Sexual Revolution
80
PILL
I remember the first time I heard about the Birth Control Pill. Never in human history had sex been separated from reproduction. This was a Sexual Revolution. I was 16 or 17 at the time and I can still recall what I thought about it then. "This means guys can have sex with all the girls they want and they won't get pregnant!?"
In those days there were good girls and so-called "bad girls" in my high school. Good girls kept their virginity intact for marriage. Generally speaking, they were from good families with a father in the home, and might have an older brother. I remember older brothers threatening boys not to mess with their sisters and chaperoning their dates. Bad girls were not saving themselves and usually slept around—they were easy. Many of them came from broken homes, or troubled homes, resulting in a lack of self-esteem, or a lack of love and approval from a male person if their father was not in their life. Most boys wanted to test drive a few of the bad girls before marrying one of the good girls.
The Sword of Damocles hanging over us all was pregnancy. I was taught early that sex resulted in pregnancy and if I got a girl pregnant I'd better think a lot of her because I would be spending the rest of my life with her. Boys have always pressured girls for sex—that goes back to earliest times. Most girls did not want to do it and their best excuse was, "I don't want to get pregnant." Feminists hailed the Pill for granting girls great Freedom. I am not so sure. It took away their chief excuse to maintain their propriety and virtue. Now boys had a great new weapon in their arsenal of persuasion, "Just get on the pill honey so you can prove you really love me."
BIRTH CONTROL PILL
Studies show that 77% of white women were virgins when they married before the advent of the birth control pill. That number today is 5%. There has been in our society an explosion of promiscuity. The Pill was invented for married couples only, to be able to plan their pregnancies. That changed as a result of a lawsuit that came before the Supreme Court of the United States in 1972 Eisenstadt vs. Baird. The court could not deny any person the Pill, married or not, as a result of the earlier ruling in Griswold vs. Connecticut in 1965, where the same Court claimed to find a "Right to Privacy" in the Constitution. Don't bother to run look—it isn't there. Obviously murder, rape and incest are generally all committed in private. The Court admitted it wasn't there but that they saw "penumbras and emanations" in the Constitution—that means shadows and gases.
This same Right to Privacy ruling was used in 1973 to discover something that had never been seen before in our Constitution by 184 years worth of the best legal minds in America: A Right to have an abortion. Research shows that an average of 124,500 illegal abortions were being performed per year in America and 197 girls died as result of complications from them. The ACLU and Planned Parenthood claimed these numbers were one million abortions and 8,000 deaths—now admitted as a lie to achieve their political agenda. About 440 women died per year during childbirth in hospitals, so the dangers of illegal abortions had to be blown out of proportion to sway public opinion. I also remember what I thought the first time I heard about abortion. "What kind of girl would kill her own baby?"
Kill them they did—55 million and counting. 80% of these deaths were perpetrated by unmarried women. 3 out of 10 conceptions result in an abortion today. I find it interesting that the fathers of these babies—their natural heirs to carry on their genes and bloodline through the centuries—had no say in their extermination. But many women did bear children, of course, even if not married. Out of wedlock births to white women in the United States before the Sexual Revolution were 2%. Today that number is 26%. 70% of all black babies are born to unmarried mothers—up from 23% before the Sexual Revolution.
THE PILL
The separation of sex and reproduction led to a new phenomenon: Cohabitation. This was virtually unheard of before the Pill (1/5 of one percent of all couples) but today 19% of all couples are cohabitating. Whereas at one time in America 80% of all households were comprised of married couples, today that number is down to 51%. The marriage rate today is lower than at any time in history.
At the same time, sweeping changes happened in laws regarding divorce. In the old days, both persons had to agree to the dissolution of a marriage. The Sexual Revolution included the enactment of "No Fault" divorce laws, leading to an enormous increase in the number of divorces in America from 9% in 1965 to 50% today. Obviously, there are a lot of broken homes out there.
SEXUAL REVOLUTION
These astonishing changes in the mores, traditions, culture and laws of centuries of human society occurred in only 40 years. The general reaction of society was reluctant acceptance of this new reality. Patrick Moynihan famously described this as "defining deviancy down." Social Liberals lubricated this acceptance by various means. It was smoothed by new euphemisms such as "Reproductive Rights" "Medical Procedures" and "Pro-Choice" though the latter gives no choice to the baby whose life is at stake. Their main theory is that all individuals have a right to instant gratification of any appetite or desire. Moral Relativism taught us that each person creates their own moral truth so society has no right to judge what is good or bad in the choices persons make—narcissistic nihilism. Socially Liberal Sex Education for children was proclaimed to be a healthy response to the new realities. Radical Feminism (hostile to men and religion) taught us that all of this was simply freeing women from their chains of slavery to their families. Exorbitant rates of child support had to be confiscated from men, at the point of a gun, to make divorce an attractive choice for women. The feminization of men was required to implement this agenda. Welfare was required to promote illegitimacy (taxpayer support of illegitimacy).
Even the old main line churches adopted official pro-choice positions as they stopped believing in the central tenets of their own religions (they are dying out as a result). Whereas society—and certainly churches—once strongly disapproved of illegitimate births (bastards); cohabitation; divorce; abortion; fornication: today everything is to be accepted in the name of tolerance. It has been years since I have heard a preacher speak out against this new immorality. The new church is soft and therapeutic.
SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASE
Well, that's the good news. The bad news is that the Pill, and more so Abortion, is now known to have detrimental side effects to women physically, emotionally, and psychically. The cure of Sex Education in schools has proven a worse prescription than the original disease. Rampant promiscuity has caused unprecedented levels of Sexual Transmitted Diseases. 95% of all cervical cancers in women are the result of STDs. 19 million persons are infected with a STD each year in America—4 million of them teenagers. 65 million Americans have a contagious Sexually Transmitted Disease right now. 25% of all American adults have a lifelong incurable STD. All of these numbers of infected persons represent astonishing increases of 700 to 900 percent since the Sexual Revolution. I am not even going to get into the promotion of homosexuality by Social Liberals and the resultant health problems directly imperiling the general population via AIDS. That will require an entire essay to explicate.
SEX IN MEDIA
The culture of America has proceeded apace with these developments—Progress according to Social Liberals. In the grocery line Americans of all ages are exposed to magazines touting sexually themed headlines and scantily clad women. Playboy did not dare show pubic hair until 1968 but today hard-core pornography is available in most hotels in the United States and Pornography is the most lucrative business on the internet, earning billions of dollars. Maggie Gallagher said, "A pornographic culture is one which accepts the ideas about sex on which pornography is based." Every perversion imaginable is available for viewing by children and adults alike on the internet. I will not list them here though I could. It is too revolting for those of virtuous sensibilities. Motion pictures, which once did not allow a vulgar word or naked breast, now feature full frontal nudity, simulated sex, and every foul word known to man in large quantities. To quote Robert Bork, "Television has dictated changes in the way sex, social and cultural authority, and the personifications of good and evil are presented. Recreational sex, for example, is pervasive and is presented as acceptable about six times as often as it is rejected. It warns against restrictive sexual morality on these practices. The villains are not deviants and libertines but Puritans and prudes." Our culture sexualizes even teenagers via magazine ads and music videos. One look at high school cheerleading routines, or nightclub dancing, shows us how the human female has been degraded to a gyrating animal.
We have to think about the fact that this culture we have created as a result of the Sexual Revolution is seen by very young eyes. Are children affected by seeing Mom having man after man spend the night with her in their home? I have heard Social Liberals claim they are not affected in any way by any of this. The next time your kid asks for the latest Xbox, or Happy Meal, or Nike sneakers, or to see the latest movie—you think about if this is true. When you see your children pretending to be the latest movie character—ask yourself if what they see in our cultural presentation of our world affects them. Celebrities are the new heroes (exemplars). There was a time when a hero had to actually do something heroic. The effects of our culture on young minds are reported here: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2372/is_1_39/ai_87080439/
FATHERS
Social Liberalism contends that fathers are superfluous to the rearing of children. I am a curious fellow and I don't mind asking individuals penetrating questions. A single friend in her 30s told me recently she was going to have a baby. I asked, "Who is the father?" She said, "Oh. That doesn't matter. He's not in the picture." A daughter of a friend, never married, couldn't wait to proudly show me her photographic collection of her four children. I asked, "Who is their father?" She said, "Well, they all have different ones. But they've never met them." And she was just as perky as can be about this.
But do fathers matter in the lives of children? ALL sociological surveys EVER conducted say resoundingly, YES! Children reared without their natural fathers show incredibly higher rates of criminal behavior, drug use, dropping out of high school and unemployment as adults. Boys in particular, show extremely higher rates of cognitive problems, hyperactivity, hostility, and suicide. Boys learn how to be men from their fathers. The response of Social Liberals? Give them Ritalin. Children of divorced parents are less happy, less healthy, and more dangerous to others and themselves. James Q. Wilson had profound words about the rearing of children, "Testing limits is a way of asserting selfhood. Maintaining limits is a way of asserting community. If the limits are asserted weakly, uncertainly, or apologetically, their effects must surely be weaker than if they are asserted boldly, confidently, and persuasively." Do not single parent homes increase the opportunities for teenagers to have sex in their own home without fear of detection?
RELATIONSHIPS
Then there are the relationships between men and women. Has there been an epidemic of spousal abuse and child abuse in the last 40 years as Social Liberals claim when their ideologies are used to remove fathers and husbands from their homes? If that is true—and some doubt it—why is it true? I am now going to turn to speculation about relationships in America, in regards to the explosion of the number sexual partners women have today.
Is it not true that women decide the morality of all cultures on Earth? Does not promiscuity perpetuate itself? If a woman has had 3 sex partners how gravely will she consider the 4th? If 10 how seriously is the 11th? If 100, how important is the 101st? If a man marries or has a romantic relationship with a woman that several of his friends have slept with, will he cherish her in the same way if that were not so? Since most of our universe can be explained mathematically, does it follow that: If a man is the 1st lover of a woman he feels himself to be in a special place in the universe? If he is 3rd does he feel somewhat special? If he is 100th—how special can he feel in his relationship? Does not each mathematical diminution make him just one of many and not so special at all? And if he is not special, does he, in his heart of hearts, cherish this woman who has shared herself with him? Is not feeling that you are special in the eyes of your mate one of the key features of a successful relationship?
FERTILITY RATE
A serious byproduct of the Sexual Revolution is a massive decline in the birth rate of native born Americans. American women had an average of 3.8 children before the Pill and Abortion. Today 1.4 is the average number of children allowed to live. Since the death rate is 2.1, at least that many children per woman is required to replace those who die—or an entire society is committing slow suicide. This creates an economic crisis for us. The 55 million aborted children would have become payers of Income Tax; and Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. It shouldn't take a mathematical genius to calculate how this vanquished generation has caused our current shortfalls in funding of entitlement programs.
A BETTER WORLD
This is a Moral and Spiritual Battle for the soul of America. Our misguided generation came to see God's Rule of Sexual Conduct as somehow for His benefit. No. His Command is for our benefit. Some of you may not even know what it is. It is that no sex is permissible outside of marriage (and no divorce). This means each person would have only one sexual partner in their lifetime. Sounds boring and restrictive, doesn't it? Imagine for one moment if all people obeyed God's rule for Sexual Conduct. There would be no such thing as sexually transmitted disease, would there? No broken homes, no fatherless children (except by death), no illegitimate births, no adultery, and none of the attendant social problems that plague our nation. Would this not be a better world?
To read about how people justify what they do please read my Hub "Dr. Johnson." To understand what persons were behind the Sexual Revolution please read my Hub "The Progressive Movement." If you want to know who is behind the curtain please read my Hub "Prince of Darkness."
PrintShare it! — Rate it: up down flag this hub
Comments
Interesting hub!
Well, I read this with some interest. And I anticipate this will either be another hub that receives hundreds of responses, or not very many at all. You have chosen a particularly touchy subject to Hub about again.
While I agree that there is a decline in the old fashion term of "morality" and I can see where you are going in terms of "the Pill", sexual freedom, abortion etc. I have to say it is quite obvious this is written from a man's point of view. There is no mention here of "bad boys" - only "bad girls".
"Most boys wanted to test drive a few of the bad girls before marrying one of the good girls."
Part of the problem in my view that you did not touch on is that old double standard. It was not looked on (still isn't) as a moral issue that most men looked for those "bad girls" but were never considered "bad boys" for doing so.
Wrong is wrong no matter your gender. To continually overlook the role of the male in the above scenarios, is just as wrong. If you are looking to the decline in morality, men have always played a large role that always seems to be overlooked, or passed over. Let's not point all the fingers at the ladies here James.
James,
First of all, good hub! I believe I agree with you most heartedly on most points. However, I somewhat connect with
the Duchess OBlunt. Not completely but somewhat. My husband and I are teaching our girls to 'hold the line', and our son to 'cherish and protect a girl's purity', and his own. I am sure you agree boys have a responsibility. However, it is true, women have the ultimate responsibility. We do not have to say YES to every Tom, Dick,and Harry. Girls must demand respect and TEACH men how to treat them. God created sex, and He created it for marriage. It is not necessary to practice beforehand. The plumbing always works. It is not impossible to stay pure before marriage. Just not popular. The benefits of waiting are so much greater and rewarding.
One more thing: As far as abortion. I agree that the sexual revolution fueled the abortion industry. We are having the idea of 'choice' forced down our throats. However, it is not really about a woman's choice. Men are often behind the 'choice' of a woman when it comes to abortion. ("So as not to have to get married, pay child support, get caught by my wife..." Women are being victimized under the guize of choice. It is time for women and girls to wake up!
