Can't get married? Go to Disney World!

[Jae Onasi]

Sigh. Jae, don't make me start about the completely incompetent medical personnel I've had the misfortune to encounter in my life.

 

And what, precisely, are you saying about my competence as a doctor, seeing as you're in Norway and I'm in the US? You've never seen me taking care of any patient or have any clue whatsoever about my qualifications, so don't try to associate me with incompetent medical personnel.

 

And what does that have to do with gender roles anyway? I'm pointing out that if I did believe that all women should be stay-at-home types, I wouldn't have bothered earning a doctor degree and working out of the home.

 

Let me also be clear--I don't want to denigrate those women who wish to stay home and raise their kids, either. It's darn hard to raise and care for a family, and some families' financial situations are such that it's more cost effective for one of the parents to stay home than work outside the home. I admire anyone who does a good job of raising a family, whether they work in or out of the home.

 

Gender roles--like it or not, Jimbo, as a man, will never know what it's like to be a mother. He will not know how it feels to be pregnant and feel a baby move inside, birth that baby, experience all those associated weird hormone effects, or have that mother-child bond develop. My mothering role is in part driven by the fact that my 2 x chromosomes and estrogen made my body and brain develop differently from Jimbo's. My entire outlook on life is different from Jimbo's testosterone/xy-chromosome-driven outlook. Our physiology does not allow us to ever be truly gender-neutral, and I don't think we should try to be. We should try to be good at the strengths our physiology gives us and synergize to minimize the weaknesses. Those roles, of course, may differ as much as someone's physiology differs, but the role of father or mother are unique to males and females respectively and it's unwise to ignore that.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

And what, precisely, are you saying about my competence as a doctor?

Absolutely nothing. I didn't mean you.

[ForceFightWMe12]

Alright, I'm sorry, but there is just WAY too many horny guys here for one thread. I think a bit more estrogen is needed for the mix Keep in mind that, as you read this, I'm only a teenager and I have never been sexually active before. But I suppose that's why I'm here - to show you that there are people out there other than adults who face this sort of thing.

 

As a teenager, I’ve witnessed myself the many pressures that are being put on the youth of our country first-hand, especially the pressures of a sexual nature. You see, we get pressures from all points on the argument – everything from teachers and priests and nuns spewing Project Truth hogwash at us every day to having four-month boyfriends nudging and pushing us for sex. As Jae has said, they give us the whole “if you really loved me, you would. Because you know that I love you.” Unfortunately, I have to say that I’m one of the few of the girls that I know in my class that have been able to withstand this lure and to recognize the sheer idiocy of such a notion. Does that make all the girls who have prude? Does that make all the girls who haven't stupid? Does it make them blind? Does it give them loose morals? Does it make them a hussy, a tramp, a whore, a ho, a used-up good-for-nothing girl that only deserves to be used again? I think not.

 

The main motivation that I’ve seen for girls my age is love; the emotion that is purely human, that every man and woman longs for in their lives. There are, of course, girls in my high school that want to be 'intimate' with their boyfriend, that enjoy choosing to be with many men; and, of course, that is their choice. But for the greater percentage of the girls that I’ve seen, they’ve mostly lost their virginity to a guy because he said that he would love her more, or that she would mean more to him; in other words that sex equals love. Which, in almost every case of every teenager, it most certainly is not. I’ve also seen the relationships of those who have slept with their boyfriends deteriorate quickly after, ending in a heartbreak because either he’s moved on or she’s had enough. However, saying no doesn’t always solve the problem. Many a time both I and my friends have told a boyfriend no, and so he decides to seek out other prey behind our backs. For those of you men who are too jacked on testosterone to know, yes, this is called cheating, and no, we women are not alright with it.

 

But I’m beginning to digress. My main point with all of this is that what one person does does in fact effect their society. These boys who are using-and-losing girls usually don’t come about their decision to ‘live their life’ that way simply by chance. Rather, they’re influenced, pressured into it. Where from? From friends, brothers, cousins, uncles, fathers… the list goes on. These boys don’t act on their testosterone or sex drive alone. I’ve known several boys from a young age that would never dream of ever using a girl simply for sex. Most of them, after getting to high school, have been met with pressures that ‘change their morals’ and, I’m sad to say, I’ve seen many of them do-and-drop. These pressures come almost unanimously from the prominent male figures in their lives that have simply shown them that such ways of life are perfectly okay. That women do enjoy casual sex, that they don’t mind being drained of everything that made them them in order to please a man that they’ll only be with for a short time.

