Gay Parenting

[PanzerJaeger]

Gotta admit, it certainly makes for open minded children.

Do you believe that mixed-race couples should be given preferential treatment in the adoption process over same race-couples?

You continue to miss the point like a tank with a warped barrel. The point is that a child raised with a mother and father has inherent advantages because the child had a mother and a father.

I knew that there was a word that perfectly described the tact you're taking, but I could not for the life of me remember what it was. Thankfully Ajaxfetish has a greater mastery of the English language than myself.

How and why you see woman as nothing but a life support system for a vagina is ming boggling. Women are different from men, and not just because they have different genetalia. They are in fact different.

I see women as individuals, not a homogeneous one that all think and act the same way. I know some women who conform to certain commonly held gender roles and some who do not. I know some who hold traditionally feminine interests and some who do not. I know some who match the descriptors in the study that Rhyfelwyr kindly provided and some who do not.

What I have not noticed are clear, defined, and uniquely female differences that cannot be replicated by males, especially in regard to raising children. Even Rhyfelwyr's study spoke in generalities, and did not attempt to mount the case that women have innate personality differences that no man could ever have.

But as you've insinuated over and over again, I'm an idiot who doesn't get it. That's why I need your help to spell it out for me.

What specific differences are unique only to women that can only be taken from a woman in a straight relationship by her child?

• a
• b
• c

And as a child has to deal with both sexes throughout his life, in a thousand different ways, it is obvious, like a ton of bricks falling on your head, that growing up with both sexes will be of benefit to the child.

How, specifically, will it benefit the child? What specific elements of life will it enhance?

If you think there is no difference between a man and a woman other than "parts", then go see Billy-Bob, turn him over, and have a go. Then go see Sally-Sue and do the same. If you can come back here and tell me both experiences gave you the same "emotional satisfaction", then I will agree with you that men and women are indeed equal and that no differences between them exist other than "parts".

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that sexual attraction proves that there is a difference between men and women deeper than "parts". Is that correct, and if so, are you suggesting that sexual attraction is learned from one's parents?

Also, what if I'm bisexual and get the same emotional satisfaction from having sex with both sexes?

Finally, I am not arguing that there is no difference between men and women. In fact, I'm actually taking it further than your rather topical observation - there are differences between every woman and every man. Every individual is different, yet there are no real non-physical differences that are solely female and solely male.

A heterosexual couple impart both a better understanding of the male and female aspects of human life, and in uncountable and ineffable ways, influence the child through the differences a male and female carry within them. A mother and a father offer a fuller and more complete experience to a child exactly when those experiences are most needed and best learned and retained for life.

What are the uniquely male aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a man? What are the uniquely female aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a woman?

It is easy to speak in generalities, but apparently much more difficult to try and nail down specifics.

[Beirut]

For the moment, allow me to apologize for any personal remarks I made that my fellow Orgsters took to be insults.

My mistake.

[Beirut]

Do you believe that mixed-race couples should be given preferential treatment in the adoption process over same race-couples?

A topic to discuss, but perhaps best discussed in its own thread.

I see women as individuals, not a homogeneous one that all think and act the same way. I know some women who conform to certain commonly held gender roles and some who do not. I know some who hold traditionally feminine interests and some who do not. I know some who match the descriptors in the study that Rhyfelwyr kindly provided and some who do not.

Indeed. But they all have one thing in common: they're female. Or do females hold no worth in your opinion?

What I have not noticed are clear, defined, and uniquely female differences that cannot be replicated by males, especially in regard to raising children. Even Rhyfelwyr's study spoke in generalities, and did not attempt to mount the case that women have innate personality differences that no man could ever have.

Ever have PMS?

But as you've insinuated over and over again, I'm an idiot who doesn't get it. That's why I need your help to spell it out for me.

I am trying, dear sir. I am trying.

What specific differences are unique only to women that can only be taken from a woman in a straight relationship by her child?

Everything a woman is.

I fail to understand what appears to be a thundering lack of respect for women on your part.

How, specifically, will it benefit the child? What specific elements of life will it enhance?

As the world is roughly half female, as the child was born of a female, will grow to interact, work with, and possibly procreate with a female, it is beyond question that being exposed to a female - a mother - carries great weight.

