Andrew Sullivan who assert that gay marriage can't possibly impact the traditional marriages of others because it concerns only the two persons involved.



What this comes down to should be obvious: Gay marriage, like all the liberal ideas of the 1970s--including no-fault divorce, abortion on demand, cohabitation, and daycare--does not and cannot serve the common good. When elected officials, like the minister in a wedding ceremony, ask whether the public objects to what is being proposed in Massachusetts and San Francisco, the American people need to rise up and speak their minds for the sake of the children, for the sake of women, and for the sake of the Republic.
https://www.mediamatters.org/blog/2019/ ... als/222474
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: Married working mothers hurt society condoms rob women

Postby identity » Thu Jan 17, 2019 8:48 pm

'Oral sex helps women fight depression' claim

Wednesday August 22 2012

“Oral sex is good for women’s health and helps fight depression”, was the Daily Mail’s lurid headline today, while The Sun opted for a more straightforward “Semen is good for you”.

The “news” is based on research that is more than 10 years old. The facts used to support the lascivious claims come from a small study looking at depression scores of women students who used condoms during sexual activity compared with those who did not. It found that sexually active women who did not use condoms reported fewer depressive symptoms than those who did. From this the researchers seem to assume that semen may have antidepressant qualities.

This study is full of holes – and extreme caution should be used when interpreting anything from it. Researchers only gleaned information about depression symptoms (not diagnoses of depression), how often the women had sex, and whether they used condoms, via an anonymous questionnaire. All of these facts greatly limit the reliability of the results.

This type of cross-sectional study (symptoms and sexual behaviour assessed at the same time) cannot prove cause and effect – as the authors acknowledge. There are likely to be many other unmeasured personal factors in a woman’s life that influenced her depression scores and sexual behaviour. The researchers’ theory that semen may contain antidepressant compounds is speculation and is not supported by this study.

If the Mail’s report is taken seriously it could be seen as a green light for unsafe sex, leading to unwanted pregnancies and sexually transmitted infections – neither of which are normally associated with feeling more cheerful.

Where did the story come from?

The study was carried out by researchers from the State University of New York. The paper gives no information about any external funding.
The study was published in 2002 in the peer-reviewed journal, Archives of Sexual Behaviour.

Predictably, the Daily Mail and The Sun were determined not to let the study’s flaws get in the way of a good story. Both illustrated the story with photos of glamorous couples cavorting in their underwear. The Mail’s introduction claiming that oral sex is good for women’s health confused the issue further, since the study did not look at oral sex. It is also unclear why it has taken more than 10 years for the research to make it to the news pages.

Both papers only published the story on their websites, not in their print editions.

What kind of research was this?

This was a cross-sectional study of women students, which looked at their condom use as an indirect measure of semen in the reproductive tract. It compared both condom use and sexual activity to how the women scored on a standard depression questionnaire. The researchers say that previous researchers have hypothesised that semen may have an effect on mood in women – and that many of the hormones found in semen, including testosterone, oestrogen and prostaglandins, can be absorbed into the body through the vagina. They set out to test this hypothesis by measuring depressive symptoms in women and how it related to sexual activity and condom use.

A cross-sectional study provides a “snapshot” of certain factors in people’s lives at one point in time, but cannot show cause and effect. Viewing condom use as an indirect measure of the presence of semen in the vagina, or in the bloodstream, may sound logical but is unreliable. It is even possible that sexually active women who did not use condoms used a contraceptive method called coitus interruptus, in which the penis is withdrawn from the vagina before ejaculation. The researchers did not take account of this, or many other possible explanations for their results.

What did the research involve?

The researchers recruited 293 women undergraduates who answered an anonymous questionnaire designed to measure various aspects of their sexual behaviour, including:

frequency of sexual intercourse
number of days since their last sexual encounter
types of contraceptives used
Among the sexually active women in the sample, the use of condoms was taken as an “indirect measure of semen in the reproductive tract”. Each woman was also asked to complete a standard questionnaire (the Beck Depression Inventory) which is widely used to measure depressive symptoms, including suicide attempts. Researchers then analysed the results using standard statistical methods.

What were the basic results?

Of the women participating in the research, 87% were sexually active. Their depression scores were found to vary in relation to their condom use.

