What meaning does marriage have in today's society?

[Lysistrata]

Ask any politician in this so called great nation and after they count the number of affairs they have had them that will tell you.

I love the latest: Greitens the two-times married, totally sanctified former Navy Seal doing his Fifty Shades of Grey thing in his basement.

 

[ding]

Sexual integrity in a marriage is a crucial component of it, without it is it even a marriage. And girls and women seem to doing everything in their power to live it up with their sexual wickedness. These rights men don't have, it's definitely mental sickness because these things cause pain to their boys and men, like fathers, sons, etc.

I don't get your post.

Is it marriage though? But only men seem to be bearing the brunt of this. Even religions punish men severely for these so called sexual misdeeds and women are left completely alone.

It has been men throughout history who have exhibited "sexual wickedness," i.e. enjoying sex outside of marriage with little or no punishment, and without any nasty names being called them, while religions have come after women and dealt out harsh punishments to them, even execution, for the same or lesser misconduct. What country are you in that the opposite has been true?

The interesting thing is that the gap has closed in promiscuity. I'm not certain it is a good thing.

I perceive it as a very good thing as it clears the way for an honest and open discussion between men, women, and religious leaders about how people should handle their sexual lives. This discussion has been overdue for centuries. While everyone (Christian variety) ostensibly is supposed to believe in no sex before marriage and faithfulness to the spouse thereafter. But men, while encouraging each other to break this code and congratulating those who do, have shoveled horseshit on women for the same or lesser misconduct.

Now we have a level playing field and can get real. What is "sexual morality"? Religious leaders must participate and speak up, given that they have been so loud and consistent that this is what God wants, but seem to have only actually admonished women and never men (as long as they are heterosexual). If this is what the supreme being really wants, and one has to follow this code or be turned away from Heaven, religious leaders have failed to tend to men's immortal souls. Otherwise, the religious angle with which women have traditionally been bombarded is bullshit and God has nothing to do with it.

If Stormy Daniels is not getting into heaven based on her sex life, neither is donald trump.

The real problem is the negative effects it has had on the women themselves.

The Lingering Psychological Effects of Multiple Sex Partners

Is There a Price to Pay for Promiscuity?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

You will note the references in the first article to the double standard and its effects. Moreover, efforts by social/religious institutions to instill guilt and manipulate women emotionally are well known; it's psychological warfare, basically. Nobody attempts to manipulate men emotionally no matter what they do. But with women: oh!!!! You must feel awful about sleeping with this guy, you must feel awful about getting birth control because it means that you intended to sleep with this guy, you must feel horrible about having an abortion, blah, blah, blah. I notice that the right-wing jackasses are all of a sudden just SO interested in women's mental and physical health when they never were before, and only for limited purposes.

The issue of the morality of sexual acts is entirely separate. That is the first thing on the agenda: what is right and what is wrong, what is "morality," and how closely people intend to follow it. Remember that the "world's oldest profession" would not have survived without a substantial number of clients.

It's not funny that men never told we women about the "Jesus has forgiven me" instant get-out-of-jail-free card that well-known men keep using when they get caught. It apparently wipes the slate clean notwithstanding perhaps decades of sexually "immoral" acts, and all one has to do is snivel in front a microphone for a few minutes and hum a few bars of "Jesus Loves Me." Had we women only known how easy it is to "get right with God"! I
personally passed up a great opportunity just because of the claptrap I was fed as a child, while my male peers were out doing whatever they wished. They certainly did not seem very worried about "sin" or getting into heaven.

It's way overdue to discuss the real motives behind this mess and be honest with each other, round-table style.

It's almost as if you want to blame the negative affects on society rather than the behavior. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. If you think it is positive for women to follow men's failed behaviors, then go for it. I can't imagine any society which valued promiscuity as a successful behavior would be a society worth living in.

 

[ding]

By divorce you mean? Isn't divorce a sign that marriage doesn't work, why even marry if you know it'll end up in divorce? Maybe the church should start refusing to marry couple, if the girl or woman involved is not a virgin. So who is responsible for a child's suffering, in this example, Anna Faith's son? Women put their sons in a situation which a man can never put his daughter in.

