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 ...
>>Birth control, then, should be distinguished from contraception. Even a kind of modified abstinence can be birth control (can give you control over the number and frequency of conceptions)---so, OK. But contraception, to make the distinction, is using drugs, devices, or surgery to undermine your fertility by treating it like a disease. That is not acelebration of natural, normal, healthy sex and it is not cool.<<
I'm against abortion except in cases to preserve the LIFE of the mother. The rest of that is picking nits - with other peoples lives.
*****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.****
For centuries marriage was not about people determining for themselves how much they shared in values or outlook - parent/families did it for them.
As recently as my grandmother - it was a family arranged marriage - and no, she didn't live in some small village in the middle of nowhere, but in a major city in Russia - Kiev.
Much of world still arranges marriages for the young couple. This can be found through much of the East and Middle East and Africa.
Still - today - in many cultures marriages are arranged by families not the individuals. The individuals may be able to decline, but then the family will chose someone else.
So, it still exists today and one hundred years ago it was the norm even in Western civilization. Much less so in America - but that was the exception. Even here there has always been familial input as to the acceptability of the marriage partner: religion, econimic strata, potentiality, class, culture.
Here full name is Dawn Eden Goldstein. Hey, she was born in 1968 -- and her mom was a proto-hippie. She's from the "Sunshine Laramie Jones" and "Crimson Canyon-King" and "Moon Unit Zappa" cohort. Hey, when mama smokes dope, anything can happen. Poor girl.
"Then please, by all means, show me.
The statement is equivalent to stating the principle of conservation of energy. All the evidence to date supports the principle of conservation of energy. In order to disprove that, one must give evidence that energy is not conserved in some process.
"please explain to me the preconditions which make observational evidence something that I should accept as an absolute. "
If something can not be observed, there is no evidence to believe it exists. W/o evidence there is no rational reason to believe it exists. Things are objective/absolute when they can be observed.
"Can you tell me what is a "valid" moral code? Upon what authority does your definition of "valid" rest? "
The purpose of a moral code is to protect rights. A moral code is a set of rules that protects the rights of individuals. A valid moral code protects the rights of all individuals equally and is independent of authorship. Rights are a claim to those things which identify the particulars of the essence of a sentient rational being, which when violated, destroy the essence of the being. They also include claims of property required to sustain that essence of being. Rights are claims to one's own life, soveignty of will and property.
Note that the purpose of the creating the concept of rights and the moral code which protects them is to protect the life and integrity of each individual and their sovereignty of will equally, w/o regard to any particular individual claim.
I disagree. You did notghing more than express your opinion - as fact.
Actually, it's good to see someone who can learn from experience, acquire insight and self-respect, and not just go through life being treated like somebody's sexual spittoon.
Stopped from doing what?
I still think that a woman with a strong desire to wait for her spouse is not much tempted by the boys running after her less chaste friends. I was never interested in the serial party-ers and frat boy types. I looked for, and found, someone with similar morals and desires as me.
I think you do men a disservice when you make it seem as though all of them will be lured away by the promise of easy sex. Just as there are some few women willing to demand more, so too are there men who are worthy of those women.
You wrote: "I disagree. You did notghing more than express your opinion - as fact."
No, I expressed the FACT that Christians historically opposed and morally condemned birth control. That's just a fact. Again, if you're a Protestant, I suggest you read Charles D. Provan's, The Bible and Birth Control. Or why not contact Protestants Against Birth Control?
If that is the post I responded to, I apologise. The one I thought I was responding to was a short opinion post. About 15 words on three lines.
I think, based on numbers alone, you're probably right, and that correlates with a lot of the evidence.
Of course, that doesn't mean that that particular young man had an easy time of finding quality women in the particular place where he was, or that he was looking in the right places or in the right way, etc. There are a scad of variables to control for.
However, he was apparently relating that some of these girls said flat-out, "No nookie, no date-ey". That's probably not an excuse to dump someone; those are usually a little less straightforward.
Yes, you;re right. I just have a natural skepticism of self-described 'nice guys' who can't find a suitable female companion. Given the landscape, if you're a good guy, you should have no trouble finding a nice girlfriend.
Not quite: in the past, thoughtless, heartless, careless, illicit sexual behavior was seen as being bad: people who behaved badly, sexually, either didn't repent, and developed seared consciences and hard hearts; or they repented, and grew to be people of good conscience and good heart. Society in general --- at some periods of our cultural history --- encouraged the good.
The difference now is that society in general relentlessly reaches for your wallet via your crotch. That makes it much harder to be good, or even to know, deeply, what "goodness" is.
Indeed. Thank you.
OH. MY. GOD.
Why not? It's not as bad as: Misty Hyman, or Dick Trickle.
Or Anita Dick.
I would like to add, feminism has done incalculable damage to their children, their own (and others, but mainly their own).
This deserves a title: MY CHILDHOOD EXPERIENCE WITH FEMINISM.
My mother is an original radical feminist. I can still remember her sitting there with the Nancy Pelosi fist in the air half-shouting "I Am Woman!" when she got on her soapbox (I was in my mid 20's, that was in the '80s). I remember her berating me, dripping with contempt, when I was 5, 6, 7. Never when dad was home. And nothing physical. It was all psychological conditioning of the most unfortunate sort. Then she left for a liberal man and his three boys, which was in iteslf a giant psychological blow. Things were just getting warmed up.
