|Emotiona/Physicial closenessPage 10 of 10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)|
If a woman had 'great shame' over getting pregnant out of wedlock, now they provide facilities to ensure she doesn't miss her classes.
that would be because the guy she had sex with was sitting in class, so why shouldn't she?
I can appreciate your perspective, ulysses, but please realize that because women disagree with your view, does not make us somehow morally bereft. And comments like you make above, show a worldview that does not take into account the equality of women in American society.
Men have, in modern society, been free to make sexual choices. It only appears to become a moral issue when women are also free to make those choices.
"Promiscuity and fornication"? Who, exactly, have all the boys been sleeping with all these years?
I have had my share of relationships, and the occasional ONS. And what I learned about ME was that in order to have that amazing emotional bond, I had to have amazing sexual chemistry accompany it.
The "baggage" my partner and I bring to the table isn't always the most pleasant to deal with, but it has given us a strong sense of what we both want in a relationship, and what we don't want. And that strengthens the bond between us.
I believe we all want the emotional closeness, but some people approach it from a "physical path" and others approach it from the "emotional path". For me, the physical is an indicator to me of the emotional. I HAD emotional without physical for 10 years. It was lonely.
Posted: 9/12/2008 9:12:20 AM
Hahaha.. LOVE IT. Two of my other favorite things. Alone or combined.
I know, awesome ain't they? My new thing is Lindt dark chocolate truffles and organic smooth peanut butter (trying to appear that I am watching my calories, lol). Yum!
As for Ulysses...
You are certainly entitled to your views. As far as I can tell, on this thread at least, people have been fairly (if not completely) open and honest with themselves and their thoughts. But I won't change my views, though, either, but I respect your right to your views.
I don't expect you to change your views, as they are what works FOR YOU - meaning what works for myself and those who understand my side of it is also a valid point.
I'm sure you a fine and decent sort, too. The whole point of my thread was to see how 'others' saw it and, with the great range of thought here, I have a better idea of where my views fit into the spectrum.
Ok then, sounds like you got what you wanted. But there's more....?
It's an interesting place to be, let's say, but I doubt I'm alone. A lot of people, perhaps, won't post because they are worried about being 'blasted' by others but the simple fact is that each person's views on Emotional/Physical closeness reflects, I believe, their experiences and their beliefs.
No one should fear "blasting" about what they personally do in their own lives. It's when they feel others should do differently (or others thinking they should change to conform to what they aren't comfortable with) that the trouble begins.
I do believe in moral absolutes myself, and there is nothing wrong with that.
Really? I had no idea.
But I am hardly going to be used as a cudgel to raise myself up as some kind of perfectly moral being myself. That said, having lived in a highly sexual culture, with the decline of morality as practiced by generations, SHOULD concern EVERYONE, because everyone pays the cost, whether in taxes for health care or in premiums to pay for treatments for STD', in social costs to assist unwed, single mothers, in rising crime because the once-secure nuclear family unit (in which many value were taught) are broken, and in how these all cumulatively affect our views and outlook on our society as a whole.
The nuclear family first of all is what we've been taught is the quintessential ideal. That's teaching and history...we've been taught that based on the fact that it coincided with what we used to do. None of that was right or wrong, it's just what we're most trained to think is the right thing. Doesn't make it so.
Some "family units" had alcoholic parents who abused each other/their children...while some "non-family units" had healthy role models and caretakers in them...there is no absolute, outside of the propaganda of the social era we live in. You see the world going to crap, I see it finally balancing out. We're gonna see some turmoil, but in the end the world will be better (for women, anyway) than it was. The family unit as we know it isn't feasible in this day and age without cooperation from both sides on all fronts, and I believe it should be. BUT some can choose not to have a family, or not stay in one that's not good for everyone involved. That's a positive to me.
You say values, I say scare tactics...again to each his own. As a woman what I would have most likely been taught years ago was to learn how to sew, bake, clean and balance a checkbook and wear heels while I vacuum and organize dinner parties for my future husband and his boss, then meet and marry some dude and have his children. The scare tactic would be if I didnt do this I'd be a spinster, and no one would want me nor want to be associated with me for either working, or living at home forever. Would that be right? No it just made it useful for the time it was in. It looked good on paper.
