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 ...
Oh come on man, cut yourself some slack, I'll bet you're none of those things. I'm willing to bet that your low self-esteem isn't helping things though. The only real trick to dating is keeping yourself in social situations.
Keep your chin up, you're far from old, and you never know what's right around the corner.
As for the sex thing, it might be difficult to find a woman who's like minded about chastity, but surely they're out there.
not always.
Careful there. I think you mean that some truths that God wholly comprehends, like the Trinity, are beyond our ability to comprehend. These truths aren't irrational, but super-rational, at least with regard to our inferior intellects. But there is nothing contradictory in super-rational truths like the definition of the Trinity. It's just that the doctrine cannot be derived from reason alone, but only reason informed by faith.
G-d is beyond dry rationality.
God is beyond our ability to fully understand or comprehend, but His nature is rationality, since he is Truth Itself, as Scripture tells us.
No one is stopping you from engaging in sacrifice and whatnot. I'm really not interested, however.
OK, then find the fallacy in the following proof:
1) Children are best raised by their natural parents who have committed themselves to each other for life. We know this through intuition, empirical evidence, normatively (historically) and naturally (the nature of parents and parenting).
2) Nature intends children to be raised by their natural parents who have committed themselves to each other for life, since this is best for children.
3) Nature designed intercourse, which brings children into the world, to serve the end of #2, i.e., to solidify the lifelong commitment of the parents for the good of the children.
4) So intercourse serves two ends: procreation and the unity of the couple.
5) Any sexual act outside of marriage is unnatural and disordered.
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.
In such periods intercourse serves the unitive purpose, which is in the best interests of parents and children.
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.
An analogy might be helpful. Did nature intend us to ingest good-tasting, poisonous substances, since our nutritive appetite desires them? Or did nature give us intelligence to use in order to avoid ingesting good-tasting poisons that appeal to our natural, nutritive appetite? Nature intended our nobler powers to guide our lower powers for the greater good of our entire being.
In fact, there is a mixture of truth and falsity in your argument. The truth is that before the Fall our lesser faculties corresponded with our higher faculties, and the intuition that our powers are partially disordered is correct.
Absolutely. At the end of the day, we all seek to fulfill our selfish desires. Those desires might differ. Some are interested in power and sex, others are made happy by helping others.
People do such things because those actions fulfill a selfish desire to feel good.
What really cracks me up is the feminists who insist that marriage was invented by men to control women. I always say, "Oh? Is that why men are fighting so hard against the erosion of marriage and the advent of free love?" Marriage is one of the proofs of G-d's existence. Based on the physical strength of men and women's reliance on them before civilization, marriage would never have evolved on its own. Men would have controled women by saying, "You don't want to put out? Go sleep with the saber-toothed tigers."
Shalom.
What was the likelihood of it happening again? Why not use NFP? Why not drugs? I don't know if they were in existence then, but they're available today, which is another argument against a permanent "solution" like a tubal.
What I really find offensive is your instant dismisal of the hospital without the facts.
I can only base my judgment using the facts at hand.
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.
Maybe, maybe not.
(Shrug) Procreation can be the purpose of sexual intercourse, but it does not have to be. The inability to control one's fertility naturally is a flaw of the human body. Modern science has given us the ability to control that flaw.
Procreation, of course. What's your point?
LOL! But remember, that powerful men have an interest in controlling the (revolutionary) impulses of lesser men, and marriage is a good way to do that. The powerful men, of course, had large harems (just like Senators today) and didn't follow their own rules. ;)
No such "flaw" exists. I have no problems controlling my fertility naturally. Neither do many other people. Your case, as usual, is predicated on false claims.
Translation: which are known because this is Aquinasfan's opinion.
We know that the intellect is superior to the lower emotions and body
Translation: we know this because this is Aquinasfan's opinion.
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.
Translation: we know this because this is Aquinasfan's opinion.
Anything opposed to this end is disordered and unnatural, and should be avoided, even if there are pleasurable aspects associated with it.
Translation: we know this because this is Aquinasfan's opinion.
Humans would be better off if they could turn of their fertility at certain times. Other species have that ability (kangaroos, for example). Therefore, the inability to control fertility is a flaw of the human body.
I'm not a Catholic, and I have no problem with birth control. We'll never agree on this issue, but in the end it's not really an issue we have to agree on.
What we do agree on is that the culture of promiscuity is out of control. Marriage is becoming a dirty word, and hooking up is a way of life for young adults now. Children are by and large fatherless, and we as a society we're greatly suffering for it.
You can be free to disagree with our choice for my wife to work and me to stay home with the children (13 years in June), you can be free to disagree with our choice to use sterilization as a means of birth control. We can disagree on a lot of things. Let's however agree that both want to put families first, and that we're sinking into a pit that's not family friendly.
Humans would be better off if they'd learn to respect the way God made them, and stop trying to pretend they're what they aren't.
I can think of better ones. Men would have no problem creating a social order where the women were tied to the men, with the lesser men being afraid to take the women of the more powerful men, without the men being at all tied to the women. I think that's what would have evolved.
Shalom.
But to do that they'd have to admit they aren't G-d, which is something they REALLY hate to do. They would rather admit ANYTHING - even that they are a pure accident that doesn't matter worth spit - than admit they aren't G-d.
Shalom.
Good. But the AMA does, in that it recognizes abortion as a valid "medical" procedure.
Fertility is neither an injury nor damage to the body. Why, then, is contraception used to "treat" this condition of fertility? A million reasons, which all boil down to one - a couple doesn't want to have children at a particular time.
The situation is perfectly analogous to binging and purging, which most people consider a disorder.
And in this case we have doctors prescribing mild poisons which sometimes also work as abortifacients. We also having doctors putting people's lives at risk by operating on people to damage healthy organs (sterilization).
Know any happy drug addicts? You might want to check out "Cops" sometime.
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.