Walk into a women's lib center and annnouce to the crowd that nothing other than the posssesion of a vagina marks any of them as special.

Then duck. Then run for your life.

I don't understand. You seem to be saying that sexual attraction proves that there is a difference between men and women deeper than "parts". Is that correct, and if so, are you suggesting that sexual attraction is learned from one's parents?

Yes, it is correct. Sexual attraction goes far beyond that simple, yet oh so wonderful, connection of the parts of that fit.

No, sexual attraction is not learned from the parents. But a good deal of how a child will grow to relate with the opposite sex is. Having a mother and a father allows a child a better and more complete view of the human condition.

Also, what if I'm bisexual and get the same emotional satisfaction from having sex with both sexes?

Then you are twice as likely to get laid. Cheers!

Finally, I am not arguing that there is no difference between men and women. In fact, I'm actually taking it further than your rather topical observation - there are differences between every woman and every man. Every individual is different, yet there are no real non-physical differences that are solely female and solely male.

Again, I would submit that if you truly think there are no differences between men and women other than parts, then you need more experience with women.

What are the uniquely male aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a man? What are the uniquely female aspects of life that can only be imparted to a child by a woman?

I'm sorry, but if the first twenty or thirty times I explained it did not suffice, I can't see how saying it again here would help.

It is easy to speak in generalities, but apparently much more difficult to try and nail down specifics.

One of the parents is a mother and the other is a father. That's about as specific as it gets.

[ajaxfetish]

Indeed. But they all have one thing in common: they're female. Or do females hold no worth in your opinion?

. . .

I fail to understand what appears to be a thundering lack of respect for women on your part.

. . .

Walk into a women's lib center and annnouce to the crowd that nothing other than the posssesion of a vagina marks any of them as special.

How you're getting any of this from PJ's posts I can't begin to imagine.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

I think Beirut is using a technique where you try to take an usual angle to steal the morally righteous position. For example, PJ's liberal take on things (on this matter anyway) makes Beirut appear like the bad guy, so Beirut turns it round by making it look like PJ does not treat women with respect, thus stealing the mantle for being able to have an outburst of moral outrage.

Or for another example, the abortion thread. HoreTore and other liberals had the morally righteous position defending women's rights, with Vuk as the bad guy. So Vuk turned it round by making it look like abortion in fact picked on minority groups eg blacks, stealing the right to moral indignation.

It's a good technique but not entirely honest (in both cases, since neither PJ or HoreTore were doing what they were accused of).

I avoid it and just come accross openly as a , I prefer things that way.

[Beirut]

How you're getting any of this from PJ's posts I can't begin to imagine.

Ajax

I guess I just have a better imagination than you.

It is clear he is saying that beyond the biological factory the female supplies, ending in the fetus passing through the vagina and into the world, the/a mother can then be permanently removed from the equation without any consequences to the child. I say that that is false. And If I spoke every language in the world, I would repeat that it is false in every language of the world.

It is natural, it is good, it is better, and it is best that a child have a mother and a father. That's it. That's all. Period. Done. Finished. Clear as the summer sun and set in stone. Have a nice day and enjoy the trip.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I share Beirut's exasperation here, the differences between men and women are to me something very obvious and something that we see and experience every day. I gave some studies and could blitz the place with them but they just get dismissed, at the end of the day you shouldn't even need them, has everyone gone crazy?

[miotas]

It is clear he is saying that beyond the biological factory the female supplies, ending in the fetus passing through the vagina and into the world, the/a mother can then be permanently removed from the equation without any consequences to the child. I say that that is false. And If I spoke every language in the world, I would repeat that it is false in every language of the world.

In all fairness I could just as easily say that it is "clear" that a father has no worth as a parent beyond simply being a sperm donor. Each individual parent could never be just replaced by any other random off the street. My mother could not be simply replaced by any other person (be that person a hetero woman, a gay man, a lesbian woman, a hetero man or other) since her personality infulenced me in many ways that no other induvidual could replicate.

But say we are facing the horrible situation of a child orphaned at birth or a mother unable or unwilling to raise a child and that child winds up in "the system" as so many kids are. In this case the biological mother was unfortunately just the carry case for the foetus and any other willing and suitable parents can step in.