Maybe no one wants to seriously consider this, but the fact is we are each others role models. If it was once 'immoral' to have sex before marriage, it is now quite common. If a woman had 'great shame' over getting pregnant out of wedlock, now they provide facilities to ensure she doesn't miss her classes. In all this, I see a cheapening of self worth and sexuality as a whole. Because it is quite common, it is less precious and so, where once it was love that compelled partners into sexual reltionships, now it seems to come (pardon the pun) after the 'test drive' of sexual experience.
None of what's going on today first of all is THAT different from past times, the press and society chose what to make public and what to hide. This is a more realistic age...and things weren't "immoral" back then, it was pushed BY SOCIETY as such. I look at it as the typical catholic girl...if you repress and shame and guilt someone long enough it will not change who they are. Making someone feel awful about something that's natural, rather than educating her and giving her actual skills to deal with it is wrong, IMO. How many Catholic girls do you know that didn't freak out in adolescence and go against EVERYthing they've been taught? Human nature is to question that which we blindly follow from teaching, and it's a good thing. Some question and find their own beliefs, and some question and realize what they taught was good....but the old way wasn't 100% effective because what society wanted wasn't necessarily right, and their way of trying to keep people in line didn't work either - people just hid their crap more.
That's why so many "away on a trip" adoption agencies existed back then...girls got pregnant pretty frequently back then too, they just dealt with it differently.
Some call this 'liberation' and they can, if promiscuity and fornication is that. But I'd think our society, as a whole, would be better off with just a bit or a even lot less of it. That said, you make your choices and lie in the bed you choose, and with whom you choose. But don't kid yourself if you think it's 'just you and him' there. It's part of an attitude that has been perpetuated over the last 40-odd years or more and the more acceptable it is, the more it diminishes, I believe, an experience that is best shared in a whole and complete way.
Yes....FOR YOU, that's fine. Don't worry about others....live by your own model of what you want to be, find someone like you, teach your kids, and in your own corner of the world let it be the way you want it to. What those who don't concern you do, frankly needn't make you lose sleep. Learn to control what you can (you and your environment), and learn to accept what you can't (everyone else and their lifestyles).
Live and let live, dude.
Posted: 9/16/2008 7:46:25 PM
In fact, it will never make sense to me how someone, anyone, can have and be satisfied only with a f*** buddy
Long term? Indefinitely? Probably not. It probably works very very well for quite a lot of people in the short term. When they are ready to settle down.. they do.
Other people make a bigger deal out of sexuality than it needs to be. Sex can be mutually satisfying, without having to involve a "relationship".
I completely agree.
Is it also possible, though, that two people can desire the same thing simultaneously, and neither one gets hurt in the process?
I've been in that situation a time or two myself.
Posted: 9/16/2008 7:46:44 PM
|i don't have moral qualms about any of this. but for me, i prefer emotional, physical and spiritual closeness. although the latter (spiritual connection) is about how i view things and may be different for my partner. so, that will be his journey, as long as mine is not denied. |
the other two factors must be in place for the rest to ensue (emotional and physical). otherwise, it is (for me) empty. or maybe stagnant is a better word if you're into the dynamics of "energy". i am a pretty passionate person, but passion is not from the crotch down, nor does it remain there. it starts to enter our bodies at the crown, goes via the heart and slowly down, then it comes up...and down and up..... and with two in sync, it goes out, far out, out the room and down the hall and into the world at large. it even follows you for a period of time. it 's all about energy. feeding the ego and losing it into something larger.
study the chakras! you can see stagnancy in many people. there is no spark. no color. no music. you touch them and they do not touch back, even if their hand rests upon you. but again, this perspective is for me and shared by who i seek. it took a while to get to this place. so, to each, their own personal journey.....
there really is no argument. it's what/how i see and what/how you see. we need a referral service. send me who i want to meet and i'll send you the others!
