Posted on 01/15/2007 8:04:12 AM PST by shrinkermd
I hardly think that Catholicism is "the most sexually repressive Western religion known". In fact, it puts sex on the highest possible pedestal, so high that we consider it to be sacred and the "matter" of a holy sacrament. The New Testament calls the sexual union of husband and wife a sign of Christ's love for his church. That's about the highest possible pedestal we can put sex on.
If you want to talk about a sexually repressive Western religion, call the Shakers.
And since that time, we invented prostitutes, concubines, and extramarital affairs? No, people really didn't refrain from it all that much, they were just way more hypocritical about it.
No, here's the fundamental premise: human psychology hasn't changed through the millennia; we're all wired up pretty much in the same way we were five hundred or a thousand years ago. And there have always been people (a lot of people) who followed their own sexual inclinations. There have always been prostitutes, affairs, etc. But in the past people understood that these things were wrong, a mistake, hurtful to women and to society, that marriage was a better outlet for sexuality than whoring around, that fatherless children don't grow up as well as those who have fathers in the home, that women are hurt in diverse ways by promiscuity. Since the sixties we've not been willing to acknowledge those basic truths. That doesn't make our forebears hypocrites; rather, they were the realists, and we are the hypocrites.
Why do I say that we (meaning "modern Western society") are hypocrites? Because our era is filled with people like Helen Gurley Brown and Hugh Hefner and yes, you, who see no harm in loose sexuality "as long as you can handle it" because this philosophy allows them to indulge their libidos easily. We think we know better, are more sophisticated, smarter than everyone in ages past. Well, the truth is almost no one can "handle it" without consequences to mind, body, and spirit.
I have to agree with the other poster. You aren't at your best on this subject and are becoming tiresome. If you have something constructive to contribute, then by all means do so, but if you're just going to hurl invective and innuendo at people, then move on to a subject that does not upset you so.
Thanks.
No I would not cisdier her a slut.
How about someone who thought what she was being tught was ture, tried that truth out and through years of pain and emptiness came to realize her own truth.
And then had the courage to write about her mistakes so other woman could learn from her suffering.
Noah had sex with his daughter, what would you call him?
An incestious pedophole?
Judge not the path God takes a person on in order for them to learn the lessons that God needs them to learn. Be humble and thankful that you may not have needed to walk that same path to learn what she did.
And because of the path God had her walk she probley has a deeper understanding of God, and her writtings wiill help other young women to NOT travel that same road.
Dawn Eden is an American, and has lived all of her life in the NYC area.
Those NYers are all Eggs Over Easy?
Pretty much every branch of Christianity did until very recently. Martin Luther railed against it.
I sacrificed what should have been the best years of my life for the black lie of free love."
Translation: It wasn't my fault. I accept no responsibility for my bad decisions.
I'm 37 too, but never had sex until the end of 35. For reasons that are implied partly by the subject matter here. ;D
The ironic thing about "free love" is that it GAVE IN to the macho notion of women being objects to use for sex and lust. It made it "easy" for boys/men to satisfy their lusts and hence, girls/women were MORE "objects" than they were when more chaste.
It gives the lie to the notion that pre-marital unrestricted sex = liberated women.
All they did was, if you will, bring women down to the level of men. ;-)
Wow - how do you get that out of that sentence?
For some reason the photo makes me think of D-size batteries in bulk.
That's a broad brush you paint men with there.
It's near the end. Her Mom became a Christian first. Dawn was introduced to the writings of G. K. Chesterton in 1996, and became a Christian in 1999. She became a Catholic a year or two ago.
What's so terrible about not kissing?
It isn't going to hurt anyone. No reason to be insulting about it.
On the second page of the Times article she describes a conversion process in which she begins reading about Christianity and then embraces Catholicism.
Speaking of names, how about Dick Heimen. Real name, he's the CEO of Lithia Motors.
Is "the correct amount" measured by an objective standard, or by the subjective standard of "the amount you can handle"?
If the standard is entirely subjective, then why are you advising others regarding "the correct amount"? You've contradicted yourself.
The purpose of the human reproductive system is reproduction.
The purpose of intercourse is two-fold: reproduction and the unity of the spouses. The unity of the spouses is critical to the proper rearing of children.
This is simply the order of nature.
Conversely, promiscuity is marked by sadness, illness and destruction.
"It's not what you do, it's how you make sense of it that matters."
Isn't that the definition of moral relativism? Do you believe that her former lifestyle would be all right so long as she "felt good" about it? That sounds much like the APA definition of some sexual issues as being a "mental illness" only if the perpetrator felt bad about it. What Dawn has said is that perhaps there are sound reasons why certain philosophies or lifestyles really aren't what is best in the long run, or for some members of society as opposed to others. The free sex lifestyle has been great for a lot of males but disasterous for many women. Is she somehow a moral tyrant for pointing that out?
If Dawn has found a lifestyle that now suits her and makes her feel better, doesn't that fit your relativistic philosophy? Why do you resent her choice? Just because she has written a book that contradicts your own choices? Hundreds of people write books every year urging us to consider their advice on lifestyles, investing, diet, dress, grammar, etc., etc. I am not threatened by such books and I don't believe they are trying to impose their choices on me. I see the various options, decide what is best for me, and go on.
Chill out. If you truly feel good about your own choices, you would not be threatened by others who don't choose the same path. Ever stop to think maybe you could use some couch time, or confessional time, on a regular basis? I know I do.
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.