Again, good hub! You hit this one out of the park!
p.s. (I would consider scratching the picture of the bad girl'slut'. It is difficult to pass this great article on to my young men friends who are holding the line until marriage, and respecting purity. They are still red blooded men, and it does not help their cause:)
wow, comments could be hubs in and of themselves. i've had my head down for the last 2 - 3 weeks - down in a trough of rough water in the grief thing. not yours to worry about.
birth control. i was on the pill by 18. i had menstrual issues that the pill alleviated. taking the pill for me was a medical thing taking care of the girl stuff. i did not become a "bad girl" because i was prescribed it. i do remember the days of "bad girls" and "good girls." i was the good girl who was a virgin when i married.
i love the photo of John Wayne. been a fan of his forever. the "slut" photo is a riot. airbrushed i'm sure. people need to remember that. i'm sure the men in her life at one time or another look at her and think, "what happened? i have her poster but...."
i believe that good fathers (and mothers) who want to be there are a must. i also believe that life happens and solitary fathers, for whatever reason, can raise their children as well as solitary mothers. we deal with what we have to deal with. my first husband was present as a father figure and i had to protect my children from him. i stayed married until they were almost grown and out of the house. i kept my moral, religious, personal convictions, and the impact on my children at the forefront of my decision to divorce. it sucked to me be for quite a while.
as for sex before marriage. my daughter and i talked about it. she didn't want what had happened to me to happen to her. i agreed. people can lie about everything but when they become intimate, they are vulnerable. they let down their guard sometimes. their masks can fall. and if they don't fall; if there is that element of continued control in their movements and their eyes do not engage but stay observational, then you also learn something. being intimate with someone is not a guarantee they won't change later, but it does give insight into what can be a potentially dangerous situation.
my daughter is getting married soon. she has known the young man for 3 years. been engaged for 18 months. they became intimate with his knowing as to what she witnessed from her father and my full knowledge as to why she was going to be intimate with him before marriage. he is her only but yes, before marriage.
Gavin de Becker wrote that a woman came up to him after one of his lectures and said, "a man goes on a date and wonders if he'll get lucky. a woman goes on a date and sometimes is forced to wonder if she'll survive." marriage for some women is like that. for some men for that matter. i have seen the worst in both genders.
your hub brings up valid points with statistics to back it up. there are also, in a small percentage, two sides to the "good girl/bad girl" ethic. i don't believe my daugher is bad for wanting to discuss her fears with her fiancee. she is not a bad girl for being intimate with him. she wanted to feel safe. she wanted her fiancee to understand why. she was privy to only one episode in my life that for all the world i wish she'd never known about. the other times predated her birth.
it is a terrible knowledge, both for her and for me. she knows what can happen and that marriage guarantees nothing. i know she knows and will never have the "white lace and promises." life isn't always pretty and statistics can lie. words can be misleading and intentions are oft times misunderstood.
she came to me. we talked. she sought out her gyn for advice. i stand by my daughter's decision because i do not want her to have the wedding night i did. i do not want her to live with the guilt and shame. i do not want her to have the images in her mind that i have in mine. contrary to my own life, i will always be here for her to come to. and should her young husband betray her in this one vile way, i will rain down hell on him. no woman should be afraid of her husband. no girl should be condemned and labeled as a bad girl for being intimate with her fiancee, especially if she is nervous about sex. i'm not explaining this well. i've taken too much of your time. i apologize but i don't want to delete it because it is something i believe. i claim ownership and blame if anyone thinks badly. but i do know that my daughter feels safe. her fiancee has devoutly promised never to hurt her physically or verbally as my first husband did me. he understands and is horrified that a man could be as my first husband was. all i want is for my daughter to be safe.
i agree that the sexual revolution is about more than my family's incident. i do not agree with frivolous, meaningless sex because i know how good it can be when you are deeply in love and in a committed relationship. my second husband, my Marine, gave me the knowledge of safe sex with a wholly different meaning than the one Trojan's advertises. i am deeply grieving that he has died. but i had him in my life and for that i am deeply grateful.
thank you for letting me vent. something you said up there just struck a chord. good girl. bad girl. sex before marriage. i wish i had known a little bit more than i did. not been quite so, so very, innocent. c'est la vie.
@R Burow, I am in agreement with you, you just said it much better than I did. Thank you for articulating what I meant to say. And I agree about the picture.
As usual James, a great hub backed up with research and statistics. I am in agreement however that it is clearly written with the old double standard 'point a finger at the women to uphold the morality' that is perfectly OK for the guys to ignore. There is little mention of all the men who still have thousands of partners, both inside and outside of marriage. No mention to the guys who run at the first sign of the responsibility of being a father. If you ask the girl who has 4 kids with 4 different sperm donors if she imagined it would be that way, I'd bet the entire premise of the hub on the fact that she in no way intended to be stuck with having to adapt to such extremely difficult circumstances! Underneath she undoubtedly made her first mistake and searched for a father or mate to help, without the time or means to first pursue therapy before it happened again. That you still call a woman “bad” when exhibiting the same behavior as men speaks volumes about the ignorance of the bias.
As a mom of an impressionable 8 year old at the time the president of the country said oral sex wasn’t sex, I had first hand awareness of how dramatic the affect of that was on her age group for years to come. That was around the same time as the Bobbitt events as well, with the media having a field day, and young minds wanting to know about life, discussing that amongst themselves with conclusions the rest of society couldn’t even fathom. As I wrote about in shaping our future, one need not look much further than the chosen “heroes” for blatant contradictions. Unfortunately I must express, this hub’s own contradictions make it less than your usual deserved respect authority wise. To place anyone on a pedestal while in their 4th marriage is also not my idea of a good example.
Apologies but it is controversial and you’ve clearly pushed some deep buttons – not the least of which begins with the imbalanced and judgmental attitude. We arrived at the state we are in now in large part due to that dictatorial Christian “I know better than you do” attitude with priests raping their altar boys. How does that fit in with your idea of “marriage” and saying “until death do us part” for the 4th time?
Again, another fantastically written hub. As a woman, I agree with everything you said.
I'm not sure I could make a comment without sounding repetitive. I came from a very strict catholic family, and I was very lucky that my children's views on morality seemed more conservative then that of thier friends. I believe that many in our generation yearn for more order, discipline, and morality. Thank you James, a very controversial Hub, prepare for long nites.
Quoting from this hub
" This means each person would have only one sexual partner in their lifetime. Sounds boring and restrictive, doesn't it? Imagine for one moment if all people obeyed God's rule for Sexual Conduct. "
Your God's rule for sexual conduct according to the bible
I quote
"Samuel12:8 And I gave thee thy master's house, and thy master's wives into thy bosom and gave thee the house of Israel and of Judah." This is refering to King Saul's wives one of which was Michal's mother. Michal was married to David therefore in your bible God's sexual conduct it is now quite ok to sleep with your mother-in-law and a few others thrown in!!!
"Samual 12:11-12 Thus saith Jehovah, Behold, I will raise up evil against thee out of thine own house and I will take thy wives before thine eyes and give them unto thy neighbor, and he shall lie with thy wives in the sight of this sun." Great sexual conduct here then, notice how it is always to mens advantage on the sexual side.!!!
"Samual 16:21-23 And Ahithophel said unto Absalom, go unto thy father's concubines, which he hath left to keep the house .... So they spread Absalom a tent upon the top of the house and Absalom went in unto his father's concubines in the sight of all Israel. And the counsel of Ahithophel which he counselled in those days was as if a man had enquired at the oracle of God" Great Sexual conduct from God here then and should we imagine the concubines said thank you come again sometime!!!!
"Ezekiel 37-40 Behold, therefore I will gather all thy lovers, with thom thous hast taken pleasure, and all them that thou hast loved..... I will even gather them round about against thee, and will discover they nakedness unto them, that they may see all thy nakedness. And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock and shed blood are judge and I will give thee blood in fury and jealousy......they shall also bring up a company against thee and they shall stone thee with stones and thrust thee through with their swords." No stripping the men then or stoning them and killing them with swords, just bring them along to have another look at her nakedness - this could have paved the way for pornography and S&M and its all God's sexual conduct.!!!
I would have as a guess that the bible was written by men for men with God being in their likeness. Your God's sexual conductis from men's lower regions.
Namaste
A good commentary on what has happened in American culture over the last 40-50 years. I agree with others who've posted that not enough responsibility is placed upon the men. Male 'sluts' are abundant or there wouldn't be so many female 'sluts'. The relaxation in divorce law, while with its major downsides, has had the upside of allowing women who are being mistreated by their husbands to get out of such a marriage.
Christ told us divorce is allowed by God only for adultery. There are implications in that word that perhaps may allow divorce for dishonoring one's partner. At any rate, marriage before the easing of divorce laws allowed cruel men who had no intention of honoring marriage as a divine institution to mistreat their wives. On the other hand, and very importantly, God hates divorce.
James, You opened a Pandora's box :) But sometimes that is good! I Know you knew this Hub would indeed bring about many positive and negative comments. Morals and Values need no defending, they are simply Just! It is immorality and lives lived with no values that need defending. Promiscuity is wrong, sex before marriage is wrong, I would only add for both men and women. It takes a man for a woman to be promiscuous with! Therefore, they are both guilty. ( I am speaking in a heterosexual relationship.) The Pill was never meant to make sex a free for all, and it certainly does not protect against STD's, Children need both parents (male and female)as positive influences in their lives. Married parents. You can't teach your children about morals and values if you don't have them! Abortion is legalized murder of an innocent child (the only possible exception is in the case of CERTAIN death of the mother and I am still not sure on that!) Try the New Testament, once Jesus walked the earth, He set forth a new Standard of Morals and Values! Romans 13:14 GOD'S WORD® Translation (©1995)
We should live decently, as people who live in the light of day. Wild parties, drunkenness, sexual immorality, promiscuity, rivalry, and jealousy cannot be part of our lives.
King James Bible
Romans 13:13 Let us walk honestly, as in the day; not in rioting and drunkenness, not in chambering and wantonness, not in strife and envying.
I can show many more examples but for brevity I will not.
To those of you who do not believe in God. That does not mean He doesn't exist! To us who do believe we KNOW that He does. Our morals and values do not hurt you, but your lack of morals and values hurt everyone!
James keep writing your Hubs they are always good and always correct!
You are a writer provocateur James! Whether your readers will agree with you or not is another thing. You must be my twin brother, except you are more serious about choosing your subjects and intense in your conviction. Stay cool and let me congratulate you for another excellent hub!
Kebennett1 - quoted from your hub "To those of you who do not believe in God. That does not mean He doesn't exist! To us who do believe we KNOW that He does. Our morals and values do not hurt you, but your lack of morals and values hurt everyone!
What incredible judgement again from one I take it who would call themselves a Christian!!!! You could not possibly know who I am or how I have lived my life. I do not believe in your God of the bible but I know there is a power more powerful than any of us. Personally I have been celebate by choice for many years, I do not partake of alcoholic beverages and have not done so for over 25 years in order to keep my self real, in the now moment and part of no illusion. I also do not eat living creatures. My integrity in life and partnerships has been one of sharing myself through love only and I help many others to enjoy their own sexuality through love,integrity and high energy realization. I ponder only briefly to wonder how you live your life.....anyone who uses rigid misplaced judgement so freely is in requirement of redemption but alas I forgot all you need to do is read the bible some more or perhaps say three or four Hail Mary's to purify yourself.
Blessed be those who know we are all one, which is the only reason I involve myself here.
Namaste
advisor4qb— Thank you for reading!
Duchess OBlunt— You are right. This was written from a man's point of view. There are, of course, bad boys. And there is a double standard, which some say is biological in its origins. I didn't mean to cast aspersions on "bad girls" necessarily. It is just in my memory that back in those days those terms were used. Boys, hormones raging, wanted to "get some." And they engaged in "boy talk" about the girls who put out and those who didn't. After the pill, this kind of talk stopped because nearly all girls of high school age now did engage in sex and "hooking up" with strangers came into vogue. I did not participate in hooking up but I had eyes and ears and plenty of friends so I can bear witness to the changes in mores of my lifetime.
I appreciate you taking the time to read this. Your comments are always wise and gracious. Thank you.
R Burow— I have removed the Slut—just for you. :-)
I agree that boys have to play their part in morality, of course. Their are anthropological studies that show that in any culture around the world the women of the culture decide the morality, ultimately. I just find that tidbit interesting to think about.
And I agree some men pressure women to have abortions.
Thank you for your thoughtful insights. Always a pleasure to hear from you.
womanNshadows— I know you are overwhelmed with grief. I have thought about you in that anguish many, many times. I wish I could help in some way. I'm sure many people feel the same way. But what can we do?
We can pray for you and comfort you as best we can, I suppose.
I think your commentary is a great addition to this thread. I thank you for sharing real life on this page. It is much more meaningful than statistics. :)
Duchess,
The picture is gone. :D
SEM Pro— There is no question that the pill and abortion have changed boys/men in profound ways. The boys I remember in high school would dream about and talk about getting married and raising a family. Now, I hear young fellas and they give hardly any thought to marriage other than "never."
I did not mean to say I think certain girls are bad. This was something that was real in our culture. You may be too young to remember. :-)
I did not call the girl with 4 kids bad. I certainly did not put myself on any pedestal. I took part in the Sexual Revolution. I do not mean to point fingers. I was in it, too. I am trying to say this: was it a good thing? Most of us thought it was at the time. This is great! But was it and is it great? That is my question.
The priests you mention were homosexuals in 99% of those cases and why has this behavior been encouraged by Social Liberals and our media? That will require another Hub.
I am not saying I know better than you. I am doubting that this has had a good outcome when it seemed so wonderful at the time.
Thank you for your comments. Perhaps I did not articulate my thoughts well.
Cari Jean— Thank you for the breath of fresh air! I appreciate your affirmation.
jiberish— I enjoy your wit. :D
I agree that there does seem to be a stirring among the young folks for a better morality than the one they have grown up in. I think the pendulum may swing back to people being more than copulating beasts. :o
Thank you for reading and leaving your wise words.
Universal Laws— I am sure you know I was speaking of the New Testament. I am not Jewish. But you make a good and valid point. And I appreciate your comments.
Hxprof— No doubt there have been and always will be cruel men. A woman surely needs to know who she is marrying. You can tell a lot by watching a person over an extended period of time interact with his family and friends (and yourself, of course).
I thank you for your keen insights and for the visit.
Kebennett1— You have added much good to this thread. Thank you!
I am a sinner. And I once was a far worse sinner than I am today. This is not about me on a pedestal preaching down to people. I was right there in the sexual revolution. I participating to a degree. My hope is that someone will think about the RESULTS I have sited and maybe someone can tell us how these results are good. And if they're not good, can we change society to create better results.
You have given a sound prescription. I hope folks will take you up on it. :D
IslandVoice— Thank you. I appreciate your congratulations. This article could create some controversy. Maybe I'd better go back to art, travel and baseball. :D
Universal Laws— You sound like a right fine woman. Thank you for your commentary. It is good to receive a wide range of viewpoints.
James A Watkins
Imagine if conception was man kinds responsibility.
Jer:1:5: Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee.
Go well
HOOWANTSTONO— Great Scriptural reference there. Thank you for adding that. I appreciate you coming by.
James,
What a great challenge you have taken on and I applaud you for it. I too was part of that sexual revolution and I confess to being involved. At the time I thought it was a good thing, but if I could change it I would in a minute. All of the girls were in my mind good girls, just caught up in the hype like myself. If I could go back I would enjoy just being with them, learning who they are and hopefully leaving them intact. You are going to hear from so many that will denounce the idea of morals because they choose not believe in God. That is fine, just use plain logic and you will still discover that a society that respects one another and values the intimate relationship created by sex will agree it is better left for those who choose to partner for life. It is a bonding of spirits like no other and will create a foundation on which to raise offspring.
This will be a tough road because so many believe that changing this behavior will benefit someone other than themselves.
Good luck and God Bless.
Hi James,
I enjoyed the hub, however, i guess as I am a bit older than you and was brought up in another country,(Australia) I always found that if you looked for some action around street corners or in coffee shops etc where most of the "bad" girls seemed to hang, pickings were slim to none, however, I found that the action was by taking up with the ministers daughter or the "good" girls, as personally I had great success. Maybe a different culture or time.
Keep it up James
Geoff
Robert— Thank you for sharing your wisdom on this thread for me. There is hope. William Wilberforce changed England from a culture about as sick as ours is today into what we remember as the Victorian Era. I am just hoping to spur some thinking about what kind of country we want to leave to our descendants. I appreciate the visit, as always.
Hey Geoff! What a pleasant surprise to hear from you, my friend. You know, I have heard that rumor that the preacher's kids are often wild. At least Dusty Springfield seemed to think so. Thanks for the visit and providing a view of Down Under. :-)
Universal Laws - Excellent. Oh yes, you can be sure the bible was written by men. Only men. You can also be sure alot of it was changed, altered slightly here and there, and so on which is why it also has SO many contradictions.
James, James, Dear Dear James - First of all, stop labeling every ridiculous picture you find a "liberal". That is obviously a person of some other country no doubt, that does his own thing. Come on, I don't walk around looking like that and most of my friends do not either. That is just silly. You must learn to stop labeling people James, remember what Kirkegard said "When you label me, you negate me". You have virtually put liberals (along with some other folks apparently) in a box. Now....
Alot of these ladies have already pointed out some obvious errors in your line of thinking. Although no one could argue the demoralization of the world at large, I believe there is enough blame to go around. Why just put it all on the doorstep of women?
Things not addressed that are truly relevant would also be abused women. Should they stay in their marriages in spite of the pain and humilitation they endure? Is this not also incredibly damaging to their children? What happens to these kids who grow up like that? Witnessing this violence and anger? I think we know. Sometimes divorce is the better choice for the children, not to mention the abused spouse.
What about good girls that lose their virginity to rape, like me? You know after you have been saving yourself for the "one you love" and it gets taken by some yahoo who can't take no for an answer, little else seems to matter. Your mindset about sex changes drastically. It loses something. I wish I could find the words to explain it. Still I would not consider myself a "bad girl". I was a serial dater, but that did not mean I was fast and loose.
There are positives and negatives to all things James. You know this country cannot go backwards as far as the pill and abortion and they don't even want to try (politicians). It seems to me it all falls on the parents to raise their children with love and care and teach them to respect themselves and others. That has always worked before.
P.S. Stop with the broken home stuff, you and I both know that some good people can come out of those situations, look at us :)
I enjoyed the hub and all the comments.Lots happening here. It is enough to get all of us thinking.
Your thoughts were articulated extremely well, as usual James. You mentioned one day that you wouldn't just let someone ignorantly spout off statistics that were inaccurate because they might be believed. That is what you have received from many on here who took exception to your "mightier than thou" judgmental condescension as if you were perfect and the rest of whoever contributed (honestly accepted responsibility for contributing) be damned.
You blamed women while blatantly almost condoning the men who pursued us women with such fervor, it was almost impossible to be considered as a person - merely a piece of meat. You sounded exactly like my mother as I was being raised - conservative Christian who knew better than the rest of society and pretended to be oh so perfect in the eyes of the world. Hypocracy and dishonesty are the worse of all ignorances. Add the male ego on his high horse and oops - you just about lost me as a fan.
It is a little easier to forgive my mother for lying that she was a virgin when she got married because she was mentally ill. I remember begging her repeatedly to stop leaving me with her father so the molestation would stop! Leaving home when I was 13 with no forwarding address might not have been so bad in my memory if she didn't call 2 years later after I had been raped for my virginity to say I deserved it. Do you want to be as ignorant and judgmental as she is? You will suppress many souls on their way to light if you do.
By 21 I was so disgusted with the men who considered women merely meat to fuck, assuming "we" all thought it was a good idea, is also extremely offensive. No - I am not too young to have had to experience the crap you guys put us through with your lack of morality.
You almost laugh, saying we are the ones who can set the moral tone of a community? How is it then that there are countries where it is perfectly OK to literally mutilate a woman as a husband? And then of course, leave when they want while the women are quite unable/disallowed to do anything but become prostitutes to feed their children? Only in the East you say? Then get out a little more to the abuse shelters, the human trafficking that goes on in droves from men kidnapping and enslaving women - IN THIS COUNTRY! How many women petafiles do you know? Why aren't you actually going to the worse of it, the perpetrators - MEN - to point a few fingers?
It was not the pill that changed everything. NOr is it helpful to society to continue spewing such disrespectfully verbal abuse, degrading women and essentially labeling them unworthy because men devised a way, a pill, to give them free reign over women without responsibility. Even with men perpetrating the majority, other men come up with a wildly popular pill to make sure, even if incapable of keeping it stiff, they can pop a pill and continue? Why are you not questioning that pill? Are the rapes so easy to take while an unmarried unChristian so despicable?
YOu talk like women should not have any rights concerning abortion. I do wish for a mere few moments you could feel what it is like to be beaten to within an inch of your life, screamed at as if you are a dog in heat, concussion, broken bones, violated in the deepest sanctity of oneself but know that if you pass out, you will die. Then find out this Devil himself impregnated you! You want to blame women for the lack of morality? YOu want to hold up abused, abandoned mothers doing the best they can to raise a family as the perfect bad examples? I suggest you'd be wiser joining me in attempting to get men castrated after serial abuses - it would be as productive as excusing away male ignorance and responsibility with many of us you lump in the same category as what you thought was "good".
Whew - so there you have the other side of your hub. Hope you'll change your attitude a little next time. Glad you were at least gracious enough to take down the "slut" picture!
the "person" in the picture with all the body piercings and tattoos and such is a creation of scientists who invented the birth control pill and tried it one the first victim and she still got pregnant, so they tried and abortion but the baby came out anyhow
Wow Sem Pro - If you read my hub "An Abortion Choice Revisited" you will understand why I completely relate to what you wrote. You are right of course, no one knows what that is like unless they walk in your shoes. Then, if they still feel the need to, they can criticize, condemn, and judge,...but not until then.
As a feminist I take some offense to this hub. None the less, we live in a free democracy, where freedom of speech is your right, so write on James.
This hub shows some of your deep biases and prejudices. I'll look for your next hub on history though...
Moonchild60— I thought that photo was funny. It is my sense of humor. :)
I think it is an American, though.
Rape is a terrible thing. We can all agree on that.
Of course many people turn out fine from broken homes. :)
I thank you for the visit and I greatly appreciate your thoughtful insights.
ftgfmom— Thank you for stopping in and leaving your remarks.
Well, James, you certainly have written a controversial hub. It seems many have judged you by what you wrote while claiming you have judged them. They don't realize that you didn't actually judge anyone but you judged the acts.
One question I would love to get an answer to is this one. Who judged these babies and find them guilty and worthy of death?
SEM Pro— You certainly covered a lot of ground there. Many times you ask why I didn't cover some other subjects in this Hub. This one was already 2501 words but I can write about the other subjects you brought up another time.
I certainly did not intend to write a condescending judgmental article considering myself perfect and holier than thou. This is a history article. I participated in this history myself so I am not innocent in this story and never claimed I was. I do not condone the behavior of men in this history. I didn't say women set the moral tone in all cultures. I did read that in an anthropology book but I presented it as a question here. I believe the quote was about free societies and this article is about America not Gaza. Obviously, things are different there.
If the Pill did not cause massive changes in American sexuality then a look at the statistics leads me to conclude this is the most incredible coincidence in the history of the world. I didn't know how to put graphs on here but I have some in front of me right now and from 1965-1970 to now they go up like a rocket after holding fairly steady for 50 years prior. The scientists who invented the pill were men—backed with money from a rich woman: Katharine Dexter McCormick upon the request of her friend, Margaret Sanger.
I take the gist of your commentary to be that despite the 55 million dead babies; the incredible number of people walking around with venereal disease; the number of broken homes and children with no fathers; the out-of-wedlock birth rate; the society committing suicide by not having enough children to replace those who die; the utter objectification of women in our culture; the rampant pornography including internet sites of people defecating on each other, fisting, child pornography,bestiality—that children can see; the failure of marriage and the poor state of relationships in general; the fact that children are growing up witnessing all of this as normal human life; the obvious effects of all this on children as revealed in hundreds of sociological studies: You are saying this is a better society and culture than the one in America before the pill. Right?
Shaul Stein— Interesting theory. I am sure the doctor exclaimed, "IT's Alive!"
Moonchild60— I am not here to condemn anybody. No one can change their past and neither can our nation. We can look at cause and effect and decide to try something different in the hopes of better results. I am talking about change that produced certain outcomes nationwide. This is not about individuals personally. It is about our national culture and society.
DynamicS— I am sorry I offended you. It was not my intention to offend anybody in any way. :(
SirDent— Thanks. I was trying to show that changes in behavior led to changes in our society and I ask: has this been the result we expected or wanted? I don't see how it can be. I do appreciate your remarks. It looks like I am in the doghouse.
Writing, like any art worth it's salt, evokes emotion and you certainly did this.
I admire that you stated your views with seemingly no fear of angering or hurting others. I stated that rather harshly, but I believe great writing is gritty and I sometimes find it difficult to be fully honest for fear of hurting or offending others.
You writing also seemed well researched although there was no mention of where you found most of this information. For instance some incredibly HIGH percentage rates like "95% of all cervical cancers in women are the result of STDs."
Although your writing was also well organized, it got harder for me to read the more sexist it became. I especially noted there was NO mention of a men's promiscuity or adultery or anything of the like.
I do agree that a father in a child's life is crutial, and absolutely the natural father (barring him being an abusive monster) would be the best. Unfortunately, however, some men have no interest in parenting.
I'd also like to mention that sadly I have never known a man to try to stop a woman from having an abortion. I'm sure it has happened, just not that I have seen. I have however known men to verbally abuse, manipulate, threaten or otherwise try to force women into "killing thier own baby".
And last, your complaint that the courts have forced tons of child support on to men seems a common opinion among the male gender.
They seem to feel it is unfair, etc. I must say though, if the situation is sadly at the point where the parents are no longer together, why should children be forced to sleep on a mattress on the floor at one parent's home while living the high life the other's?
Women pay child support too, I might add, as they should if it helps the children have a better life and be well cared for.
I was raised by a divorced mother with NO financial support what so ever from my father and it was a very difficult situation.
Why should all the responsiblity (financially and otherwise) of child rearing be heaped on to the mother? ESPECIALLY when women are definately not the only ones who leave thier marriages.
My last comment is just that you seem to take all comments and remarks, however oposite of yours they may be, with grace. This is commendable.
Keep on writing! -M
Mandy76— The links to information about cervical cancer being caused by STDs are manifold. Here is one: http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/6850019
Here is a quote from it: "The worldwide HPV prevalence in cervical carcinomas is 99.7 per cent. The presence of HPV in virtually all cervical cancers implies the highest worldwide attributable fraction so far reported for a specific cause of any major human cancer."
I used quite a few books in my research and usually don't do footnotes in blogs. I would in a book of course. I am willing to respond to any question about the information I present.
If the article is sexist that was never my intent.
I agree with all of your comments and I thank you for visiting. I appreciate your level-headed way of expressing yourself.
yeah man, i remember the movie called "it's alive"
do you?
Shaul Stein— Yes I do. :)
I was thinking of Frankenstein's Monster.
Thanks for reading my article BTW.
SEM Pro— I did not address all of the pain I can feel in your words. Obviously, you have had some horrible experiences with men. I apologize on behalf of men for our cruel behavior and mistreatment of women. It seems I have hurt your feelings with my article and I apologize to you for that. I didn't mean to hurt anyone and especially not someone I consider to be my friend. I admire and respect you as a woman and a writer. I love women. I have two daughters and five younger sisters whom I love dearly. I hope you will forgive me.
*Sigh* I am sorry to always be a dissenting voice on your hubs, James. I might have to quit reading them for your sake… First of all, though I can see that you do a lot of research, where do you get your statistics? When you cite a statistic like “77% of the women were virgins when they married before the pill,” the reader has a right to know how they were obtained.