[Beirut]

In all fairness I could just as easily say that it is "clear" that a father has no worth as a parent beyond simply being a sperm donor. Each individual parent could never be just replaced by any other random off the street. My mother could not be simply replaced by any other person (be that person a hetero woman, a gay man, a lesbian woman, a hetero man or other) since her personality infulenced me in many ways that no other induvidual could replicate.

I sent a copy of that to your mother. She has a 27 metric tons of homemade chocolate chip cookies waiting for you.

But say we are facing the horrible situation of a child orphaned at birth or a mother unable or unwilling to raise a child and that child winds up in "the system" as so many kids are. In this case the biological mother was unfortunately just the carry case for the foetus and any other willing and suitable parents can step in.

I never said gay parents should not be allowed to adopt, nor did I say that gay parents could not be good parents. I did say that having a mother and a father is inherently better for a child than having two parents of the same sex.

[PanzerJaeger]

A topic to discuss, but perhaps best discussed in its own thread.

I think the question is perfectly suited to this thread. If your position is based on the virtues of diversity, wouldn't that extend to mixed-race couples as well? I don't need a thesis - a simple yes or no would help me understand how far you're willing to travel on this logical path.

Indeed. But they all have one thing in common: they're female. Or do females hold no worth in your opinion?

I don't know whether to be more insulted at your multiple assertions that I do not have respect for women, or the fact that you actually think you'll put me on the defensive with that playground tactic.

Ever have PMS?

I didn't realize girls learned PMS from their mothers.

You made the claim that children take from their mothers and fathers unexplained but wholly unique and irreplaceable 'differences' that are critical to their interaction skills with the opposite sex. At least that's what I think your position is. It is so vague that I really can't nail down what actual deficits you're claiming children of gay parents suffer. (Another unanswered question.)

I want you to explain those differences to me.

I am trying, dear sir. I am trying.

No, you're not. I've posed the same very simple questions to you over and over again and you refuse to answer.

Everything a woman is.

And what does that everything consist of - specifically?

I fail to understand what appears to be a thundering lack of respect for women on your part.

... so little respect, in fact, that I've posted two different studies pointing out the strengths of lesbian parenthood.

I respect women as individuals. What I do not respect, as they have not been explained to me, are these monolithic tribes of Man and Woman you seem to be referring to who hold characteristics/traits/differences/voodoo secrets that are wholly unique to them and can only be passed down to children through them.

So what are these differences?

As the world is roughly half female, as the child was born of a female, will grow to interact, work with, and possibly procreate with a female, it is beyond question that being exposed to a female - a mother - carries great weight.

Does it? Do women speak a different language that a boy can only learn from his mother?

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that children of gay parents are living under rocks, and that they would not go to day care as infants and that they would not go to preschool (average starting age these days is 2) and then on to school and society at large.

At what age are these critical 'differences' taken from mothers and fathers by their children that are so crucial to their interaction with the opposite sex later in life? It would have to be within the first twelve months.

Walk into a women's lib center and annnouce to the crowd that nothing other than the posssesion of a vagina marks any of them as special.

Then duck. Then run for your life.

Amazing! You are arguing that it is their genitalia - their sex - that makes them special. I am saying that their common genitalia is, in fact, the least special thing about them, so unimportant that it is not an essential or even important part of child-rearing.

What makes a person special, an individual, and a good parent - is their personality, their experiences, and their devotion to the child. Sex is completely superficial to the process.

No, sexual attraction is not learned from the parents. But a good deal of how a child will grow to relate with the opposite sex is. Having a mother and a father allows a child a better and more complete view of the human condition.

I'm starting to believe that you are the one with the problem understanding women. You seem to be under the impression that they are a mysterious, secretive species to be 'interacted with' only by experienced men who had access to their mothers from birth.

Maybe it is a generational thing, but I just don't find women that complicated.

Again, I would submit that if you truly think there are no differences between men and women other than parts, then you need more experience with women.

Thank you for your advice. It does puzzle me that you took the 3 seconds to again tell me I am inexperienced in the sacred art of interacting with women, but didn't take another 3 to actually type out any of the differences.

As this discussion has progressed, I have really tried to think of any non-physical differences wholly unique to either of the sexes, especially in regard to raising children.

