Outrage over sexual freedom movements

  • Thread starter Thread starter CaptainPrudeman
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It is not a no-true scotsman fallacy.

As I said, modern feminism rejects what makes a woman feminine. It rejects her biology, her ability to conceive, what makes her distinct from men.

It holds up the workforce as the ultimate good of the woman. The ability to be productive, to advance up the corporate ladder.

Modern feminism is all of the -ism, and none of the feminine.
Sex is one of the fundamental human drives.

Any solution to any problem that requires perpetual abstinence is, biologically, an absolute non-starter.
Click to expand...
Except for that the Christian society survived and thrived for centuries holding to those Catholic principles. Every day men and women make the decision to permanently abstain from sex by entering the priesthood or becoming a nun. Others find themselves unable to have sex for various health / physical limitation conditions.

Sex is not the end-all be-all. We can live without it just fine. Modern culture just tries to make that seem like an unattainable goal.
 
Last edited:
Many don’t try and don’t know. I, for one, have more faith in human capabilities.

Also, I study biology. Humans are what we call K-strategists. We are capable of delaying gratification for long-term benefits.
 
redbetta said:
Many don’t try and don’t know. I, for one, have more faith in human capabilities.

Also, I study biology. Humans are what we call K-strategists. We are capable of delaying gratification for long-term benefits.
Click to expand...
I completely agree that we can delay gratification for long-term benefits. It plays into another one of our fundamental drives.

But asking healthy mammals to not engage in sexual behavior is like asking birds to resist flight.

It’s evolved to feel terrific because it’s vital to the perpetuation of the species. Anyone ignoring that does so at their own peril and ignores a force more mighty and ancient than whatever they attempt to superficially supplant it with.
 
ProdglArchitect said:
It holds up the workforce as the ultimate good of the woman.
Click to expand...
It holds up the notion that a woman shouldn’t be any more restrained by family care than her husband.
Except for that the Christian society survived and thrived for centuries holding to those Catholic principles.
Click to expand...
Oh I think sexual sin is as old as the rules against it. Older, almost certainly.

Moreover, birth control similar to what is available today is less than a century old and the population of the planet was below a billion folks for all of human history until roughly 1800.

So the “it worked for the ancients, so it works for us” line has obvious, anachronistic issues.
 
Last edited:
Your profile says you are Catholic. But you are speaking as if chastity is unattainable for most while our Faith says that everyone is called to it.
 
redbetta said:
Your profile says you are Catholic. But you are speaking as if chastity is unattainable for most while our Faith says that everyone is called to it.
Click to expand...
Chastity is a gift. A rarity.

Any solution calling for the normalcy of a rare spiritual gift is faulted from the start.

Pardon. I mean celibacy.
 
Last edited:
Yes, celibacy. But the majority of the population does not have to be celibate. They can get married and learn NFP.
 
redbetta said:
Yes, celibacy. But the majority of the population does not have to be celibate. They can get married and learn NFP.
Click to expand...
Sure. They contracept.

They employ methods deliberately intended to frustrate the procreative aspect of sex. NFP is one example.
 
Last edited:
No, it doesn’t bother me to read about it historically. These movements are a part of history. What bothers me a lot more are nude scenes in movies and sexually suggestive scenes on TV programs, even programs children watch like “Friends.” They are always talking about “getting lucky” when they are having sex with someone they’ve just met. Kids watch that show, teens, etc. It’s not an “adult” show. Sure there’s no nudity, but the implications can’t be overlooked or misread. Rachel and Ross even had a baby without marrying.

By no means is “Friends” the only culprit. “Will and Grace” was worse. Shows like this are an outgrowth of the sexual freedom movements. Some of us don’t appreciate them, and I’m no prude, not would I call myself a devout Catholic. I am, however, a decent person.
 
Last edited:
Spyridon said:
40.png
redbetta:
don’t think it’s a good idea to tease her back.
Click to expand...
I’m a Military guy. I fight back.

Someone shoots at me, I’m gonna shoot back.
Click to expand...
Meh. Discretion is the better part of valor.
 
I’ve had my doubts about his orthodoxy, but, I usually don’t pass judgments on anything other than blatant trolling.
 
So, I’ve been thinking that contraception has given women a false people that they can be like men and delay settling down indefinitely. Now we have a lot of unhappy woman for whom it is too late to have kids.

And, I cannot help but think that society has responded by putting more expectations on people. Schools assume that you are going to put your life on hold for them. I cannot hold down a boyfriend because I have too much coursework. And we are spending a longer and longer time in school. The bachelor’s degree is the new high school diploma. I think either reform or collapse of the current education system is needed to rescue family life.
 
My plan is this: I’ve abandoned high school romance hopes for many reasons, but I plan on dating in university. I’ll be done with that by 26 and God willing I’ll be ready to get married and have a family. It’s hard, yes, but not impossible if one is prepared to have very little downtime until you’re married.
 
It depends on what you are studying and how difficult your school is.

26? Are you going beyond a bachelor’s?
 
PhD. My ambition is being a lawyer specializing in criminal justice.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top