That old double standard for which we women are still paying…when men still carry this attitude into what is almost the year 2010, it really is sickening, James. Are women to ultimately be the last hold out in true civil rights? I know that Sem Pro has been a very big fan of yours, I can imagine the shock you felt over that attack. As I told you before, you are doing a disservice to women everywhere when you perpetuate this kind of stuff. You obviously have been so insulated that you have no clue what women face on a daily basis as a result of the kind of thinking that you are espousing. The abuse, the incest, the rape! Just last night, the neighbor of a writer on hub pages was RAPED by the husband’s brother while the husband looked on! Do you not realize that this type of stuff exists because of this man’s attitude that he owns her (that you perpetuate with your sermons on virtue and “good girls”)? She dared to leave him and then came back! When you write this crap, you are guilty of promulgating this.
So, just how do you as a “conservative” justify preaching from your pulpit over abortion, citing statistics about 55 million children who have been killed, YET you do not want to help feed, clothe, educate and give HEALTH INSURANCE to any of these children! Oh no! That would be socialism! The market will care for them and if it doesn’t, it wouldn’t be because there were not jobs or opportunities, massive layoffs and jobs driven overseas due to your almighty bottom line that dictates that a profit must be made at ALL COSTS, it would be because they and their parents are a bunch of lazy asses!!! You do not want these poor unwanted babes to die as a tiny embryo. You want them to suffer first. While I know that is not really true, can you see how oxymoronic those two stances are?
Yet, the daughter of your friend “was just as perky as can be” because she took the responsibility on of the children and DID NOT have an abortion. You castigate her because she had four children out of wedlock, but “proudly” showed you their pictures! Do you realize just how out of touch with reality that makes you sound? What is the alternative, James? Yes, she could have had four abortions! Once again, damned if you do, damned if you don’t! Same thing with the other single friend who is taking responsibility for her unborn child instead of aborting it, Mr. Curious Fellow…did you ask who decided that the father was out of the picture? Most times, believe it or not, it is the father’s decision! Why? He doesn’t want to pay child support for 18 years over a one night stand! Yet, he did NOT take responsibility of his own birth control, now he wants to blame it on the woman for “trapping” him!
While I am not an advocate for abortion (I could have had two, but I chose not to!), the statement that 55 million children could have been born and the fact that they did not creates an economic crisis for us due to loss of funding for entitlement programs is utterly without basis in fact. Instead, 55 million UNWANTED children would have created close to 55 million more children who needed food, shelter, clothing, education, and health insurance! Our population has not dwindled with the loss of these poor unwanted children, but has increased in spite of them not being born. Instead of contributing, the vast majority would be an additional drain on our entitlements. They would have needed those entitlement programs like welfare, food stamps and education! According to your own thinking here, they would not become useful members of society due to, most likely, having only one parent.
In closing, let us discuss relationships. I am curious how "gravely" your wife considers you as her fourth husband since she has obviously had at least 3 other sexual partners. Special? Somewhat special? Do you in your heart of hearts cherish this woman?
I believe that you can do better than this, James. I also believe that you are a good person who is just a bit misguided and perhaps, needs to see a bit more of the world that is not from an ivory tower. I suggest that you volunteer as an guardian ad litem in court for some of these children or at an abuse hotline for women trying to get away from their abusive husbands. Something like this might open your eyes to see the troubles that many people face in the good old USA.
James this is a very important hub you posted here,I never imagined things were this bad concerning social relations,and seems as though the "system" is unknowingly making this mess possible,like opening doors and gates of chaos without really understanding the true consequences of these epic screw ups!Well researched indeed!:)
Boy, you sure know how to hit a nerve, not sure you always get it right however.
A very interesting hub indeed. Shows that you ARE concerned. "Heroes have to do something heroic ... " Well, no longer! LOL! Another great observation indeed!
Cheers James, and thanks for this hub. :)
James you said you wrote so people would think about whether society is better now, or not. As mentioned, you and I will come at the same problem from opposite ends, perhaps even, hopefully, with the same end goal in mind. I have admired your ability to write and recognize both your intelligence and capabilities as a writer, continually encouraging you to do so.
HP can be a training ground with this phenomenal global community's input, our message can improve if we respect their opinions or more importantly, as a valid gauge for where we are amiss. They can help us see our blind spots - those fundamental paradigms we've misinterpreted that hold us back. That is a tremendous gift if we choose to accept it. Not only that, we can look around, read their work and learn from the areas they have actually experienced if we have a mind to do so rather than simply attempting to remain in our present level of ignorance continuing to succumb to the natural human tendency of staying stuck in blame and erroneous perceptions. As I wrote, "open-minded" is not an easy way to "be".
None of us can change anyone else. We can only hope to express ourselves in a way that may inspire others to make better decisions or ease the pain that escalates daily in a world that in many ways, seems to be going mad and wildly out of control - depending on our focus.
What you write about is seen as wanting to jam people back into a box of idealistic concepts from before the 1950s when much of the truth was hidden and lied about, or into a way of submission to others - those who control the church, who should be lauded as entrepreneurial leaders, who should be respected merely because they attained a formal educational degree (even if they didn't "get it") etc. You attack the symptoms of dissention and immorality offering no solutions - claiming you can't come up with any solutions, only hoping to write so that someone else might.
If I cared less, none of this would matter - there are many who remain ignorant of the causes, blindly going on as if they are neither responsible for, nor capable of creatively connecting with others in order to be an integral part of positive solutions affecting our future. Despite the admission that you offer no solutions, you do offhandedly throw in the belief that you have the answers, are an authority and know where we went wrong and thus, the conclusion one must come to is that the answer you are attempting the readers to come to will enlighten, empower and hold the secret to an improved future. Some will not realize the only solution you are suggesting is a box of ideals that have already proven themselves as part of the problem, holding no valid solutions what-so-ever and thus further promulgating confusion, detrimental contradictions and erroneously placed futile ideals.
Many of us think you are more capable than that. This hub appropriately includes “revolution”- a turning point. We don’t want to keep reading confusing contradictions. We ask that you make a stand and let us know: are you truly ignorant and incapable of seeing how our human tests of greed, vanity, lust, attachment and anger are escalating? Do you recognize them in those you demand we follow? Can you see them in the contradictions of those you praise in the church, politics and business? If so, we will accept you as another lost soul and exercise our patience to help you see. Or are you one of us who see them as clear as day, know we are all connected and that it is time to work together for a solution? If the latter be the case, it is essential that you look around and accept full responsibility, dropping the holier than thou attitude and your underlying belief that you are better than anyone else. Surrender to God as a true believer or admit your ego is still in full control.
In Marianne Williamson’s terminology: are you shrinking because you believe your deepest fear is that you are inadequate? Or are you willing to make manifest the glory of God within you? If you are not yet liberated from your fear, please stop pretending you are because subconsciously, all that does is enhance and confirm peoples’ confusion. The latter is OK too – many do, but they are no longer considered authorities and those who recognize that, will attack you as what you would call, the Devil himself.
In today’s terms, shit or get off the pot James. We will no longer buy into watching you shit, pretending it doesn’t stink.
James, I think this hub could spark so many different hubs. I was thinking about it and my thoughts were hippies, flower children then I thought about Charles Mansion. When you add everything else thats been added, rape,spousal abuse,abortion,child support,child abuse, porn.,ect... There's so much hurt and anger. You've read my hubs, so you know that I can relate to most of these pains. I think that writing can be another way of releasing those pains and helping other people in the process, if nothing else letting them know that they are not alone.
You brought a lot of feelings to the surface. Hopefully now healing can begin. Thank you.
Connie Smith— I appreciate dissent. You have made some fine comments here and I want to thank you for them.
The 77% comes from one of my books "The First Measured Century." Their footnote names seven studies from which this statistical category is derived from 1900 (94% virgin brides by the way) through 2000, including "The Social Organization of Sexuality" by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels in 1994 & "Kiss and Tell" by Julia Ericksen and Sally Steffen in 1999; along with five other studies dating from 1948, 1953, 1972, 1989, and 1996.
My article is promoting abuse, incest and rape? I thought it was lamenting the disappearance of virtue.
I don't want to help adopted children? You have not been keeping track of my charitable contributions over the past 20 years if that is what you think. Do I want the government to do it? Hell no. Private charity is far more effective than a bureaucracy. One of my good friends here has nine adopted children. I just now came home from breakfast with one of my best friends—four adopted children he has.
I think it is a big leap to assume that all 55 million of them would have been unemployed losers. Many adopted children go on to live very productive lives. As far as Demographics goes there is the article in "First Things" magazine, May 2009 issue, "The Moral Dimension of the Economic Crisis." I am glad I am alive. Are you glad you are alive? I will assume the 55 million would have appreciated a chance to live.
I have supported and volunteered at about 30 charities including Jobs Partnership where I mentored young men, many just out of prison, to be able to learn job skills; Good News Jail Ministry; Prison Fellowship; Orlando Rescue Mission home for abused women and children; microfunds for women in Africa to start little businesses; organizations who build roads and homes and wells in Haiti and Africa; Covenant House homeless shelters; Care Net that supports unmarried women with unplanned pregnancies; CARE; Doctors without Borders; Angel Flights; Save One (counseling for women who have had abortions); etc etc etc
I was in a rock band for 20 years. In that line of work you get a real good look at the human condition and the culture of our nation. It is hardly an ivory tower.
Waren E— I appreciate your wise words. Thank you for reading and leaving your comments.
Brian S— I'm not sure I always get it right either. If fact, I'm pretty certain I am as fallible as the next bozo with an opinion.
Opinions are like a**holes: everybody has one and everybody thinks everybody else's stinks.
Thanks for your comments.
quicksand— I am concerned. It is my concern for my culture and society and the people who live in them that drove me to write this. Somehow my motives are being grossly misconstrued that I wrote this to criticize people. I appreciate your fine comments and I enjoy your Hubs, too. You have a keen mind.
James, you really stirred things up! VERY interesting article.......
I would love to have a conversation about this one day! ; ha ha
G
SEM Pro— I believe we do share the same goal: a better world to leave to our descendants to live in, a better legacy.
I agree with you that the HP Community has plenty to offer and you might know that I have read surely over 2000 Hubs written by other people and I have learned much from them.
My "idealistic concepts" aren't from the 1950s. They are from the New Testament, a much older time than the 1950s. If some of my "idealistic concepts" are from "men" that would be the Founding Fathers, perhaps. Also much further back than the 1950s.
If you want my solutions for society, I'll give them to you. This is not addressed to you personally. These are solutions for everyone.
Ask God to change your heart and help you stop sinning. Do not have sex unless you are married. Do not take the birth control pill unless you are married. If you do have sex and you get pregnant, have your baby and do your best to raise it properly. Ban obscene materials from the internet. Outlaw abortion unless the mother's life is in physical danger. Eliminate no-fault divorce. Give parents vouchers so their tax dollars can be used to send their children to any school they want, not just the temples of Secular Humanism. Eliminate sex education in schools and certainly do not hand out condoms or teach little kids the joys of homosexuality or any other sexuality. Teach children abstinence. Institute a moral code for prime time television shows that children can see. Bring to bear—not laws—but public disapproval of shameful behaviors. If you get pregnant, get married. If you don't want to marry this person, don't sleep with them. Make family court fair to men. Pass tax reliefs that encourage couples to have 3 or 4 children so society can perpetuate itself. Read your New Testament and do your best to do what it says.
There's my prescription for a better world. Before you go crazy give me ten seconds of serious reflection: if this was done—better world or worse world?
James,in a perfect world.....I recently had a discussion with a 3rd grade teacher, who while very conservative, finds it difficult to project any core views in class because some parents object. She received a reprimanded for just asking the question "how many of you pray?"
ftgfmom— Thank you for your kind comments. I don't see why any subject should be off limits here on Hub Pages. The Hub Pages staff did make me take down a photograph of an aborted fetus because someone complained about it. They didn't complain about the deed mind you. Just about exposing what the deed really is. I did not expect tempers to be so hot in here. I thought people might dismantle the ideas expressed or offer their solutions to our societal pathologies. But it seems much more interest lies in Ad Hominem attacks on my person. I would hope some one would say what was wrong with my statistics of our current pathologies or contradict how these pathologies developed after the swinging sixties. Failing that, I suppose all that is left is to kill the messenger and assign motives to him that do not exist.
GPAGE— It's like a hornet's nest in here. Man I am getting stung. It's a good thing I'm not allergic!
I am always interested in stimulating conversation.
Thanks for swinging by. :D
SEM Pro— If you reject my ideas, I would like hear yours.
jiberish— In 1789, Congress, in the midst of framing the Bill of Rights and the First Amendment, passed the first Federal law touching education, declaring that `Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.'
My tired old eyes can't handle all this, I guess I will just have to go read the Obama care bill. Complients to James for his fortitude and dedication to responding to all the comments.. I still don't know how he does it. What a man. Thanks James..
Dear James - thank you. I thoroughly appreciate you stating your views clearly - it is honorable and admirable. Now, we can know where you stand without guessing, or being confused etc. Also hoping this helps you write with greater clarity and less contradictions. If everyone in the world was willing to do what you just did, getting truly honest about themselves and what they believe, it would already be a vastly improved world!
Unfortunately, I cannot give the simple yes or no answer you seek. Your solutions, in many ways, are too hypothetical for me to even consider. I have never been a huge proponant of "do as I say, not as I did" or do as I want you to do, not what I will continue to do myself. Or I believe this is the right way to do things so don't look at the way I chose to conduct my life - I insist you make no mistakes because I have learned and therefore, you should just listen to me and not make any yourself. In my world, that is called hypocracy with a lack of understanding, empathy, love and compassion. But hey, that is merely my opinion and it too may stink. Different strokes, for different folks.
