Casual sex is a con: women just aren't like men

Sunday Tines ^ | 14 January 2007 | Dawn Eden

[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”.

[rzeznikj at stout]

Another excellent point...

[hunter112]

Masturbation also trains you in self-gratification rather than self-donation. It makes real, responsive, spouse-centered sexual love difficult. It builds up habits and attitudes which sabotage intimacy in marriage.

In my personal experience, this is incorrect. Surely, someone who chooses masturbation over shared intimacy with another is indeed, someone with a problem.

Is your statement a reflection of your personal experience, or something you read in a book somewhere?

[fleagle]

Thanks for your response.

I also think it's very important to have a parent, or sibling, or someone very close who's had life experiences and cares deeply about your well-being, to advise women (and men!) about the importance of decision-making in romantic relationships.

Decide to have sex and deal with the many possible, and likely, consequences (unplanned pregnancies very possibly ending in abortion, STDs, the heavy emotional issues associated with sex).

Decide not to have sex and deal those consequences, namely feeling good about yourself, not feeling (or being) used, no STDs, no unplanned pregnancies, etc. etc. etc.

That being said, I also have some friends in very happy and loving relationships and marriages who did have sex before marriage. Again, it's all so individual. But I do believe it's time for us all to understand what casual sex has done to us as a society and regarding our relationships.

[SDGOP]

Male college students do not want female college students to read this article. That's why the author is approaching self-centered, egotistical loon status. Seriously, think about it: She gets to have all the fun she wants, before the internet exists (or at least while it's still in its infancy), for like 15-20 years, but then she has to write an article making sure to hurt other young folks chances at having and enjoying that same kind of whatever-goes crazya$$ sex -- the kind she sure didn't deny her own self of. Sure, thanks a lot, DAWN!

I think there is a big difference here between being hippo critical and genuinely changing. Take dawn here, she went into all this casual sex without any real intention of changing. One day she had a realization that it was wrong and then change. I think thats a legitimate change of heart. Take people like some friends of mine. They claim to be christian. Yet they run around engaging in casual sex and this and that. I ask them how can you do that knowing what's in the bible/etc. They say, yea i know it might be wrong, but i'll just screw around now and be good later. When i'm ready i'll "ask for forgivness" and then live up to that moral code. THat is clearly hippo critical in my book and it does annoy me, but there is a big difference between them and dawn here.

[linda_22003]

"They say, yea i know it might be wrong, but i'll just screw around now and be good later."

Ah, the St. Augustine model. And while he was Bishop of Hippo, I think the word you want is "hypocritical", not "hippo critical". :)

[HitmanLV]

Of course it's my opinion. Whose opinion do you think I would share?

I'm not letting men of the hook - I have explicitly said men are responsible for their behavior. I am just noting that women have a lot of influence over men's conduct and if women held men to a higher standard of conduct, you would see changes in men's conduct faster than if you left it up to the men.

[hunter112]

You present a strong defense of your position; however, my sense of what you wrote is that you, are convinced, that the males hung around the cave, spending idle time having sex....my position is that, sex was not a casual continuous activity, but, rather was a sporadic exercise, driven by the seasons, the amount of sunlight, and availability of food....further, I am convinced, that the female, had cycles of rut, which would control her interest in sex...this may have extended to the males...in fact, I believe cycles of rut prevail today....

Thank you for your complimentary remarks, many folks here think far less of my arguments!

I acknowledge that sex needs certain conditions to be considered desireable or possible, surely, being threatened by a sabre-toothed tiger is not going to have the Viagra effect on a cave man. I base my belief in the high probability of constant casual sexual activity among prehistoric human populations on the fact that most of that portion of humanity has lived within the tropical zones, which had optimum living conditions for humans at the time, in regards to climate, food supply, etc. Populations living at the edges of the ice sheets were indeed less likely to have engaged in casual sex, since the need to hunt and gather consumed major portions of waking time.

