What meaning does marriage have in today's society?

[Lysistrata]

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.

Maybe men would be better off if they had stopped their immorality by themselves. Refrain from patronizing. The double standard remains the overriding issue.

 

[ding]

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.

Maybe men would be better off if they had stopped their immorality by themselves. Refrain from patronizing. The double standard remains the overriding issue.

Agreed, but they didn't. The double standard didn't drive women to behave like men and behaving like men didn't harm men. It harmed women.

 

[BreezeWood]

.
liberation fidelity has only begun for women, not ensnared as unsought or inadmissible pregnancies ... in both domains of marriage and independence.

 

[Lysistrata]

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.

Maybe men would be better off if they had stopped their immorality by themselves. Refrain from patronizing. The double standard remains the overriding issue.

Agreed, but they didn't. The double standard didn't drive women to behave like men and behaving like men didn't harm men. It harmed women.

It's up to women to decide whether they've been harmed more than men. It's interesting for you to say that men were not harmed. Frankly, I think that anyone whose sexual behavior is out of control is suffering from psychological problems. How else would having physical intimacy with somebody that one doesn't know be acceptable to this individual?

Men actively used the double standard to place a special burden of guilt on women for behavior that they also engaged in without sharing that burden. The guilt burden would, of course, contribute to any harm caused. The main issue remains the double standard.

 

[Moonglow]

What meaning does marriage have in today's society?

Aggrevation..

 

[Slyhunter]

Marriage used to be special. The fags have changed that.

 

[Moonglow]

Marriage used to be special. The fags have changed that.

Did you marry a fag?

 

[yiostheoy]

Fools rush in where wise men never go,

But wise men never fall in love so how are they to know?

 

[ding]

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.

Maybe men would be better off if they had stopped their immorality by themselves. Refrain from patronizing. The double standard remains the overriding issue.

Agreed, but they didn't. The double standard didn't drive women to behave like men and behaving like men didn't harm men. It harmed women.

It's up to women to decide whether they've been harmed more than men. It's interesting for you to say that men were not harmed. Frankly, I think that anyone whose sexual behavior is out of control is suffering from psychological problems. How else would having physical intimacy with somebody that one doesn't know be acceptable to this individual?

Men actively used the double standard to place a special burden of guilt on women for behavior that they also engaged in without sharing that burden. The guilt burden would, of course, contribute to any harm caused. The main issue remains the double standard.

Statistics say otherwise.

 

[zaangalewa]

Marriage today? The best example for a marriage today is perhaps a Korean man who had married in Japan his bolster. Once was marriage the unity of male and female energy which creates together an unbreakable union of a spiritual human existence. Today marriage degraded to a kind of shareholder agreement.

 

[zaangalewa]

… But wise men never fall in love so how are they to know? …

Sokrates wife was Xanthippe. A very explosive mix. Good for all mankind. Only his comrades spoke bad about her - he never did. I guess he was not able to love a less emancipated woman than Xanthippe. Xanthippe was the mother of his wisdom too.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

It wasn't the 50 Shades of Grey thing that got him in trouble. It was taking pics of a naked woman without her permission, having an affair and doing some questionable fund raising.

 

[longknife]

You've never been to a Western country? C'mon, come clean, which shit sniffing country are you from?

Eat shit and die out.

I was fine with you until this. I will have nothing to do with you.

 

[WinterBorn]

The entire point of the OP is a throwback to the ridiculous idea that women should be virgins until marriage and men are horndogs that are expected to fuck anything female.

Stupid.

 

[Slyhunter]

The entire point of the OP is a throwback to the ridiculous idea that women should be virgins until marriage and men are horndogs that are expected to fuck anything female.

Stupid.

Well, when I was younger ...

 

[Taz]

Counterview, how many camels does a wife cost in your country?

 

[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.

It wasn't the 50 Shades of Grey thing that got him in trouble. It was taking pics of a naked woman without her permission, having an affair and doing some questionable fund raising.

Sorry. I wasn't quite clear. Taking pictures of a naked woman tied up is the reference I meant to make. I read that cheesy and extremely poorly-written novel when the hoopla about the then-upcoming film was due to come out, but it also was made clear that he would not do anything to her without her consent, and that he would stop doing whatever he was doing to her immediately if she used a code word to tell him to stop; that this was all play acting meant to heighten the pleasure of both.

It's the whole taking pictures without her permission and then threatening to use the pictures to blackmail her that got him into trouble, along with his use of the donor list of his organization, along with the fact that he supposedly was married to someone else, and, thus, had no business pursuing his pleasures outside of marriage, according to his moralizing supporters.

 

[WinterBorn]

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.

It wasn't the 50 Shades of Grey thing that got him in trouble. It was taking pics of a naked woman without her permission, having an affair and doing some questionable fund raising.

Sorry. I wasn't quite clear. Taking pictures of a naked woman tied up is the reference I meant to make. I read that cheesy and extremely poorly-written novel when the hoopla about the then-upcoming film was due to come out, but it also was made clear that he would not do anything to her without her consent, and that he would stop doing whatever he was doing to her immediately if she used a code word to tell him to stop; that this was all play acting meant to heighten the pleasure of both.

It's the whole taking pictures without her permission and then threatening to use the pictures to blackmail her that got him into trouble, along with his use of the donor list of his organization, along with the fact that he supposedly was married to someone else, and, thus, had no business pursuing his pleasures outside of marriage, according to his moralizing supporters.

That novel was a badly written piece of junk and universally trashed by the BDSM community. The girl was basically raped.

 

[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.

It wasn't the 50 Shades of Grey thing that got him in trouble. It was taking pics of a naked woman without her permission, having an affair and doing some questionable fund raising.

Sorry. I wasn't quite clear. Taking pictures of a naked woman tied up is the reference I meant to make. I read that cheesy and extremely poorly-written novel when the hoopla about the then-upcoming film was due to come out, but it also was made clear that he would not do " tto her without her consent, and that he would stop doing whatever he was doing to her immediately if she used a code word to tell him to stop; that this was all play acting meant to heighten the pleasure of both.

It's the whole taking pictures without her permission and then threatening to use the pictures to blackmail her that got him into trouble, along with his use of the donor list of his organization, along with the fact that he supposedly was married to someone else, and, thus, had no business pursuing his pleasures outside of marriage, according to his moralizing supporters.

That novel was a badly written piece of junk and universally trashed by the BDSM community. The girl was basically raped.

She was, in a sense. I take it as an example of what happens when one side has way, way more knowledge than the other side, sweetened with the outrageous "Cinderella" ending to this "saga" that they end up happily married, with a kid and another one on the way, she rules the rooster, with her beautiful husband on his knees decorating her with diamonds, mansions, and private jets. Yeah. Right.

This is why I can't stand the "Christian" and "abstinence only" movement, as it seems to be based on keeping girls ignorant andserve only to set up the vulnerable "Anastasia" types to be eaten by wolves, little lambs to the slaughter, by deliberately creating and maintaining a power imbalance, with the "dominants" trying to lay a veneer of "marriage" over the whole thing. It's a set-up. And I don't go for deliberate manipulations or set-ups.

Jimmy and Keesha can meet up, joke together, work together, and do whatever they wish in the bedroom, as long as they both enjoy themselves, and whatever they do is none of our business.

 

[CounterView]

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

You are a shit gobbling sewage insect.