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”.

[Aquinasfan]

There is no self.

But there must be something both of us understand as "self," since you're employing the term, assuming that other people know what you mean.

If this is so, then at the very least, the same illusion of self must exist for you and I.

But where does this illusion come from? God? But according to you, I am God. So as God, the ultimate reality, I must be creating my own sense of self, in which case, my sense of self would not be an illusion. It would be real. We have a contradiction.

You are God also.

Hindus define truth as "honesty, integrity; virtue."

Hindus also say that "the word 'one' is true, and the word 'two' is error.

So are these claims true?

These Eastern notions of truth presuppose the Western notion of truth, which is the commonsensical correspondence theory of truth; that is, saying of what is that it is, and saying of what is not that it is not.

[Aquinasfan]

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.

My toddler likes honey. He knows that bees make honey. So when he comes across a beehive, he makes a beeline for it. I grab him, slap him on the wrist, and say, "No!"

The child sees me as a villian, but I'm really acting as a loving father.

Similarly, our Father in heaven warns us against extra-marital sex. But we see only the pleasurable aspect of extra-marital sex, not the less obvious dangers associated with it. So we see God as a villian, rather than the loving Father that he is.

[Larry Lucido]

A feather, (check)

maple syrup, (check)

a canister of helium, (check)

a scuba suit, (check)

5 strong monkeys, (check)

a trapeze, orange marmalade, (check)

and the entire nation of Portugal. (gathering up an armada as we speak)

[Mrs. Don-o]

"now she is seeking external validation by sharing in condemnation of such behavior with church ladies who don't love her. "

And you know this --- how? You want to name one?

[Mrs. Don-o]

Remember a couple of acrylic fleece foot-rests, a bag of M&M's, the cardboard core from a roll of toilet paper, pumpkin pie spice (large), a spray can of whipped cream, Surrealistic Pillow, and 2 wedding rings (one for each)...

[hunter112]

Here's where I think you've made an error in judgment, my friend. Having read Dawn Eden's book "The Thrill of the Chaste," and having followed her blog, albeit intermittently, I can tell you that there is nothing "sensationalistic" or weirdly unbalanced about her.

I'll be the first to admit, I've not read her book or her blog, but since you are predisposed to her final conclusion, I'd say that probably colors your judgment of how she says what she says. Perhaps her kissing remarks have produced their desired effect: she's getting attention for them, and is being selectively quoted to look like somewhat of a prude.

[hunter112]

Religious "traditions"? Kind of like, tree for christmas, turkey on thanksgiving, ham for easter, don't get laid?

I meant the word "tradition" as in the term "faith tradition". Just another word for "religion". I try to vary the words I use in a paragraph, to avoid sounding repetitious. I'm sorry it caused confusion.

I suspect you have "freed" yourself from the religion of men, but have little knowledge of or faith in God or what He has stated plainly.

I suspect you'd say that about anyone who has not joined your particular sect, if we really got down to it. Anyone who does not believe exactly as you do doesn't know what "He has stated plainly."

If the stuff you believe is so plain, then why are there ten thousand interpretations of it running around out there? Everybody's wrong except you? How do you know your interpretation is right, and everybody elses is wrong?

[CDHart]

Glenn Beck said on his show a few months back that making love to his wife was a sacred act. He was serious. More men should think that way.

Carolyn

[Caesar Soze]

Hypothetically, what if your toddler grew up, took some apiarist courses, bought one of those bee suits, and decided to travel from apiary to apiary, collecting and sampling their honey? Knowing he had taken steps to reduce the risk to a level acceptable to him, would you still slap him?

[don-o]

Sweetie, Be kinda careful with this Lazamataz. (Though he IS my hero in a sick and twisted way. Check out his profile!) :)>

And see tagline

[Larry Lucido]

and 2 wedding rings (one for each)...

Can't argue that. :-)

[Mrs. Don-o]

Oh. I read the profile. Major, uh -- major strange phenomena.

But if YOU like the guy, then I am not overly scared.

A little. But not overly.

[Mrs. Don-o]

Thank you, Larry. You're a mensch.

[Yossarian]

A feather, maple syrup, a canister of helium, a scuba suit, 5 strong monkeys, a trapeze, orange marmalade, and the entire nation of Portugal.

Whatta prude....

[70times7]

I meant the word "tradition" as in the term "faith tradition". Just another word for "religion". I try to vary the words I use in a paragraph, to avoid sounding repetitious. I'm sorry it caused confusion.

I wasn't confused. I still think you said what you meant. You used the phrase "Religious tradition" in order to avoid saying "Religious religion"? Now that's confused.

I suspect you'd say that about anyone who has not joined your particular sect, if we really got down to it. Anyone who does not believe exactly as you do doesn't know what "He has stated plainly."

If the stuff you believe is so plain, then why are there ten thousand interpretations of it running around out there? Everybody's wrong except you? How do you know your interpretation is right, and everybody else’s is wrong?

I note you did not say I was wrong in my conclusions about you but instead launched an attack. I also am left wondering when you became "everybody".

You are mistaken - give me a moment to review; yup - about everything you wrote. I don't even belong to a "particular sect" unless being a Christian qualifies. The church where we attend is best described as protestant non-denominational. I disagree with many things about the Catholic faith, but do not dismiss Catholics as non Christians. Even among Protestants there is much variation in interpretation of scripture. Pre trib, mid trib, post trib, no trib, spiritualization of various passages, two Isaiahs, etc. etc. It does make for interesting discussion. But the key is the bottom line - what say you of the Christ? Who do you say He is?

