Posted on 03/20/2002 12:47:36 AM PST by BUSHdude2000
There is a plethora of pejorative words used to derogatorily refer to a sexually uninhibited woman. Why are there so many negative synonyms for a woman whose sexual mores aren't in line with the Judeo-Christian ideal? Why do we only use pejorative terms to describe a woman who isn't a fervent practitioner of monogamy? Why no complimentary terms?
I propose we stop reviling the sexually promiscuous woman and venerate her instead. Why? Well, because promiscuous women make the world a happier place, that's why.
Tell me who brings more joy to more people: a girl in a monogamous relationship who would never dream of sleeping with someone that she didn't "love" or a woman who hops in bed with any person she finds sexually stimulating?
The latter, of course. So "mad props" to all you women out there secure enough in yourselves that you don't need to bother with the "sex for security" trade-off so evident in most relationships.
It's understandable why lots of more sexually repressed women may dislike their more promiscuous sisters. I mean, talk about having one hell of an advantage in a popularity contest. While sex may not be the only thing on a guy's mind, it does go a long way towards making us more kindly disposed toward someone.
And speaking of guys, it's time we males stopped being so sickeningly hypocritical about the whole "slut" issue. Any and all male revulsion towards promiscuous women comes from nothing more than a pathetic attack of religious sexual guilt.
This guilt is coming from our success in fulfilling our "basic biological imperative" (a.k.a. fornication) with a willing and eager associate (this going against typical religious tradition, which forbids sexual knowledge of a woman before she's made your property -- oops, I mean partner -- in marriage).
Having failed to be the perfect sexual robot as decreed by the laws of the tribe, the male transfers the guilt he feels into anger towards the woman gracious enough to copulate with him. "She's just a slut," a man will say of a woman after he's enjoyed her company for precisely that reason.
The sexual double standard of male versus female promiscuity is too bloody apparent to even bother dealing with. We'll just acknowledge its existence with a sad shake of the head and continue on our way.
So let's cut the crap, people, and stop reviling those who don't suffer from the same sexual hang-ups as the rest of us. Folks who repress their sexuality in the confining container of monogamy like to consider themselves "good," while regarding those not so stifled by the abuse that annotates our society's sexual programming as "immoral." They do this in the same manner as the slaves who were too cowardly to revolt with Spartacus thought of themselves as "moral" while damning those struggling for their freedom as being "bad."
Slaves love to think of themselves as anything but what they actually are, and the moralist cripples would like nothing better than for us all to crawl on our bellies with them.
Woock, a senior psychology major, can be reached at nrrandy@hotmail.com.
The writer does have a point there! Which place is happier: Afganistan or Sweden?
they must of read this story here
FREEP TIME
Fine. But you do know that nothing's free, right? If there is no emotional investment, there is no emotional return.
And the makers of Valtrex love you. This much.
I was just there, earlier this evening. On the University of Houston campus, attending an open lecture.
None of the girls danced on the tops of desks and whipped their brassieres off. Most of them were busy taking notes and lining up to sign in with the course registrar for credit with their own professors. Most of them looked about fifteen.
This moron claims we should venerate sluts, homewreckers, whores, easy women, etc. Notice I used the very terms this so-called student deplores. Why? Because they're accurate. Promiscuity spreads disease, discontentment, and divorce. It ruins lives, not just those of the perpetrators, but those of the wronged families, spouses and their children.
This clymer has the gall to pronounce morality "repressive". The "freedom" he is advocating is just warmed-over '60s pop psychology: "If it feels good, do it!"
No mention is made of others. This is ALL self-gratification. Do whatever you want, with no moral constraints; who cares if others get hurt, your happiness is paramount.
Dum-dum also mentions a "double standard". Sure, it's there. Doesn't make it right. And the very morality he despises CONDEMNS it as WRONG.
My conclusion is that this pathetic individual is unable to attract women, given his self-absorption, and wants to fool some into buying his pop psychology. "Hey baby, I won't make any demands on you!" Sure. Except when she gives him an STD, or sleeps with another guy, or when she mentions marriage, or gets pregnant (then watch him force her to have an abortion kill the baby.
Hey, this loser left his email addy. Go for it!
I wonder how kind this guy would feel after catching something "not-so-kind". Oh, I forgot... one must use condoms. Colin Powell said so, so it must be true.
These schools are infested with morons.
Sounds like a guy trying to suck up for more booty from the campus bimbos.
Yea, me too!
I guess I don't understand all the antisex zealotry that goes on on both sides - far left and far right.
Kids in college test their boundries, their moral side from home and church (hopefully) versus the opposite sex that pushes to do more and more.
Sex is too natural a process to try to eliminate from kids' minds.
I read the other threads, wherein nobody knew the comparative for a male slut. There are many ;rake, cad,and roue are but three of them. Since the " sexual revolution " lax morality ( seemingly growing laxer by the year ) and the dumbed down vocabularies of subsiquent generations, I suppose that I shouldn't be too surprised.
This little boy, is a prime example of those who have become subhuman; I won't say animalistic, since that would be a slight on most animals. He's a bubblehead and will probably have at least one divorce to his name, after he marries at close to 40, because cohabiation / serial partners / middle age has finally slowed him down a wee bit.
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.