Women who had sexual intercourse, but never used condoms, had significantly lower depressive symptoms than those who usually used condoms.
Women who had sexual intercourse, and who did not use condoms, had significantly lower depression scores than those who “abstained from sexual intercourse”.
However, depression scores between women who used condoms and those who did not engage in sexual intercourse were not significantly different.
For women who did not use condoms, or only used them some of the time, depression scores went up as the amount of time since their last sexual encounter increased.
Of the women who had never used condoms, 4.5% had attempted suicide, compared to 7.4% in the “sometimes use” group, 28.9% in the “usually use” group and 13.2% in the “always use” group.
The researchers also found that women who did not use condoms had sex more often than those who used condoms most or all of the time.

Researchers also examined whether being in a relationship might be a factor which affected depression scores. They subdivided participants into two groups – those who were currently in a relationship with a member of the opposite sex and those who were not. They found no significant difference in depression scores between the two groups. Nor did the length of the relationship correlate with depressive symptoms.

They also found that use of oral contraceptives (used by 7 in 10 of the sexually active “never users” of condoms) made no significant differences to depression scores.

How did the researchers interpret the results?

The researchers say that although their study is only preliminary, the data is consistent with the possibility that semen may “antagonise” depressive symptoms. They also point out that the finding that women having sex without condoms scored lower on depression than those abstaining from sex shows that it is not sexual activity in itself that is associated with an antidepressant effect.

They say there is other evidence which shows that the vagina absorbs a number of components of semen into the bloodstream, some of which may have antidepressant properties. The researchers also suggest that it would be “interesting” to investigate the possible antidepressant effects of oral or anal ingestion of semen (or both) among both heterosexual couples and homosexual men.

Conclusion

It is difficult to know what to make of the study that the stories are loosely based on: why it was undertaken and what usefulness it could have in the real world. And apart from pure titillation and appealing to fans of ‘Fifty Shades of Grey’, it is difficult to see how these stories could be construed as news. It is possible that this story will become yet another of the many myths about sexual activity.

As a cross-sectional study it provides a snapshot of both women’s sexual activity, condom use and their reported depressive scores at one point in time, but it cannot show that not using condoms or having semen in the reproductive tract causes women to feel less depressed. Although the researchers did try and take account of other factors that might affect both depression scores and sexual behaviour – such as how often women had sex and whether they were in a relationship – there are many unmeasured factors which might have affected both of these things and influenced the association, including family and study problems, illness and personality.

Even though they questioned whether the women were in a relationship or not, it is still difficult to assess from this the stability or security of the relationship, which could be associated with reduced depression symptoms and increased likelihood of using alternative, or longer term, methods of contraception.

It is also worth noting that the study has also not assessed diagnoses of depression, only depression scores.

Overall, the researchers have not shown in this study that semen contains compounds with antidepressant qualities. They consider that both the oestrogen and prostaglandins found in semen may have this effect, but this is only speculation. Whether self-reported condom use is an accurate indicator of semen in the reproductive tract or the bloodstream is also open to doubt, because some couples may have practised “withdrawal”. As the authors point out, to investigate whether semen had any effect on mood would require a study which directly measured semen in the reproductive tract or ideally, in the bloodstream, and correlated this with women’s moods. Whether this would be a useful exercise is questionable, to say the least.

Most importantly, condoms protect against unwanted pregnancy and are the best way to protect against sexually transmitted infections. Even if further study were to demonstrate that semen did have some direct influence upon depression symptoms, this minor benefit would almost certainly be outweighed by the increased risk of unwanted pregnancy and sexually transmitted infections.

Analysis by Bazian
Edited by NHS Website


https://www.nhs.uk/news/mental-health/oral-sex-helps-women-fight-depression-claim
We should never forget Galileo being put before the Inquisition.
It would be even worse if we allowed scientific orthodoxy to become the Inquisition.

Richard Smith, Editor in Chief of the British Medical Journal 1991-2004,
in a published letter to Nature
identity
 
Posts: 707
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 5:00 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Married working mothers hurt society condoms rob women

Postby Grizzly » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:19 pm

Man we (in general) all get beaten over and over and over with these fucking wedge issues between Gender, Race, Class, man vs woman, gay vs straight, vs trans , black v white, on an on.. endlessly. And we bite em, over and over and over...
“The more we do to you, the less you seem to believe we are doing it.”

― Joseph mengele
User avatar
Grizzly
 
Posts: 4908
Joined: Wed Oct 26, 2011 4:15 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)


Return to SLAD Newswire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest