There is social pressure to conform and women have a thing about wanting to please and the 2 together can be pretty consistent over international borders. Social pressure is very strong. I don't agree either that sex doesn't sell.
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Show posts MenuQuote from: Main Street on March 11, 2017, 09:56:21 PMThe attitude to sex was heavily influenced by the VictorianQuote from: seafoid on March 11, 2017, 09:10:41 PMOn the contrary, there are records of thousands of children born to unmarried mothers, who gave birth supported by their families/friends.Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2017, 06:42:19 PMIt must be from institutional data . Very few of those children were outside the gulag systemQuote from: seafoid on March 11, 2017, 08:29:49 AMWhere did he (Diarmuid) get the 5 x figure from? and is that 5x figure based on Irish unmarried mothers' infant mortality statistics in general or is it specifically based on the infant mortality rates in the institutions?Quote from: Main Street on March 10, 2017, 11:11:03 PMDiarmuid Ferriter in the video link
Got you, thanks.
Where did he get the 5 x figure from?
Based on unmarried mothers' infant mortality statistics in general or just from those who went to the institutions?
I'd hazard a guess that the 5x higher figure be the infant mortality rates in the institutions, based recorded deaths/numbers of instutionalised mothers and comparing that to the figures in general.
Though sometimes I find it hard to imagine that there was so much sex in the dark decades.
Love in times of the looming crucifix.
If we hadn't had the menacing influence of the dark catholic church down through the centuries, I reckon the Irish if left to an organic evolution, would have been among the most care free, randy tribe on the planet.
Quote from: Estimator on March 11, 2017, 08:36:05 PMdoing it twice in the space of a few years would be very 1990sQuote from: seafoid on March 11, 2017, 07:47:39 PM
They might end up losing 3. 1990s standard
They lost 3 in 2013.
Quote from: Main Street on March 11, 2017, 06:42:19 PMIt must be from institutional data . Very few of those children were outside the gulag systemQuote from: seafoid on March 11, 2017, 08:29:49 AMWhere did he (Diarmuid) get the 5 x figure from? and is that 5x figure based on Irish unmarried mothers' infant mortality statistics in general or is it specifically based on the infant mortality rates in the institutions?Quote from: Main Street on March 10, 2017, 11:11:03 PMDiarmuid Ferriter in the video link
Got you, thanks.
Where did he get the 5 x figure from?
Based on unmarried mothers' infant mortality statistics in general or just from those who went to the institutions?
I'd hazard a guess that the 5x higher figure be the infant mortality rates in the institutions, based recorded deaths/numbers of instutionalised mothers and comparing that to the figures in general.
Quote from: bennydorano on March 11, 2017, 12:46:47 PM
Tuesday if today's papers are correct.
See another high profile brexiteer (Tim Martin of Wetherspoons) saying his industry needs special dispensation in relation to staff hiring. There was another getting the pish ripped out of him on Twitter during the week as well, cant remember who atm.
It feels really unprepared & chaotic.
A lot of high profile Tories looking a snap Election as well to kill off Labour.
Quote from: Main Street on March 10, 2017, 11:11:03 PMDiarmuid Ferriter in the video link
Got you, thanks.
Where did he get the 5 x figure from?
Based on unmarried mothers' infant mortality statistics in general or just from those who went to the institutions?
Quote from: AhNowRef on March 10, 2017, 06:18:28 PMQuote from: michaelg on March 10, 2017, 05:53:29 PMQuote from: north_antrim_hound on March 10, 2017, 05:37:23 PMGood post. Couldn't agree more about the POC. Excuse my ignorance, but how could the POC be removed? Could its removal be included in any new agreement reached?Quote from: michaelg on March 10, 2017, 05:18:20 PMQuote from: north_antrim_hound on March 10, 2017, 05:08:54 PMNo fan of the DUP myself, but the SF mantra about Respect, Integrity etc is a bit hard to swallow when you consider what the Republican movement was up to not too long ago. Granted we should try to look forward, but the whiter than white impression taht they try to project is a bit OTT / hard to take.Quote from: seafoid on March 10, 2017, 03:47:45 PMQuote from: Minder on March 10, 2017, 03:42:59 PMAnd how much did the election cost?
The Irish Language act only became an issue when Paul Givan ended/"couldn't find" the £50k funding. How many Programmes for Government have SF & DUP signed up for without an Irish Language act?
Wouldn't have cost anything if fister would have stepped down and her party would still have petition of concern
SDLP want her to step aside as well and rightly so
Shinners will always have some bashers and some of the criticism justified but to say they are no better than DUP i find laughable
Well until an Irish version of ghandl comes along I don't know any party that's gonna challenge the DUP regime with the moral ethics required to some on here
I never supported SF when they were connected with the recent times you mentioned
But Mc Guinness walking out and refusing to work with them to they get their house in order was more than any other party done and a move that commanded my respect
Lesser of the two evils all day long in my view
If your looking for conventional politics you where born in the wrong place
DUP and their precious POC so they can delegate against minorities is not my idea of power sharing
It cant be removed, or at least it shouldnt .. its a very good thing when operated in its correct terms as it protects minorities ,,, it was never intended for the way the DUP abuse it .. i.e. Protecting (allegedly ) Corrupt DUP ministers & SPADs or vetoing any little thing that they dont 100% agree with like same sex marriage etc...
Maybe the terms of it can be altered to prohibit its abuse..
Quote from: J70 on March 10, 2017, 06:51:37 PMhttps://twitter.com/CNN/status/840277753777680384Quote from: Gmac on March 10, 2017, 03:30:19 PMQuote from: screenexile on March 10, 2017, 01:59:13 PMif the employment numbers were down 300k what would u be saying ?
It's a pity Trump doesn't recognise the employment and wage figures otherwise he could paint them as a massive win for his first few months of Presidency, even though the figures are clearly an Obama legacy . . .
I wonder what he will do?!
Is his point not that Trump and many other Republicans have been calling the jobs numbers bullshit for years? Including saying that the Dept. of Labor was making them up?
Now that the Obama trend is continuing under Trump, suddenly Spicer and the rest are lauding the decent figures coming out of the "deep state".
Quote from: Main Street on March 10, 2017, 10:11:56 PMQuote from: seafoid on March 10, 2017, 09:21:31 PMWhat is your exact point?
Infant mortality rates for illegitimate kids in 30s to 50s were 5 times normal which were already high
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fpMLB1icn0w
I have already stated repeatedly in this thread that the infant mortality rates dropped radically in the mid 1940's,
meanwhile the infant death rates in Tuam were a constant high.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3053035/figure/F1/
the difference between death rates for kids from families and those whose mothers were not married