“Real men do not entertain sexual relationships outside of marriage,”
The authors of this piece haven’t been around many single men. Only extremely religious men wait for marriage.
And the reality is, this is nothing new.
It is more prevalent and accepted today, but in WWII, there was a reason the Marines left a trail of inflated condoms behind them in the wakes of their transport ships when they left Australia to go back to war.
They didn’t give all those condoms to men both married and unmarried 8000 miles from their wives and girlfriends just so they could blow them up as party favors.
I think it is disingenuous of the author to make that statement. The fact that many men, even those who engaged in extramarital sexual relationships, may think that is an ideal to be pursued (avoiding extramarital sex) doesn’t change the fact that “real” men engage in it.
Don't be fooled with the proposition that's its a binary choice between extreme virtue and extreme license.
I used to think that way too. Along the lines of - Society is so corrupt, you either are a religious freak (or super ugly) or you were out getting some.
Then I opened my eyes to people who made a 3rd choice. I still meet many such men today - many are religious, but not extremely so. Many are simply conservative. My father was one too - a Marine in WWII, but went in as an 18 year old boy and having zero sexual experience, simply avoided the ubiquitous brothels on Samar and Manila. Men will behave badly, and certainly an Army must prepare for that, but it doesn't mean it must necessarily be that way.
Agreed-my man and I are both single-sex is part of our relationship-I didn’t know any virgin young men even when I was 17-and not many young women who were, either. Also-the widowed people I know-as well as myself-have partners but do not get a marriage license-if you are a surviving military spouse, you may lose significant benefits with a “legal” re-marriage-so a common law commitment will have to do.
While I just can’t get into liking homosexual/lesbian romances in films or otherwise-it just isn’t emotionally healthy to be into the same sex-but this film doesn’t sound like pedophilia or child abuse to me-16-17 is the age of consent in many states, including Texas. And a 17 year old is not a “child” in any sense of the word-like so many ranch/rural kids, I assumed adult responsibilities at 16-work other than on the ranch, school, living on my own, and parenthood at 17-and I was happy to do so.
The flick sounds like another attempt to normalize homosexual behavior on the face of it-I see no need to scream child abuse when we’re talking about a 17 year old of either gender, no matter their sexual preferences.
I dunno, I seem to have hit the chastity triple with father, husband, son. All three waited for sex until they were well and truly married -— saved themselves for their one-and-only.
Seriously.
Maybe this is unusual. Does it show up in the SEICUS survey stats??
Guess it depends who you hang out with.
I think maybe I ought to "nuance" or second-think my last comment.
I don't mean to come off as morally smug.
Let me say I think chastity is a very difficult virtue --- very difficult --- especially because of two factors:
I do think it's rare to find a male (or female) who's a virgin at marriage., The astute reader my notice I did not include myself in that list.
But God, the Master of Mercy, has led me to the good.