What is YOUR definition of PROMISCUITY & How do you FEEL about it....

Parent Cafe
81

<p>My mom always talks about the repressive world she grew up in the 50s in the south…the fakeness, the abuse, the coveriing up of relationships, the cheating, all kinds of things that seem to be forgotten, how difficult it was for women…</p>

<p>And the pressure to get married to someone you didn’t love because of pregnancy, alcoholism among women, etc</p>

<p>This country didn’t give women the right to vote until the 1920’s, women couldn’t get certain jobs, etc</p>

<p>Was that respect?</p>

<p>What time in American history would you like us to return to that was a good time for men and women? What time was a truely fair time for women with regards to divorce laws, abuse, work, voting, etc</p>

<p>Please give me the decade you think we should model</p>

82

<p>Seems that the era of June Cleaver is where people are hankering to return.</p>

<p>Not me. No thank you.</p>

<p>Also, I graduated from high school in 1975 and I remember both pot use and sex, from certain segments of the class.</p>

83

<p>Buffy: Impulsive? Do you remember my ex-boyfriend, the vampire? I slept with him, he lost his soul, now my boyfriend’s gone forever, and the demon that wears his face is killing my friends. The next impulsive decision I make will involve my choice of dentures.
Willow: Okay, the Angel thing went badly, I’m on board with that, but that’s not your fault. And anyways, love isn’t always like that. Love can be… nice. </p>

<p>Giles: It’s devastating. He’s turned into a sixteen-year-old boy. Course, you’ll have to kill him.'</p>

<p>Xander: Wild monkey love or tender Sarah McLachlan love?'</p>

<p>Buffy: Love makes you do the wacky.</p>

<p>Cordelia: So does looking at guns make you wanna have sex?
Xander: I’m 17. Looking at <em>linoleum</em> makes me wanna have sex.</p>

84

<p>CGM: I NEVER advocated the return to a decade, complete with laws, regulations, and rights. That leads me to ask… are you completely irrational? No one has said a thing about not letting women vote; no one has said a thing about not letting women work. No one is advocating the return to a society in which women could not own property. Funny thing is, those are all LAWS. I’m sorry that you don’t know the difference between laws and social mores. </p>

<p>SJMom: I know what you mean about the mother/son thing. Brava for raising sons that you can be proud of. </p>

<p>Calmom: what venom? I wouldn’t expect a lawyer to conflate an opinionated person who stands her ground with a person who has issues. The OP asked a question; I answered it. Some posters thought that I’m mistaken or wrong - I am pointing out a facet of society that married women of an older generation are clearly missing. So I stood by ground - and you say that I have issues? Then again, I’ve seen a lot more condescension from women lawyers than from women engineers.</p>

<p>As for the slut definition - don’t dish it if you can’t take it, dahlin. Do you want to start with the personal attacks predicated on pretty thin assumptions? Because I can go there. No need to make too many guesses as to why a divorced women who dated later might be little uncomfortable with someone who doesn’t hesitate to call women on their bad behaviour.</p>

85

<p>Meredith Grey is pretty close to a slut with issues.</p>

86

<p>Aries, the venom is in your pejorative-laden post #61 (“I long for the day when one of your lovely daughters gets her butt dumped” – “your tramp girlfriends” - “the society that slut women created”) – and #68 where you essentially equated differing sexual norms with the rise of naziism yet characterized men “who have volunteered a shotgun and a shovel for men who act inappropriately” as “wonderful”. (Tolerance=bad; lynch mob violence=good ?)</p>

<p>As far as I am concerned the use of words like “slut” and “tramp” is unaccepable - these are no different than using racial slurs. You aren’t satisfied with maintaining your own view of sexuality, which harkens back to who knows when – you’ve got to go one step further and use gender-base epithets to smear anyone who doesn’t share your standards.</p>

87

<p>I graduated from high school in 1970; I remember girls dropping out at age 15 because they were pregnant. The big change in the 70’s was the idea that such girls should be allowed to finish school and get their diplomas – before that it wad pretty routine for them to be expelled. Then again, I used to work for a lawyer who got her law degree in the mid-60’s, and she was threatened with expulsion from law school for getting pregnant - and she was married at the time.</p>

88

<br>

<br>

<p>This behavior is wrong in any decade. No argument, here! No decade, culture or society has been completely free of sin, abuse, rape, murders and crime. Frankly, because of the fallen human nature, there will ALWAYS be some levels of horrible behavior. I think the thing is to look at times/places where these occurances were/are more rare. (I’m not saying that I know when that time was, either.)</p>

