Bisexuality / Homosexuality and Radical Feminism - Connection ?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Barbkw
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
did you read the study you posted by chance?
The study was done by NARTH
If you will excuse me, I’m not going to waste time and keystrokes in how the division of psychiatrists and psychologists in their respective professional organizations came about in 1973. It has been covered enough in this forum. You may parrot to your heart’s content the criticisms by gay activists against the professionals behind NARTH and the studies they have done and published, notwithstanding the peer review that APA automatically withholds in flexing its power on professionals who do not bow to the gay agenda. You may continue to pour on this forum gratuitous data helpful to your pet advocacy. It’s a public forum, after all.

Yes, I do know that PubMed is a database, a collection of published medical, scientific and research materials. It is expressly indicated on the site, which I provided.

Since you replied to my post directed to meltzerboy, what I would like from you if you are up to it is a credible reference that the Dutch studies on my post # 383 were done by NARTH, as you claim. I did not see that at all in reading the links / studies I cited. Not that NARTH is without credibility and prestige to all, which is incorrect, but you make a point to repeat it across threads on homosexuality.

The people behind the studies I cited are: Dr. Theo G Sandfort (Psychologist and SocioMedical Scientist in Psychiatry), Dr R de Graaf (a physician and senior researcher at the Netherlands Institute of Mental Health and Addiction) and Dr. Ten Have (Doctor in Biostatistics).

If the studies were indeed done by NARTH, as you asserted, I certainly will accept it and give you credit for bringing it to my attention.
,
 
Hi InSearchofGrace,

Sorry to jump in here, I just though it would be helpful to share the little I know about study design.
How would you account for the extensive study in Netherlands, where society has a history of being more accepting of gays than in other Western countries (same-sex couples have been free to marry there since 2001) and, yet, the study reflects a high rate of psychiatric disorders with homosexual behavior? Does not the study undermine the assumption that social rejection and homophobia cause increased psychiatric illness among gays?
The short answer to the second question is no. The reason is that, in comparing what we observe to what we expect given the level of intolerance in several countries (as opposed to looking at the same variable as it has affected each individual), we’re looking at what epidemiologists would call an ecological study, and it is well known that causes cannot be inferred from that type of study. More concretely, what could be happening here is that, while the overall level of intolerance in the Netherlands is low, the burden of intolerance falls more heavily on gay men and women than on straight ones.
 
That’s because you don’t fully** understand the Church’s teaching on mortal sin vs. venial sin.
So, being puzzled as to how any moral code which is unable to distinguish between mass murder and missing mass a few times could be of much use to anyone, I took a look at interpretations of the catechism. According to what I found, the difference between mortal sin and venial sin is whether there is a violation of one of the commandments. However, there is a finer degree of moral gradation in distinguishing what is a “grave” sin. It doesn’t appear to me that kissing is a sin at all, unless it rises to the level of adultery. I would hate to think that a moral code which has been studied and refined for 2,000 years would be as crude as you represent it to be Elvis. Is your understanding of the catechism and the bible such that you are unable to distinguish between mass murder and missing mass a few times?
 
So, being puzzled as to how any moral code which is unable to distinguish between mass murder and missing mass a few times could be of much use to anyone, I took a look at interpretations of the catechism. According to what I found, the difference between mortal sin and venial sin is whether there is a violation of one of the commandments. However, there is a finer degree of moral gradation in distinguishing what is a “grave” sin. It doesn’t appear to me that kissing is a sin at all, unless it rises to the level of adultery. I would hate to think that a moral code which has been studied and refined for 2,000 years would be as crude as you represent it to be Elvis. Is your understanding of the catechism and the bible such that you are unable to distinguish between mass murder and missing mass a few times?
EVERY sin is a violation of one of the commandments - not just grave sin. Some are more direct violations than others, your interpretations of the catechism notwithstanding.

As for missing mass and mass murder - ALL unrepented mortal sin still gets you to the same place: HELL. That being said - kissing somebody isn’t necessarily sinful. However - ALL homosexual activity is gravely sinful and that includes making out with somebody of the same gender. Whether or not that is something you cannot deal with, it is what the Church teaches.
 
Hi InSearchofGrace,

Sorry to jump in here, I just though it would be helpful to share the little I know about study design.