 

One of the absolute best philosophies that I have as-of-yet come across for this debate is really quite simple. Think about yourself a few years into the future. Do you ever see yourself finding that right woman or man, getting married, and settling down with this one person to live out your lives together in happiness? Well, just keep in mind, that that person you will one day choose to spend your life with is out there right now. Think to yourself: when you think of your future spouse, do you want to have known that that person has had casual sex with someone that they didn’t truly love the way they love you? Or perhaps that they had sex with tens, thirties, hundreds of people that they didn’t love? If they did have spontaneous, casual one-night-stands, then what makes your honeymoon any different? Do you have the delusion that your first night together is any different, holds any more love or meaning to it than the first night that he or she climbed into bed with some complete stranger?

 

I know that ET has pointed out that this isn’t necessarily an argument about morals, but rather that casual sex is a personal choice for a personal way of life. However, when making this choice, one can’t only think of the consequences that would effect only you, because the range of your actions is much greater than that.

[True_Avery]

Gender roles--like it or not, Jimbo, as a man, will never know what it's like to be a mother. He will not know how it feels to be pregnant and feel a baby move inside, birth that baby, experience all those associated weird hormone effects, or have that mother-child bond develop. My mothering role is in part driven by the fact that my 2 x chromosomes and estrogen made my body and brain develop differently from Jimbo's. My entire outlook on life is different from Jimbo's testosterone/xy-chromosome-driven outlook. Our physiology does not allow us to ever be truly gender-neutral, and I don't think we should try to be. We should try to be good at the strengths our physiology gives us and synergize to minimize the weaknesses. Those roles, of course, may differ as much as someone's physiology differs, but the role of father or mother are unique to males and females respectively and it's unwise to ignore that.

So hormones decide who are good parents? I've seen quite a few men think in a more feminine way than many girls I know and many girls who understand the male mind quite nicely. Is it your arguement against Gay Men that because they have never given birth that they can never truly love the child they adopt? Or even a lesbian? 41% of Lesbians want to have a child and raise it as their own, and some even want to adopt. They would know what it is like to have a child, so don't they deserve the same right to adopt and love a child? Wouldn't a lesbian couple who both birthed children be possibly even more capable of caring for them hypothetically?

 

Hormones, in my personal opinion, don't control as much as people claim. I see many people say "Oh, you just will never be able to think like me!" or "Girls don't understand men!", along with other rants that I can't see having much water to back up. I base this opinion on transgendered people, a subject that is actually rarely brought up in gay debates. If hormones TRULY control so much, then why do transgendered people find their minds stuck in the wrong body when they are clearly under the same hormones and chromozones of their birthed sex? Now I know I just contradicted myself, but I am basing this less on birth gender but revolving more around hormone gender. If it was truly hormones then someone could pump themselves full of estrogen and suddenly be a woman... but it just doesn't work like that and never will. I really don't understand what I just typed, but I'm trying my best to get what I'm thinking into words. I just, in a way, said your theory was both right and wrong at the same time so I guess this can be ignored.

 

Also, I disagree with the idea that there are no gender neutrals, even though the amount is quite low. I'll stand up and say I am gender neutral if you'd like to believe it or not, but still I am a very small person in a sea of black and white so I guess my point isn't relevant. Physcial body, in my opinion, doesn't control your life as much as people would like to believe, but rather your mental state of mind being much more important. But then saying that as fact would be contradictory to my arguement, so it will remain speculation.

 

And finally on that quote, you seem to be going over the topic of debate. Adoption. Yes yes, I fully fully understand your veiw of a mother devoping a bond between her child, "a bond that only a mother can have", and all of the rest of it. But the biological mother is not there for these children. And, oddly and ironically enough, the majority of people I have known to have been abused or treated badly had it done to them by quite cruel and uncaring mothers than fathers. The father can simply be mean a lot of the time, but I have known mothers to give their children drugs, alcohol, weapons, and all kinds of things.