Drawing on experience and familiar stereotypes yielded nothing. Females can teach sports, driving, and instill discipline just as well as men. Men can be caring, nurturing, cook and clean just as well as women.

Again, again, and again - what are the wholly unique differences that men and women bring to a heterosexual relationship that make their interactions important for a child to observe?

I'm sorry, but if the first twenty or thirty times I explained it did not suffice, I can't see how saying it again here would help.

You said it. You have not explained it.

I am very sure that you understand exactly what I am asking you to provide, but I am willing to entertain the notion that something in the way I form logical positions or write is confusing you. Maybe an example completely removed from the topic will help you to understand what I am looking for.

Suppose I say that the Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943.

That is a claim.

Then you say: "What, specifically, makes the Tiger the best German tank in service in 1943?"

An appropriate response would be:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943 because:

• It had the best armament of any German tank up to that point.
• It had the best armor of any German tank up to that point.
• It had the best suspension of any German tank up to that point."

That is specific supporting information backing up my earlier claim.

Instead, what you have done repeatedly is to essentially say:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in 1943 because the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943, for the common sense reason that the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943."


Now, as I said before, I think you've come to the realization that you cannot come up with anything specific and non-physical related to child-rearing that a man can do that a woman cannot and conversely nothing a woman can do that a man cannot, and that any claims to the contrary would come off as incredibly sexist nonsense.

However, maybe, just maybe, my example will help you understand what I am asking for.

I share Beirut's exasperation here, the differences between men and women are to me something very obvious and something that we see and experience every day. I gave some studies and could blitz the place with them but they just get dismissed, at the end of the day you shouldn't even need them, has everyone gone crazy?

For my part, I do not dismiss your studies. However, they point to greater statistical occurrences of particular traits in both sexes - not wholly unique traits. It is kind of like the classic IQ example. Blacks have a greater occurrence of lower scores on the test, but that doesn't mean that there are not intelligent black people.

[Beirut]

I think the question is perfectly suited to this thread. If your position is based on the virtues of diversity, wouldn't that extend to mixed-race couples as well? I don't need a thesis - a simple yes or no would help me understand how far you're willing to travel on this logical path.

Well, good morning, PJ. I have my coffe and am delighted to peruse this Sherman tank of a post you wrote.

I think the issue you raised in that question is best left for another thread. We have a dozen pages already on this one male\female question. I'm not sure there is merit in making the next dozen a mish-mash of the two as it is carried farther and farther until we are debating whether, in the name of holy diversity, a child is better off with one black homosexual parent, an adrogynous Aisan parent, and a sibbling in a wheelchair, as opposed to being raised by a robot with a penis, a sentient cat, and a trans-gender set of dishes.

I don't know whether to be more insulted at your multiple assertions that I do not have respect for women, or the fact that you actually think you'll put me on the defensive with that playground tactic.

I am saying a woman's influence is crucial to a child's upbrining. You are saying a woman, once having passed the baby through her vagina and into the world, can be tossed aside. She's simply not needed anymore.

I think that speaks for itself.

I didn't realize girls learned PMS from their mothers.

The point being that PMS is a psychological state unique to women. (Though the little dears do love to share the joy with their men.)

You made the claim that children take from their mothers and fathers unexplained but wholly unique and irreplaceable 'differences' that are critical to their interaction skills with the opposite sex. At least that's what I think your position is. It is so vague that I really can't nail down what actual deficits you're claiming children of gay parents suffer. (Another unanswered question.)

They "suffer" in that they have lacked being with both a mother and a father. Nothing vague about that at all.

Two simple specific points:

(a) Mom
(b) Dad

No, you're not. I've posed the same very simple questions to you over and over again and you refuse to answer.

I have answered many times. That you do not accept my answer is the crux of this debate; you say women are not unique and I say they are.

And what does that everything consist of - specifically?

You want me to explain, specifically, everything about women?

Um...

I'm sorry, but this forum does not support posts over 10,000 words, nor does it support the 6,549,091 consecutive pages required for Part I of the answer.

... so little respect, in fact, that I've posted two different studies pointing out the strengths of lesbian parenthood.

And yet you still say children don't need mothers. Very odd.

