<p>CGM, you derive a lot of pain from other people’s pain. Even people long dead and onto their eternal reward. That’s good…I guess…but I’m not sure what it has to do with sexual hooking-up and commitment. </p>
<p>Though, presumably, you do.</p>
<p>This has nothing to do with judging people…it has to do with what is good for real people working through their real lives.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So you know what is right for everyone?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So if your spouse lied to you and cheated on you, you wouldn’t feel the urge to leave them?</p>
<p>Everyone has small print. EVERYONE.</p>
<p>“So you know what is right for everyone?”</p>
<p>How about an encore:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Some people think some things are good, or better, in thinking so they say so, especially in an open discussion of the subject.</p>
<p>Hope that helps.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uh…huh.</p>
<p>Okay, what on earth do you mean by that?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t have an emotional playbook but I believe in commitment and forgiveness, mutually. But as I say, I don’t have a playbook; in matters of love, I am not given to be logical or precise. Love is not logical, as I understand, by definition… you silly.</p>
<p>As to urges that is apparently what gets you into trouble in the first place. Perhaps if this particular spouse was not morally reinforced by the word of the day, free-love (read: sex) they would be a little less attentive to their urges.</p>
<p>Life is complicated, they say; I hear it helps if you have a sense of right and wrong, and good and bad. Well see.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Just this:
I can’t know with apodictic certainty what is right or wrong for everyone. None can. However, I have an individual sense of good/bad, right/wrong. And in an open discussion of a topic, I’m liable to say so. Yikes!</p>
<p>As do you.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That’s just silly if the spouse is not any good to you. Why stay with a cheating spouse, or even worse, an abusive one?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>You’d be amazed how logical a relationship is, despite the romanticism built up around it. There’s a lot of politics, economics, and simple psychology that can be suprisingly easily qualified.</p>
<p>Then again, I find that after nearly 7 years, the dynamics of a relationship change in ways that few young romantics are really aware of, not out of any lack of intellect or emotional depth as a person, but out of sheer inexperience. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps. But as a man, I can attest to the fact that I’m an anomoly. Most men, especially at my age, are far more “instinctual” in their lifestyle. Having suffered through the occasional bout of hormonal stress, I can surely say that few women suffer from these urges. It’s much easier for a woman to say “oh, stop thinking about sex!” when she’s not hardwired to do so like a man.</p>
<p>Again, I’ve never acted on it, and probably never will. But I can tell you that without a doubt it SUCKS.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The problem is defining “right” and “wrong.” From what I’m told here in Japan, they believe they have successfully separated sex and love. I think they’re wrong, but then again, they think I’m wrong.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agreed. </p>
<p>However, I am apt to believe that there are logically understandable morals. I guess too much Rand for me in that case.</p>
<p>I don’t know if I have a definition of promiscuity if you are speaking of sexual behavior.
I think that anyone who does something for money- that goes against their values is a whore- whether it is something required by their job, like a politician or businessman, or whether it is someone who is locking themselves into a box- where they will trade their better judgement for money- and try and convince themselves it is worth it.
I know that some people have sex with others that they don’t feel any emotional connection to- and why you could argue they are too lazy to do it themselves- I could also argue that they perhaps have reasons that they don’t even know about.