Thank you again for your response. For any of my answers, I will continue to write and hope you will do the same. Cheers my friend - the best of luck with everything and please, please, please - continue to be honest. It is always appreciated! :)
I envy you James! I wish i had your readership. That to me makes you one darn good writer. Let there be dissent. There will be lots of disagreement here, and i'm sure hubpages is happy and mighty proud of you!
James, please do some research on your "Founding Fathers" they were the ones in league with England who founded the lie in which the US and the rest of the world still live. It was the Founding Fathers who were the ancestors of the banking cartel that still run the world!
All countries in the western world are corporations, did you really not know any of this. Somebody has just said they envy your readership because it must make you a good writer - a lot of us are here because we cant believe the ignoring of the real truth. Your belief in the stories that were told you astounds me but I actually cant believe that you know nothing about the fraud of the founding fathers and the fact that America is a corporation as is Canada and the United Kingdom. This is why all three of them operate through martime Law because they are corporations. The whole of the law system is another one of the hoaxes which you obviously believe in? If you really know nothing about this check out Winston Shrout from Canada who is leading the Canadian Freeman education so that people can start to take back their sovereignty. Your hubs educate the ones who have taken time to dismantle some of the illusions fed to them to take note that there are still others out there who are not awake at all.
You are a picture book version of the robotic stance so loved by the few families who run the world through the banking cartel, with the help of the fear agenda from the church of course. Have you ever ventured outside the boundaries that were set before you? When did you bow down to the rules and who influenced you? Tell us more for all of it so far is from books exactly as was written as the material to control. You even have the Janet and John type pictures that were given to us in schools in the 50's!!! There never were any Janet and John real characters, incredible things were going on behind closed doors even then. I deal with people every week in my therapy practice who were living it.
Heres to reality and those here that have produced master pieces of writing from the heart like "sem Pro".
Namaste
James, after reading much of the feedback you've received here I've decided to wade in-not for you per se, but for the truth which is contained in what you write.
Those who don't believe that the Word of God is truth, and that the Word became flesh and dwelt among us my question to you is this: Why are you responding to this article? If you don't agree with what someone writes then produce a post saying just that-"I don't agree but I enjoyed reading the article." That's really simple.
If one wants to stir up a debate regards Christianity verses your world view you're just wasting time. Go write an article that states your views; if you want to do a hub that is a direct response to one you've read then by all means do it.
None of us if entirely free from the sin/error of hypocrisy, so before slamming someone else for that take your own advice and look at yourself first.
This hub was clearly an analysis of American culture through the eyes of a Christian. If you were offended because you thought something was targeting you then you misunderstood the author.
Everyone just settle down. Ignore hubs that diss you and move on to whatever else you want to read.
greatAmerican— Thank you. Any compliment from a greatAmerican is most refreshing. I think I can go another eight hours now. Thanks!
SEM Pro— Thank you and you are welcome. I always appreciate hearing your insightful thoughts.
I do not think it is hypocritical to shoot for the highest standard. I said "Do you best." The key is in the striving and at least seeing a clear target and realizing when you have missed. For that we need forgiveness through Grace by Faith. It is a message of Faith, Hope and Love. Love being the greatest of these. It is a message of beauty.
The opposite message would be: we are merely beasts; we cannot help ourselves; we recognize no standard of ultimate human behavior; we give up trying.
I have failed and I will fail. That is not the point. I am only human. I'll do the best I can.
IslandVoice— Oh. I wouldn't envy me, dear. Tain't easy volunteering to be the recipient of vitriol. :)
Thank you for the encouragement.
Universal Laws— The United States produced the most successful country in the history of the world and the highest standard of living for its citizens by far anywhere ever. I do not buy into the grand conspiracy theories such as the Masons, Illuminati, blah, blah, blah. Of course I have heard of them and I have books about them. I do not doubt that say, the Club of Rome exists, and I do not doubt for one minute they would like to be in charge of a New World Order.
But what you are saying would have to be a conspiracy involving hundreds of thousands of historians, politicans, professors, researchers, bankers, etc. scattered over 200+ years—from many groups in opposition to each other. A conspiracy that large is not possible because people are by nature compelled to blab when they know a secret. Our Founding Fathers were the greatest men in history—with the exception of the Apostles, of course.
I have 1000 non-fiction books behind me: Hayek, Friedman, Pascal, C.S. Lewis, Schaeffer, Foxe, Paul Johnson, Guinness, Pelikan, Sowell, Franklin, Douglass, Dr. Johnson, Ellen White, N.T. Wright, Stott, "History of American Political Thought," Niall Ferguson, Boorstin, Schumpeter, "The Dying of the Light," Quigley, MacDougal,Jane Jacobs, John Calvin, Cardinal Newman, Neuhaus, Pope John Paul II, Ratzinger, Huntington, Sharansky, Buckley, "America's Constitution," St. Augustine, Guy Murchie, Joseph Ellis, Russell Kirk, Charles Taylor, Barzun, Victor Davis Hanson, Drucker, Robert Conquest, Kierkegaard, Wanninski, Tocqueville, Francis S. Collins, "America" by Tindall, "Europe" by Davies, Churchill, Fernandez-Armesto, Richard Pipes, Niall Ferguson, Hibbert, Chesterton, Shakespeare, Piper, Stark, Strauss, Terkel, Wolfe, Shockley, "Cataclysm," "A History of Israel" by Sachar, "From Time Immemorial," "Born in Blood," "The Sixties," just to name a few. I also have a couple dozen conspiracy & new age books here (by people who believe it), "Jekyll Island" "The Secret" "The Pale Rider", "The New World Order" "The Bilderbergers," and one about that outfit in California where Nixon liked to go.
Let me see if I can tie your ideology together: Jesus was a woman who had six kids and died in Utah; the Apostles were tripping on acid and never actually knew anybody by that name; the Caesars of the Roman Empire were really Aliens from outer space; Israelis are not Jews, they are Gypsys; The real Jews live in England (the lost tribe); The American Indians are the real Jews (the other lost tribe); there was no Holocaust and if there was they were Arabs in those furnaces; The Protocols of Zion is real history; George Washington was an alien from the planet Mason; we are living in a matrix; I am not real you are not real; nothing is real; it is all an illusion created for us by the Wizard of Oz and YOU—are the only living person who has seen behind the curtain.
I believe you.
Hxprof— You are a wise person. I am talking about culture and society and as you say, some of these folks seem to thing I am talking about them personally when that cannot be because I don't know them. I appreciate your comments. I don't expect everybody to agree with me. And I may not agree with them. But I still love them.
James, insightful and informative. It saddens me how desentitized we have become. Sometimes I'm watching TV and a situation arises and I find myself rooting for the guy to "get" the girl. Then I say, "What am I saying??" It sneaks in there and seems so benign. Satan is good at what he does. We all need to be on our toes. Love you brother.
no body— Thank you. It is easy to be caught up in the culture when it surrounds us on all sides. I appreciate your insights. And the visitation, too.
I have yet to recieve an answer to the question I asked in my earlier comment. Who judged the unborn to be worthy of death?
Here is an article that I wrote a few months ago. It didn't occur to me to post it here until after I posted my last comment. Please read it then come back here and try to answer my question.
James,
Another excellent hub subject! I can vouch for the differences you point out between pre-pill and post-pill eras because, upon reading your presentation of the subject (and after reading a number of your other hubs, including all 3 White Summer hubs), I deduce that we are around the same age (within 5 years one way and/or the other). Therefore, I know that your portrayal of the subject is the way it was.
On the off chance you may wonder: I haven't "aged" the way most do because I did one thing before age 20: I stopped being a "sun worshipper" due to suffering a severe sunburn; ergo, my photo is accurate.
SirDent— I was hoping one of our opponents would answer but they have proven themselves incapable of any answers—only invection. The answer is: the ACLU, Planned Parenthood, and Judge Hugo Black.
SirDent— I commented on this Hub six weeks ago. Thank you for asking the best question of all, Brother. I appreciate you helping to man the barricades against the Barbarians.
Tina Irene— Thank you for providing the voice of reason. :-)
You look young and you look great! Thank you for reading and leaving your wisdom behind. I do appreciate you.
James,
De nada. Again: been there back when.
Those who don't know my children and me assume we are siblings. They're shocked if one of my children calls me "mom". There are other factors for the 20-somethings to consider eliminating besides too much sun bathing, like: too much alcohol, too many late nights, too many "french fries" and being too busy eating french fries to apply skin moisturizer. Avoiding these "too's" pays off, big time.
THIS IS SO DAMN FUNNY! Just checked.... wanted to see if everyone was still going!!!!
G;
I can't stand still here, and see the folly of some of the comments here. I am taken aback by some of those quoting scripture and taking it completely out of context.
Sam.12:8 -Michal was forcibly taken from David by Saul and given to someone else. Also, in Jewish culture the taking over of someone else's household didn't necessarily mean sleeping with anyone. Simply put, it was taking care of them and their livelihood. This was a practice of compassion. If this person actually studied the culture, perhaps they would not judge as harshly as they seem guilty of themselves. Although, some theorize that David did take on 'husbandly' duties, there is no real indication of this in the passage.
Further, the passage of how 'your wives will be taken from before thine eyes..." (Samuel 12:11-12), is a prophesy that God gave to Israel. Again, it was to show them the course their own actions were taking them. God was endorsing it, as a loving Father he was warning them of a danger around the corner-one they had set themselves up for. It is never the intention of a loving Father to say ,'I'm going to set you up' for abuse or rape. A loving father would let you know of the consequences of your actions. It is often the mistake of people to think that God is actually causing, or, wanting the abuse or judgement to occur. He is the God of the law of sowing and reaping. It doesn't matter what type of 'seed'(good or bad) you put in the ground. You always reap more than you sow (30, 60, or 100 fold). God isn't saying that He takes joy in 'your wives be taken from you and given to someone else'-far from it! He is warning Israel of the 'road' (their actions) are taking them down on. It is not God's promotion or endorsement of deviant sexual conduct.
If my friend were a little more well studied perhaps they would know that.
Further, in Samuel 16:21-23, Ahithophel was treated like his words were that of a prophet. He didn't speak for, nor represent God in any way. His advice for Absolom to sleep with his father's concubines does not reflect God's slant on sexual morality. Ahithophel, was known to be an opportunist and a manipulator. He was one that people honored, and many didn't see him for what he really was. He was so arrogant that he later committed suicide, simply because someone else's advice was taken over his. An unstable character if you ask me. He simply had nothing to do with God and was all about keeping his own influence strong.
As for Ezekiel 37-40. This was again, taken completely out of context, and is a symbol of Israel and prophecy. This was a 'portrait' if you will, of what will happen to Israel paying for all the consequences that they actually are bringing on themselves.
Many who read the bible truly don't understand the nature of what they are reading. The bible is many things. It shows raw history of the nation, and particular people (regardless of whether what happened was good or bad)-it is simply matter of fact, and does not endorse anything when it is putting forth raw fact. It is also a book of law, and song, poetry, collection of wisdom (Ecclesiastes), and is full of prophecy that is very symbolic. Many, could easily misuse and abuse it to promote the dark perceptions they have of God.
If God is as sick and twisted as He is judged here, is that consistent with the God who loves us so much that He came down to die for all of our sins (now and forever)?
It is, however, no surprise to me that scripture would be so misused and taken out of context by those who are unlearned and are not well studied in it. I suppose the old saying is true, "Assumption is the weak weapon of the ignorant".
I can only come to the conclusion that others here are so intent on promoting their own political agenda, or, that they are so in pain over past hurts they have experienced, that it is easy for them to lash out at a God who only wants to embrace them. It is very sad that a forum like this would be used for such.
James, I do apologize for the vitriolic comments that I made before. I was just so incensed by it that I lashed out in kind. You say this article is “lamenting the disappearance of virtue.” Yes, but what it does by lamenting that is to blame all the ills of society on women, who, as a group, surely are now sluts due to the advent of the pill. The removed picture of a slut proved that. I hope you do not think I was taking this article personally, or any other. Any personal experiences that I ever bring up are only to prove a point. I only take issue with the fact that you are equating the loss of virtue with every current ill in society, in essence, blaming women for it all. After all, even way back before the pill, men who slept around never suffered loss of reputation or standing in the community, only women, even going as far as saying that women decide the morality of all cultures.
In fact, it has historically been men who decide the morality of society by using women to do so. All we have to do is to look to the extremists of the Muslim faith, the Taliban, to see how men and religion is used even today to keep women “virtuous.” Even now, there is a court case involving a Muslim woman whose punishment, should she be proven guilty, is 40 lashes and all for daring to wear a pair of pants. It is also evident by the mutilation of the genitals of young women in certain parts of Africa so that they do not experience pleasure.
Before the advent of the sexual revolution, the condemnation of women who found themselves with child, or really, even had sex before marriage, because the same men who labeled women as “good” (if they resisted) or “bad” (if they gave in) judged them as such and kissed and told. Do you really want to relegate women back to being second class citizens, or worse, because God gave them the same senses to experience pleasure in the sex act as he gave men?
You even bring up the word “bastards” to define illegitimate births. This word, thankfully, (for most of us anyway) has gone the way of “virtue” (as in that there was a double standard for women only) due to the fact that children born “out of wedlock” never ever had a say in that, but were labeled that from birth, taunted by it and suffered for it by losing out on their rightful place in society, in their families (most notably on the paternal side) and in lost of birth right of inheritance.
I also noticed that you never responded to my question (referencing the paragraph Relationships) about whether you personally feel “special” because your wife, being married four times, has obviously had more than one sex partner. I think you ignored that because you see how that statement now affects you and that it has no basis in fact. Love is about two people who find a connection on a deeper level and express that through the sex act. The idea of virtue in a woman is really about the baser emotions in a man: possession, power and jealousy. These emotions are what lead men to commit the horrendous acts toward women of abuse, rape and murder that are being perpetuated daily in all levels of society and all cultures. The idea of the virtuous woman promotes it.