I respect women as individuals. What I do not respect, as they have not been explained to me, are these monolithic tribes of Man and Woman you seem to be referring to who hold characteristics/traits/differences/voodoo secrets that are wholly unique to them and can only be passed down to children through them.

I don't see why you catagorize the differences between men and women as negatives.

Does it? Do women speak a different language that a boy can only learn from his mother?

In a manner of speaking, yes.

Also, you seem to be under the assumption that children of gay parents are living under rocks, and that they would not go to day care as infants and that they would not go to preschool (average starting age these days is 2) and then on to school and society at large.

Hmmmm, rocks? No, I never mentioned anything about rocks.

At what age are these critical 'differences' taken from mothers and fathers by their children that are so crucial to their interaction with the opposite sex later in life? It would have to be within the first twelve months.

It's an ongoing and cumulative learning process.

Amazing!

Thank you.

You are arguing that it is their genitalia - their sex - that makes them special. I am saying that their common genitalia is, in fact, the least special thing about them, so unimportant that it is not an essential or even important part of child-rearing.

I am saying women are special because they are women, and that they are unique because they are women. And they are greater than the sum of their parts.

What makes a person special, an individual, and a good parent - is their personality, their experiences, and their devotion to the child. Sex is completely superficial to the process.

Not if one of the sexes is absent from the parental process.

I'm starting to believe that you are the one with the problem understanding women. You seem to be under the impression that they are a mysterious, secretive species to be 'interacted with' only by experienced men who had access to their mothers from birth.

Of course I have problems understanding women. Find me a man who doesn't. I've got a wife and two daughters, I could write a Ph.D. dissertation on what I don't understand about women.

One day the wife and kids left early. I woke up later, went downstairs, made my cereal, and sat at the table. Then I noticed that in the middle of the table was a giant-sized box of Kotex. So, I sat there with my Cheerios, munching away, and me and the box of feminine napkins had a quiet thoughtful breakfast together.

Mysterious secrets of women? Buddy, you have no idea.

Maybe it is a generational thing, but I just don't find women that complicated.

Give it time.

Thank you for your advice.

My pleasure.

It does puzzle me that you took the 3 seconds to again tell me I am inexperienced in the sacred art of interacting with women, but didn't take another 3 to actually type out any of the differences.

It will take a tad longer than three-seconds to explain the differences between men and women.

As this discussion has progressed, I have really tried to think of any non-physical differences wholly unique to either of the sexes, especially in regard to raising children.

Drawing on experience and familiar stereotypes yielded nothing. Females can teach sports, driving, and instill discipline just as well as men. Men can be caring, nurturing, cook and clean just as well as women.

Again, again, and again - what are the wholly unique differences that men and women bring to a heterosexual relationship that make their interactions important for a child to observe?

You continue to miss the point; you are talking about parenting skills and that is not the point. I will not deny for a moment that a gay man or a gay woman can be a good parent. When my father was in the last stages of brain cancer, it was one of my brother's friends, a gay man, who was my father's nurse. He fed him, bathed him, helped him use the toilet, it was like caring for a 200lb infant. I am well aware of the abilities of gay people. But that is not the issue.

The point is that there are inherent benefits to a child being exposed to, and learning from, both a man and a woman. We are not talking about the parents, we are talking about the child.

You said it. You have not explained it.

I am very sure that you understand exactly what I am asking you to provide, but I am willing to entertain the notion that something in the way I form logical positions or write is confusing you. Maybe an example completely removed from the topic will help you to understand what I am looking for.

Suppose I say that the Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943.

That is a claim.

Then you say: "What, specifically, makes the Tiger the best German tank in service in 1943?"

An appropriate response would be:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in service in 1943 because:

• It had the best armament of any German tank up to that point.
• It had the best armor of any German tank up to that point.
• It had the best suspension of any German tank up to that point."

That is specific supporting information backing up my earlier claim.

Instead, what you have done repeatedly is to essentially say:

"The Tiger was the best German tank in 1943 because the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943, for the common sense reason that the Tiger was the best German tank in 1943."

Interesting. But you are in the wrong ball field if you think the innefable qualities of what makes a woman a woman and what makes a man a man can be put on paper like a transmission diagram. The understanding you are seeking does not exist in statistics or Powerpoint presentations; it is an ongoing part of the human condition, and the human condition exists with many, many unanswered and seemingly unanswerable questions. Just because we cannot draw a precise diagram that explains a thing does not mean that that thing is not only very real, but has very real conquences to us.