 

Gender roles -can- be important, but you do not have to play the roll of a gender to love and raise a child who grows up and becomes skilled in life. A woman and a man can both give punishments, both can bring money into the house, both can devop strong strong bonds with their children, and both can love with the same passion and respect. Where do I get these claims? My own parents for a start. My sister is actually much more attached to my father, and I more to my mother. Even though we were raised the same, bonds devop differently from person to person and gender to gender. A child can and do respect their same-sex parents. And same-sex parents have no difference at all in them from opposite-sex parents besides a same gender relationship. Love, to some, can all be considered the same. Some even consider chopping up love and labeling it into different categories to be a travesty.

 

I provided proof anyway with the studies--it's more difficult for children to learn appropriate male-female interactions in a single parent or single gender couple household. A number of studies show that children do best in a stable, loving, household with both _biological_ parents (note inclusion of all those descriptors). This is the ideal situation and there is little or no disagreement on that among researchers. Are single or gay parent arrangements better than other less-than-ideal heterosexual parenting situations? Sure. Are they the ideal? No. Show me well-run, well-conducted, unbiased studies where children are served equally well in alternative parenting settings and I'll be willing to embrace that. Until then, I'm reserving judgment.

 

I really don't care what the orientation of the parents are. They can be gay, straight, or prickly-pear-cactus-sexual for all I care, as long as it doesn't violate the law or harm someone or something. I want to know what's going to happen to kids, because they don't get to make choices on this, and they are not mature enough to make informed decisions on such matters.

The thought that an ideal situation is both original parents in a stable household has little to do with the debate on adopted kids. Since those kids don't have their original parents and will possibly go without parents their entire life, the subject of how they would have been with their original parents is irrelevent. What is relevent however is how they will do by being adopted. Although, your theory can apply to Lesbians who give birth to their own children.

 

Adoption is a sticky subject, even for hetrosexuals. Adopting a child costs thousands of dollars and requires sometimes years of background checks before they even consider you. There are hundreds of kids out there wanting to be adopted, wanting a family, yet we hold them back from that dream because of the cost, hastle, and the fact we continue to hold back millions of couples that would be glad to care for those children with all the care and love in their heart. It is completely and utterly irrelevent to this conversation to consider an ideal situation for these children and their original parents because adoption is their only option and to be honest no home will be completely ideal to them because they know the person is not their real parents, but the love is just as strong.

 

I still must highly disagree with you that having gay or lesbian parents will harm you more than a hetrosexual couple. I have seen your evidence to support your belief and they all seem to be based upon hetrosexual couples, even though they are quite good. I have yet to post anything to support myself, so here are some of the many:

 

Too High A Price

 

Articles:

http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=7f508a13-abed-43cc-a346-f18fbd30250e&k=15909&p=1

http://www.law.ucla.edu/williamsinstitute/publications/FinalAdoptionReport.pdf

http://www.canada.com/theprovince/news/story.html?id=38cc20ce-7f14-44ea-b4d9-d4cd16d7a269&k=9378

Let Him Stay

 

Associations and Studies:

American Academy Of Child & Adolescent Phychiatry

American Psychological Association

American Academy of Pediatrics

Child Welfare League of America

National Adoption Center

http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

North American Council on Adoptable Children

Family Pride

 

Human Rights Campaign Foundation

 

And last but not least, Children of Lesbian and Gays Everywhere and Families Like Mine

 

Added to this is real life experiences with people adopted by Gay families I have had myself.

 

I know that ET has pointed out that this isn’t necessarily an argument about morals, but rather that casual sex is a personal choice for a personal way of life. However, when making this choice, one can’t only think of the consequences that would effect only you, because the range of your actions is much greater than that.

Ooo, very nice post. I salute you!

 

I chose to ignore that post line personally. As being a woman I can see Jae and your veiwpoint perfectly, but then again I am mostly Asexual and have never been in a relationship before or ever sexually active so I guess my veiwpoint on all of this is distorted to a degree.

 

This actually gives me a thread idea...

[Jae Onasi]

I still must highly disagree with you that having gay or lesbian parents will harm you more than a hetrosexual couple.

 

I didn't make myself terribly clear--I'm not looking at it as an either/or, harm/benefit--I'm looking at it as a continuum from harm on one end to benefit on the other. An action may not be harmful, but it may not be beneficial, either. And some things are more beneficial than others. If aspirin helps a headache but an antacid does not, you take the aspirin. Now, the antacid isn't harmful, but it's not going to work for the headache, either.

