Octomom Does Not Represent Big Families
by Candice Watters on 02/25/2009 at 2:20 PM
For all my concerns about Octomom, I'm reminded by a Philadelphia Inquirer story that there's yet another downside: her headline-grabbing stunt seems to be turning a critical eye on large families who get that way (large) the old-fashioned way (one or two babies at a time).
In "Octuplet Case Increases Scrutiny on Large Families," Lini Kadaba reminds us how rare big families have become:
Big broods -- definitions vary, but the fifth child seems to be the tipping point -- have always existed, of course. These days, however, they are uncommon -- so rare that the U.S. Census no longer tracks families with six or more children. In 2007, about 2.1 million American families had four or more children under 18 years old -- 2.7 percent of all families, according to the most recent census data.
But rare isn't wrong. And lots of experts, including sociologists and demographers, believe the shrinking family is bad news for many reasons (economic, moral, cultural). Sadly, many other people think it's the big families who are bad news. According to Lorin Arnold, an interim dean of the College of Communications at Rowan University who studies large families, "We have this cultural belief that two or three kids is the right number. Anyone who is outside that norm feels the need to justify their family size."
The Philadelphia Inquirer article continues,
Society looks most critically on those furthest from what's typical, said Arnold, herself a mother of six. If a family is Catholic, "that's a good excuse for why you would have so many children," she said."Parents of many children often struggle with resources, but so do those with only one child, she said. For instance, those parents can feel compelled to arrange numerous extracurriculars or time with friends so the only child is well-adjusted socially."
They think that "every time you add a child to the family, there's a reduction in those resources," she said. Other academics, however, argue that finances might be limited but emotional connections are not and that time spent as a group or with siblings offers benefits.
As the Duggar family shows, the benefits are many. And big families used to be the norm. The Inquirer notes,
At the turn of the century, kids provided extra hands to work farms; large numbers also assured that at least some would survive to adulthood. Industrialization and advances in health care have contributed to the shrinking of the American family, whose size has dropped 26 percent since 1965. These days families average just under two children. Those with five, six, eight, 12 or more, stand out as unusual, even bizarre.
But are they?
"I think it's one of the last acceptable prejudices," said Rabbi Shmuley Boteach, a family counselor and father of nine who founded the organization This World: The Values Network. "We always seem to gauge the sophistication of a family, and even of a culture, by the degree to which it controls its fertility."
There's nothing intrinsically bad or good about more or fewer babies. Bad parents -- and good ones -- exist in all categories. As do bad and good examples. My hope is that for all the headlines, believers will have the wisdom to discern the difference.
1. Sara said the following at 4:29 PM on Feb 25:
"We always seem to gauge the sophistication of a family, and even of a culture, by the degree to which it controls its fertility."
That's because it's true, statistically speaking. Higher literacy rates and education of girls correlates to lower fertility.
This is easy to see in Western countries; for stats from Africa and India see:
charts like page 11 of here
or books and articles like
- Dreze's "Fertility, Education, and Development: Evidence from India"
- Jain's "The effect of female education on fertility"
- Cochrane's 'Fertility and education: what do we really know?'
2. BDB said the following at 4:35 PM on Feb 25:
Yeah, this situation has kind of turned into a disaster, hasn't it?
3. Cassandra said the following at 4:56 PM on Feb 25:
I think it's a mixed bag, because it also draws attention to out-of-wedlock motherhood and the need for welfare reform.
4. elaine said the following at 5:34 PM on Feb 25:
Am I the only one who finds the name "Octomom" dehumanizing?
Labelling a woman with a made-up term more appropriate for a science-fiction creature comes across as needlessly derogatory.
5. Celebrindal said the following at 6:40 PM on Feb 25:
Sara (#1),
You seem to be implying that lower fertility is good because it causes higher literacy rates. While it is true that fertility rates are, in general, negatively correlated with female education and overall literacy, that doesn't mean that lower fertility causes literacy increases. Correlation does not indicate causation. It is more likely that increased literacy, especially in females, results in decreased fertility because women who are highly educated tend to delay childbearing longer and have fewer children. It is also possible that both are simply outcomes of a more economically developed society.
I think it is a mistake to assume that large families are disadvantageous to society or that small families are better. There certainly shouldn't be a stigma associated with having a large family.
6. DannieA said the following at 7:11 PM on Feb 25:
#4....you mean I'm not the only one that envisions an octopus when the term octomom is verbalized????
7. pass the ammunition said the following at 7:42 PM on Feb 25:
Celebrindal:
You have it mixed up. It is higher literacy that has the greater effect on fertility rates. Literate women are more likely to be in a position where they can be in a position to...
a)refuse sex to their husband
b)know how to use birth control
c)have enough money to purchase contraception
d)marry at a later age, decreasing the number of years one is having children.
People should keep in mind that in most parts of the world, married women do not really have the choice of whether or not they want to have sex with their husbands at any given time. It may not be "rape" but the woman's body is no longer her own when she gets married. Remember, some states in the US still did not recognize marital rape even a few years ago. Maternal mortality is also the highest cause of death in many countries with very high fertility rates.
sorry Candice hope I'm not derailing your thread.
8. B.T.Carolus said the following at 8:40 PM on Feb 25:
Celebrindal (#5)
I think you got Sara's point backwards. Generally speaking, as female literacy (and education) rises, fertility decreases. Meaning that educated women tend to choose to have fewer children. This is also correlated with the standards of living within societies (fertility rates dropped and literacy rates rose in Western cultures as we industrialized, although there is a slight lag effect before the fertility rates dropped).
In response to this post, I don't think that having families with more than 8 children actually living has ever been particularly common. Although most women might have carried and delivered a dozen or more children, it wasn't uncommon for two-thirds or even nearly all of them to die before the age of 5, often in infancy. In early Colonial American churches, for example, you can find graves in which parents buried a baby every year for years. My twice-great grandmother lived in Austria for much of her adult life, and she had nine children, 7 of whom died before their first birthdays. That was in the later part of the nineteenth century.
9. khalil said the following at 9:04 PM on Feb 25:
This is going to sound cold, but she in a way dehumanized herself by becoming a breeding machine and then marketing the whole process. For money, "fame", ego-boost, unmet and unfulfilled needs she is now a piece of headline news. A rather dehumanizing situation altogether in my opinion.
10. Elizabeth H. said the following at 11:20 PM on Feb 25:
I don't think this woman's case is typical, so I'm not quite understanding all the hype.
If anything it's an example of American society's love of instant gratification.
I find it disgusting, yet I'm also guilty.
11. Leah said the following at 5:46 AM on Feb 26:
Celebrindal (5) - I don't think Sara was implying anything it all. She was simply pointing at stats- and the stats say that the more educated, sophisticated societies tend to use more fertility/birth controls. She was saying nothing about causation- of course fertility has nothing to do with literacy. It's not a natural fertility issue. It's the wealth and development of the country that causes it. A more developed, richer country can afford to educate its citizens and give them access to birth control, whereas poorer countries (or towns, whatever) have less access to education and less access to birth control. That's where the correlation comes from. (You will notice Sara used the word "correlates" herself).
B.T.Carolus (8) made a good point too.
B.T.Carolus (8) - it's certainly true that not all families had lots of kids a century or two ago, but they were certainly more common back then. A woman in her lifetime might have borne 15 children and lost 8 of them- this still could leave her with 7 children. These days even 4 or 5 kids is considered a big family- I am sure 150 years ago 4 or 5 would have been perfectly common. Looking at my own family tree, going back 4 or 5 generations on my maternal grandmother's side, most of the families had more than 4 children in each of them. My great-grandfather was the oldest of ten.
12. Mitzi said the following at 6:06 AM on Feb 26:
Fertility rates crashed in my family (American South) in the early 1900s, and not because of education. My father had several aunts who simply never married- they ran farms as sibling groups and hired male hands as necessary. My grandmother barely graduated high school at 20, and only had 2 children, using abstinence as birth control. Insisting that less-educated women do not know about sex or cannot refuse their husbands or control their own fertility is prejudiced and ignorant. A sharecropper's daughter makes a formidable wife- and so do most women.
13. Christina (in green) said the following at 6:51 AM on Feb 26:
but the woman's body is no longer her own when she gets married
Yeah...and that's scriptural.
Just like the man's body is no longer HIS own when he gets married.
14. Georgia said the following at 6:54 AM on Feb 26:
As a graduate student in development economics, I have to agree with a few of the previous posters who mentioned the correlation between higher education for woman and lower fertility.
This debate over big vs. small families is a luxury we in the West get to enjoy.
In most of the developing world, people have large families in the hopes of having enough (male) children survive into adulthood to care for their parents. Women are not able to be economically active and so have many children.
When you educate women and give them opportunities to be involved in the market, the opportunity cost of having children increases - one of the key factors in lowering fertility.
High fertility in the developing world is linked to increased risk of maternal mortality, decreasing opportunities for education of the girls in the family, decreased savings rates in rural areas, worse health for the children, and has been, in fact, called "the cause of poverty."
Remember also that the average American uses 15 times as much energy as the average person in the developing world. So my one American child is consuming as much as 15 children in the developing world (http://www.solarenergy.org/resources/energyfacts.html).
I am not condemning large families, but I think people need to understand that those of us living in developed countries are fortunate to be able to have many children without the dramatically negative effects high fertility causes in the developing world.
See worldbank.org and http://economicsbulletin.vanderbilt.edu/2003/volume9/EB-03I20001A.pdf for more information.
Note: I am not saying that the world is too small to sustain the population. I am only pointing out the problems high fertility causes for households in most of the less developed countries.
15. Joy said the following at 6:55 AM on Feb 26:
There are other factors in the correlation between education and fertility that should be considered.
1. Women do put off both marriage and childbearing, yes, and finding out when you finally are ready to start that you are already age-infertile is not a healthy happy proposition.
Hint: The consolation of "Good, then you aren't destroying the earth with more carbon footprints" does nothing for the pain in your heart.
2. 'Supermoms' find that they can only manage to pay the daycare for one or two children. Many I've talked to want more children, but are unable to afford them as readily as stay-at-home mothers who perform the childcare themselves. Ironically, healthy children cost far more to raise in a richer household than a poorer one.
3. Richer-society people become more 'comfortable', and child-bearing can be physically uncomfortable. They are more apt to resist interruptions and demands on their lives. This is not a positive development, as it also hinders closeness with their mates and a very real living experience that comes from leaving the cocoon they build around themselves.
Literacy and fertility have not always had a direct correlation. Consider colonial New England with it's literacy rate among men and women at about 99%. Usually there are other factors that cling to higher education in this day and age, including wealth-induced selfishness and feminist extremist indoctrination that claims, among other things, that uneducated women have many children because they're too stupid to say no.
By the time they realize the joy of the mother of many, they are far too old to join the group.
- Speaking as a well-educated stay-at-home mother who has seen both worlds up close!
16. aubnic said the following at 7:17 AM on Feb 26:
Candice, I agree that her situation sheds a negative light on large families. I come from a family of five and we are definitely considered by many to be a big family. It's unfortunate that the only large family to make headlines is this one - a dysfunctional family that causes people concern or even disdain. Now people discuss whether it is wise even to have a large family at all, and base their opinions on the only case in the news: Nadya Suleman.
17. Margaret said the following at 8:32 AM on Feb 26:
I like Joy's analysis of the "wealth/fertility" correlation. Agree with it, too.
It's much more than just "smarter people have fewer children". With education and Westernization comes cultural change (often change for the worse). And the desire for more and more comfort, then more luxury, then opulence. My husband and I had an interesting conversation once. A couple who came from my hubby's country of origin was remarking on our decision to have a larger family. They said they thought about it and liked the idea of a larger family, as they both had many siblings. They were also quite comfortable compared to much of the rest of the country (IOW, they did not experience suffering as being part of a large family). But they said openly that they ultimately decided they preferred to live a wealthy Western lifestyle than sacrifice to have children.
I do think that if anyone lacks the ability to differentiate between normal large families (mom, dad, one or two children added to the family at a time) and this woman who behaved so unethically in her child-bearing choices, all their education and wealth is for naught, since it's clear they have no common sense or ability to see the obvious.
18. pass the ammunition said the following at 9:36 AM on Feb 26:
Christina (in green):
Your statement reflects a misunderstanding (or denial) of the power dynamics between men and women in many (if not most) places around the world. Husband and wife do not "belong" to each other, the giving up of oneself in marriage is not reciprocal. The wife and her children are the de facto or de jure property of her husband, period. There is a reason why the bride is "given away."
Forgive me, but I'm tired of the Western frameworks of individual choice and freedoms being applied to people living in a radically different context.
19. Linda Ritter said the following at 9:50 AM on Feb 26:
I have 4 children, now all grown and actively contributing to society. At one point, I was a single mother and all I can say is that it was very,very difficult for me to support my children by working full time, going to school full time and spending quality time with them, collectively as well as individually. I am no supermom, just one that loved her kids and wanted to give them the life they deserved. My kids are all 18 months apart and meeting the needs of the different ages and developmental states of all the kids while providing a home and all that goes with that was overwhelming. I had to depend on friends to help with babysitting so I could have some time to study for the classes I was taking. I had to get up in the middle of the night to cook so that there were nutritional meals for the kids rather than expensive fast foods.
I did somewhere around 14 loads of laundry a week and had to have time to do them and each night, all the kids were bathed and so on and so on.
What I am saying is that along with all the work a brood of 4 creates, is the blessings of seeing little people become successful, contributing, adults and nothing outshines that! It isn't the size of the family that appears to irritate people about Nadya Suleman, it is the fact that she is not able to provide for her children and isn't facing that. She needs help! Those kids need help! Now and for a long time to come. Those babies will not be babies for long. Regardless of how or why there are 14 kids no longer is of importance, the issues now are how are their needs going to be met?
20. IMO said the following at 10:11 AM on Feb 26:
#18,
I'm sure Christina (in green) can explain this herself, but I just wanted to say:
1 Corinthians 11:12
Matthew 19:5-7
What Christina is talking about is not a cultural thing. It's a Biblical thing. If people around the world don't lives their lives biblically, it doesn't diminish God's Word.
Both husband and wife belong to Christ. But because they are One, it is goes to say that they belong to each other.
1 Corinthians 7:4 verifies that their bodies belong to each other.
If you have a different opinion, I'd love to see Scripture or some reference to Scripture. Talking about culture just won't do it.
21. Tiffany said the following at 10:26 AM on Feb 26:
The thing is, IMO, we aren't speaking of Biblical principles here. I believe #18 is trying to articulate the actual state of marriage in many cultures - not defend or reject biblical teaching on marriage.
22. DannieA said the following at 12:25 PM on Feb 26:
exactly Tiffany!!!!! it's very easy for us to say "oh not our fault these people aren't living Biblically"...however, this is a REAL problem for women worldwide.
23. Christina (in green) said the following at 12:26 PM on Feb 26:
IMO (#20),
Thanks. Sorry I was being lazy in the first post and didn't look up the scripture =/
Tiffany (#21),
The original poster was criticizing other cultures as being oppressive towards women because they believe the woman's body belongs to the husband.
I was trying to point out that that is actually a biblical standard.
What I left unsaid was that regardless of how people may abuse it or not, or how one-sided it may be, the fact still stands that a woman's body belongs to her husband once she is married.
Ergo, don't pass it off as a wrong philosophy.
Pass the Ammunition (#18),
That you think that the wife's body belonging to the husband and the husband's body belonging to the wife is currently a western thought is ludicrous.
Clearly, western culture believes the exact opposite given the direction of women's rights in western culture.
24. IMO said the following at 12:42 PM on Feb 26:
Excuse me, DannieA. Where in the world did I say that this isn't a real problem for women?
You're putting your own spin on what I wrote and I don't appreciate it.
25. Tiffany said the following at 12:43 PM on Feb 26:
Again, Christina, it's not the we think that the idea of a woman's body belonging to her husband and a man's to his wife is a Western idea...just that it is often only practiced in the West.
No one is arguing that it's not a biblically sound idea (that's a post for another time). Just that in a lot of places women aren't protected legally and, in practice, men do not submit their bodies equally to their wives. Women are, in a lot of places, considered the legal property of their husband.
I'm not sure what there is to dispute here.
26. Irene M. said the following at 12:43 PM on Feb 26:
I actually have quite few brothers and sisters. For privacy reasons I won't say exactly how many, but the number of kids including myself is in the double digits. Its rather interesting to see how similarly Suleman (she does have a name) and my family are treated by people. Wherever we go, people are always commenting on my family and frequently asking invasive questions. A simple trip to the grocery store can involve people asking about my parent's birth control, sex life, financial situation, and education. Some people will even take my family's existence as an opportunity to lecture on global warming or wax poetically about my Dad's patience and maturity (simply appearing in public with her kids doesn't have the same result for my Mom).
Frankly, Suleman isn't influencing how people treat large families, she's just being subjected to the same treatment that large families already experience.
I'm also kind of curious about the role race plays in how people are reacting. My own family, like Suleman's, is mixed race, which has played a huge role in how strangers treat us. I wonder if something similar is happening in Suleman's own life.
27. Tiffany said the following at 12:45 PM on Feb 26:
Sorry, Christina, I have to address another point.
Do you think that the idea that a woman's body belongs to her husband gives him the right to demand sex, beat her, or rape her? Or that she should submit to such treatment? I would hope that the answer is an unequivocal no. But this Scripture is used (by sick people) to justify such actions. Let's be careful and clear when we use Scripture to back up our point of view.
28. Joy said the following at 1:05 PM on Feb 26:
I once talked to two sisters whose mother had seven children altogether. They related to me the time that some stranger stopped them at Walmart to ask their mother how she remembered all of their names.
The mother looked back at this stranger levelly and asked, "Do you have seven friends?"
My husband and I want three children altogether and have for a very long time. I'm working on #2 right now. When I discovered that I was carrying a girl, I felt a certain level of apprehension and only recently realized why... it was because I was already fearing the heavy hammer of public opinion if we go ahead and have #3 as we so deeply desire, despite already having a boy and a girl.
It's a terrible shame. Terms like 'choice' in this culture mean nothing but the 'choice' to not have a baby. That's not choice at all.
29. Joy said the following at 1:12 PM on Feb 26:
On the Biblical verses about a woman's body belonging to her husband: If Scripture is used in this circumstance to justify abuse against women, it is a clear misuse and cherry-picking of Scripture and not the fault of the Bible nor those who follow it. The counterpart to every single passage listing the man's ownership of the woman's body is generally two-part. The first reminds us that the man's body also belongs to the wife, and the second points out that he is mandated to love her and care for that body as if it were his own, protecting her even to the point of his own death.
Those who justify violence based on just one part of the "marriage grouping" verses are no more justified than a mass murderer standing on the verse "Judas went out and hanged himself".
30. Lis said the following at 1:20 PM on Feb 26:
I agree with Candice: Nadya certainly doesn't represent the typical large family!
(I appreciate the fact that Nadya cared about her frozen embryos, and feel sympathy for her, especially because she illustrates the difficulties that arise when there is no stable family structure to receive children.)
And in response to some of the later discussion: It's true that children are a great deal of work! Especially in developing countries. But it's also good to realize that there comes a point where increasing numbers means increasing help. This is true for families who make their living hands-on, but it is also true for the care of the children themselves.
I'm the oldest of eight children, and by the time #5 came along, I was able to support my mom...without being put-upon, I might add. I had plenty of time to study and hobbies, but also had work which I found hugely fulfilling at a time when a lot of my teen-aged peers were (I'm guessing) struggling with a sense of purpose in life.
Having been part of a team like that still shapes who I am, even though I have gone on to editing and research...and not (yet) to a family of my own.
My parents cannot personally be on three different continents, but their children are. And it's the fruit of their investment and sacrifices.
Large families probably aren't for everyone. But take it from me: it is a rich, rich way to grow up!
31. Leeandra said the following at 1:31 PM on Feb 26:
The W.H.O. recommends that women do not marry before age 18 or have children before age 20. The reason for this is that girls generally keep growing for a year or two after they get their periods, and bone formation continues up until the late teens/early twenties. Women whose hipbones aren't fully developed have a higher incidence of delivery complications, which can be life-threatening in areas without access to modern hospitals.
Even though a girl can often get pregnant at 13 or 14 years old, physically it's not a good idea for her to grow a baby until she herself is finished growing.
There are parts of the world where the average 16-year-old girl is a mother already. In countries undergoing famine, daughters are often given in marriage as soon as they reach puberty, as they then become someone else's mouth to feed.
By waiting until she is at least 18 to get married and 20 to have children, a girl stands a far better chance of being able to complete at least a rudimentary education (being able to read and write is a huge step up the economic ladder for women in poor countries, and will give her a much better chance of supporting herself and her children should she need to). She also will still have plenty of time to have a dozen babies if she so desires, and will stand a much better chance of surviving pregnancy and childbirth.
32. IMO said the following at 1:38 PM on Feb 26:
Your right, Tiffany. A person has to be truly sick to be able to twist Scripture like that. It's actually pretty hard to twist the biblical husband mandates (Ephesians 5:24) into the demand-rape-beatings you are talking about.
I think we can all acknowledge that the world and its various cultures do not adhere to or live by biblical mandates. I know I fail to do so in my own life.
Just because I bring up biblical truths doesn't mean I don't see or understand the reality.
That's a given. I'm surprised I have to explain myself.
33. DannieA said the following at 2:02 PM on Feb 26:
IMO:
I had to re-read my post after Tiffany's to make sure I hadn't mentioned your previous post...and I have to say this:
I didn't call you out in my post...so I wasn't talking about your post...If I wanted to specifically address something with your post, I would have said so...I was affirming Tiffany's post....and notice I used the word "us" not "you" or "poster # __"
it's a real worldwide problem and it's easy for US to glance over it...because I can do that as well often.
So if you feel I was talking about you in general, I apologize but I wasn't.
34. Amber said the following at 4:26 PM on Feb 26:
I think the scarier issue here is that many people are using this situation to try to limit the amount of children that a couple is allowed to have. There a quite a few people these days who believe that we should be allowed only two, or propose "penalties" for those who have more than two.
I think some people are getting worried because more and more women who have degrees/education and who have even grown up being told that its their body and nobody can tell them what to do with it are choosing to stay at home. Choosing to have a large family, choosing to fix dinner for their husband.
35. Christina (in green) said the following at 4:43 PM on Feb 26:
OMG...
the objection I had was that she made the implication that she thought the philosophy of wife's body belonging to husband was a BAD THING.
I was NOT addressing how people abuse it, I was not discussing the man's responsibility in that reciprocal command. I was not cherry-picking verses as i am quite aware that that includes a men's bodies belonging to their wives and is complimented by men treating their wives bodies as their own and loving them as their own.
I was making a statement that the woman's body really DOES belong to her husband as addressed by scripture.
If I was wrong in reading that implication in what she wrote and she really doesn't have an objection to the idea that the woman's body belongs to the husband and she just was taking issue with how that is abused in other cultures, i apologize.
But I sincerely didn't see that in her post.
Now stop pointing fingers to the other guilty party like a scolded 5-year-old!
36. Kate said the following at 7:27 AM on Feb 27:
I watched Nadya Suleman on Dr. Phil last night and she kept saying how much she's been wishing she could clone herself in order to be able keep up with what's going on with all of her children. I kept thinking... that's what a husband would be for!
37. Adam said the following at 8:12 AM on Feb 27:
Tiffany,
Do you think that the idea that a woman's body belongs to her husband gives him the right to demand sex, beat her, or rape her? Or that she should submit to such treatment? I would hope that the answer is an unequivocal no.
I would ask, if we are following scripture, why it is that he should have to demand sex, or rape her? Since the ownership of bodies is mutual, as Christina points out, Paul says that it is wrong to deprive one another of sexual relations:
1 Corinthians 7:3-5 The husband must fulfill his duty to his wife, and likewise also the wife to her husband. 4 The wife does not have authority over her own body, but the husband does; and likewise also the husband does not have authority over his own body, but the wife does. 5 Stop depriving one another, except by agreement for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer, and come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control.
I would say that, if husband or the wife has to demand sex or rape their spouse, their spouse has sinned, even before they themselves have sinned. Paul is very clear that sexual relations are a marital debt that is owed between both the man and the woman. This not just true if a man wants sexual relations with his wife. The same thing is also true in reverse. If the woman has to demand sex or rape her husband, there is already sin as well. The scriptures say in 1 Corinthians 7:2, 5 that this must be the case because of sexual immorality. If it is not, then we run the risk of driving our spouse into sexual temptation, because we are denying them something that is rightfully theirs.
38. Adam said the following at 8:14 AM on Feb 27:
One more thing,
Paul's command does not excuse things like rape of a spouse. That is sin also [and a far greater sin]. However, I would say that there is already problems if it has to get to that point.
39. Rachael said the following at 9:51 AM on Feb 27:
I wonder if large pet families can be discriminated against, too. We once had dinner with a couple who had 19 (or maybe it was 17 at that time?) cats...we didn't see all the cats congregated together at once. It worked...though it's gotta be a lot of work for them!
40. Emerald said the following at 9:52 AM on Feb 27:
Hi! This is my first post, though I've been reading Boundless for a while.
Adam (#37-38) - I hope that you're not implying that there is any situation where a husband is justified in "hav[ing] to demand sex" or rape his wife? Surely you're not! I agree with you that when a couple enters into the covenant of marriage, their bodies become under the authority of the other spouse. However, just because something is is owed to me, I do not have the right to take it by force. Even if my spouse had sinned in withholding sexual activity from me, I would have NO right to force it from them. Would this be an example of a husband loving his wife as Christ loved the church? (Eph. 5:25) In the case of a wife forcing sex on her husband, would this be submitting to him? (Eph. 5:22). Love is not to be self-seeking (1 Cor. 13:5), so why would a spouse demand sexual attention from his/her beloved?
In reality, we must show compassion to those living in situations where one spouse dominates the other in the area of sexuality - it is shameful when the rights of marriage become so warped and twisted that such a situation as marital rape could occur, and even more shameful that we should try to defend it. We should not try to justify these acts, implying that prior sin justifies another sin is ludicrous.
But, please correct me if my interpretation of your comment is off-base. I don't mean to bash you in any way, Adam, as my brother in Christ. Just wondering about your point of view.
p.s. my real name is not Emerald, but I see that another commenter has my real name - so I'll stick with Emerald :)
41. Adam said the following at 10:15 AM on Feb 27:
Emerald,
Read what I said in my clarification post. I am not saying that forcing it out of someone is right. What I am saying is that sin is already present if it comes to that point. Granted, the person who forces it out of the other person is committing the much more grevious sin, but, in such a situation, there were clearly other problems that lead up to the rape.
The point is that, if marriage is lived according to the scriptures, it should never come to this point. God set up the man and the woman owing each other the marital debt for a reason, and that is so that this would never happen. There will be times when you will want sexual relations, and your wife will not feel like it. However, the beauty of the Biblical teaching is that, sooner or later, your wife is going to want sexual relations when you don't feel like it. Hence, it all evens out, and it prevents sexual debauchery in such situations.
42. khalil said the following at 10:29 AM on Feb 27:
Adam, #37 & 38...
Perhaps I am misunderstanding you or perhaps you worded your statements awkwardly, but did I read in your comments that you condone rape (meaning it is allowable or a natural outcome of no marital sex)?
Nobody has the right to coerce or take with force sex from another person. In no way does a wife not having sex with her husband give him permission to rape her or force himself upon her.
As you said, Paul doesn't excuse that but you seem to be when you so causally mentioned: "However, I would say that there is already problems if it has to get to that point." True, there may be problems in the marriage but you never deal with them with force, you cannot take what someone is unwilling or unable to give.
43. Christina (in green) said the following at 10:32 AM on Feb 27:
Emerald,
All you had to do was read Adam's comments.
His first comment was saying that if rape occurred, then the wife was probably witholding.
His second comment said that scripture never condones rape even of one's spouse and that it is treated significantly harsher than witholding from your spouse.
He wasn't justifying rape.
What I find so frustrating about this entire situation is that women justify their own actions by pointing at what men have done or have failed to do.
Like a 5 year old being scolded by his mother. "HE STARTED IT!!!" or "HE KICKED ME!!!" (lets not mention that he started it by annoying his brother in some other fashion).
The mother's *appropriate* response? I'm talking to you right now. What YOU did was wrong. Meanwhile the one who kicked his brother is sitting with a smug look on his face thinking ha ha your getting in trouble. Just because he's not being punished right now doesn't mean he won't be.
We're not even addressing the other party and yet everyone is jumping on our backs as if we've somehow exonerated the evil of rape.
Men and Women have both been given specific responsibilities. Shunning those responsibilities leads to consequences. Whether the perpetrator should be punished or not is not the question. But there IS some culpability in the woman for willfully depriving her husband of something that is his right to have.
44. DannieA said the following at 10:38 AM on Feb 27:
Adam:
with all due respect, you may not be aware of domestic violence issues or work in an area where this is a problem. In cases where the husband rapes his wife, it is not because the wife is witholding sex, it is because he has to be in control.
Please do not contribute to the domestic violence lie that it is "the woman's fault"
Respectfully,
DannieA
45. Tiffany said the following at 11:00 AM on Feb 27:
I'm trying to keep in the front of my mind that Adam has said that raping your spouse is a sin.
But to say that the raped spouse sinned first by not giving sex in the first place tells the victim that they are at fault.
You really want to tell women (because let's be honest - I imagine this tragedy occurs to women more often than men) who have been abused and violated that it comes as a result of their sin???
That's your answer to a woman suffering from one of the most odious forms of betrayal and injury?