Divorce is only one of the consequences.

No, girls and women were always in the lead in promiscuity, this biased shows your deep hatred of men, you are deliberately not focusing on the girls and women involved in promiscuity. Even in olden days if a man was involved in promiscuity, it was mostly with women, so don't these women count? For as many men, there were probably more women.

The data says otherwise.

 

[CounterView]

Well, women certainly did not set it up, given that it clearly puts them at a distinct disadvantage. When was it made law that one cannot blame someone for something that they actually did?
Read some of what the nasty crew of ancient bitch-boys who came to be revered as the "fathers of the [Christian] church wrote about women, who were kept illiterate in those days and couldn't fight back. Read some Turtullian, for instance:

Tertullian, the founder of Western theology, said in A.D. 22: “Woman is a temple built over a sewer, the gateway to the devil. Woman, you are the devil’s doorway. You should always go in mourning and in rags.”
​

Are These Sexist Quotes By Catholic Saints Real?

These so called "church fathers" actually were disgusting little bitches.

Please explain why men want to marry a totally sexually inexperienced woman, and yet will bed just about anyone and then, after sharing a bed with a woman, will call her all sorts of vile names.

I would love to see a survey of every adult person in the U.S. as to whether s/he ever had non-marital sex. It would be a real hoot.

Women didn't set it up? Women act in ways and manipulate people to their ends which are not obvious. In the past, women profited from madonna/whore discrimination, it allowed them to lead their lives like ladies. These days with the Internet, hiding their sexual misdeeds is becoming difficult(maybe impossible) and women have brought down men to a sexually submissive state, they daren't even care, so men accept even if she is whore.

It's almost as if you want to blame the negative affects on society rather than the behavior. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. If you think it is positive for women to follow men's failed behaviors, then go for it. I can't imagine any society which valued promiscuity as a successful behavior would be a society worth living in.

Society has a large portion of the blame to take, women aren't followers, they are the leaders in promiscuous behavior, they get men to pursue and sleep with them. In every society these days, there is rampant promiscuity, and men have been brought and made sexually submissive that they accept female's sexual wickedness.

Divorce is only one of the consequences.

Selective replying, why didn't you reply to the other parts of my reply? What are the other consequences, you wrote one suffers for their bad decisions, what bad decision would a child have done for him to suffer from his mother's sexual adventures?

The data says otherwise.

What data? Every time a man engaged in promiscuity, it was mostly likely with a woman, she got him to do sexual things to her, like that many other women exist, and each woman would have had at least more than one man(if not many more sexual partners than a man could ever dream), so women are the leaders in promiscuity.

 

[Lysistrata]

It has been men throughout history who have exhibited "sexual wickedness," i.e. enjoying sex outside of marriage with little or no punishment, and without any nasty names being called them, while religions have come after women and dealt out harsh punishments to them, even execution, for the same or lesser misconduct. What country are you in that the opposite has been true?

The interesting thing is that the gap has closed in promiscuity. I'm not certain it is a good thing.

I perceive it as a very good thing as it clears the way for an honest and open discussion between men, women, and religious leaders about how people should handle their sexual lives. This discussion has been overdue for centuries. While everyone (Christian variety) ostensibly is supposed to believe in no sex before marriage and faithfulness to the spouse thereafter. But men, while encouraging each other to break this code and congratulating those who do, have shoveled horseshit on women for the same or lesser misconduct.

Now we have a level playing field and can get real. What is "sexual morality"? Religious leaders must participate and speak up, given that they have been so loud and consistent that this is what God wants, but seem to have only actually admonished women and never men (as long as they are heterosexual). If this is what the supreme being really wants, and one has to follow this code or be turned away from Heaven, religious leaders have failed to tend to men's immortal souls. Otherwise, the religious angle with which women have traditionally been bombarded is bullshit and God has nothing to do with it.