I do not know where you get the idea that I think you do not want to help adopted children. I never said that in any way or even used the word “adopted.” The only thing I can think of is my suggestion that you might volunteer as a guardian ad litem for the court. A guardian ad litem is a person who is appointed by the court to represent the child’s interest in court, such as in cases of child custody dispute or in cases of abuse. I mentioned this only because you seem to view the situations of children and child custody (and family law) strictly from one view. By becoming personally involved, I believe that your way of thinking would change drastically. I also never for a moment doubted that you are a charitable person and am not surprised by your history of charitable contributions.
While it is a big leap to assume that the 55 million aborted children would have been unemployed losers, certainly, to your way of thinking, they would not have been productive members of society, due to, most likely having, one parent households. I am glad to see that you also now see that.
The ills of our society are many and I am as concerned as you are with them. I, too, am disgusted by pornography (mostly a man’s vice, though more women are into it than ever before) and the degeneration of our society through increasingly pushing the envelope of what is acceptable behavior in society. I blame the whole thing on the media, TV and movies, which as we know, unfortunately, give us our role models and heroes today, whether we live in one parent households or two. I also blame the lack of discipline at home (not abuse) and in our schools, the infusion of police in our schools and the labeling (and drugging) of our children who have behavioral issues, not psychiatric ones. I blame the men who refuse to take responsibility for the upbringing of their children, either financially or emotionally as well. Even in two parent households, most women are expected to work and if they do not want to, are labeled as lazy, and in many households (though not all) are expected to do everything they did before going out into the workplace while still earning that paycheck. It is time for men to stand up and take responsibility for their actions and respect women as equal partners in life and quit view them as possessions or chattel.
It is good for a woman to not take birth control because this is her choice, but some of your statistics are problematic. Why do you site statistics about white women exclusively, and what is your source? I find this problematic because America is much more diverse than that.
Yes it is good to be moralistic and all that, but there are some double standards here. Men can be just as bad as girls in this regard, and this hub suggests morality falls on the women. Women are bad if they have sex, but boy will be boys and all that. Also, seeing people as your enemies just because they support the ACLU or organizations you do not agree with is a far stretch. Support morality because that is the thing you want to do, but do not judge people according to your morality. Even in the good old days women lied about their virginity, and they did it more often than you think. It was not unknown for a woman to go away for a semester to have her baby, but she simply did not tell anyone.
James,
I would like to comment on your hub. I am going to stay on point. I will not depend an religious arguments. I will relate events as I saw them unfold.
The invention and proliferation of the birth control pill was a seminal moment in history. It negated the fear of unwanted pregnancy and thus promoted promiscuity. This elimination of fear of unwanted pregnancy had sexual effects on both sexes.
Historically women were the gate keepers. Fear of pregnancy was an ally in their gatekeeping. The pill eliminated that ally.
With that ally gone there developed great peer pressure to give it up for the consequence of unwanted pregnancy is gone. The FREE LOVE movement was a direct consequence of the pill.
The STD epidemic was direct result of the FREE LOVE movement.
The radical portion of the femist movement glorified the freedom to have sexual relations at any time, at any place, with anyone.
This explosions of sexuality along with NO FAULT divorces
(which were part of the agenda of radical feminists) lead directly to breakdown of marriage.
This hub is a pro-agenda for those who truly think women are the weaker sex. This may not have been your agenda James, but this is exactly the message it conveys. Since you love the Bible and biblical studies I would think you could focus more on the positive aspects of these things rather than fear mongering. STD's were historically rampant during the Middle Ages too by the way to the poster above.
People did not all of a sudden become sexual promiscuous because of the pill, and it is not the only method of birth control. The pill simply made it more widespread and out in the open. Back during the Middle Ages many people did not even get married until they got pregnant. Pre-marital sex also was widespread among the Puritans, although it was mostly among those engaged. Why do you think there are so many kids born six or seven months after the wedding. People used to get married when they got pregnant, but they were still having sex. Society kept people in check before the Sex Revolution, not the pill. The pill is not all bad, but I have read history and I do know a thing or two about people concealing these things.
Tina Irene— Beautiful skin is a lovely thing. Yours looks flawless. You offer sound advice with your "toos." Too late for me, though. :D
GPAGE— Yea. I'm feeling about like Bobby Riggs here. :)
Thanks for checking in. Always a pleasure to see your face and read your words.
Gloria Cowdery— I Praise God for you! That comment was so out in outer space I didn't respond to it. I should have. Now, you have done the work I should have done. I had a lazy moment there. Thank you very much for adding your discernment of these Scriptures. :D
James, I think that you, as a historian, could have made more reference to well documented cyclical nature of societal mores. You're rather giving the impression that everything was great forever until along came the pill. It wasn't like that, you know.
Connie Smith— I did not intend the article to be biased against women. I mentioned that boys used the pill as a tool to get what they want. The level of their wanting has not changed over the millennia—their level of getting it certainly has in the last 40 years and that is the change I was addressing. If this change in our society has been a good thing, someone should just say so.
The judges who usurped legislative powers they do not constitutionally have in the Supreme Court cases I mentioned were all men. I think everybody knew that.
When I talked about cohabitation and divorce I thought it apparent that men were involved. I think it obvious that men led the old main line churches who caved in to these societal changes. I figured the levels of STDs would be automatically calculated to include both men and women. I counted on the fact that most folks know men are in the majority of authoritative positions in the mass media. And I assumed that everybody knows men are the consumers of pornography by huge percentages. What I said about relationships and inferred on some other topics comes from my refusal to believe the Feminist idea that men and women are the same or that they do or should view sex they same way. I have been around too long, have too many friends, have long been a very social person, to fall for that one. It simply is not true. Men and women are different. And they view sex differently, my apologies to Erica Jong.
Women have played a role in all of this but perhaps my article didn't point out the men involved clearly enough. A lot of these changes are the result of the Feminists movement—very few men involved. And while men view the pornography—what has happened to the women of today that 50 years ago Playboy had a hard time finding one to take her shirt off and today literally millions of them are willing to be on the internet engaging in every sex act known to man for the whole world to see? Is that not shocking? It's not shocking men want to see it—I'd say that would have been the same in 1492 as today. In my opinion, what has changed about porno is the willingness of millions of somebody's daughters willing to have sex in public, which the internet is.
I do not blame women for it all. I would assign equal blame to both sexes but not for the exact same parts of the denigration of the human person. I don't want women to be second class—I strongly believe in equal rights. You mention shame in your comment and I have to tell you, shame has its purpose in many societal boundaries being observed, not just sexual ones.
I agree that under Islam, women are horribly treated.
I believe virtue has no gender. You don't say this, but there has been an unspoken understanding that of "Men have always been nasty, so we have a right to be nasty too!" What a pitiful defense that is, in my opinion.
I did not answer your personal question not because it contradicts my thesis.
I don't think we can assume the 55 million would have been in single parent homes because I know men who were ready to marry their pregnant girlfriend and raise the child with them. And I promise you there are many men who would never marry a woman who had deliberately killed his child against his wishes.
You final paragraph is well thought out, level headed and sensible. I agree with every word of it, especially that men need to stand up and be real men and accept the attendant responsibilities.
Thank you for your insightful comments. I enjoyed reading them.
James A. Watkins, I'll have to disagree with this statement: "Never in human history had sex been separated from reproduction." Actually, we have an excellent birth control mechanism built into the human female body: when fat stores fall below a certain level, women do not ovulate. No ovulation means that even if a woman is sexually active, she will not conceive. This mechanism worked for hunter gatherers in order to keep birth rates down during lean times. The discovery of agriculture created a situation where women are never normally lean enough for this mechanism to work. The birth control pill simulates this ancient mechanism that allows women to be sexually active but infertile.
SweetiePie— I quoted the statistic about white women because it is in a book I have that does not have a study of men or non-white women. The 77% comes from one of my books "The First Measured Century." Their footnote names seven studies from which this statistical category is derived from 1900 (94% virgin brides by the way) through 2000, including "The Social Organization of Sexuality" by Laumann, Gagnon, Michael and Michaels in 1994 & "Kiss and Tell" by Julia Ericksen and Sally Steffen in 1999; along with five other studies dating from 1948, 1953, 1972, 1989, and 1996.
I agree with your comments and I thank you for making them. I appreciate you for coming to visit, too. Always nice to hear from you. :)
Tom Whitworth— You said it far better than I did. Obviously, I failed to clearly articulate what I was thinking in this article. I greatly appreciate you doing it for me. Your comment is what I should have said. Thank you.
Sweetie Pie— Unlike your first comment, I cannot agree with your second comment. And as Forrest Gump famously said: "That's all I am going to say about that."
:D
But I do appreciate and respect your point of view. Thanks for your additional remarks.
Paraglider— I agree with you. You are right. For instance, while the Roman Republic was a virtuous society, the Roman Empire was rife with decadence. For a lack of space, this particular piece only focused on America from the pill to now and was still 2500 words—1000 more than my target (not wanting to be long winded). :-)
But I agree social mores are cyclical and my hope is that ours starts going the other way soon.
Thank you very much for that corrective addendum.
Aya Katz— Physiologically I agree with you but philosophically the proponents of the pill themselves disagree. That was their intention, to separate sex from reproduction. If not, if this problem was already solved, why bother?
But I want to thank you for visiting and for your well thought out comments.
You're welcome James! By the way, I've read a lot of your Hubs, I wouldn't say you have any lazy moments that I know of, lol!
Gloria Cowdery
I remember in the spring of 1963 I was driving my dad'd car with some friends along. We were just crusing and listening to rock music. The five minute newcast came on the radio. On this newscast I heard of a study that had been done among women from age 30 to 50 concerning age of first sexual encounter.
The study came to the conclusion that those who had that encounter at an early age were much more likely to develope cervical cancer. The statistical evidence was undisputable.
The study had been replicated three times with statisical repetition.
The study din't know the reason for the occurances (HPV hadn't yet been discovered).
James,
Thanks for your reply.
James, I keep checking back to read the comments, while they are all interesting, I would like add that I find it disturbing that such a great article would stir such controversy. I have been discredited due to adding humor to my earlier Hubs, so maybe this too will seem frivolous.
First, I think you should have left the 'slut' picture up, it was a good comparison to show where the sexual revolution has taken us. Second, those who are offended are exactly the kind of progressives who cannot read an article for what it is, they have to dissect it until it agrees with their own thinking.
The Laws, which have so conveniently been swept under the rug to advance the liberal mind set, still holds true for some of us, and the pill that gave woman the right to choose isn't what made them promiscuous, it's the advertisement that sex sells.
It started in the 50's, Margaret Sanger's idea "that in order for women to have more “equal footing” in society and to have physically and mentally healthy lives, they needed to be able to decide when a pregnancy would be most convenient for themselves. In addition, access to birth control would also fulfill a critical psychological need by allowing women to be able to fully enjoy sexual relations, without being burdened by the fear of pregnancy."
And while, it was a woman who originated the pill, it was a man in the fifteenth century who originally used condom for disease prevention and later in the 1600's for birth control.
So for those who feel offended, maybe a pinch history would do you good.
Sorry for the long essay, I'm generally a woman of few words.
Gloria Cowdery— Thanks for the assist. I see you have a new Hub published today. I'll make sure and read it soon. :)
Tom Whitworth— I had a cousin I loved dearly—a sister to me really—die of cervical cancer last year at 46 years old.
80% of all American women will contract HPV in their lifetime. One would think this might cause reflection at the cause, not anger at the statistic, or anyone who points out the statistic.
Thanks for your story. I knew about that link, but had no idea it was known that long ago. That's interesting.
Tina,
You are welcome.
This is funny and shocking, I can't even imagine how you came by the reply you made to my comment but that is what you have done on other hubs where comments of a different stance have come in. You just lose total control of any sense or logic and your reply bares no resemblence to the comment made!!! When you take on belief systems and never question them this is your only way out because your mind and consciousness have never been stretched or rather have never chosen to be stretched. Again as on the other hub I would say that those intelligent, thinking people reading my comments will understand why you have chosen such a strange, extreme fantastical reply because you are so threatened by anything outside your very rigid box.
I wondered how long your obviously "coached" new demeanour would last!!!!
Namaste
jiberish—That's two for and two against the Slut picture. Ok, as a compromise I have replaced it with a picture that still gets the point across but with a less seductive pose. What do you think of this one? :D
Margaret Sanger was one of the most evil women of the 20th Century.
I know! You usually are very pithy, but hey, I'm glad to receive a fine set of sentences from you. I enjoyed your remarks and I think you hit the spot. Thank you!
James...Very interesting and well written Hub...
I usually shy away from religious Hubs...to much controversy for my taste...but I couldn't help but be reminded of an old saying after reading your comment " Imagine for one moment if all people obeyed God's rule for Sexual Conduct. There would be no such thing as sexually transmitted disease, would there? No broken homes, no fatherless children (except by death), no illegitimate births, no adultery, and none of the attendant social problems that plague our nation. Would this not be a better world? "....
The saying goes like this: " Everyone knows that Presbyterians are having fun; we just can't catch them at it "...Larry
Universal Laws— I was just having some fun with my last post. Surely a huge brain can appreciate a little humor? I'm glad you visit and comment. It's a free country and you can believe whatever you want.
My consciousness has never been stretched!? For all you know I have been on 500 acid trips. It just might be possible I have read up on conspiracy theories and found them wanting. It might be that I have studied meta-physics for 40 years every day from every angle possible and arrived slowly and gradually to the Truth, which is Christianity. A rigid box? For all you know I just might be a world traveler who investigated the sociology, anthropology and history of most of this planet. I might even be a very creative artist. I could be a polymath who is an autodidact. I could be someone who grew up alone and thus had no pre-conceived notions about the universe and thus was a far more Tabula rasa than even the wide-thinking you.
