Posted on 01/15/2007 8:04:12 AM PST by shrinkermd
The Sixties generation thought everything should be free. But only a few decades later the hippies were selling water at rock festivals for $5 a bottle. But for me the price of “free love” was even higher.
I sacrificed what should have been the best years of my life for the black lie of free love. All the sex I ever had — and I had more than my fair share — far from bringing me the lasting relationship I sought, only made marriage a more distant prospect...
And I am not alone. Count me among the dissatisfied daughters of the sexual revolution, a new counterculture of women who are realising that casual sex is a con and are choosing to remain chaste instead.
I am 37, and like millions of other girls, was born into a world which encouraged young women to explore their sexuality. It was almost presented to us as a feminist act. In the 1960s the future Cosmopolitan editor Helen Gurley Brown famously asked: Can a woman have sex like a man? Yes, she answered because “like a man, [a woman] is a sexual creature”. Her insight launched a million “100 new sex tricks” features in women’s magazines. And then that sex-loving feminist icon Germaine Greer enthused that “groupies are important because they demystify sex; they accept it as physical, and they aren’t possessive about their conquests”.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Ok, I can see it that way, but when I read her quote: "Kissing happens," all I could think of was the famous bumper sticker of similar wording, and I thought she was being overly negative about kissing by comparing it to something filthy.
I'm here to participate in an exchange of views and opinions. Why are you here if not for something similar?
I am indeed. There are numerous posters here who have been able to share an intellectual debate, and I admire them greatly. There are a few on every topic that cannot let someone else's points interfere with their own preconceived notions, and they write like they're getting heavenly points for it.
Exactly, because it makes claims on your behavior up with which you will not put.
Been there, done that.
"But that doesn't stop me from recognizing what's generally true of men, any more than this article itself says "women are different from men"."
Men and women are different, doesn't mean that the average man will sleep with anything or anyone. Unless of course you are in a bar and then all bets are off.
I think you backwards the saying, as I know it is as follows:
Women use love to find sex, men use sex to find love.
"If God wants us to have more kids, we are not going to be successful at stopping Him!"
LOL this is the opposite of what I state when talking about any kind of euthanasia!
"If God wants them back, nothing we do is going to stop Him, no matter the effort or technology or anything to prevent the death."
I don't know if I'd call this man a prude, though. Maybe I'm just sick of that term being thrown out, though. Kind of like "racist" - it's everywhere and I just get sick of hearing the accusation - like Peter's wolf!
I'm more than happy to agree that there is some quack psychology out there. Maybe even most of it is, the therapist has to make the car payment somehow, and they have a built-in incentive to keep people in a juvenile state to exploit their financial resources. I just don't think that they all do it, and this woman might well benefit from finding someone to talk about her sexuality with, besides a church leader who is celebate.
What crock full of platitudes.
Including the ones you shoved in my mouth? Nothing she does is going to erase the past, but she has choices to make about how she deals with it in the present, and how she will deal with similar choices in the future. Locking your mind up into a set of the most restrictive rules you can find is just trading one extreme for another.
Your #182 is dead on the money.
Really, I'd like to know what you believe. You have offered a critique of the Christian religious viewpoint and now I would like to offer a critique of your own beliefs.
Yes, if her mother is a hippy wanna-be as described in the article.
I for one am glad she turned her life around by age 37. I have a sister-in-law who didn't until she was over 40 and a sister age 52 who is still living Ms. Eden's former lifestyle.
"Prude" is a very subjective word. What I mean by it is those who tend to micromanage the marriage bed of others.
Lots of links to her blog from Anglican and Catholic blogs.
I do my part. ;-)
It's deprived you of a common human experience that many people have had, and many of them without bad consequences. It certainly is important to know about you, if you're giving other people advice on how to deal with alcohol. Dawn Eden is looking to celebates for rules to live her sexual life by. It's perfectly fine for her to do this within her own life, but when she writes a book about it, it becomes a legitimate subject for discussion, including by people who think she's overreacting.
Yes, the Noah thing was that he fell into a drunken sleep, and was seen to be "uncovered" by his sons.
Oh good God.
So, apparently depriving oneself of having any given "experience" is bad?
Let's see. What else is common that I should have done, just so I'm more "worldly" and know more about it so I can dare speak of it?
What nonsense. I SEE enough of what happens with drunks and sex-centered leches every day to know enough. You don't need to jump off a cliff to know it's bad for you.
Well,
I kinda miss the Slurpies and Slim Jims....
(OH! Not THAT 7-11!)
What authority do you have to make such a recommendation for all people?
In effect, you are saying that you know that it is objectively true that each and every person should make decisions regarding sexual activity subjectively. This is called a contradiction.
Heaping praise on someone for a lifestyle choice is the same as approval, and I think that's what she's desperately seeking by writing books and being interviewed for articles where she displays fright about kissing.
You may be right. But her psychological motivation for writing this book has no bearing on the strength of her arguments.
The purpose of the human reproductive system is reproduction. That's one of its purposes.
The primary purpose, hence the name. The pleasurable nature of intercourse is ordered primarily to bringing the act about. In other words, if intercourse wasn't pleasurable, none of us would be here today.
Our digestive systems are primarily for the purpose of feeding ourselves to prevent starvation, but I can indulge in a piece of (non-necessary) candy every once in awhile.
Yes. But this is categorically different from binging and purging. You're ducking the issue.
Science came along, and let us cook our pork, refrigerate our shellfish, and separate conception from sexuality.
And science has made it possible for us to blow up innocent people with remote controlled bombs. What's your point? That all things which are possible are permissible?
Rules that were promulgated a long time ago to satisfy the needs of a pre-industrial agricultural society are not needed like they used to be.
As far as I know, the human reproductive system is ordered toward reproduction, the pleasurable nature of which also being ordered toward procreation. Has this changed? Has science discovered a new purpose for the reproductive system?
Conversely, promiscuity is marked by sadness, illness and destruction.
So, two virgins who find each other at a time when they are emotionally ready for a relationship, and who stay faithful with each other are going to suffer from one of the above maladies?
Let's see if I understand your argument. Two virgins meet. They have sex outside marriage, that is, sex without having made a lifetime commitment to each other. You are arguing that they will probably not suffer from "sadness, illness and destruction"?
If that's your argument, it's false, for the following reason.
1) The reproductive system is ordered toward reproduction.
2) Intercourse is ordered toward reproduction and the unity of the spouses, the latter end being ordered toward the further end of the proper rearing of children. (And the concommitant happiness of the spouses).
3) The act of intercourse should be engaged in with a proper understanding of its purpose.
4) Two people who engage in intercourse without professing a lifetime commitment to each other are acting without a proper understanding of intercourse, or are failing by ommission to fulfill the responsibilities that naturally come with engaging in intercourse (i.e., a lifetime commitement to each other for the purpose of bringing forth and rearing children and the mutual care of the spouses).
I guess it's possible, but you could say the same thing about undercooked pork chops or too-old clams.
That statement says a lot. Who's the lucky guy/gal?
Holy, holy, holy, holy
Holy, holy, holy.....
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.