If Stormy Daniels is not getting into heaven based on her sex life, neither is donald trump.

The real problem is the negative effects it has had on the women themselves.

The Lingering Psychological Effects of Multiple Sex Partners

Is There a Price to Pay for Promiscuity?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

You will note the references in the first article to the double standard and its effects. Moreover, efforts by social/religious institutions to instill guilt and manipulate women emotionally are well known; it's psychological warfare, basically. Nobody attempts to manipulate men emotionally no matter what they do. But with women: oh!!!! You must feel awful about sleeping with this guy, you must feel awful about getting birth control because it means that you intended to sleep with this guy, you must feel horrible about having an abortion, blah, blah, blah. I notice that the right-wing jackasses are all of a sudden just SO interested in women's mental and physical health when they never were before, and only for limited purposes.

The issue of the morality of sexual acts is entirely separate. That is the first thing on the agenda: what is right and what is wrong, what is "morality," and how closely people intend to follow it. Remember that the "world's oldest profession" would not have survived without a substantial number of clients.

It's not funny that men never told we women about the "Jesus has forgiven me" instant get-out-of-jail-free card that well-known men keep using when they get caught. It apparently wipes the slate clean notwithstanding perhaps decades of sexually "immoral" acts, and all one has to do is snivel in front a microphone for a few minutes and hum a few bars of "Jesus Loves Me." Had we women only known how easy it is to "get right with God"! I
personally passed up a great opportunity just because of the claptrap I was fed as a child, while my male peers were out doing whatever they wished. They certainly did not seem very worried about "sin" or getting into heaven.

It's way overdue to discuss the real motives behind this mess and be honest with each other, round-table style.

It's almost as if you want to blame the negative affects on society rather than the behavior. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. If you think it is positive for women to follow men's failed behaviors, then go for it. I can't imagine any society which valued promiscuity as a successful behavior would be a society worth living in.

My comment had nothing to do with valuing promiscuity as a successful behavior. It had everything to do with society turning a blind eye toward promiscuity in one group while loudly and consistently condemning the same behavior in another group, effectively allowing men to have both a wife, who was expected to be faithful to him, and a woman or two or more on the side, while ignoring the question of what their own personal moral values were supposed to be.

Because of the blatant double standard regarding male and female sexual activity, which has never produced any discussion of men's "failed behavior" in this regard and has led to such dismissals of it as "sowing wild oats," society has never had the opportunity to have an open discussion regarding what our principles should be. Now that "everybody's doing it," we, men and women as a group, can get on with discussing whether non-marital sex is okay, whether sex as a financial transaction is okay, etc., without hypocrisy controlling the discussion.

I think that we need to get a workable definition of "promiscuity" from somewhere. One thing that really bothers me is that right-wingers seem to be pushing the stupid and insulting idea that everyone who is sexually active, except legally marrieds having sex with their spouses, is going around having sex with any human who is breathing. Most people pursue sexual activities with people with whom they have an established relationship. Those that "hook up" at closing time or have sex as a result of money changing hands are a distinct minority. Even when I was in college, I knew only a small minority of boys and girls who were playing musical beds. Therefore, I am really angry with the right-wingers portraying Americans as a bunch of whores.

 

[CounterView]

Lysistrata you haven't replied to my posts. Deliberately ignoring, or do you consider them not worth your time replying.

 

[koshergrl]

This was sparked off when I out of curiosity visited Anna Faith’s Twitter profile, Anna Faith is a popular cosplay artist, who is famous for cosplaying and looking very similar to Elsa from Frozen animated movie. When I visited her profile some months back she pinned a tweet to her Twitter profile, of what appears to be someone proposing to her, I’m guessing it is a real one and not a staged one(we can never know in this day and age).