Now, as I said before, I think you've come to the realization that you cannot come up with anything specific and non-physical related to child-rearing that a man can do that a woman cannot and conversely nothing a woman can do that a man cannot, and that any claims to the contrary would come off as incredibly sexist nonsense.

I think it is sexist nonsense to dismiss the relevance of either a man or a woman to a child's upbrining. I simply don't see either men or women as being as dispossable as you do.

However, maybe, just maybe, my example will help you understand what I am asking for.

I know what you are looking for, but I really don't think you are going to get, or even can get, an answer in the way you want one. You are seeking answers to grand philosophical and existential questions and want them printed out on a statistics chart. It ain't gonna happen.

[ajaxfetish]

I am saying a woman's influence is crucial to a child's upbrining. You are saying a woman, once having passed the baby through her vagina and into the world, can be tossed aside. She's simply not needed anymore.

Well, in the case of adoption, that woman whose vagina was passed through is already out of the picture. She has to be replaced. It's just a question of who should replace her.

And yet you still say children don't need mothers. Very odd. . . . Not if one of the sexes is absent from the parental process.

For all the talk about disrespecting mothers and how offended they would feel, I wonder how a single dad would interpret comments like these. I guess he just might as well give up already, since he can't give his kids what they need anyway.

Of course I have problems understanding women. Find me a man who doesn't. I've got a wife and two daughters, I could write a Ph.D. dissertation on what I don't understand about women.

One day the wife and kids left early. I woke up later, went downstairs, made my cereal, and sat at the table. Then I noticed that in the middle of the table was a giant-sized box of Kotex. So, I sat there with my Cheerios, munching away, and me and the box of feminine napkins had a quiet thoughtful breakfast together.

Mysterious secrets of women? Buddy, you have no idea.

*psst* *They're for soaking up/holding in their blood during menstruation. Just thought you should know*

But you are in the wrong ball field if you think the innefable qualities of what makes a woman a woman and what makes a man a man can be put on paper

This is the second time you've avoided describing the characteristics that make women unique by calling it ineffable. If you want to treat womankind as a religious mystery, that's all well and good, but in a country with separation of church and state such views shouldn't determine policy in state-administered adoption programs.

Ajax

[Beirut]

Well, in the case of adoption, that woman whose vagina was passed through is already out of the picture. She has to be replaced. It's just a question of who should replace her.

Another woman.

For all the talk about disrespecting mothers and how offended they would feel, I wonder how a single dad would interpret comments like these. I guess he just might as well give up already, since he can't give his kids what they need anyway.

A single mom\dad doing all they can for their kids does not negate the fact that the kids would be better off with both a mother and father.

*psst* *They're for soaking up/holding in their blood during menstruation. Just thought you should know*

I know what they are for, I just never thought I would be having breakfast with them. Such are the surprises of life with women.

This is the second time you've avoided describing the characteristics that make women unique by calling it ineffable. If you want to treat womankind as a religious mystery, that's all well and good, but in a country with separation of church and state such views shouldn't determine policy in state-administered adoption programs.

Oh, well then please, let us have the state describe the philosophical and existential qualities of womankind for us. I look forward to reading that gem of a report.

Some people here seem to be of the opinion that a woman can be defined in totality thusly: "A man with a vagina. No other differences noted." I wonder if the government report would share that soaring and eloquent syntax and grammar.

[ajaxfetish]

I know what they are for, I just never thought I would be having breakfast with them. Such are the surprises of life with women.

Guess I'm just not seeing the mystery of household items being left on the dinner table. Would a box of toothpaste have been equally weird for you?

Some people here seem to be of the opinion that a woman can be defined in totality thusly: "A man with a vagina. No other differences noted." I wonder if the government report would share that soaring and eloquent syntax and grammar.

Tons of differences. Muscle mass, center of gravity, hormone balance, water content, etc., etc. Lots of differences in averages, for height, weight, and so on. The question is, what are the differences that are relevant to children's development. That part seems to be ineffable, and so not really relevant for a secular situation.

Ajax