I think that there is healthy sexual behavior- & unhealthy sexual behavior- and I would place having sex with people that you don’t know anything about and don’t plan on improving that as unhealthy- but I wouldn’t necessarily use the term promicious
( I realize that my definition would match others defintions- however because some have a much more narrowly defined use of the word- perhaps to mean anyone who has sex outside marriage- I don’t use it)</p>
<p>So looking at history, and people behaviors in the past, is a waste of time FS? Really?</p>
<p>Please show me that what people are describing here, a time when there was no premarital sex, no hanky panky, where everybody waited until marriage, etc, show me that period of time, so that we can see if it is even possible, show me that time in a very conservative America, when there where no girls in tight clothes, or girls in baggy clothes for that matter where sex out of marriage didn’t happen, where there were no diseases, not men or women cheating, no sexual experiences, no crossing that imagenary line</p>
<p>If you can show me that is how humans were and what model you would follow for relationships in the broadest way, please do</p>
<p>I ask this because sex does happen with people before they get married, has happened all through time, and when there was a time where we didn’t SEE it happening, there was oppression and repression of women- not voting, no property rights, etc</p>
<p>So, show me a model of the type of society you envision</p>
<p>And emeraldkitty made some great points…</p>
<p>“Please show me that what people are describing here, a time when there was no premarital sex, no hanky panky, where everybody waited until marriage, etc, show me that period of time, so that we can see if it is even possible”</p>
<p>In Puritan New England in the early 18th Century, approximately 2/3rds of women were pregnant before marriage. In fact, pregnancy was considered one of the signs that the marriage would be consecrated by God. An unfruitful marriage would be a sign of God’s disapproval. Hence the bundling boards and shared beds among unmarried couples. If the first “match” didn’t work out, more premarital sex, this time with different partners, was required. Premarital sex was not considered promiscuous; the only promiscuous sex was that not sanctioned by the community and family.</p>
<p>
Citygirlsmom – you seem to be the only one on this thread who is obsessed with the dichotomy of a time of purity vs. anything goes. I can’t recall any post that said everything was perfect in the past, and now everything is horrible. You, however, persist in makimg statements that tie everything to a particular political outlook. Many poster have made thoughtful, insightful comments regarding how they find that delicate line between abstinence and promiscuity. Others have not. By the way, it would be easier to understand your posts if you used punctuation. (meant as friendly advice from someone who may need reading glasses!)</p>
<p>I ask my question because people on this thread talk about societal issues they feel are happening today, and getting worse.</p>
<p>I am trying to point out that at no time was it how people want it, and at no time were there good girls and good boys only.</p>
<p>My point is that people what society to be a certain way, have pointed out if some people in society behave “loosely” (a paraphrase), then it creats confusion in other parts of society and this is a somehow a phenomenom that has just popped up, and it is attributed to skimpy clothes, women who sleep with guys, guys who then want all women to be that way, and that not have much, if any pre-marital sexual experiences will benefit society</p>
<p>I am trying to point out, that even in a time when the PERCEPTION that people weren’t having pre-marital relations, people were, it was just shunned to a degree, but it was very much happening.</p>
<p>As well, during times of “hiding” sex, women were repressed in society. There is a correlation.</p>
<p>As mini pointed out, even in Puritan New England, lots of people were having sex before marriage, deeply religious people</p>
<p>So, whether it is hidden or not, in every society, people are having sex before marriage, and in the societies where it is probably much less prevelant, women have very few rights, are seen as chattel, and must be covered.</p>
<p>Of course there are exceptions, but I would rather have a society where some people are having lots of pre-marital sex, where women have freedoms, than a society where women are judged for being sexual </p>
<p>If you look at history, when you look at recent times, when you look at countries througout the world, patterns tend to emerge</p>
<p>And I say, well, them Puritans talked a good game, but in reality, things were going on…</p>
<p>Having sex does not equal promiscuity. Few people have said that there should be absolutely zero premarital sex. But I can’t think of a time in American history where the concept of “hooking up”, “friends with benefits” or one-night stands was acceptable in society. That is reserved for today’s popular culture.</p>
<p>To alumother: sorry that you thought my flip remark was vulgar. To put it into context: about 5-6 yrs. ago, I said it to a co-worker who had been describing to me what “hooking” up was all about after she had served on college panel to discuss that issue. She was being asked to contribute from the side of a married woman, and what part sex plays within marriage. I believe the panel was sponsered by the psych. and soc. dept., philo. dept. and counseling center and campus ministry.
According to her the students described “hooking up” as getting together after a night of partying to have sex with someone, regardless of the level of their relationship, if any. It was also when I first heard the term “friends with benefits” i.e. someone who was specifically not a boy/girl friend, but with whom you would have sex periodically or whenever it suited you.
I personally was really shocked to hear all this, because there seemed to be very minimal emotional attachment tied to any of the college students’ sexual experiences. My co-worker described it as “they really didn’t seem to look at it as anything more than sharing a physical encounter with someone. They were very blase about having sex with each other, almost like, ‘hey could you scratch my back for me, I’ll scratch yours.’”
