Posted on 03/21/2005 9:49:25 AM PST by MisterRepublican
I don't see that a chaste person equates to one who eats in moderation.
I'm saying nags are neither helpful nor effective. I notice you didn't answer the question.
Anyone who's been in a relationship knows that there's no such thing as "meaningless trysts."
Your opinion is just that.
Why would you spend the time to post this unless my "nagging" was bothering you, in which case your conscience must be bothering you?
I notice you didn't answer the question.
What question?
Anyone who's been in a relationship knows that there's no such thing as "meaningless trysts."
Your opinion is just that.
I thought you might try this way out.
The trouble is, when you say that your sexual encounters are meaningless, you're saying that your most serious actions (possible generation of new life/possible contraction of serious disease) are meaningless, in which case either you regard yourself as meaningless or life as meaningless; in which case you must be profoundly unhappy.
There is a way out of this. You can repent and serve the Truth.
I couldn't disagree more with the above and I've been happily married for a long time now. Friendship is highly overrated in marriage, and sexual chemistry is grossly undervalued. Interestingly enough, I recently read something similar (to my comments) by James Dobson of all people.
They lasted for four times the history of the United States. That's not unimpressive even if they had some bloody pastimes.
And the Romans provided the groundwork for all of Western Civilization.
Sexual intercourse is reserved by nature for a lifelong, exclusive, male/female relationship for the begetting and raising of children, and the mutual care of the spouses. This is intuitively obvious and proven by common experience. Therefore, those who reserve intercourse for marriage are happier than those who don't; just as those who eat as nature intends (in moderation, primarily for nutrition and growth) are happier than those who abuse food (who overeat, eating primarily for pleasure).
Everyone loses in the sexual revolution. Everyone except those who avoid that war.
Most folks grow up and move on. Very few are stuck in an endless cycle of sorrow over their youthful indiscretions. However, there is nothing more pitiful than to see 40 year olds, men or women, trying to live as though they are 19.
I made a lot mistakes when I was young, a whole lot. Thank God, I learned from them.
that deserves big paragraph outlining all the morally wrong things they did including basic lack of respect for human life, subordinate position of women, etc etc etc. Or you mean scientific and art stuff? Even for that, price tag is a bit too high IMHO.
Most of us do, men and women. What we have here is a whole bunch of people who're looking backing on youth with the eyes of maturity, and not grasping why young people aren't thinking like they do. It's not registering with them, that they will, in time.
As someone that's done the co-habitation thing, I can see both sides of the issue. It's most likely a far healthier lifestyle emotionally to not do it for long, if at all.
The whole thing is quite complicated to me. I'm not sure it's necessary to remain a virgin until marriage, or even if that's best. However, I do think that it's probably best to get married ASAP if you're going to be living together.
The moralizers, while I appreciate their point of view, seem to think college kids should act like adults. Maybe they should, but they never will.
You mean back when we just bashed 'em on the head and dragged them back to the cave.
(As long as they weren't bigger than us)
you sure you meant to post that specifically to me? :) because i'm agressively against cohabitation
and yet another one trying to ajust standards for popular vote :) Just because many people fail, doesn't mean failure is OK and even expected. And many "moralizers" were college kids, too.
And I completely disagree with what you're saying, and I've also been happily married for a fairly long time. (A long time = 2 Rush Limbaugh divorces.)
"Sexual chemistry" is worthless garbage if your spouse is a nasty, evil, vindictive, amoral person. On the other hand, it's relatively easy to find a kind, loving, thoughtful person tremendously attractive, sexually and every other way.
Most of us moralizers were college kids once upon a time, and were better behaved as college kids than the ones described in articles like these.
Yes, but you do like hamsters.
But I'm not. I think people are marrying later than they should, and for the wrong reasons. People are marrying later, BTW, in large part because they're not keeping the sex genie in the bottle.
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.