The short answer to the second question is no. The reason is that, in comparing what we observe to what we expect given the level of intolerance in several countries (as opposed to looking at the same variable as it has affected each individual), we’re looking at what epidemiologists would call an ecological study, and it is well known that causes cannot be inferred from that type of study. More concretely, what could be happening here is that, while the overall level of intolerance in the Netherlands is low, the burden of intolerance falls more heavily on gay men and women than on straight ones.
Considering the specific level of intolerance toward HOMOSEXUALS is low in the Netherlands, I don’t really understand what your last statement means; please clarify.
 
Tell me what you mean by women and gays infringing on your liberties, please. Do you mean in that they are making demands in secular society to have what they see as equal rights?
I believe in natural rights, justice, and charity. They claim rights which are not natural, so in fact they are imposing (not justice) themselves on others.
Or, do you think that they are trying to change the Church in a manner which is inappropriate?
They cannot change the Church. They do like to harass the church as they claim to want to change it, and as a subterfuge of political change.
 
**EVERY **sin is a violation of one of the commandments - not just grave sin. Some are more direct violations than others, your interpretations of the catechism notwithstanding.

As for missing mass and mass murder - ALL unrepented mortal sin still gets you to the same place: HELL. That being said - kissing somebody isn’t necessarily sinful. However - ALL homosexual activity is gravely sinful and that includes making out with somebody of the same gender. Whether or not that is something you cannot deal with, it is what the Church teaches.
OK. So, we have beaten this dead horse long enough. What do you suppose the Church will teach, if in a decade or two the scientific evidence establishes that homosexuality is simply a biological condition? Will it struggle as much as it has with some other scientific advances?
 
OK. So, we have beaten this dead horse long enough. What do you suppose the Church will teach, if in a decade or two the scientific evidence establishes that homosexuality is simply a biological condition? Will it struggle as much as it has with some other scientific advances?
**The Church already recognizes that some people are born with homosexual proclivities. This is not sinful. It is sinful to ACT upon it these proclivities. **

Those who are truly homosexual are called to a life of chastity - as are those heterosexuals who choose to live an unmarried life.

St. Paul spoke about the life of the single person (1 Cor. 7) and how they should behave.
 
The Church already recognizes that some people are born with homosexual proclivities. This is not sinful. It is sinful to ACT upon it these proclivities.

Those who are truly homosexual are called to a life of chastity - as are those heterosexuals who choose to live an unmarried life.

St. Paul spoke about the life of the single person (1 Cor. 7) and how they should behave.
I don’t really see the problem of chastity for a gay person to be much different than any other person who for some reason cannot marry. It is different than for a priest, in the sense that a priest chooses his avocation.

Do you have a citation for where the Church recognizes that some people are born with a same gender sexual orientation? I have not seen that.
 
As I stated earlier - your point of view is that of a moral relativist.

The very fact that you are trying to diminish one grave sin over another is because you apparently haven’t been well-catechized in the Catholic faith. Mortal sin is mortal sin and it cuts us off from God’s grace. An unrepentant fornicator or one engaging in homosexual sex can go to hell as easily as a murderer.

**Finally - killing for one’s country is *not ***murder, your moral relativism notwithstanding.
I know that killing for one’s country is not murder, that’s the point of my analogy - congratulations.

Moral relativist? How exactly am I doing that? Am I saying that homosexual acts are not sinful in certain circumstances? No I am not. I even acknowledged that two women kissing is always sinful, BUT is not always homosexual as the two women are not attracted to each other. I have two friends who are definately not homosexual, they have even made nasty comments about them. But they kissed each other to get attention from some guys in a club. It was still a SIN. It was still BAD. It was still a homosexual ACT. But they are not homosexual THEMSELVES.

Why can’t you understand that what I am saying has nothing to do with moral relativism?

I have been very well Catechised into the Catholic faith, thank you very much. Have you? Since when have I tried to disregard mortal sin as being OK? I’m tempted to put you on ignore because I have no time for posters who have groundless accusations and just appear to be full of anger.
 
Considering the specific level of intolerance toward HOMOSEXUALS is low in the Netherlands, I don’t really understand what your last statement means; please clarify.
I don’t think I can support the remark you asked me to clarify. It was early in the morning when I made it.

