posted
I do agree that a lot of people immerse themselves in casual sexuality that can be detrimental to relationships. However, the author shouldn't blame the sexual revolution for that! The feminist sexual revolution didn't just encourage women to enjoy sex, it also wanted women to be more careful about their choices in regards to pregnancy, abortion, birth control. The famous feminist sexual manual of the 70's, "Our Bodies, Ourselves" has sections about enjoying sex and masturbation- but it also sought to teach women about anatomy, papsmears, the different stages of pregnancy, labor and delivery, STDs, healthy eating habits...
I'm by no means a feminist, because I find today's movement to be misleading- but I don't think the author knows the true goals of the sexual revolution (and the many good things it produced).
quote:Originally posted by dh: Ironically, this also made you much more likely to fail, since you no longer have the whole of society behind you. Individualism is not all it's cracked up to be.
I must be living on the outskirts of Western society because last I checked it was perfectly acceptable for a woman to make choices about who to have sex with. Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dh: Everyone is so busy trying to "carry out their dreams" that they don't sit down to carry out what's good for them and their neighbours. You get alot further when everyone is going in more or less the same direction than with everyone going off in their own, frequently opposite direction.
Also, I think you are unfairly stereotyping a society in which marriage is prized. Women were not simply baby-making machines, at least, not to everyone. And is that much worse, I ask you, than simply being treated as a disposable sex object?
If she's unfairly stereotyping a society in which marriage is prized, why do you insist that her indepedent spirit isolates her from the support of society? That makes no sense.
And I fail to see how working a career in law goes against everyone else's needs.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by dh: That is not what I was referring to.
What were you referring to? A woman's goal to become a lawyer? I don't see how "society" is so against that either.
Posts: 70 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I guess it seems to me that--while it surely wasn't a desired outcome--one of the effects of the sexual revolution was that women were free to become more and more the easily attainable sexual objects that baser men desired them to be. Before, in society, such things were strongly discouraged.
I figure this happened, at least in part, because of the fact that as things were changing, one of the last things to even begin changing was the fact that men held all the real power in this world. Women always saught power by aligning themselves with powerful men, and now they were free to do so in more sexually explicit ways.
What bothers me about this is that (I suspect deeply) while women told themselves they were doing it 'cause they wanted to, and they were free, the fact was they were doing it because men still "ruled the world" and it was a way to tap into that power.
I wonder how different things would have been if that balance of power had been the *first* thing to begin changing.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Also, I think you are unfairly stereotyping a society in which marriage is prized. Women were not simply baby-making machines, at least, not to everyone. And is that much worse, I ask you, than simply being treated as a disposable sex object?
I submit that both the "baby-making machine" and the "disposable sex object" roles are in fact products of an older way of thinking, and that many women today reject the notion that they have to be one or the other -- or that, for example, enjoying a promiscuous sex life makes them into a "sex object."
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I would also like to submit that the notion that men might never be able to "care" for children the way women do is also the product of an older way of thinking - one that traps both genders, allowing neither to grow and learn and stretch.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:or that, for example, enjoying a promiscuous sex life makes them into a "sex object."
But do they do it because *they* want it, or because they have been raised all their life to believe men want it of them?
quote:I would also like to submit that the notion that men might never be able to "care" for children the way women do is also the product of an older way of thinking - one that traps both genders, allowing neither to grow and learn and stretch.
I still think women have a biological "edge" in desiring to care for children. Pregnancy, giving birth, and lactation are not now things that men can experience.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Women have a biological edge in carrying the fetus to term and giving birth.
Thanks to the formula manufacturers *rolls eyes* lactation is no longer "necessary" for the next steps.
In terms of nurturance and care: it doesn't take a woman - nor is a woman - necessarily better at it.
Posts: 5609 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
But some of them do want it. Some of them might enjoy it. I doubt I would... I'd just want to be with one person and that's that, but I don't really have the energy to fool around with a lot of people. I just feel that that sort of attitude makes men a bit distant from their children. (Thinks of my own father.) It would be completely unappealing to me if by some fluke I had a husband and he didn't want to get involved with helping out with the kids. (Which is why I hate shows like Everybody Loves Raymond.. Who in the hell would want a man that cannot at least change a single diaper and whines each time you ask him to hang out with the children? That is just so unsexy and unappealing!)