When I saw this I remembered her scandal few months or an year ago, and wondered what kind of married life they possibly can have, her nude pics or clips exist on the internet, they would have been seen by many boys and men, even by her boyfriend’s(or fiance’s) friends(who may become his best men), relations(like brothers, cousins, fathers, uncles, etc), acquaintances, servants, delivery people, neighborhood shopkeeper, etc. These very people would be invited to their wedding if it were to take place, that in itself would be revolting and degrading to most boys and men,and after marriage, there would obviously be many family parties, etc where again those people and other people who may have seen them might visit, etc. When she gets a child, if it’s a boy, his friends who would be boys would see her nude pics or clips, when they become sexually curious and learn that their friend’s mother has a nude pics or clips of herself on the internet. So what is it, is this something which is common in their country? Or does she have some sexual mental sickness where she gets off over these kind of things. And in case they have a daughter, she would be spared of similarly mentally agonizing annoyance from her fiance, husband, father because girls and women are more self-obsessed to admire boys and men to take their nude pics or clips and share them around.

This is something which seems to be a common part of life in Western cultures, like Kate Winslet, Kim Kardashian, etc. I have never been to a western country so I’m very curious about this. Howdoes marriage work in such a setup, how does a child-parent relationship work in this setup? What meaning does a marriage have in such situations? There are also scenes in movies I think where married actresses do kissing scenes with actors who are not their husband.

Is this some mental sickness girls and women have developed? That they get their kicks by inflicting pain on their male relatives from their sexual activities?

What meaning does marriage have in this form of society?

Good question.

Marriage is an institution meant to protect women and children and provide for the good of society.

The anti-social pigs have done everything they can to degrade and destroy it..and as a result, the families in our culture have been decimated.

And yes is is a mental sickness.

 

[rightwinger]

Our First Lady was a nude model
Our President has been married three times and not been faithful to any of them

We obviously don’t care

 

[CounterView]

Good question.

Thank you for the compliment. From the posts I was getting I've been wondering if the society has worsened so much, these are considered trivials.

Marriage is an institution meant to protect women and children and provide for the good of society.

The anti-social pigs have done everything they can to degrade and destroy it..and as a result, the families in our culture have been decimated.

And yes is is a mental sickness.

Marriage is not supposed to protect men?

The anti-social pigs are female or male or both genders?

You do realize that mental sickness I'm talking is perpetrated by girls and women? Why don't girls and women speak out against it?

 

[Esmeralda]

I think you need to get back to the C19th mate.

I don't understand what C19th means.

The 1800s.

 

[BreezeWood]

I told you not to mention family, boy.

You stupid son of a bitch, your mother is a walking talking shitbag and she must eat you to rid the world of scumbags like you.

.

You stupid son of a bitch, your mother is a walking talking shitbag and she must eat you to rid the world of scumbags like you.

have they warned you it is against forum rules to disparage the family of a member - irregardless you need a lesson in manners when conversing in the Western world.

 

[Esmeralda]

I told you not to mention family, boy.

You stupid son of a bitch, your mother is a walking talking shitbag and she must eat you to rid the world of scumbags like you.

It is against forum rules to mention another poster's family.

 

[CounterView]

I told you not to mention family, boy.

You stupid son of a bitch, your mother is a walking talking shitbag and she must eat you to rid the world of scumbags like you.

.

You stupid son of a bitch, your mother is a walking talking shitbag and she must eat you to rid the world of scumbags like you.

have they warned you it is against forum rules to disparage the family of a member - irregardless you need a lesson in manners when conversing in the Western world.

No, they haven't. Don't teach me manners, when you people yourselves do it. Go to any thread and you'll plenty of examples calling people's mother's whores and many other things. What they are doing is crossing all lines of decency, so I feel justified in writing this.

I told you not to mention family, boy.

You stupid son of a bitch, your mother is a walking talking shitbag and she must eat you to rid the world of scumbags like you.

It is against forum rules to mention another poster's family.

I didn't know, I didn't read the ToS of this forum.

Whatever maybe the truth, I feel justified in writing what I did to Unkotare because of what they were doing. Don't dish out what you don't like, don't do it.

 

[Esmeralda]

I told you not to mention family, boy.