 

There are a number of homosexual parent studies going on atm, and if they can show me that children benefit equally with them as heterosexuals and have equivalently low risk, then that works for me and I can accept that. I'm 90% sure things would be fine, but I don't want to be 10% wrong when you're talking about a kid's life. If putting kids with prickly-pear-cactus-sexuals turned out to be the most ideal situation for kids, then I'd go for that.

 

Hormone levels during the early years of life can affect how brain pathways are laid down, just like a lot of other factors such as love (or lack thereof) from parents, exposure to sensory stimuli (the more and varied sensory stimuli, to a point, the more brain pathways develop), etc. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that transgendered folks have some different estrogen/testosterone balance or a certain environmental stimulus at some key point in development than "normal" folks.

[True_Avery]

Ah, that clears it up then.

 

But I would personally consider having parents more ideal than sitting in an orphanage day after day. Millions of same-sex couples looking for adoption, yet many cant. Hetrosexuals just don't adopt enough, and there are more kids than there are couples ready to adopt them either way. It's a sad situation really.

 

Hormone levels during the early years of life can affect how brain pathways are laid down, just like a lot of other factors such as love (or lack thereof) from parents, exposure to sensory stimuli (the more and varied sensory stimuli, to a point, the more brain pathways develop), etc. I wouldn't be surprised if we find out that transgendered folks have some different estrogen/testosterone balance or a certain environmental stimulus at some key point in development than "normal" folks.

Well, since it is a natural body the testrosterone and estrogen counts are normal. But studies have shown that it happens during the growing of the brain and some things not devoping or overdevoping. I mean, male and female brains are identicle in the womb up until the point the female is left alone and the male brain is flooded and walled with testrostrone.

On the idea that it is an imbalance at some point in life for both gays and transgendered people I'd agree with to a point in saying that it happens in the womb, but not as an envirmental or social thing after birth. I could get onto the subject of the X chromozone being 3 times larger than the Y, and the Y being 3 times smaller after only a few thousand years of human evolution and that other times this has happened a species has gone full lesbian female with Asexual reproduction, but that is irrelevent to the topic but possibly worth a thread in the future. Hmmm...

[Jae Onasi]

Heh, I have a friend who calls the Y chromosome 'a broken X' one.

[Emperor Devon]

If I may point out a particularly valid point of ET's I think you've missed...

 

2. The child will be missing learning about one gender role (either male or female, depending on gender of gay parents, obviously)

 

Which is different from single parents or orphanages...how?

 

Guaranteeing all families will be nuclear ones with one father and one mother is impossible, whether they're all straight or not.

 

Allowing single straight parents to have kids but not gays strikes me as rather silly. They're missing out on parents of both genders either way, so why bar some of those parents simply because they're gay? The results will be the same as single straight ones..

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Not to mention that if the amount of information is the subject, I could use the same argument against same-culture or same-colour adoption: If two parents, both from Sweden, adopt a kid, as opposed to one parent from Sweden and one from Taiwan, then the kid misses out on an important cultural and linguistic opportunity. With the latter set-up, she has a chance to learn Taiwanese as well as Swedish in her early years, as well as learn about Taiwanese culture. With the 'mono-ethnic' setup, she'll learn predominately about Sweden, and probably not grow up bilingual.

 

Tongue-in-cheek conclusion: For the sake of orphans everywhere, 'mono-ethnic', mono-lingual couples should not be allowed to adopt.

 

See my point? A gay family may not be as good at teaching gender roles, but it's still a good family. Just like a mono-ethnic family is inferior when it comes to teaching the kid to be bilingual.

[ET Warrior]

That women do enjoy casual sex,

/sigh

I'm honestly not lying here, some women really do enjoy casual sex. Honestly, I didn't make that up. Just because you aren't interested has no bearing on the matter

 

Think to yourself: when you think of your future spouse, do you want to have known that that person has had casual sex with someone that they didn’t truly love the way they love you? Or perhaps that they had sex with tens, thirties, hundreds of people that they didn’t love?

In all honesty, I prefer that my women have sexual experience. I would rather that my spouse (assuming I ever actually decide to get married...) have a similar morals to me, and part of my moral stance is that casual sex is fine as long as you're responsible.

Do you have the delusion that your first night together is any different, holds any more love or meaning to it

No. But I don't have those Meg Ryan movie inspired romanticized notions of love and sex anyway.

when making this choice, one can’t only think of the consequences that would effect only you, because the range of your actions is much greater than that.