(Though one has to admit that there's a problem with women thinking that in order to be strong feminist types they have to act like the WORSE man acts... hyper obnoxiously macho and that is irratating. Like the attitude that in order for a man to be tough he has to be devoid of compassion... It's terrible either way... People should, ideally, embody both male and female traits... at least I seem to... ^^;;;
1) I never said there weren't exceptions. On *both* sides. I am speaking in generalitites.
2) It doesn't matter whether lactation is necessary. When it happens, it has a biological effect. And pregnancy is far more than carrying a fetus to term. There are chemical, biological processes that happen within the mother bonding, committing her to the child-bearing, child-raising experience.
Recent studies have shown that men have a similar chemical bonding to their children at the time of birth. But not having gone through the actual physical experience, I still strongly believe that women have a biological "edge" in the deep, internal imperative to care for their offspring.
Let's be scientific about this. There are some great daddies in the animal kingdom. But they tend to be amongst the fowls and fishes. When we *just* look at biology, males want to make sure their seed is spread as efficiently as possible. On the other hand, mammal young tend to need quite a bit of nurture--and the mother is *biologically* programmed to take that role. In other words, nature rewards males for being promiscuous and females for rearing young. Why? Because that is how genes get to survive.
Now I am among the first to say that humans are wonderful creatures because we are capable of *choosing* to go against our biological programming. But it is foolish to deny the effects of that programming as well.
Many call me sexist for saying that *biologically* men tend to desire promiscuity and women tend to desire childrearing (and the optimal conditions for such--a stable home and, in our society, a powerful male.) But I think it is foolish to blame these "tendancies" solely on our society. Society may echo and amplify them, but the roots begin in biology.
So maybe we want society to actively fight against these biological imperatives. Certainly I come from a society that encourages the female desire to child-rear but discourages the male desire for promiscuity. One could also say that secondarily it encourages the males to desire child-rearing and discourages the female desire for promiscuity as well. For these things do exist naturally in the sexes. But propose that they are not as biologically powerful.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is why I feel like a biological mutant. Because I seem to lack those kind of tendencies... Or, at least I lacked the girlhood desire to have a child and picture my wedding. Perhaps i am programed weirdly.... Should people who are programmed outside of the norm be expected to behave the same way?
Posts: 9942 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:But do they do it because *they* want it, or because they have been raised all their life to believe men want it of them?
Bev, you ask this about women being sex objects, but I've got to ask how much you think societal conditioning applies to women wanting to grow up to be wives and mothers, too.
I hated babysitting. From what I remember of playing with dolls, I was playing pretend with them in adult or at least my-age child situations, not pretending I was their mother and feeding and rocking them, but I don't remember doing much of it at all. Gender stereotypes weren't pushed in our household, and we were certainly never encouraged one way or the other as far as childrearing went.
I decided when I was around 14 that I didn't want kids. Everyone told me that I would change my mind when I reached X age, or when I got my first boyfriend, or when I fell in love. I kept passing X age and they'd just revise their estimate up two years. I went through boyfriends aplenty and fell in love once or twice, and it had absolutely no bearing. I have no desire whatsoever to have children.
I have no doubt that if I was to get pregnant and go through the experience the hormones would kick in and I'd get all gooey about my child and would love it and take care of it and be a great mother. But that is not going to happen, because I have gone to great lengths to ensure that it does not.
So while I agree with you about the chemical, biological process that happens during pregnancy and birth, I don't think the desire to child rear is a biological imparative. I think there is a spectrum, and obviously I am on one far end. I think men have a spectrum as well, I have met some who just ache to be fathers. But since that desire is strongly encouraged in girls, it is intensified all along the spectrum for women, and people who may have ended up somewhat ambilivent without the societal pressure end up wanting kids, and only a very few of us who were on the far edges end up ambilivent. If I was raised in your society, maybe it would have overcome my natural instincts and I would have wanted children. Maybe if you were raised in mine, you would be less sure that women who don't want children are going against their biological programming.
Now, when you get to enjoying a promiscuous sex life -- I was certainly not raised that that was what men wanted of me. Today I think you could say the culture is so steeped in it you can't get away from it, but I don't think that was as true 30 years ago. I was brought up understanding that sex was something adult, married people did. And I didn't start having sex until I was 22, and when I did it was with discussion beforehand, on my terms, with redundant birthcontrol methods.
