Posted on 04/28/2004 10:05:23 AM PDT by u-89
with all but thee!
And I've never had to worry about AIDS, chlamydia, crabs, gonorrhea, hepatitis (A|B|C), herpes, syphilis, etc. ad nauseaum to include paternity suits. Monogamy suits me just fine. Call me a prude, if it makes you feel better.
You must have never known the alternative.
And married couples can still love each other and have sex that is quite lustful.
Then that wouldn't be the "loveless sex" you were advocating.
And not to pop your bubble, but not all marrieds have sex solely for the purpose of procreation.
You seem very fond of Red Herring arguments. Procreation is irrelevant to this debate.
Here you go. According to a 2002 study, Oklahoma had the second highest divorce rate in the US. From Divorce Reform's own website.
Sorry, but this by itself is totally meaningless unless you first established that these Oklahomans have a lower instance of "sex before marriage". But I will remind you again for the third time that even if you could prove this unlikely point, it would not help your flimsy argument. There is there is too big of a difference between "sex before marriage" and the subset of wholesale sluttery you are defending on this thread. Even if it were possible to prove the first one, it would in no way prove the other.
Yes, you must be so hurt by others having sex.
Well, I certainly don't care for the economic consequences of non-marital sex like welfare, divorce, STD's, etc. that affect my taxes. Nor do I like the idea of our young servicemen getting their hearts broken by these hyper-whores.
The key word there is liberty. They also allowed people to be free. Period.
If that is all it were, we would surely have lost it by now. Freedom comes with responsibility. I doubt you could understand.
Of course. Yet anoither who is quick to condemen the women having sex, but not the men.
Since you obviously didn't read it the first time, I'll go through it again for you. The promiscuity isn't what I am most opposed to here, it's the advocacy of it. By creating this organization and publicizing it on a website, they are attempting to defend and ultimately recruit others into their downward spiral of self-destructive whoredom. As I keep saying, these pathetic women were sluts long before the war and they almost certainly will be sluts long after the war. To publicly defend this depraved form of complimentary prostitution as being a valid form of patriotism is an offense to everyone who truly served their country.
Mine are high enough than to call people sluts, cavernous whores, and other such lovely things.
You clearly don't even understand what morality is. The moral obligation in this situation would be honesty, and I have been. I've just called them like I've seen them.
Must be more of that Christian love I hear so much about.
You are the only one trying to bring religion into this. It is almost like you are you are trying to find some.
Have a good weekend. I know I will.
I hope you do.
I am not surprised that someone who has said what you have said here would think that morality is only taught through AM radio.
You seem to enjoy this insulated world you've built for yourself, in which you can condemn as "prostitutes" and "whores" women you've never even met, and wouldn't know even if they sat across from you in church
I know what they are advocating and what they claim to be doing. And yes, those words fit perfectly.
I guess it satisfies your feelings of superiority to be able to toss around condemnations and judgements like that.
As much as you'd like it to be, this isn't about superiority. The behavior they are advocating is wrong. I am opposing it on this thread, you are defending it.
Like casting stones. do we?
No, nor am I. I am just calling their behavior for what it is.
Whatever, enjoy it. The rest of us in this world called "reality" do not judge someone as a "slut" just because he or she has a healthy, normal sex drive.
Based on what you've said here, I don't think that particular word has any meaning at all for you.
As the majority of the posts here reveal, even such conservatives as FReepers don't think these women are doing anything evil,
The number of voluntary posters is not in any way an accurate reflection of any group's opinion. Nor, for that matter, are the definitions of right and wrong subject to polls. I bet you wish they were though, don't you?
and may in fact be doing something quite the opposite.
The main issue of this thread is the public advocacy and formal organization of such slutty behavior.
What you are doing is patronizing and preaching to young, brave men, as if they were nothing more than children at risk from "evil women".
All good men are at risk from flaky harlots like these.
I guess, in your world, it's a GOOD thing for a young man to die never having known a woman's touch, or to go to battle with no warm memories of a woman's arms around him.
Better than for him to risk death with a broken heart or a debilitating venereal disease. The French military provides prostitutes for some of their serviceman. You'd fit right in.
To those of us in "reality", that strikes us as wrong on many different levels.
I fear your "reality" is a lonely place.
The only people on this thread I've seen advocating it have probably never had the experience of "shipping out" alone.
Not true, but it would be irrelevant to this debate even if it were.
Zip your fly, your hatred is showing.
Ouch, I was afraid that might hit somebody a little to close to home. As I've said, I hope that anyone who would defend these whores' scandalous behavior would marry sluts just like them. It now sounds like some of them did. At least they aren't hypocrites.
I guess the "pre-marital sex=disease" thing doesn't always work out, does it?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.