However, my main point is that even if InSearchofGrace weren’t drawing a conclusion from a sample of size one (she’s considered only the Netherlands), the type of evidence here is not the kind that can tell you anything about causes. Think of it this way: a low level of intolerance is not the same as no intolerance at all, so what would stop us from claiming that the example of the Netherlands shows that even a little intolerance can cause big problems? Nothing whatever, so far as the evidence in question is concerned. All we know is that a low level of intolerance (whatever that means) coexisted at a single place in a single year with worse mental health outcomes for gay men and lesbian women than a straight comparison group. The fact shows nothing, so any conclusion drawn from it is pretty much arbitrary.
 
As I stated earlier - your point of view is that of a moral relativist.

The very fact that you are trying to diminish one grave sin over another is because you apparently haven’t been well-catechized in the Catholic faith. Mortal sin is mortal sin and it cuts us off from God’s grace. An unrepentant fornicator or one engaging in homosexual sex can go to hell as easily as a murderer.

**Finally - killing for one’s country is *not ***murder, your moral relativism notwithstanding.
So, if we apply a NON moral relativist standard to our legal system, the girls who have kissed, people who have missed a mass with no good excuse, and murderers should all suffer the same sentence under the law. If capital punishment is in use, then they should all be executed. Right?

As for killing for one’s country, I believe that can be a sin, even when following a legal order. By the time my of my second trip to Iraq, I believed that we were not fighting a “just war”. I don’t want to diverge into politics here. It was a moral position for me. However, it was not black and white either. I believed, and still believe, that having invaded a country and overthrowing a government inheres the moral obligation to make things right before we withdraw. Nonetheless, I did not have the courage at the time to refuse to deploy. As a result of that decision, I did kill people. That experience is what lead me to realize that while I wanted to be of service to mankind, that I needed to find another path, which is why I am now studying how to heal people and to relieve suffering.

Regardless of Church doctrine, does not nearly every Catholic engage in morally relativistic choices every day?
 
Extremely well thought and well expressed. To the extent of my researching, I’ve come across no definitive scientific conclusion about the “cause(s)” of homosexuality.
If we can’t be sure of the causes of homosexuality, then we can’t be sure how to “fix” it either, or if even fixing it is desirable-rather than just asking homosexuals to live chaste lives.

Both sides tend to make sweeping judgements not warrented by the evidence. There are plenty of straight people who had bad relationships with their parents, absent fathers, but turned out to be straight. There are plenty of gay people who had great parents who showed affection and come from stable homes.

There is no proof of a gay gene, or proof beyond a reasonable doubt that they were born that way immutibly. Something does have to explain why some people, if factors exist that predispose people to be gay, are gay, and while others remain straight.
 
I know that killing for one’s country is not murder, that’s the point of my analogy - congratulations.

Moral relativist? How exactly am I doing that? Am I saying that homosexual acts are not sinful in certain circumstances? No I am not. I even acknowledged that two women kissing is always sinful, BUT is not always homosexual as the two women are not attracted to each other. I have two friends who are definately not homosexual, they have even made nasty comments about them. But they kissed each other to get attention from some guys in a club. It was still a SIN. It was still BAD. It was still a homosexual ACT. But they are not homosexual THEMSELVES.

Why can’t you understand that what I am saying has nothing to do with moral relativism?

I have been very well Catechised into the Catholic faith, thank you very much. Have you? Since when have I tried to disregard mortal sin as being OK? I’m tempted to put you on ignore because I have no time for posters who have groundless accusations and just appear to be full of anger.
I called you a moral relativist because you are saying that because the women are not attracted to one another and are doing it to entice their boyfriends. Simply because they may not be homosexual doesn’t lessen the severity of the sin nor does it take away from its homosexuality. Whether they ARE or not is NOT the point. It is the ACT - it is the sin.

This is why I equated it to other mortal sins to show that your point is illogical and relativist.

I am not saying that they are homosexual. In fact, my ENTIRE point on this thread was to prove that homosexuality and homosexual acts in our society today are largely a result of conditioning because of the blurring of the lines of appropriate behavior.
 