Posted: 9/17/2008 12:32:03 PM
|ulysses, just to further broaden your perspective. there are many liberals and not bible thumpers who share your view about sexuality and intimacy. furthermore, it is no secret that many "bible thumpers" are doing their fair share of screwing around. as to views about children and the media they are exposed to and what is going on in middle school, i know few liberals who would agree that all is well with this world. |
how to approach it all and what we do with it, may vary, but within degrees. i, for example, believe in talking to my kids about everything and instead of banning mtv, i sat and watched it with them. why? because if i didn't, they were old enough to see the shows at a friend's. instead, i made sure to comment upon what they were seeing and make them think and talk about the values they were forming. my son, brought back a porn video that was being distributed in his middle school. he had seen it already. i watched it (w/o him) and discussed it in depth with him. what was real, what was degrading, what was it like in real life. i needed to address every toxic thing he had already absorbed into his brain and let him know that it was a way better experience than the degrading scenes he was offered as examples. he has a lot of issues, being thrown into foster care, so late in life. but, when it comes to girls, he is a romantic and a charmer. at age 20, he really does seem to care about women and i would like to think, i nurtured along that part of him. still working on the rest.
as to the current state of affairs (taken both ways) between men and women. i try to find the middle way. however, i understand the 40's rush for most women and there is scientific explanation that our biology gives us that one last big surge of mating hormone, before we go menapausal. that is the way we reproduce, but in our society, we have turned the tables around and it has become a sexual discussion. that surge for women is not unlike the surge for younger males. so, in the same way, your pastor learned from his youthful mistakes, so have/will many women as the surge becomes more manageable and we start thinking with our "big heads".
still, i have found myself faced with many questions i have never pondered before. many do not want to remarry. many want to continue to live alone. of the ones who don't, it is often not for the right reasons. i myself was in a 2 1/2 year relationship where we we did not jump right into the sack (although the sparks were always flying in preparation). so, when we finally did, it was a very passionate relationship and already deemed monogamous. sadly, he, over time, suffered a depression that was greater than i had realized at that time. in fact, i was not familiar with dealing with it in adults and he started to shut me out. ultimately, that set parameters for our relationship, that it had to end. not only could he not live with me (or anyone), but he became less and less emotionally available.
it's been a couple months now, and he does not go with other women. so this is not a moral issue and i am not about to berate myself for it. i am attempting to meet another man. but, i am realistic. what i used to dream about, may or may not exist. so, i cannot shrivel up and die over it. but, i can use my sound judgement and take educated risks. surely there must be someone around my age, with some shred of decency and still with passion, as well as peace and joy. those latter things are also important to me, given what i just went through, with a man who was unable to share the peace and the joy, despite a good friendship and some really fun times in the beginning and middle of our time spent together.
so, that is what is boils down to: current reality. despite what a person says or represents, you never really know until you try. it takes a couple years to really know someone. at my age, i am not going to wait that long to explore intimacy. but, on the other hand, damned if i am pressured into doing so that quickly. i know, from my recent relationship, that deep passion can be cultivated with a slow brew over time. for me, it is that much stronger, when i know a good deal more, about the man i am with. i might add, that never in my wildest dreams, did i think i had it in me as much as i did (nor did he). ten years of marriage to the wrong man, had pretty much deadened me, before i met my ex SO. but sadly, that is over for other reasons.
however, i draw my choices from my experiences and my values. i am liberal politically, but not with a bunch of e-dates i just met. i do have a few conservative christian friends who take the bible very literally. yet, recently i found out, that one of them who will not have "sex" until she is married, has the same definition of sex, that clinton had with monica! so, does that make her a more moral woman? oral sex with several men at once, but no intercourse?!* i'd rather see a monogamous relationship develop, even w/o marriage. i do not mean a friends with benefits arrangement. i mean one with good intentions for the future, but understanding that in reality, there are no guarantees. if there were, most of us would not be here.
so, it's not about conservative or liberal. it's way more complicated than that. and yes, i see tv nowadays and i shake my head in boredom and disgust and fear for the little ones watching it. so, i must deal with it. arguing about it, will not make it disappear. children, in many ways nowadays, must be prepared for war. child predators are everywhere. it is all so very sad.
Posted: 9/17/2008 8:36:31 PM
Do you believe that by 'controlling' your urges, you have control over the relationship?
I have control over me. Nothing to do with a relationship or controlling it.
10 (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10)