Am I promiscuous? It depends on your definition. I am careful about who I have sex with, and it is usually within the bounds of a long term, caring relationship. But I have had flings, and I have no problem with that. I believe sex should be consentual, safe, and fun. And I've never sought out particularly "powerful" males to be involved with, either. I have a good job, I make more than enough money to support myself, I own my own house. I have dated guys who were just scraping by, and I have dated guys who were making significantly more money than me. It is not one of my selection criteria.
If I wanted to be married, I could be married several times over by now, starting with my boyfriend from my senior year of high school. In your eyes, maybe I am contributing to the breakdown of society. In my eyes, I am a happy, healthy adult who pays taxes, donates money to charity, and occasionally (but I must admit not recently) volunteers my time to worthy causes. If I am less appealing to some men because they are looking for a virgin to marry and have kids with that's fine, because obviously we would be incompatible in a lot of other ways anyway. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Syn - you're not a mutant! If you are, I am - and I'm not, so neither are you!
ElJay, thanks for your frankness! It's so nice to know I am not alone in my approach to the world . . .
Edited to remove far too much personal information:
I stand by what I say - I don't think that the ability to care for an infant or child is the sole province of a woman, and I think that that goes beyond the occasional exception.
This is based on personal belief and life experiences.
quote:I stand by what I say - I don't think that the ability to care for an infant or child is the sole province of a woman, and I think that that goes beyond the occasional exception.
*sigh* Saying that women have a biological edge over men is a far cry from the above statement.
ElJay, I don't think I disagree with anything you have said here. (That said, I don't think that anything you said outright contradicts what I said.) I still think that the desire to care for offspring tends to have a powerful biological base in women, but I agree with you that it often does not kick in *at all* unless a woman actually goes through the reproductive process. I think to some extent that was the case for me.
I never played with dolls and never particularly wanted kids. I never liked kids much. I didn't coo over babies like many of my friends did. My sister, on the other hand, was very much that way--naturally, instinctually.
My sister and I were raised in the same society. And it is true that our end results appear the same: married with children. But she naturally desired the children aspect far more than I did. (I think marriage would have appealed to me no matter how I was raised. But I could see me having lots of animals rather than kids, were I raised in a different environment.)
I don't know if her inborn mothering desire gives her the advantage over me in being a dedicated mother. Honestly, I think in some ways it does.
Funny thing is that just within the last year I have noticed myself becoming more fond of kids that aren't mine. This has never happened to me before. I don't know why it is happening now, except that maybe the role of "mother" is becoming more a part of me.
quote:maybe I am contributing to the breakdown of society.
Whether or not *anything* is contributing to the breakdown of society depends on how we each define society and what is important to it. The answer would differ from person to person.
The reason why *I* think less long-term, committed relationships in the world is bad is that--in general--it means more children born into broken homes. So long as you are not bringing children into the world in your current circumstances, I don't think you are directly contributing to the breakdown of society. I mean, you aren't a "home-wrecker" or anything. Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: So? You think I want to be protected and saved from making mistakes? You think I need the whole of society behind me in order to have the courage to carry out my dreams?
I'm not doubting your courage, merely your ability. And it's nothing personal, it applies to everyone, both man and woman. Everyone is so busy trying to "carry out their dreams" that they don't sit down to carry out what's good for them and their neighbours. You get alot further when everyone is going in more or less the same direction than with everyone going off in their own, frequently opposite direction.
Well, perhaps you do get further - in that single direction. But surely the strength of a modern society is that it explores all directions simultaneously, finding out which ones work, and never getting trapped in a dead end. Like water, it divides to flow around all obstacles.
Also, since it is not universally agreed which direction society should take, the argument appears a bit unconvincing - you would hardly want to help society go further in a direction you don't agree with, right?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
bev, the place where I think we have a condratiction is that I enjoy my active sex life, and I don't act this way because I believe men want it of me. I suspect you were talking about women who dress provocatively and sleep around because they think that that will make men like them and they are trying to catch a husband. I was trying to show a different scenario for a single, sexually active woman, and one that I think is more common.
I'm not saying that the majority of single sexually active women feel the way I do about children. But that they are conducting their relationships and living their lives in the way they want to, for their own reasons, not because they are brainwashed by society to think that sexually available=good and will get them a husband. Many of us do, indeed, enjoy an active sex life because we want it, and without acting or being treated like sex object, toy, trophy, or possession.
I agree that getting pregnant outside of marriage is, in most cases, not the optimal situation, and I wish every woman and man was completely responsible in making sure it doesn't happen. But that is a far cry from endorsing the idiotic bile spewed by the professor quoted in the first post of this thread. (I know you haven't done that, beverly, although others in this thread have.)