I also question the "need" for a male to have had a female's consent to engage in a sex act, it would have been far more important to have either the acquiescence or ignorance of the alpha male of the tribe, unless of course, one was the alpha male.

What do you base your contention that females have natural cycles of "rut" on? There certainly are times in the menstual cycle that are more conducive to approaching a female, but since human beings are not strictly locked into a "heat" or mating season as are non-primate mammals, I'm interested in seeing your evidence that there is a "rut" cycle in our species.

[webstersII]

"That's a reversal of what it has historically been."

I agree, the order has changed.

[hunter112]

It's not what you do, it's how you make sense of it that matters. She thinks that burrowing into the most sexually repressive Western religion known is the way to wash this off of her conscience. Maybe a few hundred bucks worth of sessions with a good therapist would have helped.

Well, there you go; Good call. Women aren't wired to think and feel this way, she just hasn't visited the right shrink yet. Perhaps in the yellow pages under "Rationalization Assistance", hmmm?

I particularly like your very first statement. Did you really think about that one before you wrote it or did you just expect to try to make sense of it later? Good luck with that, btw.

Good point on that first statement, it was early, and I admit, after a couple cups of coffee and some stimulating discussion here with fellow FReepers, I should have clarified the statement.

Yes, what we do matters, but what we do from here on in will not change that past, we can only try to make sense of our behavior in ways that allow us to not beat ourselves up for it in the present, and to give us the strength to go forward in ways that are true to ourselves. That's what I should have said. Good call.

No, she doesn't need to find her previous behavior "OK", she just needs some tools to figure out how to put this in her past, and give her the assurance that she can keep it in the past, without swinging to an opposite point of view reflexively. The AA and such groups give some guidance on this subject. They don't excuse the bad behavior, but the better aspects of them allow people to go on with their lives without being totally wracked by guilt.

[SDGOP]

I've always found geico to be a tad bit of a ripoff. Although the only good thing about them is that they've always had great customer service.

[hunter112]

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.

I had just seen a show on the History Channel about the Jacobite rebellions in Scotland, and how the throne of England was being fought by Catholics and Anglicans. Western culture is completely full of horrors committed in the name of religion. Much of which, it should be added, was sanctioned by religious leaders of the times they were committed, despite modern interpretations of those things as being against the words of the scriptures.

I agree that Islam tells people to lie and murder in the name of the faith, but there are also words that say the opposite in the Koran. It's just a matter of which things a Muslim sect throws in, and which ones they throw out, that defines that sect's ability to get along with it's unbelieving neighbors.

[hunter112]

You have to wonder how much cheaper their car insurance would be, if they didn't HAVE to have an ad on EVERY half hour of commercial television.

[fleagle]

Well Hitman, one's opinion does not equal fact. Let's all keep that in mind.

You ARE letting men off the hook in stating it is women's job to keep men in line. That's simply ridiculous. Women need to make good choices and decisions and so do men.

Women can't change men. Each man is responsible for his own behavior, as much as you might want to believe differently.

Each woman is responsible for her own behavior and a "good" woman won't "fix" or change a "not-so-good" man, and vice versa.

[HitmanLV]

I didn't say it was their job. I just said you can expect quicker and more reliable results the way I describe.

[JenB]

I appreciate thoughtful replies on what can be an argumentative topic.

The woman I'm talking about was 31 at the time of her last pregnancy. If I'm not mistaken, a hysterectomy leads to immediate menopause and most doctors won't perform one just because the uterus is "worn out" at that age. Usually there has to be another reason such as cancer or growths. I'm not trying to shoot down all your arguments. They're good ones. I just think that there are cases where they don't apply.

As to the other - where do we draw the line between a healthy functioning system and one that needs help? My hormonal balance is off. Always has been. I've been assured this won't cause any problems having children but in the meantime, untreated, it makes my life miserable to an extent that I would not call my cycles healthy or normal. I'm not sure I see a difference between my problem and my brother's, except that his was obvious enough that people understood something was wrong, while mine took three years for me to get a doctor to take seriously enough to help. In the meantime it affected my health, mental wellbeing, and interactions with people.