You stupid son of a bitch, your mother is a walking talking shitbag and she must eat you to rid the world of scumbags like you.

.

You stupid son of a bitch, your mother is a walking talking shitbag and she must eat you to rid the world of scumbags like you.

have they warned you it is against forum rules to disparage the family of a member - irregardless you need a lesson in manners when conversing in the Western world.

No, they haven't. Don't teach me manners, when you people yourselves do it. Go to any thread and you'll plenty of examples calling people's mother's whores and many other things. What they are doing is crossing all lines of decency, so I feel justified in writing this.

I told you not to mention family, boy.

You stupid son of a bitch, your mother is a walking talking shitbag and she must eat you to rid the world of scumbags like you.

It is against forum rules to mention another poster's family.

I didn't know, I didn't read the ToS of this forum.

Whatever maybe the truth, I feel justified in writing what I did to Unkotare because of what they were doing. Don't dish out what you don't like, don't do it.

You are not foreign. You're a fake. A troll.

 

[CounterView]

You are not foreign. You're a fake. A troll.

I've never set foot in America. I don't know what you mean by fake. Troll in what way, I'm a human being who feels pain and anger, being aware of this nature, they are deliberately using that to abuse me and provoke and I'm going to react in the exact way I did.

 

[Lysistrata]

Lysistrata you haven't replied to my posts. Deliberately ignoring, or do you consider them not worth your time replying.

I don't consider them worthy of a reply. You are somehow trying to lay blame on women, which I think is the result of an ingrained misogynist mindset that claims that it is women who have a "mental sickness" regarding the exercise of sexuality, implying that men do not. For instance, your comment in #44 that:

Society has a large portion of the blame to take, women aren't followers, they are the leaders in promiscuous behavior, they get men to pursue and sleep with them. In every society these days, there is rampant promiscuity, and men have been brought and made sexually submissive that they accept female's
sexual wickedness. ​

is patently absurd. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with US history. During the "Gold Rush" to the western states, only men went, and then anxiously awaited the arrival of women. Soldiers during our Civil War, having been out in the field by themselves, descended on cities looking for women they could pay to have sex with them. How can women have gotten men to pursue and sleep with them when no women were even present? I've sat by myself reading a book or studying, only to look up when some guy slid into the seat next to me and started trying to talk and flirt with me. I obviously did nothing to compel his behavior.

Also, check your definition of "promiscuity."

I am trying to encourage thoughtful dialogue between heterosexuals of both sexes that hopefully would result in some kind of consensus as to where we all are on the issue of what is right and what is wrong in terms of an individual's exercise of sexual agency.

This is all you get as a reply to your outrageously misogynist assertions.

 

[Esmeralda]

Lysistrata you haven't replied to my posts. Deliberately ignoring, or do you consider them not worth your time replying.

I don't consider them worthy of a reply. You are somehow trying to lay blame on women, which I think is the result of an ingrained misogynist mindset that claims that it is women who have a "mental sickness" regarding the exercise of sexuality, implying that men do not. For instance, your comment in #44 that:

Society has a large portion of the blame to take, women aren't followers, they are the leaders in promiscuous behavior, they get men to pursue and sleep with them. In every society these days, there is rampant promiscuity, and men have been brought and made sexually submissive that they accept female's
sexual wickedness. ​

is patently absurd. Perhaps you are unfamiliar with US history. During the "Gold Rush" to the western states, only men went, and then anxiously awaited the arrival of women. Soldiers during our Civil War, having been out in the field by themselves, descended on cities looking for women they could pay to have sex with them. How can women have gotten men to pursue and sleep with them when no women were even present? I've sat by myself reading a book or studying, only to look up when some guy slid into the seat next to me and started trying to talk and flirt with me. I obviously did nothing to compel his behavior.

Also, check your definition of "promiscuity."

I am trying to encourage thoughtful dialogue between heterosexuals of both sexes that hopefully would result in some kind of consensus as to where we all are on the issue of what is right and what is wrong in terms of an individual's exercise of sexual agency.

This is all you get as a reply to your outrageously misogynist assertions.

He's a shit stirrer, nothing else. A troll.

 

[ding]

The interesting thing is that the gap has closed in promiscuity. I'm not certain it is a good thing.

I perceive it as a very good thing as it clears the way for an honest and open discussion between men, women, and religious leaders about how people should handle their sexual lives. This discussion has been overdue for centuries. While everyone (Christian variety) ostensibly is supposed to believe in no sex before marriage and faithfulness to the spouse thereafter. But men, while encouraging each other to break this code and congratulating those who do, have shoveled horseshit on women for the same or lesser misconduct.

Now we have a level playing field and can get real. What is "sexual morality"? Religious leaders must participate and speak up, given that they have been so loud and consistent that this is what God wants, but seem to have only actually admonished women and never men (as long as they are heterosexual). If this is what the supreme being really wants, and one has to follow this code or be turned away from Heaven, religious leaders have failed to tend to men's immortal souls. Otherwise, the religious angle with which women have traditionally been bombarded is bullshit and God has nothing to do with it.

If Stormy Daniels is not getting into heaven based on her sex life, neither is donald trump.

The real problem is the negative effects it has had on the women themselves.

The Lingering Psychological Effects of Multiple Sex Partners

Is There a Price to Pay for Promiscuity?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

You will note the references in the first article to the double standard and its effects. Moreover, efforts by social/religious institutions to instill guilt and manipulate women emotionally are well known; it's psychological warfare, basically. Nobody attempts to manipulate men emotionally no matter what they do. But with women: oh!!!! You must feel awful about sleeping with this guy, you must feel awful about getting birth control because it means that you intended to sleep with this guy, you must feel horrible about having an abortion, blah, blah, blah. I notice that the right-wing jackasses are all of a sudden just SO interested in women's mental and physical health when they never were before, and only for limited purposes.

The issue of the morality of sexual acts is entirely separate. That is the first thing on the agenda: what is right and what is wrong, what is "morality," and how closely people intend to follow it. Remember that the "world's oldest profession" would not have survived without a substantial number of clients.

It's not funny that men never told we women about the "Jesus has forgiven me" instant get-out-of-jail-free card that well-known men keep using when they get caught. It apparently wipes the slate clean notwithstanding perhaps decades of sexually "immoral" acts, and all one has to do is snivel in front a microphone for a few minutes and hum a few bars of "Jesus Loves Me." Had we women only known how easy it is to "get right with God"! I
personally passed up a great opportunity just because of the claptrap I was fed as a child, while my male peers were out doing whatever they wished. They certainly did not seem very worried about "sin" or getting into heaven.

It's way overdue to discuss the real motives behind this mess and be honest with each other, round-table style.

It's almost as if you want to blame the negative affects on society rather than the behavior. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. If you think it is positive for women to follow men's failed behaviors, then go for it. I can't imagine any society which valued promiscuity as a successful behavior would be a society worth living in.

My comment had nothing to do with valuing promiscuity as a successful behavior. It had everything to do with society turning a blind eye toward promiscuity in one group while loudly and consistently condemning the same behavior in another group, effectively allowing men to have both a wife, who was expected to be faithful to him, and a woman or two or more on the side, while ignoring the question of what their own personal moral values were supposed to be.

Because of the blatant double standard regarding male and female sexual activity, which has never produced any discussion of men's "failed behavior" in this regard and has led to such dismissals of it as "sowing wild oats," society has never had the opportunity to have an open discussion regarding what our principles should be. Now that "everybody's doing it," we, men and women as a group, can get on with discussing whether non-marital sex is okay, whether sex as a financial transaction is okay, etc., without hypocrisy controlling the discussion.

I think that we need to get a workable definition of "promiscuity" from somewhere. One thing that really bothers me is that right-wingers seem to be pushing the stupid and insulting idea that everyone who is sexually active, except legally marrieds having sex with their spouses, is going around having sex with any human who is breathing. Most people pursue sexual activities with people with whom they have an established relationship. Those that "hook up" at closing time or have sex as a result of money changing hands are a distinct minority. Even when I was in college, I knew only a small minority of boys and girls who were playing musical beds. Therefore, I am really angry with the right-wingers portraying Americans as a bunch of whores.