OK. So, we have beaten this dead horse long enough. What do you suppose the Church will teach, if in a decade or two the scientific evidence establishes that homosexuality is simply a biological condition? Will it struggle as much as it has with some other scientific advances?
If I may offer the words of Father Paul Scalia to your question above:

It does not follow that if homosexual attractions were genetic then homosexual behavior would be morally acceptable. The existence of something in nature does not exempt us from moral responsibility. Someone who has inherited a genetic disease (e.g. hemophilia) cannot claim that, since he was born that way, he can therefore do whatever he wants. Rather, his inherited condition obliges a certain way of life that can be inconvenient. If alcoholism were genetic (as some suggest it is), we would not conclude that those “born that way” could drink whatever they want. Disorders exist in nature and they place crosses on us as we strive to live authentic human lives.

Same-sex attractions: Part II - The Church’s pastoral response
FATHER PAUL SCALIA


Father John Harvery during his work at Courage also articulated the same message, confirming the uncompromising position of the Church on homosexual activity, as homosexual relations lack an essential and indispensable purpose. Even if science in the future establishes that homosexuality has a definitive biological link, as homosexuals are anticipating to happen. The purpose of sexual activity is for married people to cooperate with God in the procreation of children.

I understand this is hard to accept by homosexuals who assume that solitary life is not to be endured, although there are plenty of heterosexual singles who do not assume this.
,
 
I don’t think I can support the remark you asked me to clarify. It was early in the morning when I made it.

However, my main point is that even if InSearchofGrace weren’t drawing a conclusion from a sample of size one (she’s considered only the Netherlands), the type of evidence here is not the kind that can tell you anything about causes. Think of it this way: a low level of intolerance is not the same as no intolerance at all, so what would stop us from claiming that the example of the Netherlands shows that even a little intolerance can cause big problems? Nothing whatever, so far as the evidence in question is concerned. All we know is that a low level of intolerance (whatever that means) coexisted at a single place in a single year with worse mental health outcomes for gay men and lesbian women than a straight comparison group. The fact shows nothing, so any conclusion drawn from it is pretty much arbitrary.
I understand your point although I don’t necessarily agree with the logic. Are you saying that gay people may be hypersensitive to any degree of discrimination? Perhaps that is true; but the main problem with this study I think is in another direction. On the other hand, I empathize with your being tired early in the morning! And I am also in your corner (I think it’s your corner, though you haven’t said so directly) about homosexuality’s not being a mental disorder as well as the excessive discrimination against gay people, even if not in the Netherlands.
 
So, if we apply a NON moral relativist standard to our legal system, the girls who have kissed, people who have missed a mass with no good excuse, and murderers should all suffer the same sentence under the law. If capital punishment is in use, then they should all be executed. Right?

As for killing for one’s country, I believe that can be a sin, even when following a legal order. By the time my of my second trip to Iraq, I believed that we were not fighting a “just war”. I don’t want to diverge into politics here. It was a moral position for me. However, it was not black and white either. I believed, and still believe, that having invaded a country and overthrowing a government inheres the moral obligation to make things right before we withdraw. Nonetheless, I did not have the courage at the time to refuse to deploy. As a result of that decision, I did kill people. That experience is what lead me to realize that while I wanted to be of service to mankind, that I needed to find another path, which is why I am now studying how to heal people and to relieve suffering.

Regardless of Church doctrine, does not nearly every Catholic engage in morally relativistic choices every day?
I won’t judge you for anything you did in wartime because I was not there. However, simply because you believe something to be politically wrong doesn’t necessarily mean that it is grave sin. Your culpability may be lessened because it may have been the right thing to do. Like you said, though – that is a topic for another thread.

As for our legal system – it cannot be compared to the justice of God. Our legal system created totally by human beings and, thus, is not always fair. God’s justice, however, cannot be unfair. That being said, ALL un-repented mortal sin - as I have stated repeatedly – gets you to the same place, which is hell.


**Finally – your last point talks about the morally relativistic choices made by Catholic individuals. ALL people sin and make bad choices. This does not make the Church wrong about the teachings of God. We are all human beings but the Church, the Body of Christ is the pillar and foundation of truth (1 Tim 3:15) – and the fullness of Christ (Eph. 1:22-23). **

The same God that breathed those descriptions of his Church cannot be in error by having a fallible Body.
 
