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 ...
I know she's rough. So is Rush, in his own way (as far as being "arrogant" about himself).
But, I still agree with them. And they don't offend me enough to abandon them. (Yes, Dr. Laura is still very much on.)
I don't know what the Dr.'s view was when she was raising her son; I assumed it's the same as now. If anything, she may have the view that it is definitely BETTER to be a FT mother; I don't know if she thinks in absolutes on that but she definitely does promote that FT mother is good.
As for her mother, I didn't know anything about that (I'm only a casual listener of a few years; it wasn't in Balto until last year and before that had disappeared just as I started listening.). However, there are many times she counsels people with bad parents that all they have to do is civilly honor their parents, not love, nor trust, nor even respect them. If the parent sounds bad, she tells the offspring they have no need to hang around or do anything for that parent, except a very few things. I don't know if Dr. Laura was in that kind of "relationship" or not.
*****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!)****
Dr.Laura said "unpaid whore"......so perhaps the word "unpaid" is the adjective - moderating the meaning.
So....what is the word for someone who gives unpaid sex?
And don't tell me "relationship" - that's something I have with my cat.
...............................
As for the "word" police and the "offended" police....it seems someone is offended by something at any given time. Pretty soon we won't be talking to one another at all. Is that better?
A lot of people don't have much else to do, I guess.
I think we may actually hold more similar opinions on this that we think, with the exception of the "whore" stuff.
Living together has proven not to work. It's an empty existence (as I can speak from first-hand experience). I thought it was "okay" to live with my then fiancee before marriage because, as I reasoned, we were getting married soon anyway. So when he asked to move in with me, I said yes.
Well, it turned out to be a total and complete disaster. After my ex-fiancee continued to drag his feet on saying "I do", I started having second thoughts about the whole situation.
When I told him I thought we should live apart until the wedding, which he had already postponed twice, and that he should move out, he became very angry and left he did...And that was that. Last I heard from friends was that he had moved in with another woman...like, three months after he stopped living with me.
Since then, I haven't considered for one second living with a man before marriage and I haven't considered for one second sex before marriage. So far those decisions have cost me more relationships than I care to list here, or time and space permits.
I feel like I'm waging a losing battle but there are good men out there who I hope will respect my decisions. Sorry for the long-winded response, I just think this is a very important issue.
And I lived with my fiance for a year, while we planned the wedding. The twentieth anniversary of that wedding was in September. :)
It wasn't an empty existence for me; in fact, it was quite full, because the apartment was so small and we got masses of wedding presents. Maybe we just picked different kinds of guys.
I appreciate your response - it was not long winded at all.
Fortunately for me....and this is a matter of luck only....I had a mother who was crazy in many ways, but in the matters of morals she was very strong and gave me the moral wherewithal to come through my young years and marrying a good man, with my virginity intact.
My intact virginity was not for want of boyfriends galore - most of them trying their little hearts out to change my moral stance. Heaven knows, for many it became a challenge to them. But interestingly, most of them came from moral families too, and when their efforts to challenge my mother's teachings failed, they ended up applauding my decision and certainly respecting it. I only remember one stamping off into the night.
The rewards have been entirely worth it. My husband of 44 years, knows without a doubt that I was a virgin bride and that I am his - as he is mine. Yes, he was a virgin too.
Young women today tell me that a man often expects sex and they see it as payment for a night out - dinner/show/whatever.
Sorry, charlie, in my old fashioned world when a man asked me out...he paid for the evening...picked me up at my parents house and brought me safely back.
Were there drawbacks to "those old fashioned" days? Yes, there were. Women's employment choices were severely restricted as was the amount paid for employment. I'm very happy that's changed. Equal pay for equal work. Equal opportunity AS LONG AS ONE IS QUALIFIED.
But, some things can't be changed by laws and that's basic morality. It often means delayed gratification. That's a hard thing to learn and accept.
I'm very happy for you that you've learned and changed your life. I hope and pray a worthy man comes into your life - as he did into mine - and brings you joy and happiness in a life long legal "I do" commitment to one another.
Speaking of long winded....sorry....
A friend of mine likes to say that std's are gods way of saying keep it in your pants.
I thought that god kills a kitten?
I'm saving my money to lift and tuck the parts people can SEE. :)
Uh, ok, so having a devoted husband is better than being litteraly " #ed " by a bunch of retarded irresponsible exploitative perverts that even a prostitute would not go with... well duh!
Are you happy with yours? Oh wait, you are a guy, sorry! :)
They are "sufficient freedom (willfulness and consent) and knowledge or awareness"
It cites "anger or passion" and "obsession or compulsion" as mitagating circumstance.