46. lewsta said the following at 1:07 PM on Feb 27:
It is inevitable that some twisted people will begin to clamour for a limit on the number of children a couple can bring into this world, just as have done China with their despicable One Child policy. This would surely be a twisted and mal-aimed response to the unmarried mother of fourteen. A far better response, and one I would truly like to see, would be to restrict such fertility proceedures as artificial insemination and in vitro fertilisation/subsequent implantation to ONLY married heterosexual couples. Of course, the same-sex "marriage" lot will scream foul, but it is precisely their sort of having done with moral standards that has led directly to such practices as have resulted in these eight babies being born to an unmarried woman. How many out there crying FOUL can see the connexion? How is it that we have devolved to the point where a medical facility will knowingly and willingly impregnate an unmarried female in the first place? It has become an issue of "choice", but this time it has created an unpopular situation. Well, 'splain this one to me Lucy, HOW is this woman's situation any different than the one where two females living together and physically intimate with each other can go, pay their miney down, and have the same proceedure done on one or both of them? And, even more bizarre, later when they decide to "divorce", the courts can step in and decide "whose" the child is and determine "visitation", "Custody", and the like. It belies a wholesale forsaking of God's order, and has permeated society to the smallest nooks and crannies. How can the liberal pro choice lot be upset, when this whole debacle is merely one more result of the removal of morality from our culture? Yet that is what they do. Let them scream and fuss. And let US continue to uphold God's Word in regards marriage, family, and children... remember, the FIRST command God gave to man, even before there was woman, is "increase and multiply and FILL the earth, and subdue it". A cross-country flight in daytime will reveal we've come so far short of that command that several generations of ten-children families would barely make a start.
47. teams aren't always winning teams. said the following at 1:09 PM on Feb 27:
my dad is the oldest of 8 and my mom is the youngest of 7. both of them had horrible experiences, particularly in the case of my dad. his father was an alcoholic who could barely afford one child, let alone seven more. the result was that the youngest 5 turned to lives of drugs and social assistance, because there was no support system (let alone food) for them growing up. if you don't have the resources, wait to have more children.
48. lewsta said the following at 1:12 PM on Feb 27:
Regarding the typical chiding and disbelief when large families are out in public together: a good friend of mine, just having had their eighth child, recounts some of her mischief when so confronted. One typical question posed her when at the market or such is "are these all your children?" At which point she will begin to play at counting them up, seem mystified, recount a time or two, and get up a rather puzzled countenance, then say "oh NOOOooo.. I think I must have left a couple of them somewhere..... I wonder where they could be....?" "Gets" them every time. This same woman for a time would sign her notes "no one should have children after thirty five.... thirty five children is quite enough". She and her family fairly delight in each other, and relish the fact they are a large family, and very close. More like them, please......
49. DannieA said the following at 2:10 PM on Feb 27:
Christina (in green)
I'm aghast....no, it is never right for a man to rape a woman...it is not the woman's fault.
No, husbands and wives should NOT refrain from each other, but if someone is, the appropriate response is going to see a therapist to work on deeper problems...because witholding sex is always about something deeper in the relationship...so yeah I don't believe the woman sinned. It takes two to tango.
50. Tiffany said the following at 2:20 PM on Feb 27:
DannieA brought up a good point. Rape or forcing someone to have sex (even a spouse) is almost never about sex. It's about power and control. Even a woman who gladly gives to sex to her husband freely and often can be raped by him.
51. DannieA said the following at 3:42 PM on Feb 27:
ugh pragmatics....in regards to my post in 49....let me end it again
"no I don't believe the woman is the ONLY one that sinned if there is witholding"
52. Adam said the following at 6:58 PM on Feb 27:
Hey Everyone!
I should address some of the points that have been brought up.
with all due respect, you may not be aware of domestic violence issues or work in an area where this is a problem. In cases where the husband rapes his wife, it is not because the wife is witholding sex, it is because he has to be in control.
Please do not contribute to the domestic violence lie that it is "the woman's fault"
So, by default, when something like this happens it is automatically all the man's fault, and the woman is totally innocent? Have you not read in scripture where it says that Jew and Gentile are alike under sin, and that the whole human race has suffered the same effects of Adam's fall? You might have seen the worst of it [the man's actions], but how could anyone see everything that happened leading up to the incedent, no matter how involved they are?
Also, did you not read what I said? I said that when a woman's sin causes a man to sin, the man is still responsible for his sin. No one is contributing to domestic violence with that statement. In a situation where the woman is trying to control him with sex, will not submit, or threatens him, he must always seek to be obedient to God, and fight any temptation to act in such a fashion. If he succumbs, he is responsible.
Finally, while I think scripture needs to be the center of the discussion, I do know people who have worked in such a situation. While there are certainly instances where the husband is just at the depth of human depravity, you would be surprised at how many times there is more here than meets the eye. Unless you can say that you know every single in and out of the life of the family, you cannot say whether it the woman's sin contributed to what happened or not.
Finally, just because someone is a victim does not mean they are sinless. Yes, domestic abuse is a horrible and aweful thing. However, consider the child who keeps trying to instigate a fight with the playground bully. Then, when the bully finally looses his temper, the child beaten so bad that he ends up paralyzed. Now, in such an instance, was the bully right to beat him up that bad? Absolutely not. Was the child a victim of this bully's abuse? Yes. However, does that mean that the child does not need to be told that he was wrong for trying to pick fights? Yes, and that is the point.
Yes, the man may do something that is a grevious mistake, and he may turn out to have done the most wicked of the actions, but that does not mean that the woman did not have a part to play, and pointing out that this is the case is no more encouraging abuse than pointing out that there are children who instigate bullies is encouraging bullying on playgrounds.
Anytime one is in distress, I would think repentance would be first on our minds. To say that someone is not a sinner because they are a victim is to allow them to remain in self-righteousness. It may be that having them examine their life might show them that God is trying to teach them something in all of the evil that happens to them. If you just presume that they have no sin, then you cut them off from the powerful teaching tool of suffering that God uses in all of our lives.
God Bless,
Adam
53. Leah said the following at 8:01 PM on Feb 27:
Mitzi (12) - I think you've misunderstood what the post was saying. It wasn't saying uneducated women don't "know about" sex. But they are less likely to be able to afford/ have access to birth control. They are also more likely to have careers that they don't want interrupted by children.
Adam (38) - I understand your clarification, but I still think you're wrong. A random can ambush a woman in a dark alleyway and rape her; does this mean there was some sin existing in their relationship previously that lead to this? No. There's no reason a husband might not rape his wife for similar reasons.