I am not an "easily attainable" sex object, I am not easily attainable in any sense. I do not have sex to align myself with powerful men. I don't give a rat's ass how much power a man has, because I only want to wield power earned on my own. I think we are still in a transitionary period in sexual behavior, as well as in gender relations, and it will be really interesting to see how things shake out when the generation that is now in high school comes to power in this country. Posts: 7954 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Samarkand: Oh no, women never just want sex . . . or a make out session . . . nope. *cough cough*
*shifty eyes*
Oh, and I have had some similar experiences. The men I date for some reason tend to say "I love you" very quickly. As in, after a week. Do you ever have no idea that you're in a relationship until he introduces you to X person with, "This is my girlfriend?" Because that used to happen to me all the time. ALL the time.
posted
Hey, we have to classify you somehow. "this is person X whom I have dated three times but not yet slept with" would probably not please you either, am I right?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I always introduce him as, "My friend so-and-so." If I have to give him a classification at all. Usually, I just try to say, "This is so-and-so" and let people draw their own conclusions.
quote:I stand by what I say - I don't think that the ability to care for an infant or child is the sole province of a woman, and I think that that goes beyond the occasional exception.
*sigh* Saying that women have a biological edge over men is a far cry from the above statement.
And I agreed with you earlier that the act of carrying a fetus to term, and giving birth, was at this time pretty much the sole provice of women. Formula manufacturers have made the lactation part of things not an imperative relegated just to women.
I don't think the ability to do those things (pregnancy, birth, lactation) makes a woman a more viable nurturer of children.
Sorry - I just don't - and what I am understanding from your posts is that you do. And it's okay by me that we disagree. *smile*
Giving birth to my son did not awaken any "goo" feelings in me. Fighting to keep that infant alive throughout his first year on the other hand very much aroused the "mama bear" response. His father is still the one that is far more capable of the tender side of nurture, however. I tend to be the "protector" and "defender" and the one that keeps the ball rolling and things on time and in place.
I don't interpret either of those parts of parenting as intrinsically feminine or masculine - it just results out of our individual and joint life experiences.
quote:Many call me sexist for saying that *biologically* men tend to desire promiscuity and women tend to desire childrearing (and the optimal conditions for such--a stable home and, in our society, a powerful male.)
By no means would I call you sexist, but I would say that you're jumping to conclusions. People have to remember that "results" like this tend to come from evolutionary psych, which lacks anything like a firm, empirical methodology.
The other thing we must be careful not to do is confuse 'is' claims with 'ought' claims. Like you said above, Beverly, following our biological urges is often the wrong thing to do, and something we can resist. So we have to ask ourselves whether it's right that women continue to bear the brunt of child-rearing duties and the role of sexual prudes.
Posts: 4600 | Registered: Mar 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:I suspect you were talking about women who dress provocatively and sleep around because they think that that will make men like them and they are trying to catch a husband.
No, not necessarily. There could be a lot of things a woman looks to gain from it: attention, feeling loved, even power. It never crossed my mind that women tend to do it to try to get a husband--though I suppose that could be a reason as well.
I also never said that all women do it solely because they think that it is what men want. I know you well enough to not even consider that with you. But that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of women out there who *do* have casual sex for that reason.
quote:But that is a far cry from endorsing the idiotic bile spewed by the professor quoted in the first post of this thread. (I know you haven't done that, beverly, although others in this thread have.)
Honestly, I didn't read the article. But I didn't like the tone in the quotes in this thread. I think if I were to read the article I would find myself hating it, because while I might agree with many of the things he is saying, I would hate the way he is saying them and the way they are twisted with things I totally disagree with.*
quote:I am not an "easily attainable" sex object, I am not easily attainable in any sense. I do not have sex to align myself with powerful men.
Again, I have never thought any differently.
Shan, we may have to just disagree that I think we agree more than you think we agree.
I will restate: I believe that *in general* women have an advantage over men in bonding to offspring because of biological processes involved in reproduction. Like ElJay, I believe there is a spectrum for both. But I don't understand someone not thinking that pregnancy, birth, and lactation give women *in general* an advantage. Please don't draw conclusions of what I think or believe beyond this statement. Feel free to ask me specific questions, but please stop assuming.
quote: So we have to ask ourselves whether it's right that women continue to bear the brunt of child-rearing duties and the role of sexual prudes.
