<p>Underlying a lot of these posts is the notion that once someone gets used to having sex with no/little emotional involvement that they can never have a committed loving relationship. This presumes that the attaction of casual sex, once someone is down that road, is too poweful for most people to move on to more mature, loving realtionships.</p>
<p>I don’t buy it. Sure, some people never mature in that way, but most people in the situation do.</p>
<p>Wow, I love getting attacked all the time, makes my day</p>
<p>And I still ask, when in our nation’s history have we had a time that is described as the ideal when it comes to relationships between men and women, when everyone was kind, and gentle, an respectful to each other in ALL arenas, because if you want it in relationships, then kindness must extend to all relationships and people</p>
<p>I ask because obviouslly some people feel there was such a time, and that our society has spiraled downward.</p>
<p>My point is that when you have people judging others for their sexual behavior with other adults, there are many other issues in society</p>
<p>I was listening to a program yesterday, about women in the 1950s who had kids out of wedlock- they were spit on, things were thrown at them, they were “forced” to give up their children (in some cases adoption was the best idea, in others, I think the 40 year old woman probably would have been a good mom), they were forced to quit school, or were kicked out, they moved far from home for the duration of the pregnancy, all because society judged them tramps and all the names the jlauer has used- all because they weren’t good girls and had the unfortunate luck to get pregnant, while the men, well, they just moved on</p>
<p>many of these woman had few sexual encounters, but one was enough, and society was very cruel to these women giving birth</p>
<p>that is what HAS happened, and this was during the wonderful time of the fifties were virginty was the ideal (I guess) but cruelty was tolerated</p>
<p>In Ireland in the 60’s the society was just as cruel, if not crueler, by banishing girls for being “free” with their favors</p>
<p>Of course sex should be in loving caring relationships as an ideal, but human nature has people make mistakes and errors in judgement</p>
<p>To many, having sex once was enough to have a girl banished, and I see in some of the posters here that same, if not with the same consequnces, that same judgement</p>
<p>Jlauer stated that when women sleep with men, then it is the women’s fault men expect sex from women all the time, as well, she said that men can’t be blamed for wanting sex because they no longer have the inner strenght and judgement to say, well, gee, not ALL women are like that…so yes, she did blame both sides- women for being “sluts” and men for not thinking all women for that way</p>
<p>I really don’t care if you agree with anything I say</p>
<p>I do want to know if your daughter came home pregnant, would you banish her, make her leave school, like they did in the wonderful 50’s?</p>
<p>I didn’t realize anyone even used the word “slut” in 2006. It’s offensive for sure!</p>
<p>I got a random email from eHarmony - here’s what their founder Dr. Warren, a marriage counselor, has to say about spending time with someone before marriage to lessen the risk:</p>
<p>"In terms of issues like engagement and marriage, I do have some firm ideas that have taken root over thirty-five years of premarriage and marriage counseling. When youve met someone who is compatible with you and who shares a lively sense of chemistry, your goal is to spend time with that person in a wide variety of life situations. You want to observe how this person acts when he or she is happy, tired, angry, frustrated, sad and excited. You want a very broad set of shared experiences to inform your decision of what it would be like to be married to this person. </p>
<p>This is the reason that people who date for a very short period before getting married often run into trouble. They simply dont know enough about their spouses. In the past, I have suggested that couples spend at least two years dating before they marry. I have come to believe that couples who meet on eHarmony may not need that much time, especially if they live in the same city. However, even eHarmony couples need to move slowly and build a deep well of shared experience before they consider marriage. If youre willing to take this time and see your potential mate in a wide variety of life situations, you greatly lessen the chance that youll be surprised after the wedding."</p>
<p>eHarmony plug aside, I do think this is a sensible approach.</p>
<p>Irishbird
SJmom
</p>
<p>Huh?</p>
<p>Casual sex without emotional attachment and a real caring relationship.</p>
<p>
Is this what you don’t understand, Alumother?</p>
<p>What is meant by SEXUAL EXPERIENCE?..please, I have asked a few times, and no one will tell me what they are referring to when they talk about relationships</p>
<p>Touching, kissing (cause kissing can be a sexual experience), petting, oral, anal, vaginal intercourse, where is that line drawn when it comes to sexual experience…is it anything that turns someone on, it is anything flesh to flesh</p>
<p>I am not being silly or trite, i would like to know what irishbird is referring to- boys and girls will do lots of stuff, but not have intercourse and still claim the “virgin” title, so what are the parametors and how honest is someone being who has done “everything but” when talking about virginity and experience</p>
<p>What about masturbation, that is a sexual experience</p>
<p>We have seen that the definition of sex is varied, and many kids say, well, no sex, if its just oral, so, my very serious question is this:</p>
<p>What sexual experience? What line is crossed PHYSICALLY to call someone promiscuous? What activities?</p>
<p>Is a person who has had sexual intercourse with 5 men more promiscuous than someone who has had oral sex with 7?</p>
<p>By casual sex, I mean “pants-optional” and on Fridays “jeans-optional”.</p>
<p>Hope that clears things up.</p>
<p>Regards,
The Management</p>
<p>CGM: for me sexual experience means anything like fondling, mutual masterbation, oral sex or intercourse. I never thought that I needed to have vast amounts of experience (with multiple partners) in any of those practices prior to being married. I guess I figured I’d “know what to do” when I decided I really loved someone enough to be intimate with them!
