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 ...
"Romantic love is old, but as the SOLE REASON FOR MARRIAGE - it is fairly new. "
Sole reason?
I thought only 15-yr. old girls thought that. Anyone who is at least marginally mature knows that there's more to marriage than romantic love. People have to share common values and outlook on life if they are ever going to make it work -- and that's assuming they already have the romantic love part.
Looking at our divorce and adultery rate it seems pretty obvious that people, millions and millions of them, have no idea what marriage is about.
>>If it is sin, it is sin.<<
Bingo! We have a winner.
And if it is NOT sin?
It is sin. There is no: if it is not sin.
So is this article confirmation that female teacher with male student "is different" than male teacher with female student?
See also 314.
Oh girl, you completely blew by my point... Women are wonderful, it is the females who are not women that are the problem. The same goes for men, you can get along with any man but the big boys are a problem. Women are universally respected in the West, as far as I can tell, but females have a tough row to hoe. Our sloppy English tends to blend them all together but there has been, is, and will be, a huge difference. Men love women, men love to poke fun, and they poke fun at other men too, but it is generally just that, fun.
And when their "changed attitudes" put the stamp of moral approval on things that are objectively immoral, they begin their slide into decay and death.
Both the Bible and secular history are full of examples of nations and societies which patted themselves on their backs for their economic prowess, but lost their way morally and spiritually, and fell. Ours will be no exception, and your blithe excusing of these things as "changed attitudes" are a good example of the reason why.
>>It is sin. There is no: if it is not sin.<<
I disagree.
Part of the Levitical law existed to protect people regarding things they just didn't understand well enough to handle safely, and wouldn't for a few thousand years. They amount to "trust me, kid, don't do that. You'll understand when you grow up."
R: "I don't believe in it."
G: "What, England?"
R: "Yes."
G: "You think it's just a conspiracy of cartographers?"
- _Rosencrantz_and_Guildenstern_are_Dead_
Depends,
Prayer didn't work for me,
unless the answer was "Go see a Dr. ASAP!"
You wrote: "I disagree."
Obviously. So what?
You wrote: "Part of the Levitical law existed to protect people regarding things they just didn't understand well enough to handle safely, and wouldn't for a few thousand years. They amount to "trust me, kid, don't do that. You'll understand when you grow up.""
and your point is....what?
The one that insists that your longing for life-long, honorable love is authentic and valuable, that the body is a Temple of the Holy Spirit and marital intercourse is a constitutive element of a Sacrament (e.g. a channel of grace)?
The one that teaches that a woman's whole natural body-experience (a bodily sequence that includes affection and tenderness ,copulation and orgasm, and ovulation and gestation and lactation) is connected to spiritual values (like attachment and fidelity, intellect and justice) and ought not to broken up into garbles fragments and exploited on an a la carte basis?
The one that says that for husband and wife, sexual love is a sincere personal gift of the self to the beloved?
THAT religion?
Where did we get all these anti religion, anti Catholic people on FR?
What should give these women pause...but evidently doesn't seem to bother a lot of them it seems...
..is the plethora of sexually transmitted diseases.
Good mercy, doesn't anyone consider consequences.
Only one 'celebrity' has addressed this publicly....Scarlett Johanson supposedly said she gets tested for Aids 4 times a year.
And of course, we know Pamela Anderson has Hep C...
There is no cure for Hep C....There is no cure for Aids.....
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.
Okay, then given that reason helps people pick the "right choice", you must assume it is possible for people to make the "wrong choice". Given that you have now mentioned right and I have induced wrong into our conversation, can you explain what makes something either right or wrong?
Back on the question of universal constants, what is something that is "constant"? Can you give a specific example? I'll help you out, 1+1=2. Math is full of universal constants. Gravity is a universal constant within our atmosphere. My question to you is, why are there universal constants?
Now at this point, you may be asking, why are we having this dialogue? My contention to you is that by inducing logic, reason, science and universal constants into our discussion (as you did in your original post), you are borrowing from my Christian worldview. You can discuss these things, but you cannot explain their existence. In other words, you came into our conversation with a set of presuppositions, things you pre-supposed as truths which help you understand the world around you. However, you cannot, using your worldview, adequately explain the existence of logic, reason, science or morality. I as the Christian easily can. I'm not trying to one-up you, but I am trying to get you to see that "things are not as they seem". As a matter of fact, for you they are exactly the opposite. You have viewed logic, reason, science and morality as something existing in the abscence of God. Again, my contention is that there is no other explanation for those things other than Christian Theism. God made the world and all that is in it. God administrates the world and has established and ordered universal constants as they are a reflection of his personal character. He is the same yesterday, today and forever. God has defined right and wrong and is the only source of morality. Without the Christian God, there is no other explanation that can account for these things without falling into absurdity. With that said, my overall point is....Christianity is true, because of the absurdity of the contrary. Therefore, I hope that you embrace it. Not a twisted Christianity full of humanism, but true Christianity based on a sovereign God who sits empowered over humanity. In need of nothing, he still graciously offers his love to you. You may reject him, but you will never be in a position to disprove him or belittle him through logic, reason, science or humanistic morallity. He explains the world to you...not the other way around!
As a moral matter, you are right. As a practical matter, you're much less right. Women have a lot more power and influence on keeping men better behaved sexually than men have over each other.
One of the reasons so many men are poor companions for women is that they know there is no shortage of young, goodlooking women who will let men enjoy their sexual goodies and hold them to a very low standard of conduct. The men know that when those women do eventually make a stand, they can just skip off and find another woman who will do the same. That cycle can be maintained for a long time.
This isn't a case of responsibility - it's about influence and conduct. Men's conduct is their responsibility. But with willing women who hold men to a low level of conduct, it's prefectly responsible for men to indulge in their freely given sexual goodies - after all, nobody's forcing her and she is as moral and responsible an individual as he is.
My thoughts on the matter are entirely practical: women have a better chance at keeping men's conduct honest than men do of keeping their own conduct honest. Think that sucks? Sure. Doesn't make it any less true.
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.