89

<br>

<br>

<p>At the time, she was lucky to have been accepted in the first place. Women were not easily accepted into professional programs.</p>

90

<p>sj mom: “I define promiscuity as having a sexual relationship without any emotional commitment. I’m not so naive as to think that my sons will marry without any experience, but I’d be disappointed if they had a series of meaningless flings.”</p>

<p>I probably would have a similar definition. I, too, do not expect my sons to be virgins when they marry, but I would also be disappointed with them if they became predators looking for free sex anywhere they could find it. I find such guys to be dishonest, because they will say (or imply) anything if they think it will get them sex.</p>

91

<p>My mom was a high school senior in a very small high school (50 grads maybe) in a small town around the year 1935. One of her classmates was pregnant and showing. She was allowed to finish her senior year, but was told by the high school admins not to attend the graduation ceremony. They senior class threatened to boycott it, and she was allowed to join her class for the ceremony. Yea for Mom and her friends!</p>

92

<p>I asked about the decade because I am trying to grasp what ideal we are looking for…when in human kind have we not had rude men, rude women, etc</p>

<p>Always has been, and with freedoms and rights, comes some yucky but legal behavior</p>

<p>So I wonder how we balance freedom, liberty, choices and some people values- on either side</p>

<p>My point was that during the time when women were “good girls” there were so many other parts of society that repressed them, and has been that way throughout history, how do you balance the two</p>

<p>When I see websites talking about modest dress so as to not entice men, and these little girls are covered head to toe, or swimwear for 10 year olds that is like something from the 1890’s I wonder what people are thinking</p>

<p>I wonder what people that think a 10 year is enticing to all adult men, I wonder about a skewed view of sexuality, that a 10 year old can be sexual to grown men and thus need to be covered up, so only the face is the focus, you have this end of the spectrum that I find very scary and disturbing</p>

<p>Then you have a step to the center, where well, no pants are allowed because that shows the woman is loose</p>

<p>A another move to the center, where okay pants are tolerable, but no neck</p>

<p>If you see my point, I don’t think having sexual contact with anything that breaths is smart, (and remember I am talking about adults even), I also think about the adults who think that an 8 year old is provacative if her knees show</p>

<p>Of course middle ground is best, either extreme is not healthy, but I tend to err an the side of adult choices and freedoms so long as it is safe and not hurting others, then to go the other side of the bell curve, which is a mentality that all sex is dirty, and that girls need to be covered and modest in all things</p>

93

<p>Oh, I have studied some of those Modest clothing sites. Truly, there is something in between bare bellies and “Hottie” on the tush, and Little House on the Prairie wear. </p>

<p>How about some nice Land’s End girls’ wear? Stylish, not provacative, but not provincial either!</p>

94

<p>

Ditto! I find it just extremely aggravating that people feel the need to polarize any discussion about gender. The choice is not between the 1950’s era of June Cleaver and Carrie on “Sex and the City.” I’m just in favor of a middle road, where sex is not recreational, and both men and women have respect and consideration for one another. What in the world is wrong with that?!!! It’s not Phyllis Schaffley vs. Gloria Steinem. It just seems to be impossible to have an interesting exchange of ideas in the Cafe without someone going ballistic.</p>

95

<p>Carrie’s not too bad. Samantha, on the other hand…</p>

96

<p>I think that a tricky challenge we parents face is raising our daughters to be strong, confident and independent while at the same time hoping they will be cautious about sexual involvement. Past generations of parents opted to keep daughters in line sexually by making sure they were meek and obedient.</p>

97

<p>Calmom,</p>

<p>I suggest you re-read CGM’s posts. The issues were:

  1. Does it hurt anyone if someone is promiscuous?<br>
    (Yes. See my posts as answer. Furthermore, since 40-50% of men cheat on their spouses, and most are doing it with another woman, the latter party’s actions will clearly hurt someone. 30-40% of women cheat on their spouses, too. Do you think that someone wakes up someday and cheats, or do you think this is a pattern of behaviour that starts with “socially acceptable” promiscuity? I think the latter, which is why this is not “victimless.”)</p>

<p>2) My choice in men.<br>
(My point was that CGM will think me a prude and a jerk-magnet until this happens to one of her daughters. It cannot be news to you that many people don’t care until it hits home. My sincere hope is that CGM realizes that there are consequences to the laissez-faire attitude towards sex. She probably will, someday - rare is the woman I know who has not gotten dumped for not putting out. So it’s okay for her to attack me and say that it’s all my fault for my choice in men, then say that blaming women is bad, but it’s not okay for me to point out that her D’s will go through this, too, and it’ll be one eye-opening experience for our lady in California. Double standard, anyone?)</p>

