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 ...
Kleptomaniacs and the criminally insane are far out of the norm. The teenage boy or young man who sees a particular image, or even feels compelled to look at such an image, then seek release is not.
Now, if this young man does not make a fight of it, if he coldly sets apart time for acquiring and perusing porn, fully aware that he is forgetting that the women he is looking at are human beings loved by God, or if he starts ignoring a willing wife to spend time with porn, then that fellow has a problem with his soul and he is on a path to not spending an eternity in fellowship with God.
I know, myself, that I don't like kissing people I don't love, and if I do love them in the sense of being hungry for them (I'm thinking back to my single days) --- kissing made me a lot hungrier.
I disagree, I think the act of learning, sharing, and exploring is more than enough to warrant the learning experience. Using your driving example, learning to parallel park can be a blast, a fender bender can be great fun, and waiting for your next "driving lesson" can be enjoyable.
There is no such thing as perfect sex IMHO... but there is such thing as two people learning together, the memories are worth it in itself. Memories that otherwise would be lost from taking lessons outside of marriage.
See my previous link for source.
Thank you for your reply.
May I ask what evidence there is that she has "reflexively" gone to the opposite point of view? Her own experience has convinced her that what she has done was destructive for her. But if she concludes that it was also wrong because God says it was wrong she is subscribing to religious sexual repression?
God gave instructions as to how we are supposed to live our lives. He did not do so because He is a cosmic killjoy, but because He wants what is best for us. He's the one who wrote the operating manual - He wired us. Many people decide that the problems we have when we go contrary to God's guidance are due to "beating ourselves up" over having done something "labeled" as wrong; that if we can let go of our wrongheaded notions of morality we will be A-Ok.
But that is the very point of this article. She was RAISED without those cumbersome notions. She lived unfettered by those "silly" religious constraints. When it was all said and done she came away unfulfilled.
There can only be one conclusion: it must have been the constraints of society that poisoned her mental freedom. In the name of separation of church and state anything said against whatever "two consenting adults" want to do must be branded as hate speech. /sarc (Hey, it works for the gays)
Yea, i think geico commercials are a tad overkill.
"Whether therefore ye eat, or drink, or whatsoever ye do, do all to the glory of God."
Shakespeare's Sonnet 1
1. From fairest creatures we desire increase,
2. That thereby beauty's rose might never die,
3. But as the riper should by time decease,
4. His tender heir might bear his memory:
5. But thou contracted to thine own bright eyes,
6. Feed'st thy light's flame with self-substantial fuel,
7. Making a famine where abundance lies,
8. Thy self thy foe, to thy sweet self too cruel:
9. Thou that art now the world's fresh ornament,
10. And only herald to the gaudy spring,
11. Within thine own bud buriest thy content,
12. And, tender churl, mak'st waste in niggarding:
13. Pity the world, or else this glutton be,
14. To eat the world's due, by the grave and thee.
Oh, I couldn't agree more. And because she thought that love was a function of the ego-mind - something that another person's ego-mind conferred on her in exchange for a physical performance, she kept making mistakes. But now she appears to be making a similar mistake - trying to get external validation for her new choices from the ego-minds of an organization instead of a succession of lovers, going to the opposite extreme in the hopes of finding an answer there.
Nothing in her article suggests that she has begun yet to walk a true spiritual path, nor to learn the critical lesson that She Is Enough.
Oh please. They are just writing their beliefs and views, the same as you are doing on FR.
If writing down one's beliefs and views is a bad thing, you'd better sign off FR and never do it again. (Unless, of course, you want to be a hypocrite and say it is bad for others to do while you do it yourself.)
>>I'm not so sure that birth control is absolutely sinful.<<
That's the key. I'm not either. So I don't concern myself with it regarding people that are outside of my particular epidermis.
But can you mean that? Because that's not love. Even God is not one Person saying forever to his singleton self, "I am enough." This is --- and I fear glibness, I feel I must say this on my knees --- this is the inner mystery of the Trinity: that God is Love, and "one" "self" is not enough.
Solo Dios basta.
There is no self. And You are God also. Namaste. ;)
Very nice story. Thank you for sharing your experience.
The evidence of experiment and observation shows that energy is conserved. It must be kept in mind that mass/matter is energy. Any event, such as an interaction, a change in temperature, the emission of of photon, ect involves only a charge in the form of energy, the total energy, before and after remains constant. This is based on the evidence. There is no evidence that contradicts this.
"What is behind the conservation of energy? What accounts for it's conservation?"
