Sexual morality

February 21, 2007 at 3:57 pm (sex)

Advertisements

18 Comments

  1. psyche said,

    Yesterday I watched Dr Phil on TV try to analyse why a beautiful young girl wanted revenge on her cheating lover.

    The 18 year old girl was gorgeous and naive. Her lover was a 36 year old bachelor. She had found out that he was having sex with three other women during the same time he was dating her. His defence was that he had made no formal engagement proposal while dating her. As for dating younger women – it was because “older women carried too much baggage.” He had no qualms about having multiple sexual relations simultaneously – and cited the reality series “The Bachelor” who did the same thing in front of million of viewers, before choosing the partner he would marry.

    Cuts to the audience during the interview showed a lot of women listening to the conversation. Most of them looked inwardly confused. Their smiles at Dr Phil’s humor over the situation were strained.

    Dr Phil was in the bachelor’s corner. His only reservation was that he felt the guy should have been more forthcoming about his other liaisons while dating the girl. He gave the girl a hard time about wanting revenge and told her that she should drop the guy and her feelings of rejection and move on.

    The irony of the show (completely missed by the good doctor) was that he was analysing the behavior of a man, complaining that older women were too messed up to date, while at the same time being the sexual predator who callously preyed on the feelings of impressionable young women and in the process was directly responsible for gradually turning them into the baggage-laden garbage that he would not date when they were older.

    The show reinforced my view that American sexual morality is skating on a very thin edge. The unhappy faces of the women in the audience reminded me of the fact that the women’s lib movement has a price to pay in their fight for sexual freedom. There are times when I wonder if the price is too high. The ever-climbing divorce rate and broken homes seem to support my view.

    A few generations ago that naive young girl would have got her revenge. If she had been my daughter or my sister, it would have been within my rights to label the man as a cad and a scoundrel and shoot him in a duel. Now we have highly rated public TV shows feteing the same morally reprehensible behavior. Our ancesters must turn in their graves as they see how things have changed!

    I have three beautiful young daughters of my own. Maybe I am old-fashioned, but I am not so sure if my feelings about men who prey on young women for their private enjoyment have changed all that much.

  2. soniarott said,

    First of all, being a total ass does not warrant the death penalty (though it might warrant a little character assaassination).

    Your comment about “women’s lib” having “too high [a price]” does not make sense. Men were asses and cheated centuries ago, but instead of being able to get away from the cheaters (and extract half their assets plus alimony from them) women had to stay in unhappy marriages (and raise their children in a poisonous atmosphere). How is divorce a price at all, much less too high a price?

    The best way to protect your daughters is to equip them to protect themselves — if being naive and impressionable makes women vulnerable to predators, then ensure that they are not naive and impressionable.

  3. petunia said,

    Psyche wrote:
    ‘The irony of the show (completely missed by the good doctor) was that he was analysing the behavior of a man, complaining that older women were too messed up to date, while at the same time being the sexual predator who callously preyed on the feelings of impressionable young women and in the process was directly responsible for gradually turning them into the baggage-laden garbage that he would not date when they were older’.

    Good observation. Our society is sexually very confused imo. While it would be illegal for him to be in a sexual relationship with her one year ago, it is now “okay” for him to use her for his benefit. It is obvious that she was not emotionally equipted to deal with this man. The frontal lobe doesn’t finish developing until about age 18. That is why teenagers struggle with maintaining consistent judgement. Combine this with their unstable, changing body chemistries and it’s no wonder they have such a time of it. The 36 yr old man exploited the girl emotionally/sexually. Our society’s whole concept of sexuality is based on technicalities rather than principles. It’s quite ridiculous.

  4. leanne woolrich said,

    I think our society’s conception of sex is unhealthy. We have women trying to be “male” about sex, i.e. uncaring and casual, which is absurd.

  5. soniarott said,

    leanne woolrich wrote:
    ‘I think our society’s conception of sex is unhealthy. We have women trying to be “male” about sex, i.e. uncaring and casual, which is absurd’.

    I refuse to accept that being “male” about sex means being uncaring and casual. There certainly seems to be a problem with egoistic attitudes gaining greater sway in our culture, but I don’t see this as something intrinsically “male” (or “female” for that matter).

  6. leanne woolrich said,

    I don’t think many things are intrinsic, least of all cultural trends. But generally, it is a well grounded stereotype that males are more likely to be players than females–but I see this changing.

  7. leanne woolrich said,

    Yes, it is a well grounded stereotype. But “being a player” is only one mode of “being male about sex”. Vast numbers of men think being a ‘player’ is identical to being an asshole, and will have nothing to do with it — sort of like how vast numbers of women think ‘The Rules’ are a total crock of shit.

  8. petunia said,

    I’ve heard the argument that men want to “spread their seed” to as many women as possible. But that makes much more sense for turtles, crocadiles, and other reptiles who are independent from birth. For humans who have only one offspring at a time which requires so much support for so many years, that suggests a rather hit or miss approach. There should be instincts to be selective about the mother and overseeing the success of the birth and early years of development. This is also true because human females are extremely vulnerable during pregnancy and birth from a survival standpoint.

  9. stephane sednaoui said,

    It is my experience that men in general are not ready for fathering until their forty second year (male menopause.) Prior to that time our psyches are almsot exclusively involved in self-improvement. I ‘”fathered” my first child at 21. I was so busy and ambitious at that time that I felt no intrinsic need to become deeply involved with his upbringing – so basically all I did was procreate an unplanned child. That marriage ended in an inevitable divorce. It was only in my mid-forties that I felt an emotional need to remarry and father children and pass on all the knowledge and crafts that I had learned and teach them how not to make the same mistakes I did.