I think THEY would have been much better off if women had never followed suit.

 

[Lysistrata]

I perceive it as a very good thing as it clears the way for an honest and open discussion between men, women, and religious leaders about how people should handle their sexual lives. This discussion has been overdue for centuries. While everyone (Christian variety) ostensibly is supposed to believe in no sex before marriage and faithfulness to the spouse thereafter. But men, while encouraging each other to break this code and congratulating those who do, have shoveled horseshit on women for the same or lesser misconduct.

Now we have a level playing field and can get real. What is "sexual morality"? Religious leaders must participate and speak up, given that they have been so loud and consistent that this is what God wants, but seem to have only actually admonished women and never men (as long as they are heterosexual). If this is what the supreme being really wants, and one has to follow this code or be turned away from Heaven, religious leaders have failed to tend to men's immortal souls. Otherwise, the religious angle with which women have traditionally been bombarded is bullshit and God has nothing to do with it.

If Stormy Daniels is not getting into heaven based on her sex life, neither is donald trump.

The real problem is the negative effects it has had on the women themselves.

The Lingering Psychological Effects of Multiple Sex Partners

Is There a Price to Pay for Promiscuity?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

You will note the references in the first article to the double standard and its effects. Moreover, efforts by social/religious institutions to instill guilt and manipulate women emotionally are well known; it's psychological warfare, basically. Nobody attempts to manipulate men emotionally no matter what they do. But with women: oh!!!! You must feel awful about sleeping with this guy, you must feel awful about getting birth control because it means that you intended to sleep with this guy, you must feel horrible about having an abortion, blah, blah, blah. I notice that the right-wing jackasses are all of a sudden just SO interested in women's mental and physical health when they never were before, and only for limited purposes.

The issue of the morality of sexual acts is entirely separate. That is the first thing on the agenda: what is right and what is wrong, what is "morality," and how closely people intend to follow it. Remember that the "world's oldest profession" would not have survived without a substantial number of clients.

It's not funny that men never told we women about the "Jesus has forgiven me" instant get-out-of-jail-free card that well-known men keep using when they get caught. It apparently wipes the slate clean notwithstanding perhaps decades of sexually "immoral" acts, and all one has to do is snivel in front a microphone for a few minutes and hum a few bars of "Jesus Loves Me." Had we women only known how easy it is to "get right with God"! I
personally passed up a great opportunity just because of the claptrap I was fed as a child, while my male peers were out doing whatever they wished. They certainly did not seem very worried about "sin" or getting into heaven.

It's way overdue to discuss the real motives behind this mess and be honest with each other, round-table style.

It's almost as if you want to blame the negative affects on society rather than the behavior. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. If you think it is positive for women to follow men's failed behaviors, then go for it. I can't imagine any society which valued promiscuity as a successful behavior would be a society worth living in.

My comment had nothing to do with valuing promiscuity as a successful behavior. It had everything to do with society turning a blind eye toward promiscuity in one group while loudly and consistently condemning the same behavior in another group, effectively allowing men to have both a wife, who was expected to be faithful to him, and a woman or two or more on the side, while ignoring the question of what their own personal moral values were supposed to be.

Because of the blatant double standard regarding male and female sexual activity, which has never produced any discussion of men's "failed behavior" in this regard and has led to such dismissals of it as "sowing wild oats," society has never had the opportunity to have an open discussion regarding what our principles should be. Now that "everybody's doing it," we, men and women as a group, can get on with discussing whether non-marital sex is okay, whether sex as a financial transaction is okay, etc., without hypocrisy controlling the discussion.

I think that we need to get a workable definition of "promiscuity" from somewhere. One thing that really bothers me is that right-wingers seem to be pushing the stupid and insulting idea that everyone who is sexually active, except legally marrieds having sex with their spouses, is going around having sex with any human who is breathing. Most people pursue sexual activities with people with whom they have an established relationship. Those that "hook up" at closing time or have sex as a result of money changing hands are a distinct minority. Even when I was in college, I knew only a small minority of boys and girls who were playing musical beds. Therefore, I am really angry with the right-wingers portraying Americans as a bunch of whores.

I think THEY would have been much better off if women had never followed suit.

Who is "they"? Men? Right-wingers? Americans are almost evenly split between men and women. Let each tend to their own and refrain from patronizing.

 

[ding]

The real problem is the negative effects it has had on the women themselves.

The Lingering Psychological Effects of Multiple Sex Partners

Is There a Price to Pay for Promiscuity?

http://s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2003/pdf/Bookofcharts.pdf

You will note the references in the first article to the double standard and its effects. Moreover, efforts by social/religious institutions to instill guilt and manipulate women emotionally are well known; it's psychological warfare, basically. Nobody attempts to manipulate men emotionally no matter what they do. But with women: oh!!!! You must feel awful about sleeping with this guy, you must feel awful about getting birth control because it means that you intended to sleep with this guy, you must feel horrible about having an abortion, blah, blah, blah. I notice that the right-wing jackasses are all of a sudden just SO interested in women's mental and physical health when they never were before, and only for limited purposes.

The issue of the morality of sexual acts is entirely separate. That is the first thing on the agenda: what is right and what is wrong, what is "morality," and how closely people intend to follow it. Remember that the "world's oldest profession" would not have survived without a substantial number of clients.

It's not funny that men never told we women about the "Jesus has forgiven me" instant get-out-of-jail-free card that well-known men keep using when they get caught. It apparently wipes the slate clean notwithstanding perhaps decades of sexually "immoral" acts, and all one has to do is snivel in front a microphone for a few minutes and hum a few bars of "Jesus Loves Me." Had we women only known how easy it is to "get right with God"! I
personally passed up a great opportunity just because of the claptrap I was fed as a child, while my male peers were out doing whatever they wished. They certainly did not seem very worried about "sin" or getting into heaven.

It's way overdue to discuss the real motives behind this mess and be honest with each other, round-table style.

It's almost as if you want to blame the negative affects on society rather than the behavior. Failed behaviors naturally lead to failure. If you think it is positive for women to follow men's failed behaviors, then go for it. I can't imagine any society which valued promiscuity as a successful behavior would be a society worth living in.

My comment had nothing to do with valuing promiscuity as a successful behavior. It had everything to do with society turning a blind eye toward promiscuity in one group while loudly and consistently condemning the same behavior in another group, effectively allowing men to have both a wife, who was expected to be faithful to him, and a woman or two or more on the side, while ignoring the question of what their own personal moral values were supposed to be.

Because of the blatant double standard regarding male and female sexual activity, which has never produced any discussion of men's "failed behavior" in this regard and has led to such dismissals of it as "sowing wild oats," society has never had the opportunity to have an open discussion regarding what our principles should be. Now that "everybody's doing it," we, men and women as a group, can get on with discussing whether non-marital sex is okay, whether sex as a financial transaction is okay, etc., without hypocrisy controlling the discussion.

I think that we need to get a workable definition of "promiscuity" from somewhere. One thing that really bothers me is that right-wingers seem to be pushing the stupid and insulting idea that everyone who is sexually active, except legally marrieds having sex with their spouses, is going around having sex with any human who is breathing. Most people pursue sexual activities with people with whom they have an established relationship. Those that "hook up" at closing time or have sex as a result of money changing hands are a distinct minority. Even when I was in college, I knew only a small minority of boys and girls who were playing musical beds. Therefore, I am really angry with the right-wingers portraying Americans as a bunch of whores.

I think THEY would have been much better off if women had never followed suit.

Who is "they"? Men? Right-wingers? Americans are almost evenly split between men and women. Let each tend to their own and refrain from patronizing.

Women.