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 ...
"The lifestyle young girls emulate are actually middle-aged male fantasies."
They aren't just male fantasies; there are plenty of middle-aged females with the same ones.
You all posted on similar subject matter threads a couple of months ago regarding a campus psychiatrist's book--thought you might be interested in this article.
I agree...
I do indeed acknowledge that pleasure has long been a part of it, although I cannot imagine that most sub-primate mammals have anywhere near what the primates do. In any case, animals are not bound by ethics, only instincts, and whatever limitations we humans can put on their interactions.
That's just the same sort of "limits" that religion puts on human sexual behavior. When sex had an extremely high chance of leading to pregnancy, and paternity could be questioned, rules for who could have sex with who made sense from a societal point of view, and religion's enforcing of these rules, through civil law, had some justification. When any two people having whatever with each other is NOT going to result in offspring or disease, it's nobody's business any more.
I know you and Aquinasfan have some sort of need to find justification for the old rules, but I believe in a hundred years from now, people are going to read this on some archive, and wonder what the fuss was all about.
You and I can agree on that. In most times and places, there was one set of sexual "rules" for the people in power, and another set, enforced by religion and the civil law, for the ordinary folks.
What is scary is the next generation is even going to be more nuts.
>>Can someone really be named "Dawn Eden"?
Flower children of the 60's, had children. They are in their 30s today.
Catholicism doesn't.
And all of them fall apart when we start into your moral relativist "progress means morality changes" schtick.
I propose, as I always have my whole life, that the people involved take responsibility for it, and either raise the child, or put him/her up for adoption.
Why not just reserve making babies for marriage? That way, you don't have the temptation to abort, you don't have kids raised in irregular situations where Daddy may or may not be around, and you don't have Moms having to give their babies to strangers to raise.
I reject that premise. It's about as sensical as saying that all drunk driving deaths result from drinking alcohol, so all drinking of alcoholic beverages is evil.
Again, this is more nonsense. Any drinking of alcoholic beverages doesn't lead to drunkenness. Drunkenness, OTOH, is certainly evil.
On the other hand, any intercourse outside of marriage is capable of causing pregnancy.
Besides, "fornication" is the label that people put on the sexual behaviors that they don't do. It's a little old fashioned to be using in a discussion taking place on the Internet in the 21st Century.
"Fornication," according to the dictionary, is the correct term for sex outside of marriage. Running away from the correct usage of a word and branding it as "old-fashioned" is just a sign that your position is untenable.
Friendship will bind your hearts with hoops of steel that neither age nor adversity will break.
You sound like someone right out of the pages of Huxley's "Brave New World".
Hmm, I didn't know that! Interesting. But rather than label it "female infidelity", why not just call it an evolved mechanism to deal with the fact that in human societies (as with many other primate societies) that the females were shared with more than one male? Such would be the case if sex and reproduction were not linked in the human mind.
Girls who live around their fathers sexually mature slower, possibly as an anti-incest mechanism.
Interesting theory, but I'd say there are more compelling social reasons for this. Girls who spend less time with a loving father are more likely to "need" male approval and attention from a male peer, who would be more attractive sexually to her.
But it was interesting to read about your research.
I was referring to certain numbers, like the speed of light, for example. I understand that a pretty good guess of 186,000 miles per second was made fairly early on, in the history of measuring it. Even still, I think that it may be even more precisely measured by devices yet to be designed and assembled.
I was not referring to something like pi, which is a fixed mathematical number.
Effective birth control???
I believe RobRoy meant "vasectomies", not "mastectomies". I admit, I did a double take on that one myself.
Can you explain the existence of universal constants?
Agreed. And we establish standards within the law to define what is heavy under certain circumstances.
So is heavy sex with all kinds.
Uh, you kind of lost me here? Heavy sex? Is that sex between obese people? Is that rough sex? Is that sex without foreplay?
Would it include sex between a man who's had a vasectomy, with a woman who is post-menopausal? In other words, between my girlfriend and myself? If so, how would the two of us getting married lighten it? And since we cannot have kids, and you say that's the purpose of marriage, would you deny us the right to marry?
I'm sorry, but it's apparent from the start *you* need justification for your "rules". Thou dost protest too much.
You still cannot answer the simple question of "who cares?" that this woman doesn't want to kiss anyone.
You've been beating around the bush trying to make it seem somehow bad, but all you've come up with is that she's weird, extreme, etc; the usual stuff from someone in the current culture of promiscuity who encounters the rare virgin. Or in this case, an honorary virgin. For some reason, a person like this is a threat.
I don't know why, because she isn't doing anything that is going to hurt anyone, even herself. She doesn't deserve the veiled epithets, and, may I say, "judgements".
I understand your point of view; however, would you as a parent allow your child to do whatever he or she wants to do at the moment, given their level of understanding? In other words, isn't it possible that parents know better what is best for their child bcause of their greater knowledge and wisdom? And that it may not even be possible to express it in terms the child will understand?
When I took my infants/toddlers to the doctor for immunizations, I didn't even try to explain why I was going to allow the mean doctor to stick needles in them. I knew they couldn't understand tuberculosis, polio, smallpox and pertussis. I could only hold them, look into their eyes, and hope they would eventually understand. Did you ever think that God is like that? He asks us to live by faith, not be certain knowledge. You may think that is unfair but maybe it is because He wants to us grow in the faith that will sustain us in the hereafter, not just what is happening here.
This young women came to understand that her values of the moment caused her pain and inability to bond later. If we look at the "rules" God sets up, they are for our good in the long run. They make us happier, more peaceful, less guilt-ridden. Society backs that up as other posters have noted. The sexual revolution, like so much of today's philosophies, tried to ignore history and reality of human nature and create its own utopia, every bit as unrealistic as some religious groups have attempted. Reality eventually hits people in the face but often the damage is done with STDs, inability to bond, and so forth.
If you look carefully at the rules of moral behavior, you will find they are not so much limiting as liberating. I don't have to wonder if some unknown child of mine will pop up someday. I don't have to worry about AIDS, or getting addicted to drugs, or having an abortion, or bringing up a child without knowing his or her father. I don't even have to worry about death. Those are worth the minor "restrictions" religion puts on me. I hope you can find that comfort also.
Reason is the ability of the human being to discern among choices, aided by education, experience, and intellect, and then pick the right one for that person.
Human progress is anything that aids us in providing for our basic needs, including intellectual and entertainment needs, as well as increasing human comfort, reducing disease or injury, and helps us to communicate better with each other. These things need to be provided in a way that does not cause undue hardship to others in the process. The invention of the automobile meant that the buggy whip maker was eventually going to be out of a job, but since all technologies are eventually replaced by new technologies, taking any occupation that does not change with the times means that you have accepted the potential hardship that will be caused if some way to do your job more efficiently is found.
No, that is not right at all. A lot of FReeper men are more than happy to bash American females in retaliation for the way they have been treated by those females. However I have never read a post by a Freeper man against women, American or otherwise. Never confuse female and women, one is a sex and the other is a condition. You write like a women which is good, it means you were raised well.
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.