I can see the arguments for NFP. I've read them before. They don't entirely convince me, for one because while they talk about being usable by women with irregular cycles I think they misunderstand some of the difficulties there - it's not that I think it's to predict the date of ovulation, it's that the ovulation signs each month can be horribly out of whack. I've met people it works very well for.

[crghill]

Sorry, but it has to be right or wrong to the individual.

1. You didn't answer the question I asked you. Can you explain what makes something either right or wrong?
2. Given your answer, you don't mind if someone comes to your house and spraypaints I hate kittens all over it. If that is what is right for them then that's okay?

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

1. Says who?
2. So, anything goes in your worldview, all is relative. You would have no problem if someone came to your house and killed your goldfish.

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.

1. I'm not asking what you believe, I'm asking you to use logic to explain "HOW" you know what you know! At this point, you could say, well I know just because I know, but that would be a logical fallacy known as begging the question. Again, I want to know "how" you know what you know about logic, science or reason.

But praying to some invisible friend is not going to change the law of gravity, or speed up light.
1. What makes the law of gravity, a law?
2. You could say you observed it, but I'd point out to you that your observations are based on an assumed universal continuity. How is it, given your worldview that you can explain universal constants?

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.
1. You are offering opinion here, but no proof.
2. You can't account for "why" observational proof is relevant. If you can't account for why observational proof is relevant then your worldview has "holes" in it. I understand that we've observed the "law of gravity". I'm all for science, but you can't explain any "law" given your worldview. Since you cannot, all you are is a person offering an opinion. Why your arguments are intellectual in nature, they offer nothing substantial.

Your weakest point is on the subject of morality. You say that, "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". Let's replace for a minute the word religion with the words world view. On September 11, 2001, a group of people with a world view flew planes into buildings and murdered over 3000 people. Given your reasoning, they were simply doing "what was right for them". Who are we then to say they were wrong? I as the Christian can absolutely say that they were wrong! At this point, can you tell me if there is such a thing as right or wrong and can you substantiate your answer with logic? Can you come to moral absolutes without using the opinions of people? A definition made up by a bunch of college professors is going to be useless as an answer to me because it will just be their opinion and will carry no more weight than the opinion of the guy down at the barber shop.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"[God]won't solve her problem: why she craves the external validation in the first place."

I think you're missing something here: possibly because of a foreshortened view of God as some kind of therapeutic construct; and possibly because of a truncated view of human nature.

I haven't any idea of what you think human life is for --- perhaps you will explain at some point --- but I am convinced that the purpose of human life is love: that is to say, giving and receiving love is the "point," the telos, the ultimate fulfillment of human existence. Everything else involving human aspiration and effort -- eating and drinking and moving and thinking, economic productivity, art and culture, the expansion of scientific knowledge, foreign and military policy, all of it --- is meaningful inasmuch as it moves us somehow on the course of love.

In this light, a person like Dawn Eden who comes through a period of travail in her life, and finally turns toward a relationship with God, is progressing towards the very purpose for which she exists (and the purpose for which the physical Universe exists.) This is not a therapeutic crutch. This is approaching the apex of existence, the mysterium tremendum.

[Mrs. Don-o]

"[Masturbation] is a wretched preparation for marriage, because it teaches "lessons" that simply need to be unlearned to be happy in marriage, and to make your spouse happy in marriage."

Well said, Campion.

[Mrs. Don-o]

It teaches you that your sexuality exists simply to serve your need for selfish pleasure...
"It is in these types of statements that the parallels between Christianity-in-practice and Marxism-in-practice stand out with stark clarity."

Marxism teaches that sex is a sacrament of self-donating love? Who knew?

[linda_22003]

"If I'm not mistaken, a hysterectomy leads to immediate menopause"

Not unless they take the ovaries, too. That's what decides it, not taking the uterus.