Now, I shared a sampling of the level of intellectual powerhouses in my library with you including quite a few books of over 1000 pages with a lot of big words. What you got in your library?
As usual I disagree with most of the statements, but what an excellent piece of writing! Frankly did not expect anything less. :)
maven101— The "Frozen Chozen?" I'm not sure how much fun they have. I will tell you that when I was a young man my dad, who was never a church goer but was a legendary skirt chaser, told me, "Son, you always want to find your women in church—never in a bar." I asked him how come and he said, "The church girls will do everything but just not with everybody."
I did write this as a religious Hub at all. The last paragraph mentions religion in the form of a question—which not one person has answered. It's an important question because if the answer is yes, it would be a better world (and it is), why are people so violently upset (not you) about someone saying so? But, the Sexual Revolution has little to do with religion. A lack of it maybe. :-)
Thanks, man, for swinging in and leaving witty words.
Misha— Hello, old friend. Thank you for your kind comment. I think my next Hub will finally be one you will agree with. At least I hope so.
Holding my breath in anticipation :)
James: The frozen Chozen..? What is that about..? Are you perhaps referring to the Chosin Reservoir, Thanksgiving, 1950..? The one where my beloved " Chesty " Puller and friends " didn't retreat, but advanced in another direction.." .....Larry
As someone that has studied first hand accounts of women and men in various time periods I can assure your promiscuity and sex did not originate with the birth control pill. You can belittle my comment and speak down to me, which is popular when someone thinks they are right, heck I probably do it sometimes myself, but I probably should stay away from your hubs. Yes sexually transmitted disease have been around, even back in ancient Egypt. You can pretend my insightful second comment was not up to par, but that is just not so.
James, the picture is far to nice. :)
Misha— I have worked on it for four days and I hope it meets your approval as it is about your Mother Land.
maven101— The "Frozen Chosen" is a nickname for Presbyterians because of their doctrine of Predestination ad their quiet reserved services. :-)
SweetiePie— Never! I was not speaking down to you. Gosh, that hurts my feelings. :(
I wouldn't do that.
jiberish— Well . . . I said it was a compromise! :-)
James,
The real problem is that humans are not animals but have the same reproduction equipment. Animals have sex to replenish their kind. Many of the animals insist on survival of the fittest.
Humans don't have sex to procreate, they have sex because it is a human desire. Some may procreate but they do it mostly because it feels good.
The results of our sexual encounters is more random than planned and certainly not in the realm of fittest. This creates most of the many problems that we have with sex.
For example, if an animal has too many in their litter, the weaker ones die. If an animal is born with a defect, they are destined for a short lived existence.
The comparisons can go on an on, the result is that we were bestowed the sex drive of an animal but not the constraints of how nature thins the herd.
My point is that as the most intelligent creatures in the world, we should have had a separate sex mechanism from the procreation mechanism. A mechanism that we can have only sex without procreation until we decide that this time it is for a baby.
We have not evolved from ancient times, where puberty and adulthood were the same. In the current world, children are going into puberty earlier than they did fifty or hundred years ago. The mores of the country has become very loose regarding sex. Still a 12-14 year old women has to wait four or more years fighting raging hormones until they can satisfy their hormones. When animals can procreate, they do it then, they don't wait for years later to do it.
So society tries to artificially contain nature, and it is not working out that well today.
The bottom line is that we have intelligent brains, that can be grounded because of a primitive reproductive system and a society that is out of step with nature.
Interesting...The " Frozen Chosin " was a nickname given to the campaign in North Korea by the 1st Marine Div in November, 1950...The huge reservoir was frozen solid which allowed certain Army units to escape a ChiCom encirclement...and to have the same descriptor for Presbyterians is amazing...Thanks for the explanation...Larry
opinion duck— You put forth some very interesting propositions. I thank you for coming to visit and leaving your highly original insights here. I cannot disagree with you.
maven101— I did not know that. Very interesting. I appreciate you sharing that with me.
Ah the stench of liberal postmodernism creeps in all around us, sometimes without realising. It's like when Pilate in the Gospels asks; 'What is truth?' That means individuals decide for themselves. Great hub by the way.
In the UK there is a similar phenomenon; the highest teen pregnancy rate in western europe and a prudish nature to brush issues like this under the carpet. At least you guys are more willing to discuss issues of promiscuity whereas your british counterparts tend to remain stiff and upper-lipped regardless.
"I was 16 or 17 at the time and I can still recall what I thought about it then. 'This means guys can have sex with all the girls they want and they won't get pregnant!?'"
This speaks volumes. A huge root of sexual overgrowth is the rampant 'biological' masculine perspective on the issue.
'[The Pill] took away their chief excuse to maintain their propriety and virtue.'
Excuse me, but my chief excuse to maintain said virtue is my own good sense. That inane statement is enough to stain this entire hub with the same self-centered masculine perspective aforementioned.
What 'Feminists' meant when they alluded to 'freedom' was that with effective (but still not guaranteed) birth control, a woman's playing field was substantially leveled to that of men. Perhaps that's not a good thing, as you eloquently argue, but it made the point that women were not to be viewed as subjects. We have always been treated as objects to whatever degree, and you're right in asserting that birth control has not changed that.
What needs to change, rather, is the way you discombobulated men seem to think of us. The Pill is not a culprit or an excuse, and neither should women be condemned any more for their sexual choices than men. Instead of raising your girls with the FEAR of 'god,' teach your boys the innate RESPECT that women deserve. And please stop quoting pseudo-prophetic morbid 'statistics' on HPV...anyone can project numbers to use as propoganda. It's not a respectable means of getting a point across.
Well Well Well - Have just seen your comment James on the hub called "HAPPY WIVES ALLOW THEIR HUSBANDS TO CHEAT" I was intrigued as to who would want to say this and I found your comment "Brilliantly conceived ideas eloquesntly expressed. Congratulations! This is a fantastic Hub!
Hypocrite or what!!!!
Namaste
I didn't know where to post this question so I thought why not here. It concerns my neice who will turn 25 soon. While drinking she admitted to have had 150 plus sexual partners since she turned 16. She was being very serious so I mentioned std's and she said she can't say she used protection all of the time but usually she does. We were on the subject of how many partners do you have before your considered sluts. Is this a lot of sexual partners and how many are before they are
Kermit2000— Welcome to the Hub Pages Community! Your comments in this thread are great and I look forward to reading your work soon. Thank you.
sbeakr— Welcome to Hub Pages.
I think women are far more objectified now than they were before the Sexual Revolution.
I am not making up those numbers of HPV or their link to cervical cancer. This is widely known. Do a little Google search for yourself and you will see.
Admittedly, this was written from the point of view of a man. It would have been difficult for it not to have been since that is what I am. You are free to write "The Sexual Revolution as experienced by a woman" and I'll be glad to read it.
I do appreciate you for taking the time to read my article and your comments are good. Thanks!
Universal Laws— I swear, you are the most humorless person on HubPages. Obviously, I was joking. You need to smile or laugh once and a while. This is particularly troubling when you are so enlightened. You ought to be the happiest person in town!
madmac— Good question. Well, it isn't as many as Lisa Spar who had sex with 919 different men in one day (world record). I suppose she is the ultimate feminist. Nobody's going to hold her down! :D
I would say 150 makes your niece a serious contender for that appellation you mentioned.
Just stopped by to check on you. Looks like things are calming down a bit. Time for another hub? Love your hubs. Keeps us on our toes.
ftgfmom— I'm glad you stopped in. I published a Hub tonight after working on it 4 or 5 days—the longest ever. I am glad you enjoy them. Thanks.
You sent me a lovely email the other day and I read it and was going to write back but I can't find it now. I don't know if it got deleted or what. I have over 800 emails not yet read, so maybe its in there somewhere. If you have it, please resend. Otherwise, thanks for the encouragement!
Well, James, you certainly hit some hot buttons. I do remember the good old days when teenage guys desperately attempted to wrestle the bra off their dates at the drive-in movies, with indifferent chances of success. Touching--actually touching!--a breast was a very big deal to those 17-and 18-year old men, and gave them bragging rights in the locker room for months. I'm 51 years old, born in 1957 at the tail end of the baby boom, and have seen these changes.
Now it seems the 14-year-olds are text- messaging each other to set up an orgy, making a video of it with their cell phones,then publishing said video on the internet.
It's a very different world, and it doesn't seem like a better one in many ways to me. Romance is going out the window as rampant promiscuous sex comes in at the door.
For a woman, it's a very tough world. Relationships with men are unstable and a cause of deep uneasiness. You simply can't trust that a love relationship will last. So many women are single mothers and that is one difficult row to hoe. It isn't the WOMAN'S choice. I think you're wrong there. MEN are the ones that want to chop and change all the time. MEN are the ones that typically have the commitment problems.
You wrote this article well and did some research. My hat's off to you there. But your male-biased point of view misled you to come to some incorrect conclusions.
Paradise7— Welcome to the Hub Pages Community!
Your comments are excellent. I agree that many of the young men I know—I have a son, 30, and daughters, 31& 17—have little interest in commitment. I think my point is, if the same guys in a small city pass around the same women, all on the pill, why would they want to marry them? I think the pathologies I am describing go a few levels deeper than the reactions I am getting. Any commodity is valued by its scarcity. That's why gold and diamonds are cherished far above plain old dirt. Plain dirt is everywhere.
I think the whole thing is a big shame and I'm not innocent. I truly meant no offense.
Thank you for reading and writing.
The collapse of the American family is tragic. I have seen that children in broken homes have the most emotional and behavior issues. Also in today's society many girls are pressing the boys for sex.
Drew Breezzy— I have noticed young women are very aggressive. The Left is in absolute denial about the damage caused by broken homes. They can always find somebody who came out great to hold up as an example while ignoring mountains of sociological research that clearly shows all is not well.
Thank you for your wise words.
Thanks James, I'm glad you removed the picture. I think your hub has sparked some heated hubs by others.
You certainly make us think don't you?
I wouldn't want to see things returned to some of the truly misguided and weird ways of the past; but I do think the pendulum has swung too far in the other direction, and I don't think that's good either. I raised my two sons and daughter all with the same message, and that was that I hoped they would realize that sex is a serious enough thing that it shouldn't be something everybody does with everybody else. I wanted them to respect themselves and the significance of sex, as something that really should be between people in a serious relationship (in my opinion).
I think comparing humans to animals and bringing up the simple role of sex as means of procreating overlooks that humans are more complex. They have complex emotions that go beyond what animals have; and they have relationships with others that are built with those emotions. When couples are in a long-term relationship there is a relationship-building aspect of sex, and there are emotional aspects of that intimacy, that are more complex than just "having the urge". There are also differences, obviously, between male and female sexuality; and I do think it has been wrong to tell women that the pill has made them "equal to men" and they can feel free to follow their wishes to act as promiscuously act men (presumably) are thought to act. First, not all men are out picking up new women every night of the week; and second, women's sexuality is not the same as men's.
Everything else aside, I've always seen The Pill as "freeing up women to take medical risks (more in the past than now, perhaps) by taking hormones". I don't happen to think a casual relationship is worth mucking with one's own reproductive system (even if the risks are now said to be small).
Duchess OBlunt— It's good to think. I love to think. I think therefore I am. :D
I haven't read any Hubs in maybe a week. That Russia thing was a bear—pun intended. I'm taking some time off writing for a few days to catch up on the Hubs I've missed, including yours. Thanks for your support.
Lisa HW— You have made a brilliant assessment of the modern situation and I appreciate your thoughtful insights. Thank you very much.
Hi James,
About the link. Further research statistically showed that the earlier one started the more partners one had. This follow up link was in the early to mid 1970's still before the cause of HPV was known. But clearly something was related. (more partners=greater exposure)
Back to the 1963 original report. I shared this data with my girl friend of that time. This report gave me great insight to absolutely not use any sort of pressure on the matter of our sexual conduct.
James A. Watkins, I've re-read this hub, and I've noticed another, different aspect, of your argument that I think bears addressing:
"This creates an economic crisis for us. The 55 million aborted children would have become payers of Income Tax; and Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes. It shouldn't take a mathematical genius to calculate how this vanquished generation has caused our current shortfalls in funding of entitlement programs."
Are you in favor of Income Tax, Social Security and Medicare Payroll taxes? I'm not. Trying to balance the budget on the backs of the unborn seems to me to be a highly immoral practice.
Whether fewer people are born due to abortions, contraception or simply people choosing to mate at a later age and therefore producing fewer young, is not the real issue in this financial argument. The real issue is that one should not count one's chickens before they hatch.
Nobody has the right to expect other people to bear and raise children just so as to create a bigger market of consumers and taxpayers.
In fact, that kind of economic planning is a pyramid scheme that is bound to end badly, sooner or later.
Hi James,
Is abortion choice or eugenics by another name. Link below puts some meat on the bone.
Not even a good try James there's something quite passive agressive about the energy here, I have better things to do.
True natural humour is a wonderful thing which I appreciate.
Namaste
Tom Whitworth— Thanks for the additional information. I have never pressured a woman for sex but I have fought more than a few off! :D
Thanks for revisiting and leaving your comments. I appreciate it.
Aya Katz— I agree with you. I am not in favor of the income tax, or FICA taxes. I am sure you know that income tax is unconstitutional, or was until the 16th Amendment in 1913 passed to make it legal. I believe the Federal Reserve was formed the same year.
Once we have SS though it does depend on the young to take care of the old. As I am sure you know that was once 13 taxpayers to one retiree and soon will be 2 to 1. 55 million more young working age people would have helped that imbalance. And, of course, if our citizens won't have 2 or 3 children per female we are committed national suicide—as many western countries are.
Thank you for your wise words. You are plenty sharp.
Tom Whitworth— Great question. The original pro-abortion people were outspoken Eugenicists (Margaret Sanger, etc.). But after Hitler, this view expressed in public was verboten.