A very good point.
*I just read the article. I was expecting it to be the words of the professor, instead it is a commentary about it. Is there somewhere else that has more of what this professor said?
posted
I have a bit to say about this, which I may get to tomorrow. For right now, I just want to say I'm terribly offended. I mean:
quote:it had merely "lower[ed]" us to the crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly
Yeah, screw you buddy. I put a lot of thought into my sexual pursuits. Sometimes this includes diagrams. Once, on a particularly challenging occasion, it involved a full-blown Power Point presentation.
I don't need some egghead from Harvard deriding my efforts to get a little sumpin sumpin.
Posts: 10177 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have learned through far too much trial and error the wisdom of the following statement:
"The only consistent feature of all of your dissatisfying relationships is you."
For a long time, I picked the wrong men. It took a lot of serious thought and reflection to work through what I wanted my guy-filter to look like. It's a very, very fine sieve, by the way. And currently stashed in the cupboard, as I found my healthy happiness. Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Is your filter a list of traits your ideal guy should possess, or a list of "instant deal-breaker" traits? Or a bit of both? I mean, I have a few specific things I want and/or like, but I don't consider those things a "filter" in the "you must meet these criteria in order to date me" sense.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
Mostly "things that indicate he is not mentally healthy."
[To be more accurate, these are "psychological traits or habits which do not bring out the best side of me, or with which I am incompatible." I shorten it to "not mentally healthy" in my head.]
No more: - acts with deliberate and denied intent; "hidden agenda" - is unhappy when I am happy and/or the reverse - reacts to frustration with rage instead of an authentic attempt to figure out and solve the problem - etc
Posts: 14017 | Registered: May 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I was sure I posted to this thread after CT's post but before Tom's. I think what happened was that I wrote the post in the quick reply box and then pushed "Go" instead of "Add Reply."
Anyway, all I was going to say was that I've never needed that sort of filter, thankfully.
Added: Also, I don't filter for height. I'm 6'3 and have dated/had flings with girls upwards of a foot shorter than me. I'm attracted to tall women, but that is by no means a selection criterion. Height is a bonus when I'm dating someone tall, but it isn't something I actively miss when I'm dating someone shorter.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Do they not have "you must be this tall to ride" signs in theme parks in Canada, twinky? They're generally used to keep out not short people, but young people.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hm. It's been so long since I went to a Canadian theme park that I honestly couldn't tell you (we're talking in excess of ten years, here). I assume so, but what comes to mind when I see that statement is actually a t-shirt I remember some guy wearing in high school. I never really thought much about what it meant, and I'm not sure that he did, either.
I did go to Cedar Point recently, but of course that's in America. I did see some of those signs there, but being tall I don't really notice them in any case.
I think the other reason I missed your point is that I don't have an age filter, either. I'm not very good at judging age, and I generally don't try; of the girls I've been involved with, I only know the ages of the ones who told me how old they were. The ages in that group, relative to me, ranged from -6 to +10... but I never would have known that without being told.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:They're generally used to keep out not short people, but young people.
I thought it was size-related--those signs are usually only on rides with things like shoulder harnesses that can injure small people due to their placements on the body.
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think Tom was saying that the net effect is generally that younger people don't get to ride.
Posts: 10886 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yes, but that's NOT what they're used to do. It is what generally happens, but it's not the purpose.
Posts: 3801 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought it was size-related--those signs are usually only on rides with things like shoulder harnesses that can injure small people due to their placements on the body.
How do you know that isn't why TomD has the same policy?
Posts: 7790 | Registered: Aug 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think they were more directed towards small people. I always assumed it was because the rides wouldn't properly restrain people below a certain size; they don't want you slipping out and plummeting to your death on their property.
And I have been able to ride everything since about 3rd grade while one of my friends was still borderline in high school. So if the intent is to keep out young kids, it's obviously a flawed system.
pH- Is there anything more annoying than being asked to define your relationship with someone when you're not really sure yourself what it is? With them standing there, no less.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:The first is the implicit assumption some people (like the professor) seem to be making that sex is the only goal that men ever have. Being "modest" -- that is, not "putting out" or "giving it up" -- is supposed to be enticing to men, convince them to stay with you, stick it out, sign on for the long haul, because... men are only interested in sex.
I like girls that view sex the same way I do -- not something that only belongs within the confines of marriage, but also not something to treat lightly.