IOW, most acts of masturbation would not be mortal sins.
Ok, we could say the same thing about murder or theft. Kleptomaniacs or the criminally insane cannot be said to have committed mortal sin, either. My point remains, if a person is willfully, with a clear mind, deciding to "take matters into their own hands", the Catholic church says that's a mortal sin, and you will go to hell for it, if unrepented. Show me any mainline Protestant doctrine that says pretty much the same thing, and you'll have refuted my point that the Catholic teachings are among the very most restrictive when it comes to sexuality.
I did. She's about as fun to watch as the guy who flips cue cards for Jay Leno. She doesn't even have the timing right on the signs with the words of the song.
I wasn't judging what Gawker said about her, I was just commenting on the quotes that Gawker attributed to her. If they're incorrect, then perhaps I'm wrong here.
When we decided we would ban personal attacks on people. Go to Democratic Underground, and try to be pro-religion, and see what they do to you over there. FReepers don't necessarily need everyone else to agree lockstep with everything they believe, in order to have a civilized discussion with each other. If you want PC, go to DU.
The thrill of skydiving is morally acceptable... if you do it without a parachute.
Sorry, but it has to be right or wrong to the individual. Every single person here who has chosen a religion for themselves (over all the other choices) has done so because, ultimately, that choice was right for them. In fact, all the religionists I know believe that it is the excercise of free will that makes their faith a choice that "saves" them.,p. You have viewed logic, reason, science and morality as something existing in the abscence of God.
No, I just don't believe they need a "God" as explained in the holy books of every world religion to have come into existance. As I argue, even if there were a creator God of some sort, and even if you insist that the manifestations of the laws of physics are as a result of the sustaining presense of that God, how does that validate any of the existing religions, with their rules about what I can eat, drink, and make love with?
I'm perfectly fine with the idea of those who see the laws that the universe is formed on, and revering that. But praying to some invisible friend is not going to change the law of gravity, or speed up light.
Again, my contention is that there is no other explanation for those things other than Christian Theism.
Every religious tradition has its own story of "how did we get here, why are we here, and where are we going". Those stories were made up to fill in the gap of observable knowledge. As we observe more and more, the old stories have less and less relevance.
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.
I don't have to. Google up the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" idea, and you'll see why I'm not interested in disproving anybody's religion, because it cannot be done.
The woman you decribe, with the damaged uterus -- I'm no gynecologist, but it sounds to me like a hysterectomy might be indicated. After she healed from that, she could resume sexual relations with her husband without worrying about another pregnancy.
NFP is not supposed to be a tool for predicting the onset of fertility, but for observing the onset as it happens (no prediction involved) --- and therefore is not dependent on "average" regularity of cycles. It might be worth it to communicate with Couple to Couple League about your cycles. They are super-experienced and they have helped a lot of people.
A person who does not produce growth hormone, or who has any other kind of abnormality, certainly needs replacement hormones, or whatever to get back to a healthy state. There's nothing wrong --- in fact, it is a wonderful and admirable thing --- when drugs, devices, surgery, therapy, etc. can cure a disease or heal an injury or strengthen a weakened function. Whoever would say that was wrong??
It's quite different from taking a drug to shut down normal organs or systems, or getting surgery to destroy a healthy bodily process. But any sensible person can tell the difference between "restoring a healthy function" and "shutting down a healthy function."
Blessings to you and yours!
I'm happy for you!
I did pick the wrong guy, definitely. We all have such different experiences, where relationships are concerned. There isn't a template we can apply that will ensure happiness in a relationship. I have a friend who got engaged after dating a man for just three weeks and they've been happily married for 10 years (and counting).
Another friend dated her boyfriend for years and years and when they got married they wound up getting divorced after only a few months. Go figure.
But if your husband has a brother, let me know ;>)
He does have a brother, and someone else already snapped him up. They're not much alike, though. As my husband said to me once, "YOU got the sane one.... if we're grading on a curve!"
Hey Kids! Want Good Sex? Try Abstinence.
I'm more than happy to agree that not spreading yourself around like some kind of pass-around pack of Cracker Jack is a better way to find self-respect. I wholeheartedly agree that young people's decisions about when and whom with to have sex is much more likely to be wrong than right.
But expecting people to go from a state of complete abstinence, to a state of complete sexual fulfillment as soon as the marriage license is filed, is just plain wrong. Like learning how to drive, we are going to make a few mistakes along the way, until we get signed off by that DMV examiner.
Frankly, letting sixteen year olds drive makes about as much sense as letting them engage in sexual behavior with each other...
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.