I would imagine that others will define it in their own way based on their values and upbringing.
It just seems to me that alot of the casual sex college students engage in doesn’t seem to involve much ‘love’ or even committed relationships at all.</p>
<p>cgm, I’m not sure why you want a precise definition of what is OK and what is not. I think most of us–whether for or against premarital sex–realize that there is a broad spectrum of sexual experiences, and that there is no way we can define down to the last detail what is right or wrong. That will vary from individual to individual. And a lot of it will depend upon the relationship and level of commitment. I don’t think anyone here is trying to put out a precise definition that they feel everyone should follow.</p>
<p>There are clearly those who believe that what the world needs now is more sex (but re another thread, not more children), it is, in this view, liberating; still, there are those who believe that what the world really needs now are more responsible caring relationships that are not hinged, wagered and risked in the casual exchange of sex though it is, apparently, the sexy thing to do, the fashion of the time.</p>
<p>The first, I believe, is an ideological outcome of the sexual nihilism of the 60sthat is, it doesnt matter, so why not?the other seems based on common-sense and personal experience. Or perhaps the progressive advocates of casual hook-ups and multiple partners would like to share all the wonderful experiences they have derived after partners 16, 23, 24 and 25.</p>
<p>I also hate the word slut; but then, there is a reason why we all recoil at the word and what it graphically refers to.</p>
<p>I didn’t get how the parallel sentence construction of opening your pants vs. opening your heart was beautifully put. I thought it was vulgar. More so than explicit sexual literature in many cases.</p>
<p><em>She says, throwing hat into the ring and then retreating</em></p>
<p>“Sex iS dirty, if you are doing it right.” (the late great Rodney Dangerfield)</p>
<p>Having sex with your pants on–now that’s vulgar.</p>
<p>Vulgar isn’t dirty. Vulgar is declasse:). Dirty is not declasse.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cabi/ivp/2002/00000038/00000002/art00009[/url]”>http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/cabi/ivp/2002/00000038/00000002/art00009</a></p>
<p>To citygirlsmom, re your post #102:</p>
<p>I find the term “slut” to be extremely offensive and I choose not to engage in discussion with people who insist on using such terms, just as I would not dialogue with people who rely on racial or cultural slurs to make their point. (For example, I would not debate immigration law with someone who used the term “wetback”).</p>
<p>However, I don’t think Jlauer has ever used that term. The comments you attribute to Jlauer were made by another poster. </p>
<p>I disagree with many of Jlauer’s point of view on many issues – but I have always found her to be courteous and respectful in the way that she expresses them. </p>
<p>The comments that you are responding to were made by another poster. There is only one who has engaged in such invective on this thread - so please be careful not to stain all the posters with the same brush.</p>
<p>This what happens when people are judged. THis is disgusting, to put families out onto the street</p>
<p>Town Cracks Down On Unwed Couples
Black Jack, Mo., To Evict Unmarried Couples With Children From Homes</p>
<h2>BLACK JACK, Mo., May 17, 2006</h2>
<p>*(CBS/AP)
Quote</p>
<h2>“I’m just shocked. I really thought this would all be over, and we could go on with our lives.”</h2>
<p>Olivia Shelltrack
(CBS/AP)*The city council in Black Jack, Mo., has rejected a measure allowing unmarried couples with multiple children to live together. The mayor said those who fall into that category could soon face eviction. </p>
<p>Olivia Shelltrack and Fondrey Loving were denied an occupancy permit after moving into a home in this St. Louis suburb because they have three children and are not married.</p>
<p>You seem to judge many people–starting with anyone with a different opinion.</p>
<p>Re post #118: I think that’s unconstitutional: Moore vs. East Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494 (1977) - <a href=“http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/moore.html[/url]”>http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/conlaw/moore.html</a></p>