I'll try to be simple here and avoid overly complicating the matter for purposes of time and conveying a simple, but sufficient explanation and picture.
Conservation of energy is the result of symmetry of an action. In simple terms and in the simplest case, imagine a particle of energy that just sits there with no other particles present in the universe. With no other particles present, the particle's energy is independent of position, because there is no way to measure, or observe position. The particle exists though as a current of energy in time. The symmetry is the fact that whether the current is moving forward, or backward in time, the current is conserved.
Now when more particles are present, bringing position coordinates into play, the current of energy is still symmetric, regardless of how one looks at them and regardless of any motion, or interaction. In our universe, the directly observable dimensions are 4. There are 3 position dimensions(3d) and 1 time dimension(1t) So the universe is 4d. It is a 4 dimensional space with 1 time, called a (4d,1t). The evidence shows that this current of energy, in space is conserved, regardless of any interaction, or way of looking at it. So regardless of the system's spacial configuration, the current is conserved, which means the total energy stays constant. The validity of that is based on all the observations.
Now in our universe the total energy is zero. There is the energy contained in energy/matter + dark energy/dark matter. The dark stuff is what couples with gravity, but does not couple with the electromagnetic field, the strong, or the weak force. It can only be observed, because it couples with gravity. I'll call this positive energy, for illustrative purposes. It is exactly balanced by negative energy, that's contained in the gravitational field, that exists between all the forms of positive energy. The total energy of the universe is zero, and that's verified by observation. This current of energy is symmetric in space and appears the same no matter how it is looked at. No matter how the spatial distribution and form of the configuration changes, the total current remains the same in space. The total is zero.
Energy is conserved. Why is that? The universe is energy in it's various forms. It is the essential thing the world consists of. The essence of anything can not be different from the thing itself. If it were different depending on space, it wouldn't be identifiable as a unique and consistent object. IOWs we see A=A, not A!=A.
I haven't said anything about the forms positive energy can take. That gets very complicated, but if there are any simple questions, just ask. Otherwise, I'm trying to be simple.
"Can the laws of logic be observed?"
Yes.
"Are the laws of logic material?"
Yes. However, don't confuse mass with material. The laws of logic are rational concepts contained in and used by the machinery of thought. Life itself exists by virtue of the machine that provides it. A foundational concept of logic is A=A, it is the same as the foundational fact of the world, which is conservation of energy. The thing is what it is and not something else, regardless of space and how it is observed.
"Do the laws of logic exist? "
Obviously, since they can be observed.
"1. Says who?
Says any rational being, because that's the only rational set of concepts that are not arbitrary.
"2. Can you give me an example of an moral absolute?"
Thou shalt not murder. That moral rule protects the right to life. The right to life is a claim all men make on rational grounds that they are entitled to their own life and sovereignty of will. It is also statement that says A should never be rendered, not A made by A itself. Since all As are rational sentient beings, they all belong in the same set. All As in that set are in that set, because they have the same properties. Each A is An, n=1,2,3... , such that for any particular n, x, Ax = An. That means that logically, there is never a justification for claiming any Ax > than all An!=x logically. So logically, since logic is unique and is singular in both its parts and in the whole, the definition of rights and the moral code that protects them, must be independent of the source A. Otherwise it is simply arbitrary.
Now you may object and say, but God is an A greater than all and he has the right to dictate in an arbitrary fashion. To that I will answer that God is rational and not arbitrary. It is also written, that man is made in the image and likeness of God. That puts any man An in the same set as God, AG. There is also no grounds to deny that, because some claim regarding fall, or original sin. Genesis is parable. Man was made in the image and likeness of God and nothing ever changed that. All of John 9 and Ezekiel 18 are evidence of that. The set is not constructed with regard to what knowledge and wisdom has been gained. It is constructed on the essential essence, which is sentient rational beings, those who are in the image and likeness of God.
"I'm not sure I see a difference between my problem and my brother's..."
I don't, either. If you have a hormone deficiency, you need hormone replacement or supplementation of some sort to function normally and feel right.
I hope you can get the treatment you need. Struggling with this for years has been no picnic, I'm sure.
That's where common-law marriage came from. Some states in the US still acknowledge it.
Uh --- with all due respect, No I'm not. But thanks just the same. ;o)
That's not entirely true. I've heard her say on more than one occasion that when her son was younger she didn't work full time. She expressed appreciation to her radio show boss for working around her schedule so she could always take her kid to school and be there to pick him up and spend the after school time with him.
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.