From 1. Doug Martin, “Suicide as Deviance,” at: nwmissouri.edu/
2. “Suicide,” at: library.thinkquest.org/
3. “What is the second leading cause of death among teenagers.” at: www0.mercurycenter.com/
4. “Suicide in the U.S.: Statistics and Prevention,” National Institute of Mental Health, at: nimh.nih.gov/
5. “Suicide: Facts at a Glance,” Center for Disease Control and Prevention, 2009-Summer, at: cdc.gov

Some facts about suicide:
bullet Inter-country comparisons: 1
bullet Industrialized countries tend to have a higher suicide rate than poor, developing countries
bullet The U.S. has a moderate suicide rate compared to other industrialized countries.

bullet Inter-state/province comparisons:
bullet U.S. Suicide rates are highest in the western and rocky mountain states. They are are lowest in the Northeastern states.

bullet Canadian suicide rates are similar: highest in British Columbia, on the west coast, and lowest in Newfoundland, on the east coast.

bullet U.S. data: 2
bullet There were 31,204 deaths by suicide recorded in 1995; 30,535 in 1997; 33,000 in 2006 (the latest data available at 2009-SEP-10). 5 The actual number is probably significantly higher, because many suicides are recorded as accidents.

bullet The most common method that men use to commit suicide (58%) involves firearms. Simply making firearms less easily accessible to a suicidal person can drastically reduce their chance of them taking their own life. Women more often choose poisoning (40%).

bullet More females than males attempt suicide – on average two to three times as often as men. 5

bullet More males than females “succeed” at suicide, by a ratio of 4 to 1.

bullet Comparison of groups within the U.S.:
bullet The average suicide rate in the U.S. is about 11 per 100,000 per year. This amounts to one completed suicide every 16 minutes. 5

bullet Between 1 and 2% of all the deaths in 1997 were by suicide. This compares to 31% from heart disease, 23 from cancer, 7% from stroke.

bullet Whites commit suicide at a higher rate, than African-Americans, Asians and Hispanics. However, in 2007,
“Hispanic female high school students in grades 9-12 reported a higher percentage of suicide attempts (14.0%) than their White, non-Hispanic (7.7%) or Black, non-Hispanic (9.9%) counterparts.” 5

bullet Young Native Americans have a very high suicide rate. “Among American Indians/Alaska Natives ages 15- to 34-years, suicide is the second leading cause of death.” 5 Older Native Americans commit suicide less often than do Whites of the same age.

bullet Married folks have a lower rate of suicide than do divorced, separated, widowed and single people.

bullet Suicide rates increase with age: 4
Age Suicide rate per 100,000
10 to 14 years 1.6
15 to 19 9.5
20 to 24 13.6
Whites over 85 65

bullet About one in three American teenagers has contemplated suicide. An Internet poll by About.com indicated that 50% of teens visiting that web site had considered it.

bullet Suicide is the eleventh leading cause of death among the entire population.

bullet Suicide has been reported as the second leading cause of death among teenagers, exceeded only by traffic accidents. However, the suicide rate among teens is actually lower than that of older persons. Teens tend to have few life-threatening illnesses. Teenage deaths from disease is quite low. Thus, the relatively few suicides among teens make suicide a leading cause of death. 3

bullet The reported U.S. suicide rate for very young people (10 to 14 years of age) increased by 183% between 1970 and 1993. However, much of this increase may not be real. In the past, there was widespread denial that pre-teens could decide to end their lives.

bullet Data concerning young homosexuals is somewhat unreliable. It appears that about one in three teen aged suicides is by a gay or lesbian. Since homosexuals represent only about 5% of the population, gays and lesbians are greatly over-represented.

bullet Among the most common faith groups in the U.S., Protestants have the highest suicide rate; Roman Catholics are next; Jews have the lowest rate.

bullet Followers of religions that strongly prohibit suicide, like Christianity and Islam, have a higher suicide rate than those religions which have no strong prohibition (e.g. Buddhism and Hinduism.)

bullet A person has a higher risk of suicide if their parent, close relative or close friend has taken their own life
Thanks for all these data. One comment: I know there are more suicide attempts among women but more men complete their suicide attempts “successfully.” This is probably due to the different methods, which you note: men use violent means (guns, hanging), while females less violent means, such as pills. However, that has, in recent years, been changing. There is more equal opportunity in method of suicide these days, that is, more women are resorting to violent means. Now how is all this related to radical feminism?
 
