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 rhythm method is not considered immoral by the church. It involves a period of self-denial, refraining from sex for about a week to 10 days.
Dunno. Maybe we're not smart enough to get that one yet.
(It's surprising what mundane things humans still don't understand...)
Aaahhhh.
However, "self-denial" is STILL denying the "God's will" to possibly produce another life.
I just think alot of this BC concern about *stopping* life *before* it even begins is absurd.
I also think it's tied to the old days when many children would die. The more you had, the more likely you were to "contribute" to the continuation of the society. If you only had 2, there was a good chance they'd be dead by age 10 and you'd have nothing.
I think the point is that the IDEA of marital-sex-only and marriage was PROMULGATED constantly throughout society.
Just as today there are still a majority of people married, but the "pop culture" (now including all, such as MSM) pushes the idea it's OK to "do as you want!"
About what are you talking?
In the that type of climate, fabric blends tend to pull apart and the garment wear out faster. Something about different expansion rates do to heat and moisture.
About how she spouts off that women shouldn't be working mothers - when she was, about how she talks about sexual morality but has nude photos she posed for floating around (and BOY does she need a good trim in a Certain Area), how she pushes "family values" but didn't even speak to her own mother (who wasn't even missed, or found, for weeks after her death!), is supposedly against divorce, but she was divorced herself; is against adultery but was the "other woman" herself, with her second husband.
There are probably others, but that's just what I could recall offhand.
I suppose her show is just for "entertainment value", and frankly, I don't even know if she's still on. She's not the greatest example of morality I've ever seen, that's all.
Oh, Dr. Laura certainly had some unseemly past escapades she's had to deal with.
I think since her youthful indiscretions she's been on the up and up, but still, no one responds positively to a "do as I say, not as I do (or did)" overly preachy and name-calling loudmouth.
There's way too much "women are responsible for men's behavior (especially the bad behavior)" crap being posted here and elsewhere. I don't appreciate man-hating women and I don't appreciate woman-blaming men.
Most of all I don't appreciate people calling ANYONE or ANY GROUP OF WOMEN whores.
We definitely agree. :)
I think we need pictures. Then we will know whether it was alcohol or lust that made so many men wake up at the crack of Dawn.
That's painfully true. I was just reading some accounts from 16th century France. Horrible, brutal stuff, and enough to put any Protestant or Catholic in a somber and repentant frame of mind.
One key difference between Christianity amd Islam, though, is that a Christian who carries out slave-capture, sectarian warfare, torture, rape, massacre, etc. is clearly acting in stark disobedience to the precept and behavior of the Divine Founder of Christianity. In contrast, a Muslim who does these things is following the commandment and the example of Mohammad, who, if we are to believe the Hadiths, was a bloodthirsty, lecherous, and delusional man (delusional, or a charlatan) and whom Muslims take to this day as the perfect model of righteousness.
There is no record of Jesus having commented on slavery. Paul had every opportunity to condemn slavery, particularly in his Epistle to Philemon. But he remained silent, except to urge slaves to be content with their lot and to obey their owners.
First, I'd like to see some citations from the literature that show that only 50% of the population got married, not due to a shortage of women but due to preference. Some people back then didn't get married because it was an expensive undertaking--you had to be able to support a wife, and many young single men, including farm workers and indentured servants who made up a substantial proportion of the population, couldn't do so. It wasn't because they'd rather whore around than fall in love and get married.
Second, "jumping the broom" was, as I understand it, a slave tradition, not something most Colonial white Americans engaged in.
Third, you're missing the point of my argument. My point is decidedly not that in the past everyone went around being stiff and proper all the time. I fully concede that people are people across the centuries and that there have always been whores, perversions, adultery, abuse, different kinds of screwing around, child molesting, divorce, etc. No, my point is that in the past people believed that there was right and wrong; that marriage was ideally the place to engage in sexual activity; that the best thing is for young girls to remain virgins until they're married; and that people should not screw around once they're married. It was a goal embraced by all of society and had the force of law as well as religion behind it. Today we no longer have this belief, and that is to our detriment.
Well, at least Dawn appears to understand the sexual differences between men and women. Women have an "innie", whereas men have an "outie"! ;-P
*****but it's not a modern invention by any means.****
It is a modern reason for marriage. First we look for love and then we check out the family, etc.
That's a reversal of what it has historically been.
****As for Dr. Laura's "unpaid whore" remark, that does not deserve to be quoted and held up as some kind of "truth." ****
Though "whore" is not a word I use in my daily vocabulary generally speaking....I do agree with Dr. Laura's opinion.
It does deserve to be quoted, in my opinion. I, too, am quite tired of the word police.
Obviously, your opinion is different.
I read it for the first time sometime within the last five years, and what impressed me the most is that the pope's arguments are based entirely (as far as I remember) on the natural law. He makes no appeal to divine revelation in his arguments. His writing is wonderfully clear and lucid, and should be accessible to anyone who possesses a regard for the truth.
Sounds to me like Dr. Laura is just like this woman in this article -
SHE CHANGED HER WAYS.
Huge difference between that and someone CURRENTLY being immoral, like Bill Clinton.
Sounds like the major difference is whether you approve of the person or not.
And Dr. Laura certainly had her full time radio show when she had a young son at home. She's only "changed her ways" in that the kid grew up.
I sure hope she got that trim - that's a way that needed to be changed! Talk about the collar not matching the cuffs....! ;)
I'm tired not only of the word-police, but the "offended"-police.
Heavens we should ever call a spade a spade.
(Of course, if we get back to what a whore really is, we could say the Dr. is wrong. As we posted earlier, a whore is smart enough to get something for it, and I see no moral superiority in someone giving it for free!)
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.