In your comment (37) you say I would ask, if we are following scripture, why it is that he should have to demand sex, or rape her? And I think "how ignorant are you?" Who said that she has somehow pushed him to this point of rape? Saying that he "has" to demand sex is extremely insulting. You really have no idea. There are some men out there that just like to be control freaks and dominate the women in their lives, including their wives. They might have had sex the night before, but he wants it NOW and doesn't care what the wife says.
elaine (4) - I actually know of a blogger, a mother of 8, who calls herself Octomom :P
54. pass the ammunition said the following at 8:13 PM on Feb 27:
I second a few of the other commenters--rape is almost never about the sex itself, its about control and domination.
Most introductory counseling courses deal with this basic fact. Did you know that being an elderly woman is a big risk factor for rape? Obviously granny doesn't turn people on, but she is just and easy target. I read a case study of a woman whose husband started refusing to have sex with her soon into her marriage...but she would wake up in the middle of the night and find him forcing himself into her.
Rapists have also said that they would rather go after a timid women dressed plainly than the hottie strutting down the street in a tight red dress. All of the things that most people think "attract" rapists are actually just myths.
Rape is called RAPE because it is not the fault of the victim. PERIOD. I can't believe we are even having this conversation...
55. owlhaven said the following at 11:48 PM on Feb 27:
I have ten children, a fact that shocks many people. 6 of my children are adopted, which makes people tend to feel a little different about my family than if I'd birthed them all myself. Still, I do get comments at times about our unusual choice. We have every intention of encouraging our children to be contributors to the world around them, not just takers. I personally believe it is easier to teach that kind of work ethic to a child in a large family. Kids in big families get used to taking turns, sharing, helping out, and thinking of others along with themselves-- things that are harder to teach only children.
Mary
56. DannieA said the following at 11:50 PM on Feb 27:
I am so dismayed I can't even think straight...
A woman DOES NOT instigate abuse or rape. PERIOD.
I'm just glad I'm not your wife.
57. khalil said the following at 5:27 AM on Feb 28:
Adam writes...
"So, by default, when something like this happens it is automatically all the man's fault, and the woman is totally innocent? & "You might have seen the worst of it [the man's actions], but how could anyone see everything that happened leading up to the indecent, no matter how involved they are?"
Yes, we are all sinners, period. However, that does not defend or justify a man's (or a woman's...women can rape men too, but rape and sexual assault is mostly perpetrated by men) sexual assault of a woman. The man is at fault if he perpetrated the assault, period. The woman could be walking down the street naked, wearing a sign that says "I'm drunk", but that doesn't give ANYONE permission to touch her sexually or assault her in any manner. The minute an act happens because it was coerced, forced, or facilitated by drugs and/or alcohol it is the fault of the perp, NOT THE VICTIM.
Besides, we were initially talking about this in a marital context. Rape can happen in a marriage. As others have stated these things are often a control issue. It is not the fault of the wife, spouse, girlfriend, whoever if he or she is raped in the context of marriage or a long term relationship. It is abuse and it is wrong. Both people by nature are sinners and "guilty", but that doesn't take the blame away from the perp.
Adam also writes...
"In a situation where the woman is trying to control him with sex, will not submit, or threatens him, he must always seek to be obedient to God, and fight any temptation to act in such a fashion. If he succumbs, he is responsible."
Yes. I saw where you indicated where a man is still responsible for his sin. I will agree with that, but you still justify the act of RAPE with the rest of your comment. You are writing that if she does not submit it is ok to rape her. So, if I am married and my wife refuses to have sex with me I can then be justified to take her to the bedroom and force her to give me what is "rightfully mine?" No, I can't. Your argument is weak and the more you attempt to explain it the more you seem to justify the act. And I am quite shocked you compared rape to a childhood bully incident on the playground. Two totally different scenarios, two different crimes, two different outcomes. The best example I can use to mirror yours in the realm of sexual assault is that of a college student who has had too many beers at a party. She is wearing a revealing dress and has been flirting with a guy she met at the party all night long. This "Stand-up guy" sees this (she is obviously drunk and having a difficult time walking) and offers to take her to her room. She accepts. Once there he sees she is intoxicated and starts to fondle and kiss her. She is unable to verbalize a "No" and cannot physically refuse his advances. He then proceeds to have sex with her. Using your logic "she asked for it" and is just as guilty as he. I will say, she did place herself in an awkward position, but she did not ask to be raped and did not give the perp. permission or consent to continue. Her sin of drunkenness does not justify his sin of rape.
Adam, I do agree we need to consider scripture in this. I also agree that we don't need to keep people in the victim mentality and role. If we kept the victims in a victim mentality we would be doing a great disservice to them, their families, and their perp. A lot of sexual assault work attempts to have the person move from being a victim to being a survivor. God can and has done great things with survivors of sexual assault. In my opinion a sexual assault is the worst thing that another person can do to another. Check out Men Can Stop Rape (www.mencanstoprape.org), The White Ribbon Campaign (www.whiteribbon.ca), and One in Four (http://www.oneinfourusa.org/) for some information on ending sexual assault from a male's perspective. Since most sexual assaults are perpetrated by men we as men have the power to challenge stereotypes and other people into thinking and behaving differently.
58. Adam said the following at 8:13 AM on Feb 28:
Leah,
And I think "how ignorant are you?" Who said that she has somehow pushed him to this point of rape? Saying that he "has" to demand sex is extremely insulting. You really have no idea. There are some men out there that just like to be control freaks and dominate the women in their lives, including their wives. They might have had sex the night before, but he wants it NOW and doesn't care what the wife says.
At least, at this point, I am glad for the qualifier "some."
You say it is "extremely insulting." If it insults you to examine your own heart when it comes to the reason why you are in pain and suffering, then I would just simply say that this is not Christian thinking. I consider it a grave amount of self-righteousness for someone to go through such a terrible thing as this and not even consider the possibility that it may have been their sin that contributed to it. Is that true in every instance? No, but getting offended at such a statement is showing that you really do not believe that male and female are alike under sin, or that we should not address the issue of sin alongside the issue of suffering.