The girls I know that have a lot of one-night stands (essentially role-reversing) I find crass. I guess that's a double standard, unless you consider that my guy friends who do the same I refer to as "man-whores". Nothing against two rational adults having consensual sex, but for my own emotional well-being I keep it in the context of a relationship.
I do love the occasional hookup, but these don't include sex. DHO, we call it (don't ask).
I tend to be very contrary in things like this. The more casual a girl is with sex, the less I'm attracted to her. The girls that know that every guy wants them and play that up have absolutely no control over me. I see right through them. Which they hate.
Posts: 5462 | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Instead, it had merely "lower[ed]" us to the crass level of men, who pursue sex thoughtlessly...
I think I speak for a large number of crass men when I say... I used to put a LOT of thought into pursuing sex.
And on the "this tall to ride this ride" - I used to work at a fairly popular midwestern amusement park. Those signs were pretty much all based on regulations and whatnot from measurements of the saftey harnesses, shoulder straps, etc, etc.
Posts: 5 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
From the quote, it sounds like this guy is placing way too much emphasis on sex. Sex is great and all; it's also serious and can have many life-altering consequences. But it doesn't belong at the center of everything.
Take marriage, for example. A marriage where sex plays the central role is not a good one. Marriage is first and foremost about two mature indiviudals making a serious commitment to each other, who join together in bonds of love and support to face what life throws at them. Sex is an important part of this and can be a great bonding method, but marriage is so much more than that. Someone who marries you because then they can sex with you isn't going to be a good spouse. I don't know, I find the advice "If you do this, you can trick some guy into joining you in a crappy marriage." to be pretty bad.
Romance is another place were I think you're really missing the point if you're putting sex at the center. Romance is peripherally related to sex, but it's a very different thing. Romance is about two main things: getting away from the mundane world into a sort of fluffy dream state where your partner's fantasies are fulfilled and making it clear that there's no one and no place you'd rather be than with them. The sensations you're trying to evoke are different and I don't see how including or exclusing sex makes or breaks romance. Frankly, I feel a little sad for someone who does. I think they have distorted views of both sex and romance.
There seems to be a pretty strong paradox here. There's something amiss with saying "You should be a strong person so that boys will like you." You don't become strong for someone else. This seems to me more like advocating a sort of superficial psuedo-strength.
Also, I'm not sure how in touch this late middle-aged conservative from Harvard is with contemporary young men or women. The idea that men "pursue sex thoughtlessly and without a thought to marriage" sounds to me more like a description of high school or pop culture college sex-n-hijinks movies than real life. There are guys who fit this description, but by the time the guys I know hit mid 20s, we were all giving serious though to marriage. Most guys in my acquantience realize that swinging bachelorhood gets really empty after a while.
And...err...again, while it may be true in some cases, many girls I know have sex because they want to and they don't find that this makes them weaker or less attractive people. Nor does it seem to hurt their marriage prospects. I've been to crazy amounts of weddings this past year. I know that most of these are between people who have had pre-marital sex (some of them I can't be sure of, but I strongly suspect it.) Heck, I'd had sex with one of the brides back in college myself and one who is getting married next year called me up for a booty call a few times when she was in med school.
The thing is, yes, guys who like strong women (of which I am one...the guys that is, not a strong woman) find strong women more attractive. But outside of certain sections' of the populace mysoginistic fantasies, having sex doesn't actually correlate all that great with weakness. This is not to say that the girls who find their sense of self-worth and power mainly through their sexuality come across as anything other than weak, but the same can be said for the girls who find these things mainly through their virginity.
It is perfectly possible to be a strong, secure woman who chooses to have sex. It's also possible to be strong, secure and choose not to have sex. Of the two, I've personally found the first type to be much more common with most of the "modest" girls being more weak and fearful, but that could be due to many factors besides actual distribution.
---
I don't have a problem with sex as recreation, assuming that the both participants are being responsible as to both the potential physical and emotional consequences. I do this myself. That doesn't mean that I don't give a thought to marriage. I long for marriage, a good marriage, with a person that completes me. Unfortunately, so far they've been in very short supply. Nor does it mean that my relationships are without romance. If I'm dating someone exclusively, I do my best to make them feel like the queen of the world. But what I don't do is equate sex with these things, nor do I assign it some magical power by which I or my partner are degraded by it.
edit: Because it needed to be said: I pimp because I care.
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
*shifty eyes*![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