I can think of an awful lot of activities whose consequences affect other people that nobody has moral issue with. Giving my friends a ride in my car has the potential to kill them all if we get in a wreck. Asking them to go camping they could get mauled by a mountain bear. My earlier skydiving analogy still holds in that it could directly lead to the death of my significant other.

Gender roles--like it or not, Jimbo, as a man, will never know what it's like to be a mother. He will not know how it feels to be pregnant and feel a baby move inside, birth that baby, experience all those associated weird hormone effects, or have that mother-child bond develop.

Neither will sterile women, or women who choose to not have children of their own, do they therefore forfeit the right to be a mother, because they haven't had that experience?

My entire outlook on life is different from Jimbo's testosterone/xy-chromosome-driven outlook.

Your outlook on life is different from Jimbo's because ever since he was little he was socially instructed on how boys should act. Boys don't cry, you got hurt? Rub some dirt on it and walk it off. We don't nurture, that's what women do. Etc. Etc.

There are a number of homosexual parent studies going on atm, and if they can show me that children benefit equally with them as heterosexuals and have equivalently low risk, then that works for me and I can accept that.

Degobahn already brought this up, but I'd also like to talk about it.

Frankly, What you're saying in that sentence, is that homosexuals must qualify for parenthood, and prove that they are going to be every bit as good as heterosexual ones. Not only is that unfair and discriminatory, if followed to a logical conclusion it means we have to stop all adoption until we have tested all factors that might influence parental fitness. For example, I would postulate that intelligent people would eventually make better parents than unintelligent people, if only for the reason that the smarter ones will be better at helping their child with homework. Also, very rich parents will provide more benefits for their children as well. Should there be an IQ/Income line for families? It seems quite clear that children of poor stupid people do not benefit equally to the children of rich smart people.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Frankly, What you're saying in that sentence, is that homosexuals must qualify for parenthood, and prove that they are going to be every bit as good as heterosexual ones. Not only is that unfair and discriminatory, if followed to a logical conclusion it means we have to stop all adoption until we have tested all factors that might influence parental fitness.

Actually, ET, that's precisely what they do already? Adoption is a process that litterally takes years. You have to be very fit as a parent to be allowed to adopt children.

[True_Avery]

Frankly, What you're saying in that sentence, is that homosexuals must qualify for parenthood, and prove that they are going to be every bit as good as heterosexual ones. Not only is that unfair and discriminatory, if followed to a logical conclusion it means we have to stop all adoption until we have tested all factors that might influence parental fitness. For example, I would postulate that intelligent people would eventually make better parents than unintelligent people, if only for the reason that the smarter ones will be better at helping their child with homework. Also, very rich parents will provide more benefits for their children as well. Should there be an IQ/Income line for families? It seems quite clear that children of poor stupid people do not benefit equally to the children of rich smart people.

Actually, ET, that's precisely what they do already? Adoption is a process that litterally takes years. You have to be very fit as a parent to be allowed to adopt children.

QFE

 

And yet any two idiots anywhere can just make a child and not undergo any background check at all.

 

Such a messed up system we have going on.

 

Anyway, on the sex talk (since it is not important really to this conversation) I'm going to make a thread to move it out.

[ForceFightWMe12]

/sigh

I'm honestly not lying here, some women really do enjoy casual sex. Honestly, I didn't make that up. Just because you aren't interested has no bearing on the matter

 

Did I not also mention that it's their choice to live that way? I don't recall ever denying that there are women out there that do, in fact, enjoy casual sex. I'm just pointing out that the delusion that you seem to have of most women enjoying casual sex is wrong. Many women have alterior motives for sex than simple enjoyment. See, unlike men, we have these things in our heads called brains that we actually use...

 

In all honesty, I prefer that my women have sexual experience. I would rather that my spouse (assuming I ever actually decide to get married...) have a similar morals to me, and part of my moral stance is that casual sex is fine as long as you're responsible.

 

Responsible...hm...explain to me exactly how that works.

 

No. But I don't have those Meg Ryan movie inspired romanticized notions of love and sex anyway.

 

Obviously.

 

I can think of an awful lot of activities whose consequences affect other people that nobody has moral issue with. Giving my friends a ride in my car has the potential to kill them all if we get in a wreck. Asking them to go camping they could get mauled by a mountain bear. My earlier skydiving analogy still holds in that it could directly lead to the death of my significant other.

