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 ...
Didn't you say that sex is for pleasure?
You're emoting again.
Go to post #345 and point out a fallacy.
People like You, and with your ideas, are a LOT of the reason I am still single.
DO you want to know MY definition of a "slut'? SIMPLE-- A woman who has SEX, OUTSIDE of marriage. PERIOD. NOW-- IF a woman settles down, with ONE man, and REMAINS faithful to him, and him ALONE, then, she is NOT a slut,. REGARDLESS of the past she had.
Then, you say, "many people I know, would never consider marriage , without having sex with someone first". (the old" would you buy a car, without a "test drive", first?) UNACCEPTABLE. The bible I read, did NOT state, "in the future, these commandments, will heve to be "adapted" to fit the times". Bull$hit!!! You are buying much of the feminists propaganda!! "no reason NOT to have sex, outside of marriage" BS!!
BTW-- I AGREE, that MEN should be held to the SAME standard, as women, and that there is STILL a double standard, BUT, that standard seems to be diminishing, as nowdays, even "Christinas", are falling into the "new morality", trap, and having pre-maritial sex, and living together, at will.
In the long run, everyone loses. Women lose, men lose, happiness loses, marriages lose, kids raised in single-parent households because of divorce lose. And the cycle perpetuates to the next generation.
Bears repeating. Our "sexual revolution" in a nutshell. Thanks.
No problem.
The physical act of sex can be for pleasure or for procreation. The biological function of the human reporoductive system, taken as a whole, is for procreation. However, there is nothing wrong with blocking the ability to procreate if such procreation is inconvenient.
Your conclusions in post #345 are based on nothing but your opinion, so there are really no facts to be refuted therein.
A heroin junky, when high, is quite happy. It's only when they're not fulfilling their desire for drugs that they're not happy.
Would you believe I've never called a woman in a slut in earnest? I've come to understand that promsicuity isn't desirable, but reaching out in vitriol and spite isn't the answer.
Your argument is based on the unproven belief that humans were created by some supernatural being.
True.
The biological function of the human reporoductive system, taken as a whole, is for procreation.
True. So what is the pleasurable aspect of intercourse ordered toward, since it comprises a part of the reproductive system?
(Few of us would be here now if the act of intercourse was not pleasurable).
He experiences a sort of physical/emotional pleasure. However, the habit of taking heroin harms his overall health, and his overall good, so he cannot be truly happy. Happy people do not destroy themselves. In fact, the drug addict is neither happy nor free, but is simply a slave to sin and vice.
It's only when they're not fulfilling their desire for drugs that they're not happy.
In all senses of the word.
It can be part of reproduction or the pleasure can be an end in of itself. Furthermore, reproduction can occur without pleasure (such as during a rape) so it is clear that pleasure and reproduction are not necessarily linked.
The pleasure of the drug use overrides any other considerations. Even continued life may not be as pleasurable as being high.
Making oneself happy can be quite self-destructive, but that does not mean that such a person is not happy.
So right you are. AND-- so do many CHURCHES. In the mid '80's, several teenage girls got pregnant in my youth group.In public, at least, there was no shame attached to this. While I AGREE they should NOT have been made to wear an "A" on them, those of us, who wanted to remain pure, were the ones that were called "freaks, losers,, prudes,unrealistic, for the times", and so on, and CASTIGATED by much of the group, EVEN some of the leaders.
Remember-- that was roughly 20 years ago. I doubt things are any better, in that regard today. Teens who desire to lead true, faithful, Christian-based lives should be applauded, and pointed out as examples of virtue, NOT made fun of, and shunned, by those leading such peer groups.
I do not think you belong here.Your paganistic views about life and sex sound more at home at DU than here, on a conservative web site.
no, with all due compassion, it is your fault: you didn't even bother to figure out which views I are my own and which are held by other people, but important for the discussion. I actually agree with the rest of your message. Only the first line in crazy :)
While I disagree with almost every line Modernman writes, he can and should stay in this forum and express his views. He does belong here, it's a public forum.
Everyone's entitled to their opinion. Too bad for you this isn't your website and your opinion on this matter means squat.
"You're confusing physical pleasure and pleasurable emotions with true happiness, which is the acquiring of the highest goods, which are known rationally."
Perhaps I am but that is my reality. I've traveled through life using emotions as a navigational tool. I seek out pleasure and pleasurable emotions and take failures and mistakes in stride. If I had to make a list of the things that make me happy, sex might make it into the top five (not sure, I'll have to think about that one). But wherever it ends up on the list, I don't consider sex wrong or that it's unnatural to do it just for the pleasure of it.
"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."
Birth control is unnatural but it certainly changes the nature of things. I don't think that's a bad thing. Oral sex and masturbation are opposed to the end you mention but I don't consider either activity unnatural. That's my reality. Different from yours obviously, but that's the way I think.
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.