Posted on 05/26/2018 10:09:52 AM PDT by ebb tide
Ok.
It was a glib answer.
The problem of a hypersexualized culture with abortion leading to unintended consequences for both sexes, and for European civilization, is not only a product of the male imperative.
Men, unlike women, are not born with 400 or so eggs, which when they’re gone, they’re gone. Men produce gametes continuously for many years, and with polygamy men can lead quite large tribes or clans on that basis alone, presuming the opposite female imperative, which is to mate with as close to the leader of the pack as is feasible.
In a society where pregnancy risk from sex is high and monogamy is supported culturally, religiously, and legally, the number of pair-bonded couples is quite high. Yes, there is adultery, yes, there is homosexuality, and yes, there are wild women (sluts) and men who flaunt their natures (bounders), but these are not the norm. Under these circumstances, almost every man can have his little clan, and, protected by custom, the church, and the law, he can be reasonably sure those little children are his.
In our society (and Ireland’s, now) where pregnancy risk is zero, monogamy is hated and derided, and its enforcement by law is repealed, you have the opposite. The reason I chose the age bracket I did for women (18-23) is because these women have not quite copped on yet to the fact that while their sex is in ultra-high demand, the fact that a 6 can sleep with as many 10s as she wants, essentially on demand (whereas the converse for men is not even close to true), that the trade of her virtue for a “relationship”, never mind marriage, is not on the cards.
It’s curious that she does not see that the ACT, whose teleology is to give the high-value man children, becomes meaningless when children are not possible. It certainly appears to me (an old man) that women who engage in a very short term act vest it with all sorts of emotional meaning that their pump and dump male partners do not.
This is probably biological.
That one makes me curious too. Any other time in the Hebrew text we get a word translated “devils”, it’s “shud”, which means an evil spirit (e.g. Deuteronomy 32:17, Psalm 106:37).
Other Bible translations have rendered “sa’ir” (or “sa’irim”, the plural) as “goat demons”, “goat idols” or simply “goats”. The male goat apparently signified a major Egyptian deity of the city of Mendes, from which satyrs and the Greek god Pan were derived.
Tagline.
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.