<p>As for equating with nazism… wow! I got a laugh out of that one. I simply meant that many men respect women and are willing to stand up for them. The accusation was that I think all men are pigs. I countered that, and you get on my case because I’m a neo-Nazi. Awww, cute! :slight_smile: </p>

<p>(Furthermore, if you don’t like it, then maybe you ought to consider that the FBI says that 98% of women are telling the truth but a small minority (some 10%) result in a conviction. A woman would have to be mental to get satisfaction through our current legal system, which is what differentiates it from a lynch mob, in which the courts were thoroughly biased towards the wronged parties anyway. We have a system in which there is effectively no consequence for rape. A local prosecutor says that she cannot remember a single case in her 12 years where they got a conviction when the man and the woman knew each other.) </p>

<p>As for not being content with my own view - funny how liberals think we’re all shoving our views down their throats and don’t realize they are doing the same to us. I have to live in this world, too - your views of sexuality are in my face, every day, but it’s okay - either because it’s the norm, so you don’t realize it, or because it’s liberal and therefore okay.</p>

<p>Again, re-read previous posts - I got slammed for my first post! So it’s okay for everyone to ask if me and my friends are crazy Christians, to say that no intelligent woman would go into marriage without having “experience,” and to say that I advocate the repeal of women’s rights, but heaven forbid I should, on a thread about promiscuity, say that a woman who has slept with 25 men is a slut. (Rolls eyes.) This makes me the judgmental one? </p>

<p>When CGM says that I blame women (never did) and hate men (never do), you get cranky at me for starting a gender war? Re-read my first post. I was pretty adamant that I’m equally harsh on both sides. But clearly, I’m starting a gender war. Oh boy! (Wait, can’t say that! Gender-based!)</p>

<p>I strongly suggest you re-read my first post to get an idea of where I’m coming from. Perhaps, as a lawyer, you’re used to ignoring evidence that isn’t favourable to your position, but, last time I checked, CGM did not hire to you to defend her or go on a smear campaign against me. </p>

<p>My definition of slut: any man or woman who has sex without emotional attachment; who has sex for its own sake; who lacks the self-respect and respect of intimacy to restrain himself. 25 partners is a pretty good example.</p>

<p>You’re ridiculous. I really hate having to explain stuff that I already said because someone chooses to mis-read it - or can’t help but mis-read it, based on her own experiences.</p>

<p>CGM:</p>

<p>Um, no, doesn’t fly. No one advocated returning to an era with different laws - in fact, I explicitly said that we should not regulate via laws but regulate, as a civilization, through social norms. Then you asked me if taxation would be a good way to deal with it, which, last time I checked, is a law. Not satisfied with my reply, you again asked if the laws should change. Never advocated that, explicitly advocated something else, but you don’t back off. That’s your reading comprehension issue, not mine.</p>

98

<p>Ariesathena: Is a woman who first has sex at 20 a slut? What about if she then has a long-standing relationship with one man/year for each of the next 25 years? Does she miraculously become a slut at man number 25? What about if she has a few very bad years where she sleeps with a lot of men and then gets some counseling and settles into a longterm relationship? Is she still a slut?</p>

<p>The point you miss is that “slut,” like “whore,” is such an emotionally loaded word that no one hears what you say after you use it. Plus, it’s not really what you want to say. What you want to say is quite clear: your definition is “any man or woman who has sex without emotional attachment; who has sex for its own sake; who lacks the self-respect and respect of intimacy to restrain himself”. With that definition, the number of partners is moot.</p>

99

<p>What I have heard regarding the casual sex and “hook-ups” and “friends with benefits” practiced by many college students today, really really saddens me.<br>
As I mentioned once to a co-worker “they will have plenty of practice opening their legs and their pants, but hardly any practice with opening their hearts.”<br>
I never really thought that a person needed to have sexual experience in order to be well-prepared for marriage, or a deep, committed relationship. I figured that most of the desire for sexual intimacy would come from knowing a person, caring for them, loving them well before we would get into bed together. To me that’s what building a relationship is all about AND THEN deciding if you want to become sexually intimate.
Nowadays, it seems that college students do it in reverse…hook up, be intimate, live together etc., and then slowly build a relationship (or not!)</p>

100

<p>Beautifully stated, Irishbird.</p>