All I am asking is that women examine their own hearts instead of automatically throwing all of the guilt upon the man. Society tells you to just blame the man. Consider the possibility that women might be control freaks as well, and that female control problems might be leading to this problem. Also, consider the fact that many of these women went after these guys precisely because they were the "bad guys," and then when they start acting "bad," they blame him for everything, when they were the one who married him, knowing that this was his character! We reap what we sow as a culture, and automatically saying the woman has no blame is totally unscriptural. Could you examine your heart according to scripture, and find that it is purely the consequence of the actions of the man? Yes, most definitely. However, to assume that, in every instance, it is purely the man's fault is total self-righteousness, and I am saddened to see such sloppy thinking coming out of the mouth of professed Christians.
God Bless,
Adam
59. Adam said the following at 8:44 AM on Feb 28:
passtheammunition,
I don't think we are trying to say that, in every instance, the woman has a role to play, only that the possibility must be considered.
Secondly, I thought we were talking about domestic rape, not rape in general.
Thirdly, I agree that woman is not responsible for the abuse itself. Could she have done things that may have eventually lead to it happening is the issue.
Fourthly, again, I imagine that no one asked why it is that the woman in the senario you mentioned married this man. In fact, my sister has come across guys like that, and, what is interesting is that their character almost always comes out in the wash even before marriage. Why would anyone want to marry a man like that?
You see, in senarios like this, we really don't know all of the background to the event, nor could we ever. I think that society has painted women as totally innocent, and man as the evil control freak, and I am challanging that idea on the basis of scripture itself. Does the man take the blunt of the blame here? Yes, in fact, I believe that the penalty for rape should be the death penalty. However, that does not mean that the woman was not at fault for marrying an unbeliever, or being controlling herself, which then leads to the man being controlling, or a whole host of other issues which then contributes to what happens. We need to get this idea out of our heads that women are always innocent, and men are always the perverts.
In fact, I myself have been the victim of emotional abuse by women. It wasn't until I found a pastor who helped me to see that my sin played a role in what happened to me that I was truly able to learn from the experience, and understand what happened. If you continue in self-righteousness, then the evil is totally senseless. If you ask what God is doing, then the evil becomes God molding you and forming you.
God Bless,
Adam
60. NeciaJo said the following at 10:48 AM on Feb 28:
It seems to me that the public outrage concerning Nadya Suleman (and other large families) is largely the result of those who are afraid that someone (ultimately the government) is going to take food out of their mouths. The truth of the matter is that there are many large families who are doing a wonderful job of raising their children without assistance from the government, including sending them to public schools.
I would encourage all to take the time to get to know one or more of these families personally; intimately. Let the fruit of these families speak for them. "Wisdom is vindicated by all her children." Luke 7:35.
Far more a threat to the world than a few super-sized families is the heart behind the filth and hatred that has been spewing forth concerning Nadya on the internet. Check it out, if you haven't already. It's appalling. I haven't decided whether this tirade resembles more a witch hunt, a crucifixion or a lynching.
Nadya's "worldview cocktail" decisions should suprise no one. She is no villian, she is just one of the many confused who are seeking what only God can give.
61. Michelle said the following at 10:06 AM on Mar 1:
I am a highly educated attorney and was trained at an Ivy League Law School. My husband is a physician who is very well respected in our community and across the our State. We have 5 kids and are pregnant with #6. I am very tired of the judgmental stares and people asking stupid questions, such as "don't you know how this happens" duh, of course we do. We love our kids and provide them with everything they need and most of what they want. We give them each a private school education and incidentally, they are all very intelligent kids. No, we are not Catholic, we are Methodist. I am appalled by the rest of society's stupidity and the correlation between our family size and our intelligence. We do not rely on public assistance in way so therefore it is nobody's business how many kids we choose to have. In fact, we subsidize through our personal taxes much of Obama's outrageous spending. Do I judge you for having so few kids??? With so much "Political Correctness" in society, it is amazing to me how people can have such bigotry towards large families. Am I hurting anyone by having a large family? Please, stop being so judgmental.
62. Bertha said the following at 4:49 PM on Mar 1:
I don't mean to burst the Boundless bubble (is it me or is Boundless turning quiverful?) (and obviously there are many people from large families on here that enjoy their large families), but all the people I know in real life who are from large families (6+ kids) did not have great childhoods and if they want kids (some don't plan on having any children), aren't planning on very many.
63. Diane said the following at 3:15 AM on Mar 2:
I am a single mother myself... and a self-confessed "baby-addict," however I find myself increasingly frustrated with Ms. Suleman. I understand her desire for many children. I would love to continue adding little ones to my home, and the thought that I am unlikely to have any more babies is a sad one indeed. My first commitment, however is to the welfare of my children, not to my own personal satisfaction and pleasure. I admit resentment towards Ms. Suleman for the scrutiny and ridicule she has brought upon other women- single mothers such as myself.
One thing that I have not heard mentioned to Ms. Suleman is the possibility of her surrendering her newest little ones for adoption. I have heard her (and others) say... well, the children are here now, so we must support her in order to ensure a good life for the children. I think the time has come for Ms. Suleman to be an adult, a *real* mother and put the needs of her children above herself. Place them in a home (or homes) where they will be loved, attended to adequately by parents who have the time and resources to cherish them for the wonderful little people they are.
64. jen said the following at 12:41 PM on Mar 17:
Hi. My name is Jen. My husband and I have a large brood. We have always gotten negative comments, even before Nadya (sp?) came on the scene, as have many other parents of large families that I know. If anyone does anything out of the ordinary, then people are going to stare. People are going to comment. People are going to point. We are on the 'smaller' end of the large family scale, comparatively, and still feel the brunt of the assults.
Perhaps people have been a bit more negative lately about larger families, but they have always been negative. It makes things a little harder, yes-but we were used to that.
I agree with the person that said that people with larger families feel they have to 'defend' their reasons for having a large family. So do some smaller families and some people who have no children-whether by choice or inability to conceive. People are so busy these days telling others what they should be doing...and many of them are neglecting their own families and homes to do so. That saddens me immensely. Sorry for misspellings and typos. I'm trying to eat quickly and type at the same time:)