 

Again, I do not recall pointing out that sex was the only thing on this planet with far reaching effects or denying that anything else with far reaching effects was as serious as sex. This discussion is not about morals for me, dear ET, but more of responsibility; a quality that you have yet to address with a winning argument.

[ET Warrior]

Actually, ET, that's precisely what they do already? Adoption is a process that litterally takes years. You have to be very fit as a parent to be allowed to adopt children.

I knew I should have clarified that point...

The point wasn't that they don't have to qualify to adopt, the fact is, that they didn't have to undergo any qualifications based on their sexual orientation. If the process of qualifying for adopting children is so rigorous as to weed out unfit parents, then why aren't homosexual couples run through the same rings as the heterosexual ones and then chosen that way? Why do they have additional tasks and tests.

 

That was what I was trying to get at.

 

I'm just pointing out that the delusion that you seem to have of most women enjoying casual sex is wrong.

I'd rather appreciate you point out to me where I said that most women enjoy casual sex, because I don't recall saying it. In fact I'm pretty sure I never did, because I don't think that most of them do.

 

See, unlike men, we have these things in our heads called brains that we actually use...

Yes, of course, a sign of intellect is the choice to not engage in a mutually satisfying and enjoyable act. Silly men, we need to get back into our gender roles and stop trying to be smart. Now somebody bring me a beer!

 

Responsible...hm...explain to me exactly how that works.

By being honest with partners about your prior sexual history, by being honest about any STI's you may or may not have, by being honest about your intentions towards a relationship or lack thereof, by accepting the risks inherent in your decision.

 

This discussion is not about morals for me, dear ET, but more of responsibility; a quality that you have yet to address with a winning argument.

I'm not certain how exactly you would like me to address it. I feel fairly confident that I have made clear in my prior posts that I take responsibility for my actions, and expect others to do the same. Were I to contract some manner of STI from a partner of mine I certainly would not go off the handle and accuse them of being a horrible person who infected me, rather I would let them know on the chance that they were unaware that they had it in the first place. At what point am I required to take responsibility for the choices that other people make? If other people choose to engage in promiscuous sex I see no reason why I must be responsible for their consequences.

[Jae Onasi]

I prefer that my women have sexual experience.

Humor mode on:

Jae suddenly gets a picture of ET the Caveman standing over a bevy of women, pounding his chest and yelling out to all other men that they are "My Women!!!!" There's a sexist comment if I ever heard one.

 

Your outlook on life is different from Jimbo's because ever since he was little he was socially instructed

I used to think that until I had kids of my own. We've tried hard to raise them without gender stereotypes like 'men can't nurture and women can't do men's work,' 'men shouldn't cry', and so forth. Are they androgynous? Not even close. We discovered that my son is still very much a boy and does not like a lot of girl things--they just don't interest him. My daughter does some 'boy things' but still does very "typical" girl things. Their genetics, hormones, etc. do shape their thinking, approach to the world, and relationships to a degree.

[ET Warrior]

There's a sexist comment if I ever heard one.

Oh come on Jae, are you honestly going to try and convince me that women aren't possessions?

[Jae Onasi]

Oh come on Jae, are you honestly going to try and convince me that women aren't possessions?

 

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Waitaminute, so if I refer to my significant other as 'my girlfriend', I'm treating her as a possession?

 

What about if I say 'my mother'?

 

Anyways, when the moderators are done mocking about, maybe we could get back on topic()?

[Jae Onasi]

Waitaminute, so if I refer to my significant other as 'my girlfriend', I'm treating her as a possession?

 

What about if I say 'my mother'?

 

Anyways, when the moderators are done mocking about, maybe we could get back on topic()?

 

In the US, at least, it's OK to say 'my girlfriend' or 'my mother', but saying 'my women' has a possession connotation to it, kind of like a pimp saying "these are 'my women'" as he parades around his working girls in front of his clients. Someone a guy goes out with is 'my girlfriend' or 'my friend', but saying 'my woman' says 'I don't respect this person, she's so far below me I'm not going to even deign to give her the most basic term of endearment or friendship'.

 

While we did need a brief bit of lightening-up in the thread, it probably is time to get back somewhere remotely related to topic. Let me know, Dagobahn Eagle, if you want it brought back all the way to the OP or if the digressions are OK to stay here, too.

[Dagobahn Eagle]

Everything's fine. Carry on:).