So, yeah my reaction to hearing all that was a flip, & maybe sarcastic, remark, but to me it described what they were doing - practicing the physical side of sexual acts without really caring about or considering the emotional side of sex. It seemed very sad to me.
Sorry if you think it was a vulgar description, but, even if I’d said it to the college kids on the panel, I somehow don’t think they would have been shocked.</p>
<p>"It was also when I first heard the term “friends with benefits” i.e. someone who was specifically not a boy/girl friend, but with whom you would have sex periodically or whenever it suited you.
I personally was really shocked to hear all this, because there seemed to be very minimal emotional attachment tied to any of the college students’ sexual experiences. My co-worker described it as “they really didn’t seem to look at it as anything more than sharing a physical encounter with someone. They were very blase about having sex with each other, almost like, ‘hey could you scratch my back for me, I’ll scratch yours.’”</p>
<p>It is always interesting to me that folks focus so heavily on the “benefits” rather than the “friends” part of the equation.</p>
<p>" But I can’t think of a time in American history where the concept of “hooking up”, “friends with benefits” or one-night stands was acceptable in society. That is reserved for today’s popular culture."</p>
<p>While it differered in various parts of the colonies, marriages tended to be much younger than today, even though individuals weren’t nearly as sexually mature at young ages as they are today. In fact, high schools were designed as little as 110 years ago at a time when, on average, women were three years less mature than today, and men almost as much, a product mostly of better nutrition.</p>
<p>But you’d be astounded by the number of Founding Fathers who died of conditions related to syphillis. Hook-ups, mistresses, as well as one-night stands, and prostitution were much closer to being the norm than the exception. In the South, masters had slaves for that purpose. It is almost impossible to find a diary of young southern white men of the period without mention of them trying to “seek a cure”, and they infected the young southern belles, as well as their slaves, with the same.</p>
<p>The major changes have been in the status of women (and the abolition of slavery, indentured servitude, etc.)</p>
<p>Mini,</p>
<p>Thanks for the historical notes. 
</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s necessarily better nutrition that has changed the age of sexual maturity. Some of it is because of the hormones that we give to animals that get passed onto us through dairy products and meat. Do you really think that you can ingest bovine growth hormone and it not have any effect upon you? </p>
<p>(For those of you who are wondering, I’m one of those organic-milk, vegetarian types, partly for that reason.)</p>
<p>Something like 10% of girls are sexually maturing by the age of seven. One of my relatives had to take medication to suppress that until she got older. </p>
<p>Mini is hitting on something, indirectly, that is one of the big problems that we’ll have to face: maturing younger + marrying later = many, many more years of unmarried sexual maturity. It used to be only a couple of years; now, 20 years is not abnormal. </p>
<p>Don’t forget that STDs could be more common back then as there were no means of prevention. (The flip side is that it’s completely pathetic that STDs are passed around today - very easy to detect and prevent. Then again, the Catholic Church is still debating whether or not its “pro-life” stance includes allowing married couples to use condoms to prevent the spread of AIDS when one partner is HIV-positive and the other is not. IMO, that isn’t about a culture of life.)</p>
<p>
That probably simply reflects unfamiliarity with the history of sexual attitudes in this country. (Admittedly, a topic generally not covered in AP US History)</p>
<p>I suggest that you read the article on “Free Love” in the wikipedia here:
<a href=“Free love - Wikipedia”>Free love - Wikipedia; – particularly the seciton entitled “19th century United States”. </p>
<p>I’ll quote here, but I’m not sure the moderators will let it stand - I don’t think wikipedia can be subject to any copyright, so here it is:
And in the twentieth century:
And, more recently:
</p>
<p>“friends with benefits” is a new term, not a new idea.</p>
<p>In the 70’s, the term that I was familiar with was “f*** buddy” </p>
<p>“hooking up” was called “one-night stand”, sometimes “wham, bam, thank you ma’am”… though the latter could also refer to the gentleman’s lack of sustainability.</p>