What was she doing? Conditioning me to be weak, malleable, so she could establish a matriarchial caste system with the liberals and feminists in the new family which she sought to establish on the ruins of the two broken families, in a prime position to be domineering over basically me and my sister, and get her way all the time. I divided my time between her and dad, for 35 years. He and I didn't talk about this business at all but he was always and is a good man and has always been loyal to me. I wasn't easy to break, or condition, though she got away with far more than she should have, I put up a resistance at times but not enough. There is a natual affinity for one's own mother which gets in the way. And eventually there was the straw that broke the camel's back and she, though alive, is deader to me now than the proverbial doornail. I don't want to be informed when she gets sick, dies; I don't even want to be mentioned in her obituary or know where she's buried.
I'm conservative, and regard feminism as perverse, deviant. While some Christians regard the Anti-Christ as a person they are expecting to show up in a body and be a ruler, etc., etc., I regard the Anti-Christ as distributed, a collective, Naziism, Communism, Liberalism, any version of Islam that is not secular and assimilated western, Feminism. All Anti Christ. Since the health of the State depends on the health of the family unit, collectively, the threat feminism poses to families makes it a threat to national security.
My life was hell growing up. I am recovering from clinical depression, twenty years of it. I was misdiagnosed as learning disabled (who can pay attention in class and do homework when depressed like that?), and exhibited the behavior of discriminate reactive attachment disorder. It is a defense mechanism that means I didn't trust anyone and I protected myself by being completely self sufficient; I didn't go to anyone for friendship and if anyone came to me I discouraged them by being cold or obnoxious. This happens a lot to orphans. The divorce made a kind of orphan out of me. Thing is, when mom left, and because she wanted to leave, it was hard to imagine being good enough for others in society when I wasn't good enough for her. I do have some very good friends some of whom I met back then when things were difficult; they somehow managed to get through the wall.
I can tell you I went to good highschools, I was obviously not right and, still, everyone treated me kindly. I silently thank them often.
I married late in life, but I married a very good woman, two years younger, who is easy to get along with and has no political agendas or axes to grind.
I had no idea what was going on until the last three years. I was indoctrinated to accept the abuse, that I was last in line behind women, liberals, boys and men who were not biologically related to me, bugs, and dirt.
But the mind has a way of opening up when it is time, when it is ready, and reality that was just "the way it is," becomes the agent of outrage on a scale most normal people can scarcely imagine. Outrage at the massive lost opportunities of childhood, young adulthood, missed education, and massive transfers of her beneficence from her nuclear family to people who had no business receiving it as she had no business giving it to them.
I found the right questions, realized the right answers, and basically don't take that feminist SH1T anymore. I didn't blow up, or fly into a rage. I quietly exercise new policy in how I treat people. Now I have become an interesting version of the discriminate reactive attachment disorder, where it is no longer a disorder. It is now a tool under my control. I can see when I am in the presence of good people, and I do my best to give of myself to them and go to them, and accept them if they come to me. But my side of the family that is feminist, liberal, I don't have any use for them. Discriminate, reactive, attachment, order. Order, not a typo.
So I don't care who knows my story. Maybe someone is struggling within a feminist family caste system like mine and is at a loss. Maybe this information will accelerate the process to recognize the brainwashing. Because that is what feminism does to children, it programs them with the ideology that women are supreme (feminist supremacists) and that boys and men are like vermin. Much like Neo-Nazis do with Jews, Catholics, Blacks; and Islamists do with Jews and Christians (pigs and monkies); though not as overt; feminists operating within the family structure are far more subtle, nuanced, and absolutely exploit any natural love a child feels for that parent as a result of the biological relationship, and leverage guilt trips for all they are worth. It is a happy day when you just stop caring and don't feel guilty any more. Tossing off the phrase "tough" at her objection of anything, followed by a cold stare and crossed arms, becomes sport and her reaction fun to watch.
Interesting, my dad's side was the opposite. Every one, my cousins, uncles, some very Christian, just loves each other. There is no caste system, no status, no guilt trip, just get together, laugh, have a good time, part easy looking forward to the next time. Dad didn't know what a feminist was when he married my mother (feminism didn't really exist yet) and didn't notice any warning signs. When feminism came along, she went right for it. He's monogamus and never remarried. It might sound selfish but I am glad he never remarried. Having to watch him give his beneficence to that many more people not biologically related to me might have sent me down the drain.
Traditionally, when it was thought about, children have been regarded as the property of parents. I submit that parents are the property of the children and are not free to do whatever they like. Children have birthright property rights, not to be spoiled or anything like that, but to two parents, not any two parents, but those that concieved the child, and a good home. The only thing that should disrupt that is death. Till death do us part. And it'd be nice if the parents were just decent people with some common sense too.
Sort of proofread, soory for errors.
Though a lapsed Jew, she is now a practicing Catholic. With an epiphany, even.
Yep. www.howmanyofme.com
I checked the web site and there are SEVEN Dawn Edens in the United States. Good grief. Poor dears.
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.