[Quist]

In all honesty, I prefer that my women have sexual experience. I would rather that my spouse (assuming I ever actually decide to get married...) have a similar morals to me, and part of my moral stance is that casual sex is fine as long as you're responsible.

I have a question for you, then. Should you decide to get married, then would it be okay for your wife to go out and sleep with another man, as long as she was 'responsible' about it and vice versa?

 

With the direction this thread has taken, I think I'm able to add just a bit more female insight. Personally, sex is something deeply intimate and special, not to be given away just after one magical night at the disco. Most of my friends are like me as well. I can definitely understand the physical gratification aspect of it, since we all do have needs in that way, whether or not we choose to admit it. But for the majority of women I've met in my life, sex also requires emotional gratification as well. I don't know if this is old-fashioned or not in today's society, but it certainly is the indiginous standard in my area of the world. Then again, I'm just a simple suburb girl and not a trendy cosmopolitan woman.

 

Another point I'd like to mention is the fact that in today's society, women who sleep around are more likely to be ostracized/ridiculed than men who sleep around. My friend once told me "If a guy sleeps with 10 women, he's a playa. If a girl sleeps with 10 men, she's a slut." Now, I know this isn't the case everywhere, but it certainly hold true a good part of the time. Thus, it doesn't really benefit women too much to go around advertising the number of sexual partners they've had. Sure, it might be well and good to share your sexual history prior to doing the deed, but who's to say your partner at the time won't go out afterwards and tell his buddies about you and how 'easy' you are?

 

I guess what I'm saying is that one-night stands really aren't my thing either. It's all physical and while yeah, that's nice, most women need the emotional aspect as well to make the sex worthwhile. To those women who can put that aside and just do it for the nookie, then more power to them. But they're the exceptions, not the rule. I honestly can't picture myself living my life full of one-night stands.

[ForceFightWMe12]

Yes, of course, a sign of intellect is the choice to not engage in a mutually satisfying and enjoyable act. Silly men, we need to get back into our gender roles and stop trying to be smart. Now somebody bring me a beer!

 

A sign of intellect is to know about and care about the full range of consequences of your actions. And speaking of gender roles, it seems that men who are 'promiscuous' seem to be forming their own gender role for themselves. Do you have any idea how many guys have cheated on girlfriends, done drugs, or slept with girls at a party because 'that's what they're supposed to do'?

 

By being honest with partners about your prior sexual history, by being honest about any STI's you may or may not have, by being honest about your intentions towards a relationship or lack thereof, by accepting the risks inherent in your decision.

 

While honesty is all well and good, that doesn't exactly account for all of the consequences that may follow. And I'm not talking about just you and her because, while STDs and pregnancy are two large risks, they're not the only ones.

 

Humans live by example - it's how we learn, it's how we function. The responsibility I mean is the responsibility for the effects that your life style has on the people around you. As I've stated before, teenage boys often act in the fashion that they see the prominant male figures in their lives acting. That also goes the same for any of the girls that may see you act, or the girls that may see 'your women' act. Your actions go far beyond just the two of you. Just as children of divorced parents have a greater chance of having failed marriages themselves, those exposed to such things as promiscuous living through those they respect are more likely to live that way themselves.

 

At what point am I required to take responsibility for the choices that other people make? If other people choose to engage in promiscuous sex I see no reason why I must be responsible for their consequences.

 

When did I ever say that you had to take responsibility for what others do? My point is that everyone has to take responsibility for the consequences of their own actions. It's one of the most basic lessons that we're taught as children, but more often than not, adults forget or ignore such responsibility because they're only looking for themselves and their own instant gratification.

 

Psychologists today have been able to divide the reasons for human actions into three main groups: Child Stimuli, Pressure Stimuli, and Adult Stimuli. Did you know that one of the first reasons listed beneath Child Stimuli is 'because it feels good or feels bad'? In other words, children either take certain actions or avoid certain actions because they please or hurt them. Another of the main Child Stimuli is 'instant gratification'. Kids want what they want now and not a moment later.

 

In the meantime, there are the Pressure Stimuli, aka Peer Pressure. People act depending on what they see or what they're told that they're 'supposed to do'. People say that girls are supposed to sleep with their boyfriends, so they do. People say that boys are supposed to sleep with multiple girls, so they do. Kids also respond to Pressure from their parents, whether their parents acknowladge it or not.