    It might be interesting to note that traditionally among the amaZulu in Natal, until recent times, a man did not get the marriage headring until his 42nd year. Prior to that he was initiated at puberty and trained to be a bachelor lion-fighter – protector of the herds and also serve his time as a warrior against rival tribes. Only after having served his prescribed time and proved his worth as a man, did he received a portion of the tribal herds and retire from the battle field with enough wealth to buy young wives and rear children and finally have the right to his say at tribal council.

    It would seem to me that focused modern young businessmen and craftsmen remain biologically inclined to follow that ancient path of male development – and that young women who feel the urge to mother and discover the true depth of their own femininity, should look for a reliable marriage partner among matured men and not those still trying to discover their own potentials.

  10. stephane sednaoui said,

    A culture attains its dynamic by restraining basic aninal instincts and focusing on the quality, not quantity of our relationships. This is most especially so when it concerns sex and procreation, and not letting its members run wild. Ethical nehavior defines our humanity and lifts us above other animals.

    Honor, integrity, loyalty, moderation etc etc may not sound cool these day, but God help us if they keep going down the drain.

    There are other replies on this thread who state that rampant sexual freedom is simply a healthy moden phenomena. Tell that to Rome in its last days.

    Young moderns who question the seeming pretence or artificial nature of social cultivation are making a serious trespass on the whole meaning and purpose of human evolution. Nature Herself is involved with our ethical behavior – for we have the power to totally destroy Her. We are the highest expression of Herself. Three billion years of endless trial and error have gone into our development. There is no other organism on the planet that remotely approaches our level of achievements, in mechanics and the arts and self-expression.

    No man invented the idea of human cultivation. The strive towards excellence springs from within us as an ancestral inheritance, paid for by 100,000 generations of human struggle to rise above the Animal Age and Stone Age and Bronze Age and the Iron Age. Over those generations a universal set of painstaking family values and social rules have been developmed in order to keep us rising high above Nature.

    Past civilizations have all collapsed and disappeared from memory. simply from becoming over-sophisticated in their outlook towards loose social brehavior and forgetting the implacable Laws of Non-Trepass.

    Our evolutionary cycle is far from complete. We are still in our rebellious teen stage. A daring and reckless danger lies here and now. The whole planet is webbed together as a single culture now. We can totally self-destruct and become extinct as a specie before we reach the first stage of responsible aduthood. Ahead of that lies ages of Mastership and a fantastic Sagehood of cosmic wizardry. Lets get there and stop fucking around.

    Uncool as moralizing may sound, I believe we have a problem

  11. the boss said,

    stephane sednaoui wrote:
    ‘There are other replies on this thread who state that rampant sexual freedom is simply a healthy moden phenomena. Tell that to Rome in its last days’.

    Ah. the only thing that destroyed the Roman Empire is sexual behavior. Yeah, that makes sense.

    Where do you people come UP with this stuff?
    A culture attains its dynamic by restraining basic aninal instincts, and focusing on quality, not quantity, and not letting its members run wild. Ethical nehavior defines our humanity and lifts us above other animals.

    Honor, integrity, loyalty, moderation etc etc may not sound cool these day, but God help us if they keep going down the drain.

    Are you protesting that the man had sex with women while making it seem like he was going to be loyal, and then wasn’t (and then justifying it afterwards), or just that he had sex with multiple women? If I honestly tell a woman that all I want is a fun romp, is there something inherently immoral about us having that fun romp? If so, please justify it.

  12. the boss said,

    ‘we have a problem’, you say.

    Yes we do, but I feel that you’re a long way off from correctly identifying the problem.

  13. alford kondzeit said,

    In response to the original post, I would like to raise a few important questions:
    – What is wrong with having more than one sexual partner at the same time?
    Nothing if all the partners knew about each other.
    – If the man had told the young girl that he had more than one sexual partner, would that have rectified the situation?
    Yes. By simply being honest he would have put the ball in the girl’s court. Then he would allow her to make an honest assessment of the relationship.
    – You seem to think that the man was simply using all of the women he had sex with. Isn’t it possible that he loved all 4 of the women? Why is it impossible to truly love more than one person at a time?

    The man was assuming that he was using the 4 women. This is why he was not completely honest about them to each other. It is very possible that he loved all of them so much that he could not tell anyone the truth. It’s also possible that he loved them so much that he’d kill them just so they could never love anyone else. But how could they love someone who wasn’t being honest with them. How could the man expect them to truly love him if he was knowingly being deceptive. It may be possible to love more than one person at a time. But his love is not the issue. Love is usually only reasonable when two people (or 5)share mutual feelings. The feelings here were not mutual even though the girls thought they were.

  14. the boss said,

    i admire your sense of humour, stephane. it is unchanged. however, to continue your joke myself, i wouldn’t be interested in any of your two daughters unless they lighten up a bit. and their daddy isn’t helping…

  15. staphane sednaoui said,

    question? when did you became a philosopher?

  16. the boss said,

    immediately after you quit the job.

  17. stephane sednaoui said,

    thanks for the review on my book and than you for deleting the comments describing it as MISOGINISTIC, OFFENSIVE, DIRTY, PORNOGRAPHIC, HOMOPHOBIC, ANARCHIST, DELUSIONAL, DEPRESSING.

  18. the boss said,

    now you’re just trying to determine people to read your book!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: