Posted on 03/21/2005 9:49:25 AM PST by MisterRepublican
CARBONDALE -- On the dance floor at Gatsby's II, a popular bar at Southern Illinois University in Carbondale, a tall brunette drinks beer from a plastic pitcher while she grinds her backside into a man's body.
A silver disco ball hangs overhead while a blond woman in a pink, pleated miniskirt writhes on her partner's leg.
A girl notices that her boyfriend's attention is wandering. With a manicured hand, she grabs his face and plants a Hollywood-worthy kiss on his mouth.
On this sticky dance floor, littered with plastic cups and packed with gyrating bodies, women are the hunters as much as the hunted.
Traditional stereotypes dictate that men want sex, and women crave love. But, on today's college campuses, students say those gender lines are blurrier than a pair of beer goggles.
When a University of Illinois sorority girl observed over lunch at a Champaign cafe that "guys aren't looking for love," her friend chimed in: "I don't think we can blame it on the guys. I'm not looking for love, either."
Girls are just as bad as boys now," another woman said.
"To guys, [sex is] still like scoring," said author Tom Wolfe, who spent two years on college campuses researching his new novel. "The strange part is that it's become that for girls, too. They'll say, 'I scored Jack last night . . . finally!'''
A federal government survey of 4,600 college students found that slightly more male than female undergrads are virgins.
(Excerpt) Read more at suntimes.com ...
Sexual intercourse is reserved by nature for a lifelong, exclusive, male/female relationship for the begetting and raising of children, and the mutual care of the spouses. This is intuitively obvious and proven by common experience. Therefore, those who reserve intercourse for marriage are happier than those who don't; just as those who eat as nature intends (in moderation, primarily for nutrition and growth) are happier than those who abuse food (who overeat, eating primarily for pleasure).
Stating that two plus two equals five does not make it true. I reject that "nature" reserves sexual intercourse for any such situation as you aver. Were that true, either there would be no time at which pregnancy was improbable or humans would be disinterested in sexual activity at such times. Additionally, if what you aver is "reserved by nature" were indeed reserved by nature, humans would have no interest in intercourse if they were not in a monogamous, committed relationship. Again, as the predicate of your proof is under dispute, your conclusion is as well.
What is the biological function of the human reproductive system?
(Hint: This is a "Who's buried in Grant's tomb?" question.)
Dostoevsky was right. But the dialog isn't hopeless. It's possible to point out the contradictions in the doctrines of those who don't believe in God, such as the fact that they generally claim that the human body has no objective purpose (and that it is in the process of evolving), while they operate on the principle that bodily functions may or may not work properly, i.e., when they seek medical help.
Thanks for the info.
Today, I know many 30 year old boys who are drifting around without a permanent career or a wife or a child that they are raising. It's pathetic and it's not progress.
I agree. And moreover, as Melas said above, the divorce rate in 1900 was 4-5%. The denial of the harmful effects of sexual licentiousness has given us a host of social maladies, not limited to a divorce rate of 50%.
I'm sorry about that, but there isn't a necessary causal relationship. Pregnant women simply have a higher risk of developing DVT, as described below.
Deep Vein ThrombosisUntil she had a tubal done (in a catholic hospital, choke on that)Did you know that, according to the National Institutes of Health, two million Americans annually develop a condition called deep vein thrombosis (DVT)? You've probably heard of someone who has had this condition, or perhaps you have the painful experience of blood clots in your own legs. A significant number -- six hundred thousand -- of DVT patients also develop a pulmonary embolism. For an alarming sixty thousand patients who develop a pulmonary embolism each year the condition is fatal.
According to the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, the formation of blood clots in the legs is a rare but serious complication that has frequently been associated with the use of birth control pills. Until recently, low-dose estrogen replacement therapy in post-menopausal women was believed to be free of this rare complication.
The good news for most women is that the actual risk of hormone-induced DVT remains small, perhaps being outweighed by the potential benefits of estrogen replacement for treating the vasomotor symptoms (hot flashes, night sweats) of menopause, as well as the other benefits of estrogen such as reducing the risk of osteoporosis and heart disease . However, the use of estrogen as a preventive measure against heart disease is clearly one that is still under study and highly debatable; the American Heart Association recently came out against the use of estrogen if the primary purpose is to prevent heart disease.
...Hormonal factors are not the only cause of blood clots in the legs. Other causes of DVT include:
Poor circulation caused by conditions such as a recent heart attack or stroke, or other forms of heart disease.Who Is Most at Risk of Developing DVT?Varicose veins.
Long-term inactivity.
Extended bed rest.
DVT can also occur during a long flight when passengers often have little room to move their legs. This condition is known as 'Economy Class Syndrome.' Certain people are considered most at risk for in-flight DVT; these people include pregnant women, people who are overweight, those whose feet do not touch the floor, older passengers, smokers, and people with coronary artery disease or certain blood conditions. To prevent DVT from occuring during or after an airplane flight, it's recommended that passengers try to get up and walk up and down the aisle at least once an hour.
An injury to a vein can bring on an occurrence of deep vein thrombosis. A vein can be injured in several ways including a blow to the leg, surgery, or radiation treatments for cancer. Such an injury can cause a narrowing or blockage in a vein where it then gathers blood and clots.
Pregnancy increases the risk of DVT developing because of the body's natural tendency to prevent excessive bleeding during childbirth.
Other potential causes include severe infection, liver disease, and some forms of cancer.
People who are elderly and those who are obese experience the highest rates of deep vein thrombosis; however, this in no way means that healthy, young individuals have nothing to worry about. Certain people, born without important blood thinning properties, are always at an increased risk for developing blood clots.
You mean a nominally Catholic hospital.
I (we) lived in absolute fear every time a condom broke.
You would have been less fearful if you used NFP.
And simple measures can be taken to avoid DVT, such as wearing compression hosiery. Effective drugs are also available for women at high risk of DVT during pregnancy.
I'm aware of this natural condition, and natural sterility, which is why I qualified my original statement with the words, "deliberately chosen," or something like that.
You bet it does. How do you know if your "illness" isn't the advent of a new evolutionary process? We are in the process of evolving, aren't we?
You would probably say "as God designed it," and I'd make reference to medical definitions or dictionary definitions.
And what do definitions refer to? Actual things or essences. If the definition doesn't apply to anything existing objectively in reality, of what use is it?
FWIW, MSN's dictionary defines "health," in a medical sense, as "presence or absence of well-being:
Question-begging.
...the general condition of the body or mind, especially in terms of the presence or absence of illnesses,
Question-begging. Is a pregnancy an illness? Is fertility an illness?
Additionally, MSN defines "illness" as "bad health." So we have a circular definition.
injuries
MSN defines injury as "damage to the body." But again, this approaches circularity. Fertility and pregnancy do not constitute damage to the body. So why are these normal states of the body often treated medically as "injuries"?
or impairments."
MSN: "lessening or absence of ability: a lessening or the absence of a particular physical or mental function." Bingo. Health is proportionate to the degree that the body is operating properly.
Therefore, fertility and pregnancy do not represent states of ill-health.
I'm not pretnding anything.
Fact is fact, and the fact is that infant mortality has declined precipitously since 1900.
Most of the diseases you describe, besides diabetes, heart disease and cancer, disproportionately killed children.
And the incidence of diabetes and even heart disease was lower then because people didn't have the kind of diet then that we do now.
In 1900 red meat and processed sugars were treats, not routine menu items.
Basically we have learned to extend most lives from 65ish to 80ish now and we have learned to stop childhood diseases from killing kids.
All of which refutes your earlier thesis - that it was easier to stay married for life if the average married person lived to be 48.
That thesis was already irrelevant on its face, because most divorces do not occur among 50 year olds - most divorces occur within the first 5 years of marriage.
None of what you typed applies to my (our situation). My wife has a genetic condition that predisposes her to blood clots. What I really find offensive is your instant dismisal of the hospital without the facts. It wasn't a nominally Catholic hospital that did the tubal btw, it was a Sister of Charity hospital that concluded that under the circumstances, the tubal was acceptable.
You're confusing physical pleasure and pleasurable emotions with true happiness, which is the acquiring of the highest goods, which are known rationally. We know that the intellect is superior to the lower emotions and body since the intellect can choose to ignore or set aside various emotional and physical pleasures in various circumstances.
This passage from the Summa might be helpful:
I answer that, Since the ratio of good is the ratio of appetibility, as said before (5, 1), and since evil is opposed to good, it is impossible that any evil, as such, should be sought for by the appetite, either natural, or animal, or by the intellectual appetite which is the will. Nevertheless evil may be sought accidentally, so far as it accompanies a good, as appears in each of the appetites. For a natural agent intends not privation or corruption, but the form to which is annexed the privation of some other form, and the generation of one thing, which implies the corruption of another. Also when a lion kills a stag, his object is food, to obtain which the killing of the animal is only the means. Similarly the fornicator has merely pleasure for his object, and the deformity of sin is only an accompaniment. Now the evil that accompanies one good, is the privation of another good. Never therefore would evil be sought after, not even accidentally, unless the good that accompanies the evil were more desired than the good of which the evil is the privation. Now God wills no good more than He wills His own goodness; yet He wills one good more than another. Hence He in no way wills the evil of sin, which is the privation of right order towards the divine good. The evil of natural defect, or of punishment, He does will, by willing the good to which such evils are attached. Thus in willing justice He wills punishment; and in willing the preservation of the natural order, He wills some things to be naturally corrupted.We know objectively that the good for children is to be raised by their parents in a lifelong, exclusive relationship. This is intuitive, empirically demonstrable, and the norm for all of recorded human history.
The pleasurable aspect of intercourse, then, was orderd by nature to attain this end by serving to bring forth new life and to unite the couple. Anything opposed to this end is disordered and unnatural, and should be avoided, even if there are pleasurable aspects associated with it.
Are you assuming that economic exigencies can trump human nature? I have to tell you, human nature is always going to win out. Our economy and educational system have to accomodate themselves to the fact that people are better served by remaining chaste (no sex before marriage; fidelity afterwards), and that it is unreasonable to delay marriage until the late 20's or 30's.
The economy exists to serve human beings -- essentially to support families -- not the other way around.
Pretty good guess. One of the inherent differences in men and women is that men are always on sexually. Women have always been the civilizing factor when it came to promiscuity. Men tried, women said no.
That's why promiscuity is so unbelievably exagerated in the gay community people. You have all of these sexual aggressors, and no one pulling back.
Camilia Paglia said it best: Gay men wind up in sexual relationships without love, because it's their nature. Gay women wind up in relationships that have love without sex.
I'll have to tell you, as a Catholic who has studied these issues, the hospital was wrong according to Catholic doctrine. Sterilization is not morally acceptable. It's acceptable to remove a diseased organ, even if sterility is an unavoidable side effect, but a tubal does meet that qualification.
You may think that they did the right thing, and you're free to do that, but Aquinasfan and I know our religion well enough that we can tell you with 100% certainty that the hospital was not being faithful to Catholic doctrine.
So, back to the article. Many college women aren't doing that anymore; they're trying to be as promiscuous as the men. Where does that leave us?
My answer: in deep trouble.
That was never in question.
Fair enough. I'm glad a I'm a protestant.
I've never heard that one, but I'm stealing it because it sums up the situation well. Which is why I really don't understand the push for gay marriage. I can't really convince myself that gay men at least, really want to get married.
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.