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 ...
And a hundred years ago, so did a lot of doctors who were convinced that it make you go blind or insane. Let's face it, all masturbation does is make you postpone the need to get a spouse, to start having kids with. That's why religion was against it, or anything that did not help increase the flock.
The '60s were poison for all reasons. And I don't say that glibly. I really mean "all". There isn't 1 thing I've run across that didn't go downhill during or right after the '60s!
YES GO BACK AND READ THE WHO THING! Great article.
Casual sex is masturbation under difficult circumstances.
It isn't going to hurt anyone. No reason to be insulting about it.
This is where she really jumped the shark with me. She knew good and well that making some ultrapure-sounding remark about kissing was going to insure that her remarks were repeated, and maybe given prominence (we're talking about her, here, aren't we?) and that's when it seemed extremely fake. No sensible person is offended by premarital kissing in Western society, even the most repressive religions do not mention it.
What concerns me is all the people she's going to reach with this book who have just broken up with someone, in a bid to punish themselves for the sexual aspect of the failed relationship, and not for making a bad pick.
I've always thought prostitutes were smarter and more moral. At least they're getting something out of it, guaranteed! How is giving it away for nothing more moral than getting paid for it?
You wrote:
"I disagree. And Christian teaching is not "ancient". It, like God himself, simply "is"."
Okay, then you MUST believe that birth control is wrong if you're a professing Christian because it was always opposed by Christians until recently. Read Charles Provan's book called The Bible and Birth Control to see just how Protestants viewed birth control since they appeared in the sixteenth century.
I wish some pop culture icon would explain this to young girls so they'd actually listen. The lifestyle young girls emulate are actually middle-aged male fantasies. If they saw that the people in Hollywood who write and produce these false images of what women do are,for the most part, unattractive males in there 30's and 40's looking back at Jr. High and High school the way they'd like to remember it. Women are objectified and always portrayed in a one-dimensional way. Yea, you've come a long way, baby.
I don't get that impression at all from the article posted. I see a woman who is trying to honor herself and (by extension I suppose) her future husband by remaining free of sexual sin. I did not get the impression of judgementalism against others, nor was she trying to make the "hard sell."
I think Jesus and his disciples were pretty silent on the subject. Beyond that, we are pretty free. The Church of Christ thinks it is wrong to have musical instruments in church even though the Bible is VERY silent on the subject. It means that I play an instrument in church AND drive a Chrysler (about which the Bible is also silent), although I stole neither.
You wrote:
"Let's face it, all masturbation does is make you postpone the need to get a spouse, to start having kids with. That's why religion was against it, or anything that did not help increase the flock."
No. Religion opposed masturbation because it was sinful. Also, you seem to think that the sin of masturbation is limited to only those who are unmarried. 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.? If Christians were only interested in increasing the flock then traditionally minded Christians would see no problem with artificial insemination!
I don't think so, what I've said is that it is up to each person to decide for themselves. Heaping praise on someone for a lifestyle choice is the same as approval, and I think that's what she's desperately seeking by writing books and being interviewed for articles where she displays fright about kissing.
The purpose of the human reproductive system is reproduction.
That's one of its purposes. Our digestive systems are primarily for the purpose of feeding ourselves to prevent starvation, but I can indulge in a piece of (non-necessary) candy every once in awhile.
Science came along, and let us cook our pork, refrigerate our shellfish, and separate conception from sexuality. Rules that were promulgated a long time ago to satisfy the needs of a pre-industrial agricultural society are not needed like they used to be.
Conversely, promiscuity is marked by sadness, illness and destruction.
So, two virgins who find each other at a time when they are emotionally ready for a relationship, and who stay faithful with each other are going to suffer from one of the above maladies? I guess it's possible, but you could say the same thing about undercooked pork chops or too-old clams.
You took the words outa my mouth! Actually, it seems she learned something of value. Sadly, that's unlike so many in today's world. It is amazing the sluttiness of today's young women. Some very sharp (intellect) and nice looking young ladies recently asked my youngest son to the Winter Formal. When my son (16) pointed them out and informed me that he turned them down I was 'stuned'. (Stunned, for those in Rio Linda) When I asked him why, he replied, " Because they're sluts Dad".
My sons are better men than I ........ I would have accepted the invites in a heartbeat!!!! Then again, maybe that was part of my problems. ;^)
Nam Vet
You wrote:
"I think Jesus and his disciples were pretty silent on the subject."
Probably because it was so commonly accepted in their day among Jews that contraception was wrong.
"Beyond that, we are pretty free. The Church of Christ thinks it is wrong to have musical instruments in church even though the Bible is VERY silent on the subject."
That's the best you can do? You're comparing a relatively new and obscure sect's weird view on musical instruments with a serious moral issue? You're not really prepared for this conversation are you?
"It means that I play an instrument in church AND drive a Chrysler (about which the Bible is also silent), although I stole neither."
Oh, so now the Bible must be explicit about every devise to see if use of that devise is moral? What about the Biblical condemnation of onanism?
Well, why bother? You aren't ready to seriously discuss this issue anyway.
You ought to ease up. Sin is a part of life. This girl recognized it and is trying to live differently. That is a good thing.
And go on and SIN NO MORE.
I'm one of those. Well, we don't always get *drunk* but we hang out together rather than hunt for men. We're all 40-42, single, and kind of over it where men are concerned. Our little group has come to the conclusion that female companionship and friendship fulfills a lot of our emotional needs. Not all of them, but somethings you find that you can survive without.
>>Well, why bother? You aren't ready to seriously discuss this issue anyway.<<
You're right. I am on a conference call as I type this. ;)
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.