Posted on 01/15/2007 8:04:12 AM PST by 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”.
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Christianity is not repressive, but it's true, the Catholic religion is pretty sexually repressive. Study after study has shown that, rather than being prudish and sexless, Xtian married people have great and frequent sex. Traditional values, including those about sex, sustain cultural vitality, and personal happiness.
You really think that....I am sure they were smart enough to link sexual activity with a new member of the tribe a few months later...
Yes, I do. Nine months is a long time to make a connection, and in people who were having sex all of the time (look at other primate species for my reasoning on this), it simply was too difficult to connect the two. The discovery that sex leads to procreation was discovered at the dawn of agriculture.
Large beasts were domesticated to provide labor on the farm, and were penned up to prevent escape. When one pens up a female animal without access to a male animal, you have a "barren" female. Surely, some farmer noticed that. It could also have been noticed that the offspring of a female animal resembled the male animal she was penned up with, and not so much the male animal she was not able to have sex with.
In order to have the concept of "my son", a man realized that he had to have exclusive sexual access to a female in order to be sure he was supporting his own. This was all known long before genetics, or microscopes to find sperm in semen, or any other scientific knowledge that we have today. Hence, all of the religions that developed in the agricultural era have needed some sort of sexual restraint on women, even though they often winked at sexual license by at least some men. Even the Old Testament mentions "wives and concubines" being had by the kings of ancient Israel.
as well they were in tune with the seasons/nature...
Possibly, in the temperate zones, but what about the tropical regions of this planet, where humanity was most often found, that didn't have true seasons? In gatherer societies, food would have been plentiful year round. In fact, explorers have encountered such people who did not link sex and procreation.
The 60s were poisonous in every way. If I could, I would cut those memories right out of my life.
Christianity seeks to teach its adherents to be selfless, with the help of divine grace. This is in imitation of its founder, who said, "Greater love hath no man than this, to lay down his life for his friends."
Marxism defines "selflessness" by dictatorial and administrative fiat, and imposes it on everyone under its sway, with deadly force if necessary.
If you can't see the difference there, I really can't help you.
Is "the correct amount" measured by an objective standard, or by the subjective standard of "the amount you can handle"?
I have a friend who is entering a self-realization phase. I am sickened by her revelations.
"And later on, when the 20's and 30's and 40's are over, at 3:00 AM, one wakes and realizes that while they could handle the acts well, they find they can no longer handle the memories, of all the failed relationships and the inability to ever trust anyone again, of supposedly being valued, then finding they were just a semen dump all along."
Yes I think he did, or maybe it was one of the other early bible characters but yes it says he layed with his daughter.
I agree. I don't understand the obsession over birth control. While I understand how it could make it easier to ...eh...be "easy", I can't see how it in itself is bad.
Like money. Everyone misquotes the Bible and says "money is the root of all evil". But in reality it is "love of money..." Being sinful with money is bad, as is being sinful with sex, etc. They're all temptations, but doesn't make them bad.
And here's what I have a problem with. Some Christians say BC is immoral because it stops the natural flow of life. I.e., what should be created isn't because you stopped it.
This means that even a simple thing like "pulling out" is immoral. Or "rhythm". And that's all within marriage!
Never mind that it also means, ironically, RESISTING sexual urges is immoral. It also means resisting a rapist is wrong, because "it was meant to happen" and conking him over the head stops the flow!
The Church is not sexually repressive. The traditional Church fits traditional society, unlike the ECUSA and others which advocate for anything goes.
"She thinks that burrowing into the most sexually repressive Western religion known is the way to wash this off of her conscience.""
Christianity is repressive??
" Maybe a few hundred bucks worth of sessions with a good therapist would have helped."
A lady I know is going thru a divorce after getting caught cheating on her husband. Her therapist commended her behavior as an "expression of her sexual power". Not sure therapy by todays standards is gonna help.
Ok, let's go around in the circle. Why was it sinful? The fact is, ancient cultures developed religious laws that gave them differential survival over co-existing groups that did not have these rules. Of course, if you believe that it was sinful "because God said so", then you'll need to tell me why it's OK to eat bacon, slurp oysters, or wear shirts that are made of fabric blends.
I guess you've never read anything at all in a newspaper or magazine or book about the rise of sexual addiction, internet porn, etc.?
I've read a lot about alcohol addiction, too, and I can differentiate between being a drunk, and responsibly enjoying a few beers at home with a baseball game. Not everyone who masturbates becomes a child molester, or neglects their spouse's needs. While I'm on that subject, a lot of people use masturbation to fill the gap between their needs, and their spouse's lesser need. That's probably a lot better than getting a divorce, especially with children involved, to find someone you're more compatible with (which you might possibly have had an inkling of knowing if you had established a sexual relationship with them before getting married.)
If Christians were only interested in increasing the flock then traditionally minded Christians would see no problem with artificial insemination!
I've read the rationale behind that opinion. It seems that the only way to get the semen for artificial insemination is either to masturbate, or collect it in a condom. So, it's not the AI that these "traditionally minded" religions have a problem with, its the means of accomplishing it.
From personal experience,
therapy works where religion fails,
for some, or many. Simply because therapy is free of any religion or preconcepts.
I'm happy she's found a good path. Not one I would choose, but one that suits who she is.
Again, if you don't like what I have to say, you are free to ignore me. I've noticed a lot of people around here seem to have a problem with hearing views in conflict with their own.
How is it a sin? That's ridiculous.
This whole thread reads like a parody...thanks for the unintentional humor....
I will add that Paul was quite clear on this as well. He said, and I paraphrase, that it is better to be unmarried as he was, but if you are horny (burn is the english translation I have seen), get married. IOW, he was talking about sex, not procreation. Although there is the old testament instructions to be fruitful and multiply, I suppose if you have any children at all you have accomplished that.
There is way too much judgementalism on how people conduct their lives. I like the phrase "judge not, lest ye be judged". There are plenty of things explicitly pointed out in the NT about how a follower of Christ should live their lives. We need not waste our time on useless arguments over this sort of stuff.
I return to my original statement: Birth control is like a gun...
You'd think Dick would have went with Rich, or maybe his middle name. Rich Trickle is a mildly amusing name. Dick Trickle is something you get a shot of penicillin for.
"When did you first notice women in college taking “feminist” classes whilst the men took classes that would benefit them in their chosen profession?"
Except the men "of color".....
Very good analogy in that 2nd paragraph.
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.