 

And finally, the Adult Stimuli. Adult responses to situations are based almost solely on the consequences. They are based on what will happen as a result of their actions, in addition to the actions themselves.

 

Which Stimuli do your reasons fall under, ET?

 

I have a question for you, then. Should you decide to get married, then would it be okay for your wife to go out and sleep with another man, as long as she was 'responsible' about it and vice versa?

 

With the direction this thread has taken, I think I'm able to add just a bit more female insight. Personally, sex is something deeply intimate and special, not to be given away just after one magical night at the disco. Most of my friends are like me as well. I can definitely understand the physical gratification aspect of it, since we all do have needs in that way, whether or not we choose to admit it. But for the majority of women I've met in my life, sex also requires emotional gratification as well. I don't know if this is old-fashioned or not in today's society, but it certainly is the indiginous standard in my area of the world. Then again, I'm just a simple suburb girl and not a trendy cosmopolitan woman.

 

Another point I'd like to mention is the fact that in today's society, women who sleep around are more likely to be ostracized/ridiculed than men who sleep around. My friend once told me "If a guy sleeps with 10 women, he's a playa. If a girl sleeps with 10 men, she's a slut." Now, I know this isn't the case everywhere, but it certainly hold true a good part of the time. Thus, it doesn't really benefit women too much to go around advertising the number of sexual partners they've had. Sure, it might be well and good to share your sexual history prior to doing the deed, but who's to say your partner at the time won't go out afterwards and tell his buddies about you and how 'easy' you are?

 

I guess what I'm saying is that one-night stands really aren't my thing either. It's all physical and while yeah, that's nice, most women need the emotional aspect as well to make the sex worthwhile. To those women who can put that aside and just do it for the nookie, then more power to them. But they're the exceptions, not the rule. I honestly can't picture myself living my life full of one-night stands

 

*high fives*

[ET Warrior]

Do you have any idea how many guys have cheated on girlfriends, done drugs, or slept with girls at a party because 'that's what they're supposed to do'?

I don't necessarily see the relevance. I have been clear that there are immoral ways to go about being promiscuous. I am merely stating that promiscuity in and of itself does not carry an inherent moral impact.

 

While honesty is all well and good, that doesn't exactly account for all of the consequences that may follow. And I'm not talking about just you and her because, while STDs and pregnancy are two large risks, they're not the only ones.

Again, if you want to level that kind of moral compass toward sexual intercourse you're going to have to point it at everything else. There is a plethora of negative consequences that can come from simply getting behind the wheel of an automobile. Why aren't people who like to just get in their car and drive around considered immoral? They're putting their lives and the lives of everyone else out on the road at risk. Seems like a pretty negative consequence.

 

As I've stated before, teenage boys often act in the fashion that they see the prominant male figures in their lives acting.

Which again comes back to the point that you are placing promiscuous sex on an immediately immoral platform.

 

When did I ever say that you had to take responsibility for what others do?

You seem to be of the impression that regardless of my taking complete responsibility for my actions, and being completely honest with all my partners about everything, I'm still somehow accountable for the fact that they may have chosen to take part in something that may have negative consequences for themselves.

 

Psychologists today have been able to divide the reasons for human actions into three main groups: *blah*

 

Which Stimuli do your reasons fall under, ET?

Cute. Would you like me to strike up a list of common adult behaviors that would obviously be cataloged as "Child/Pressure Stimuli? I think you might find that the majority of our behavior is based on pressure or if we like it or dislike it. That doesn't make them immoral or even childish. Something as simple as eating takes place because we like the way food tastes and dislike being hungry. I doubt most people stop and analyze the consequences of eating. Rather, it's more of a "Man I'm hungry, and that sandwich looks delicious". In a similar vein, things like playing sports, playing video games, watching movies, drinking alcohol, getting married, having children, celebrating holidays, and the list could continue are ALL pressure or "child" stimuli.

[Rogue Nine]

I like how you completely ignored Quist, ET.

[Totenkopf]

......promiscuity in and of itself does not carry an inherent moral impact.

 

Neither for that matter does killing. But you'd be in a better position if you just said that sex has no inherent moral impact, rather than promiscuity. Problem with your argument is that morals are directly related to your values. Thus, you can make a relative statement about promiscuity's inherent morality, but not an absolute one, as you are doing.

 

@R9--he'd probably consider her a bit of a wet blanket....