SES Forums

Zathura wrote:As far as I know there were about fifteen arranged marraiges (some teachers) in the S.E.S in the 80's. It may be a little more a little less. Those that I know personally don't betray any symptoms that mark them out out from people that use other dating services. It's the role playing that gets me. The arranged marraiges didn't take off as the Indian or Hindu model is no longer popular in the West and hasn't been since the late nineteenth century and early 20th apart from with Royals.

Well depending upon how you define 'arrange marriages' I'd be inclined to beleive that there were more than that. Within my own group, there were two member who married Foundation group girls during the summer that they left St James. Personally I found the idea of marrying someone more than 12 years my junior (and often more than 15 years) somewhat freaky. Had I stuck around and followed the same course, I doubt if I would have escaped.

ses-surviver wrote:Well depending upon how you define 'arrange marriages' I'd be inclined to beleive that there were more than that.

There are various ways of directing the "arrangement" of marriages. It's worth recalling that SES/ SoES / School of Philosophy members are still required to seek permission to get married from whoever's in charge of the school.

Nobody told me that. I didn't ask permission, but I did give out a few invitations to SOP members - maybe the tasty hors d'eouvres made up for my disturbing display of wilfulness. Sorry for interrupting the flow - I just wanted to reply to the assertion that SOP members are "required" to seek permission to marry.

bella wrote:Nobody told me that. I didn't ask permission, but I did give out a few invitations to SOP members - maybe the tasty hors d'eouvres made up for my disturbing display of wilfulness. Sorry for interrupting the flow - I just wanted to reply to the assertion that SOP members are "required" to seek permission to marry.

No apology necessary Bella. Not a lot of flow either. Just reporting the situation in the Melbourne School and a number of other locations at post-initiation level.

Nice to hear from you.

Cheers,

GB

Goblinboy wrote:

ses-surviver wrote:Well depending upon how you define 'arranged marriages' I'd be inclined to beleive that there were more than that.

There are various ways of directing the "arrangement" of marriages. It's worth recalling that SES/ SoES / School of Philosophy members are still required to seek permission to get married from whoever's in charge of the school.

Well that does not surprise me. It was certainly the case when I was still in the school, though I always suspected that some people came across their chosen partners in ways other than by having explicitly asked if they could get married/ matched up with someone. I suppose that even so, they would have had to ask permission.

bella wrote:Nobody told me that. I didn't ask permission, but I did give out a few invitations to SOP members - maybe the tasty hors d'eouvres made up for my disturbing display of wilfulness. Sorry for interrupting the flow - I just wanted to reply to the assertion that SOP members are "required" to seek permission to marry.

What? You only had hors d'eouvres?? Was this one of these 'modern' weddings???



Anyway, WB Bella, nice to see that avie of yours again.

And to get back to the 'flow" - have you comments on the Govenor's response?

Also I would ask you to take time to seek out posts by Temporarily Duped (a parent of one of the aussie schools) and MM (a parent at St James).

a different guest wrote:Also I would ask you to take time to seek out posts by Temporarily Duped (a parent of one of the aussie schools) and MM (a parent at St James).

There's a problem with that, for some reason the postings of MM don't show up when searching for them from the profile page of MM.

I am just made aware of this and haven't a clue why.


Mike

ADG, I'll seek out the posters you mention, but I did want to say that this leapt out at me from the Governors' response:

"There is no 'doctrine' taught at the St James schools...."

A dictionary definition of "doctrine" is as follows:

A principle or body of principles presented for acceptance or belief, as by a religious, political, scientific, or philosophic group

I don't know how the Governors are defining "doctrine", but as it stands, the statement regarding the absence of it would seem to be completely false.

Certainly it's false. The very idea that St. James doesn't teach any particular doctrine... Oy vey!

and Bella - surely your interest in your child attending an SES day school (if there was one in Qld) would be based on the 'doctrine" it espouses?

But it seems they don't have one.

Jeesh, and Howard is saying state schools don't have "values" LOL

Correct. If I was to send my boy to an SOP school, it would be precisely because of the doctrine it espouses.

As someone said previously, I don't quite understand why St James doesn't make its philosophical/religious bases more transparent - plenty of independent schools do, and suffer no ill effects. There has been progress in this area, from what I understand - more transparency at initial meetings, etc. - but the Governors' response makes it appear that they're still back-pedalling somewhat, for no good reason that I can see. I'm thinking "doctrine" has the ring of a clearcut, rigidly detailed system (e.g. catechism) about it, hence the reluctance. The doctrine may be delivered in a less imperative manner, but it seems it's still very much in place, whether the students are compelled to pick it up or not. Why not make it more of a selling point for those who'd like to buy?

A creative suggestion, Bella, as always. Look forward to hearing more from you again if you can shoulder your way through the testosterone-fuelled posts.

Stanton wrote: Look forward to hearing more from you again if you can shoulder your way through the testosterone-fuelled posts.

was that aimed at us?

bella wrote:As someone said previously, I don't quite understand why St James doesn't make its philosophical/religious bases more transparent - plenty of independent schools do, and suffer no ill effects. There has been progress in this area, from what I understand - more transparency at initial meetings, etc. - but the Governors' response makes it appear that they're still back-pedalling somewhat, for no good reason that I can see. I'm thinking "doctrine" has the ring of a clearcut, rigidly detailed system (e.g. catechism) about it, hence the reluctance. The doctrine may be delivered in a less imperative manner, but it seems it's still very much in place, whether the students are compelled to pick it up or not. Why not make it more of a selling point for those who'd like to buy?

Yes. Transparency regarding the doctrine / values / source material / etc could make a big difference to how the SOP schools (of all types) are perceived (I'm referring to the Australian Schools, Sam, Josh and James , not the UK). At least it'd stop my bullsh** detectors going off with a blast every few seconds when dealing with some of the the people there.

Goblinboy!!!!!

Since when do you know my name!