I also appreciate a quote that is something like; "there is scripture I do not understand - there is scripture I only think I understand - but there is a great deal in scripture I cannot misunderstand". I am mindful of all three parts of that quote - you seem to prefer to dismiss the third part based on the reality of the first two parts (that, btw, is also part of the answer to your ten thousand interpretations question).

If you believe it is all just so hard to understand try this exercise: 1)check the dictionary for the word "fornication". You will find that it basically means sexual intercourse between two people who are not married to each other. 2) Now go search the scriptures for that word and construct your interpretation of the passages you find such that fornication is A-Ok. Then the number will be 10,001.

Go do what you want. Believe what you want. That is your God given right.

[70times7]

Sorry, I should have prefaced this with the idea of rightness and wrongness within the scope of what is legal. Of course, we as a society have the right to make a law that defines the spraypainter as wrong, but we've left it up to the individual's conscience to stand outside my home in the street, with a picket sign proclaiming his hate for kittens. Repeated such behavior can allow me to avail the law to get a restraining order, if I can show possible harm, but that's my option. Within the law, people have to make their own determinations of what is right and wrong for them, using their own intellect, education, and experience. I reject the idea that everyone needs some preacher interpreting some ancient book in order to know what is right and wrong.

Funny you should bring this up... it just so happens, that in Germany around 1940 or so the government decided it was legal to round up jews, imprison them, use them as slave labor, use them for medical experimentation, gas them, burn them, and even to skin those who had tattoos in order to make lamp shades. Now then, if it so happens that at some point in the future it becomes legal to do all of this to you and yours it would be fine, right? Just so long as the people doing this to you have used their own intellect, education, and experience to decide it is right, and what kind of wood to make the soap bars from, eh?

If you reject the idea that you need some preacher to tell you what some book says that's fine. Ever hear of some guy named Martin Luther? Why don't YOU use your own intellect, education, and experience to read it? Heck, why don't you set out to prove it is all hogwash just like Simon Greenleaf? (psst - you may want to study up on this guy before you launch into that one, though)

[hunter112]

You used the phrase "Religious tradition" in order to avoid saying "Religious religion"? Now that's confused.

You can insist on being confused if you wish, but the term "religious tradition" instead of "religion" or "faith tradition" or "belief structure" is just a multitude of ways of saying pretty much the same thing.

But the key is the bottom line - what say you of the Christ? Who do you say He is?

I believe the stories to be mythical. Every Bible scholar knows they weren't written down for at least a generation after the events were supposed to have happened. There's a lot of time there, for a deeply persecuted people to have figured out fanciful tales to get them through tough times. Even then, most of the stories were banned a few hundred years later, and only the "approved" ones weren't destroyed to the fullest extent possible.

I've had an interesting time on this topic, I hadn't meant to get into semantic battles with believers, but when any topic touches on either religion or sexuality (and this one hits both), it's inevitable. If this particular young woman had dealt with her promiscuity by donning the burka and becoming a Muslim, she'd be roundly criticized. Same result, different method. I guess everybody's looking for validation of their own positions, in the behavior of others.

[70times7]

I didn't say I was confused, and I am not. This was not a disagreement over semantics. Your position on this and, particularly, the broader implications that underpin this discussion are logically untenable. So it is with moral relativism. But as I said, you are free to believe what you wish and you seem determined. Again, I wish you well.

[.30Carbine]

A cloud was on the mind of men, and wailing went the weather,
Yea, a sick cloud upon the soul when we were boys together.
Science announced nonentity and art admired decay;
The world was old and ended: but you and I were gay;
Round us in antic order their crippled vices came—
Lust that had lost its laughter, fear that had lost its shame.
Like the white lock of Whistler, that lit our aimless gloom,
Men showed their own white feather as proudly as a plume.
Life was a fly that faded, and death a drone that stung;
The world was very old indeed when you and I were young.
They twisted even decent sin to shapes not to be named:
Men were ashamed of honour; but we were not ashamed.
Weak if we were and foolish, not thus we failed, not thus­;
When that black Baal blocked the heavens he had no hymns from us
Children we were—our forts of sand were even as weak as eve,
High as they went we piled them up to break that bitter sea.
Fools as we were in motley, all jangling and absurd,
When all church bells were silent our cap and beds were heard.
Not all unhelped we held the fort, our tiny flags unfurled;
Some giants laboured in that cloud to lift it from the world.
I find again the book we found, I feel the hour that flings
Far out of fish‑shaped Paumanok some cry of cleaner things;
And the Green Carnation withered, as in forest fires that pass,
Roared in the wind of all the world ten million leaves of grass;
Or sane and sweet and sudden as a bird sings in the rain—
Truth out of Tusitala spoke and pleasure out of pain.
Yea, cool and clear and sudden as a bird sings in the grey,
Dunedin to Samoa spoke, and darkness unto day.
But we were young; we lived to see God break their bitter charms.
God and the good Republic come riding back in arms:
We have seen the City of Mansoul, even as it rocked, relieved—
Blessed are they who did not see, but being blind, believed.
This is a tale of those old fears, even of those emptied hells,
And none but you shall understand the true thing that it tells—
Of what colossal gods of shame could cow men and yet crash,
Of what huge devils hid the stars, yet fell at a pistol flash.
The doubts that were so plain to chase, so dreadful to withstand—
Oh, who shall understand but you; yea, who shall understand?
The doubts that drove us through the night as we two talked amain,
And day had broken on the streets eÂ’er it broke upon the brain.
Between us, by the peace of God, such truth can now be told;
Yea, there is strength in striking root and good in growing old.
We have found common things at last and marriage and a creed,
And I may safely write it now, and you may safely read.

G.K.C.

Hey gobucks.