Thanks for all these data. One comment: I know there are more suicide attempts among women but more men complete their suicide attempts “successfully.” This is probably due to the different methods, which you note: men use violent means (guns, hanging), while females less violent means, such as pills. However, that has, in recent years, been changing. There is more equal opportunity in method of suicide these days, that is, more women are resorting to violent means. Now how is all this related to radical feminism?
Actually men are socialized very differently than women in general.
You will see differences in different cultures w suicide figures -
But here in the US (where these figures came from)
I can break ti down.
First of all (in general- there are no absolutes) so in general - someone who wants to kill themselves will.
Suicide attempts are often a cry for help- women are more likely to act out for attention … to reach out for attention or to talk about what is going on with them.
It is more socially acceptable for a women to try and kill herself - need - and accept help.

young men (teen age boys) act in groups.
There was a study done w video games … when teenage boys were told their friends were watching behind a mirror they took more risks playing games and were more dramatic and violent in their actions …
Young men actually are more likely to fall to peer pressure because men crave peer acceptance in a different way than girls…
Girls fight and argue are caddy ect … because this is more acceptable … they can act out their drama and feelings -
Boys are more likely to simply act in packs and try to impress each other -(terrifying when you think of trying to parent this! )

So when you look at the socialization of children and the effects that will have -
Boys will be more likely to actually kill themselves if they feel they have no peer group they belong to or feel totally rejected -
where as a teenage girl is more likely to act out in dramatic displays of behavior or “attempt” to harm oneself than accept help or treatment -
 
Hi InSearchofGrace,

The short answer to the second question is no. The reason is that, in comparing what we observe to what we expect given the level of intolerance in several countries (as opposed to looking at the same variable as it has affected each individual), we’re looking at what epidemiologists would call an ecological study, and it is well known that causes cannot be inferred from that type of study. More concretely, what could be happening here is that, while the overall level of intolerance in the Netherlands is low, the burden of intolerance falls more heavily on gay men and women than on straight ones.

However, my main point is that even if InSearchofGrace weren’t drawing a conclusion from a sample of size one (she’s considered only the Netherlands), the type of evidence here is not the kind that can tell you anything about causes. Think of it this way: a low level of intolerance is not the same as no intolerance at all, so what would stop us from claiming that the example of the Netherlands shows that even a little intolerance can cause big problems? Nothing whatever, so far as the evidence in question is concerned. All we know is that a low level of intolerance (whatever that means) coexisted at a single place in a single year with worse mental health outcomes for gay men and lesbian women than a straight comparison group. The fact shows nothing, so any conclusion drawn from it is pretty much arbitrary.
Thanks for your posts in response to mine. Are you saying that there is no clear cause that gay men and women suffer more incidences of depression and suicide thoughts than straight people even in a relatively tolerant society as the Dutch society? That the low level of intolerance simply co-existed where and when the study was conducted? Yet, psychiatrists and psychologists, notwithstanding the fact that mainstream professionals abandoned the diagnosis of homosexuality as a mental disorder, do find that depression is associated with homosexual behavior, if not orientation.

The curious thing is that gay activists and their supporters seem to discount or get very defensive about said connection; conversely, they are wont to see a connection between homosexuality and a biological or genetic link even before it is definitively established by science.

Btw, following your mention of epidemiology, I looked up the epidemiology of suicide which has a subtopic of sexual orientation and suicide. This led me to another study, a longitudinal study of Norwegian adolescents, published in their Journal of Abnormal Psychology, with the interesting finding that same-sex sexual behavior was significantly predictive of suicide among Norwegian adolescents.

Sexual orientation and suicide attempt: A longitudinal study of the general Norwegian adolescent population.

Now Norwegian society is a country not unlike the Netherlands. The country had legalized same sex registered partnerships that virtually gave to same sex partners the same benefits of marriage to heterosexuals back in 1989, then passing same-sex marriage in 2008.

I address the following question to both you and meltzerboy: Don’t the Dutch and/or Norwegian studies suggest that there is a natural law, inherent morality, or the innate wish to follow an internal order in men and women even in societies that are not particularly religious and that maintain a tolerant climate for homosexual behavior and lifestyle? And that plays a significant factor in the depression and suicide attempts by gay men and women more than the claims of ‘homophobia’ and societal rejection?

As meltzerboy asked in a recent post to another, what do the studies on homosexual depression and suicide attempts have anything to do with radical feminism as brought up in the OP? If the sub-discussion gets prolonged, we can pick this up in a new thread, if you guys are willing.
,
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top