That is a great link you sent me. In fact, let me copy and paste from it right here:
Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., today responded to the remarks of Senator Barack Obama, who said that “quiet riots” take place in black neighborhoods every day because of hopelessness.
“Senator Obama may know of the ‘quiet riots’ coming from the black community,” said Dr. King, “but he doesn’t understand their source. Seventeen million black babies have been killed by abortion and the cries of those children, their mothers, and their families are what Senator Obama is hearing. I invite him to listen to those cries more clearly and compassionately. I pray he will realize that hopelessness and despair are only deepened by aborting those who are the future.”
James A, Watkins, I'm glad we agree on the income tax. It is unconstitutional.
It's just that your argument about the unborn supporting us all reminded me of what an interventionist commentator said on one of my anti-socialism hubs: think of all the productivity that was lost during the great depression!
I don't think that we have a right to count on productivity that hasn't happened yet. A real economy depends on things that actually happen -- not projected growth trends.
Universal Laws— I am sorry to disappoint you. I am sure in real life your are a very nice, joyful lady. Thanks for your comments.
Aya Katz— I cannot disagree with you. Your insights are keen. Thank you for the visit, too.
I have to comment on the SS, Medicare aspect of these comments.
I agree that Income Taxes and many other taxes are not good.
SS was forced upon the non government workers of the country. The government didn't protect it or invest for its future. They used it like a kids piggy bank for their own causes. Now that blame the people that they forced into their system.
At the same time, the largest work force in the country is the government union workers. They have their own system for retirement and they receive health benefits and holidays, vacations that are not rivaled in the private sector.
This work force is increasing every year, they can retire at 55 or even earlier and they are replaced by a new batch of benefitees (made up word). This is the tax burden that is enormous in comparison to SS.
Yet the light is shined on the SS, which is 68 olus to fully retire. The difference is that SS stops as long as you work. The person retiring at 68, could have contributed into SS for 50 years. After retirement, they work say at Home Depot to upgrade from their Alpo diet. They continue to pay into SS. Contrast this with the government worker, once they retire they never contribute to it again. In addition, they have beneficiaries for their retirement in case they die before retiring. I believe SS is still $255 for death benefits. In addition, they want your estate to return your last check depending on when you died.
The workers in the private sector have been losing jobs and companies to work for. This puts a burden on the SS contributions. At the same time the government is still adding to their workforce.
Do the math, and tell me which is the more critical economic problem. Keep in mind that some Federal workers are retiring with 6 figures a year.
And if there is a NHS, then we should induct all the government workers into it. Especially, the politicians. If the politicians won't voluntarily adopt the NHS as their primary health care then we the people in the SS sector shouldn't have to accept it.
If this was a bullfight, the SS caused the little bleeds, but the NHS is the death sword.
How can the SS workers afford to pay for the high price and burden of government workers?
Opinion Duck— I agree with you all the way. The NHS will be the death of the United States as we know it. And if it is forced upon us, you are absolutely right that government employees and politicians must be included. After all, if it's so great, they should be raring to be in on it. :)
Thanks for your wise words here today. I appreciate it.
Thanks james but this is a serious issue for me as she means the world to me and Im thinking of her future. If you consider that she said she hasn't gone more than 2 weeks without sex since she was 16 and she'll be 25 in a month just do the math. Wouldn't that mean she could be considered addicted to sex? [ it could be she simply enjoys it] If and when she finds someone who she wants to spend her life with and their in an eatery and he over hears some guys talking about her and what she was like, this could have a serious effect on her if he leaves her because his ego won't let it go. Not to mention the chances of contracting aids or some other deadly virus. When you do the math you'll fine like me its a matter of time and if she is addicted should I try to talk to her as thats a sensitive subject. In my opinion for a person who is only 25 to have had as many as 200 plus [by doing the math] that would put her and others m/f like her in the wh--- catagory right? I would appreciate any responses from the women out there. Please ladies no nasty comments about whats good for a man and the like as it's important I love her dearly.
madmac— I was on the fence about if you were serious. If you are, I apologize for my flippant response.
She may enjoy sex—who doesn't? I think in these cases it is a self-esteem issue. What is her relationship like with her father? Was she abused as a child or teenager? A lot of it may be cultural and pleasure but 150 sexual partners is a sign much as drug addiction is a sign of a deeper problem, I think. What do you figure is really troubling her? She is certainly at risk health-wise. In fact, she has surely had or has an STD with that many sex partners. That's a lot of body fluids from a lot of men.
I thank you for sharing your concern here.
thanks again james but the qustion is do I some how broach the subject with her because dispite my concern that is a very personal matter
madmac— Well that's hard for me to say because I don't know her, therefore I have no clue what might be behind all this. And I don't know the dynamics of your relationship with her.
That said, flying blind, I would tell her the truth. That you love her and want the best outcome to her life. That she is precious and things that are precious are not to be given away unless the receiver of the gift will treasure her. What she is doing is dangerous physically and damaging emotionally and crushing spiritually. Since this sort of thing takes on a life of its own once it gets rolling, it would help if you knew who the first 5 men were and what were the circumstances. That would be a clue as to how from there it blew up to 150 and counting.
I wish I knew more about the situation and perhaps I could be more helpful.
mr. watkins...i have to admit that i did not know john wayne was a feminest and most surely gay...yet again...more fodder for your "blind faith" followers.
pylos26— John Wayne was neither but it always interesting to read your point of view. A tad unorthodox, but interesting nonetheless.
Mr Watkins…it seems that some of your “bad girls” have realized their implied status and have soared into your snake pit carrying no anti-venom.
pylos26— Fascinating hypothesis. Thank you for that contribution! I appreciate the visit.
Mr Watkins…now why don’t we look at some of the positive attributes of the “pill”.
It allows serious couples to experience their love making compatibility before jumping blindly into a committed marriage. Do you sir, represent no feelings of bliss and joy in sex or is the act of sex, to you, to be used for the purpose of reproduction only.
pylos26— As I think you probably know, sex is one of the greatest gifts God gave to humankind. Not only is it blissful and joyful, but the two become one flesh and are thus able to reproduce themselves. What an awesome power. To be able to create another you or me. With this gift comes responsibility to use it according to the stipulations of the giver, which is in the marriage bed. I am not opposed to the pill for married couples at all.
Testing out lovemaking compatibility is Hugh Hefner philosophy. Marriage is not about lovemaking compatibility. Marriage is a commitment of two people to face life as a team come what may. That requires much more profound compatibilities than copulation skills.
But, you ask good questions and I appreciate your interest in my little humble Hub. Thanks for coming (no pun intended).
Once again, I feel politely nudged back into my orbit…
The greatest man/women on earth may be the one that bridges that void between science and religion…perhaps you qualify for that slot…but, you may have to lose that bible of pagan mythology and confer directly with God.
I realize your quote is an opinion, (“to use it (sex) according to the stipulations of the giver”), but you do have a knack for quoting such dribble as fact…
pylos26— Thank you for your comment. But I am no pagan. I quoted the Orthodox Christian view has been believed for two millennia by billions of people and is believed today by two billion of the living.
No Christian person with a clear eye toward science has any problem with it. In fact the scientific revolution, you know, Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton—all Christians. If was the Christian belief in a created ordered universe governed by God's Laws that prompted these men to believe God had given us the intellect to discover His Universe and thereby see Him in His majestic glory more clearly.
mr watkins...i did not refer to you as pagan...i was referring to your faulty field manuel called the holy bible that derived right out of the tail-end of pagan mythology.
sorry, bouble post
pylos26— Ah! I see. I am familiar with this theory. I appreciate the clarification. I'll have to get over and read more of your work. Thanks.
mr watkins...thanks for the traffic...you're a very generous guy...
pylos26— I am always pleased to support other writers. Thank you for visiting my pages. I appreciate it.
It is so sad that 55 million babies have been aborted and I believe that many think it is a form of birth control. Whatever happened to abstinence? You have said it all I need not say more. :)
AEvans— Abstinence is laughed at by those in the darkness. Even many who claim it a worthy goal say but: it is impossible. It is possible for human beings to control their base urges. If it wasn't we could not have a society at all.
The 55 million abortions are the American Holocaust and a stain on our national soul—a nation so blessed by divine Providence turns its back on its benefactor to worship the golden calf of appetite gratification.
Thank you for stopping in to visit. I appreciate your wise words.
Tom,
I know when people see what I am going to write they will say, sure, bragging, I don't believe you.
I'm a little older than you and I can only give my perspective. I was a total nerd in high school, but a metamorphosis in college. I sang in many clubs and that seems to be all mmany ladies need to go after you. The pill freed them up to do this.
I had though many ignorant things, women are pure, women belong on a pedestal, etc. Hearing things like; "Oh, I'll be here when you finish with her, I can keep you going longer than her, etc." These things make you realize women are on the attack as much as men.
Men think they got a girl to go whatever. Women may tell their friends; "I'm gonna do him Saturday!" Then the guy thinks it was his idea. What saps we men are.
Before the pill of course the same thing happened. Take away the big risk, voila!
Harvey Stelman— Before I read your comments, I want to thank you for coming to visit and leaving your words. I know how hard that is for you and it means a lot to me. God Bless You!
I have noticed women are getting more and more aggressive. Even at my age I can see it! And you are right. Only the woman knows how the night is going to end. Very few men are unwillingly. Men are saps! That's funny . . . and it's true. :)
Women have been aggressive for years.
Gen 39:7 And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me.
Gen 39:8 But he refused, and said unto his master's wife, Behold, my master wotteth not what is with me in the house, and he hath committed all that he hath to my hand;
Gen 39:9 There is none greater in this house than I; neither hath he kept back any thing from me but thee, because thou art his wife: how then can I do this great wickedness, and sin against God?
Gen 39:10 And it came to pass, as she spake to Joseph day by day, that he hearkened not unto her, to lie by her, or to be with her.
Gen 39:11 And it came to pass about this time, that Joseph went into the house to do his business; and there was none of the men of the house there within.
Gen 39:12 And she caught him by his garment, saying, Lie with me: and he left his garment in her hand, and fled, and got him out.
Gen 39:13 And it came to pass, when she saw that he had left his garment in her hand, and was fled forth,
Gen 39:14 That she called unto the men of her house, and spake unto them, saying, See, he hath brought in an Hebrew unto us to mock us; he came in unto me to lie with me, and I cried with a loud voice:
SirDent— Potiphar, right? I guess you are right. Maybe it comes and goes like the tide. Women seemed pretty proper to me when I was growing up. I might have been lucky to have been surrounded by Christian ladies. Thanks for the Scripture. It is powerful and appropo.
I enjoyed the Hub...found no offense in it...there are many truths in it that align with my own belief system. I will look forward to reading your other hubs.
angInflt4ua— Thank you! I appreciate the affirmation. Thanks for coming by. Welcome to the Hub Pages Community!
Great Hub! Cetainly got people thinking. I wonder how many women really don't see, just how much they realy control societal norms. The hand that rocks the cradle rules the world....
C.J. Wright— Thank you. It did create a minor uproar.:)
Hey, Welcome to the Hub Pages Community. I'm sure I'll be reading some of your work.
The hand that rocks the cradle . . . that is so true. I wonder where that saying originated?
I appreciate the visit and the comments.
James,
Thanks, I had followed your hubs for a few weeks and decided to join hub pages myself. Your piece, "Partitioning America" was very interesting. We had a great discussion in the comments section of the hub. You may remember me, CRASH.
C. J. Wright— Yes, I do remember you CRASH. You always made intelligent comments. I'll read your work here for sure. Thank you for letting me know that was you.
Maaaaaaaaaaaan! I came across this hub late James, and am I exhausted after reading all the posts. About four miles of responses back I was going to answer a number of points that may be better presented as more substantial hubs.
The original hub itself was fine but obviously stood on a few toes.
Biased and written from a masculine perspective? Well, yes, but aren't all opinions biased? And a masculine perspective is what an intelligent reader might expect, since you're not an hermaphrodite.
Double standard? Of course, because there are two sexes (not withstanding my prior comment) and we differ greatly: physiologically, mentally, emotionally and culturally.
Normal sexuality is expressed heterosexually and 'heteros' means 'another of a different kind'. And before some wag asks - 'another of the same kind' is 'allos'.
I was going to tackle the poor Biblical exegesis of some, but Gloria Cowdery beat me to it and did a marvellous job. The claim that the Bible is full of contradictions is, of course, tendentious nonsense.
Jesus said that divorce was tolerated by God because of the hardness of men's hearts, and was a whole lot less judgemental of the Samaritan woman at the well who had had five husbands and was co-habiting with her latest partner, nor did he condemn the woman taken in adultery, but nevertheless told her to go and sin no more.
Far more people know what the Bible says than actually understand what it means.
Jesus actually expanded our understanding of Torah by illustrating that it is adultery to even lust after a woman. The reason he said so was not to bind us all even more tightly to the Law, but to bring the self-righteous such as the Pharisees who had imagined they had made the Law 'keepable' to despair; to where they would at last realise their need of a Saviour.
Also, Paul observed that marriage is a 'mystery' inasmuch as it is an analogue reflecting God's relationship with his people. This actually explains why men have a higher sex drive and tend more often to be the pursuers of women than the other way round, because in the antitypical relationship that the sexual dynamic symbolises, God is the instigator who passionately pursues us before we pursue him.
The sexual chaos that pervades humanity is a result of the Fall and a perversion of the original created order.
As for the abortion of the 'unwanted': I am one of those that got away.
My mother was 16 when she married a young soldier boy, but ran off with my father while her husband was on National Service. With no social and little family support, and only poverty looming, maybe she could have considered an abortion, but instead I was born on my father's 20th birthday and, after two years of hardship and abject poverty I was adopted.
23 years later I married, and have remained that way for 27 years to the only woman I have ever had sex with. And because my natural mother chose not to have an abortion I have two children who would not have existed and five grandchildren who likewise would never have been born.
It's been a Wonderful Life, and my name isn't even James Stewart!
Allan McGregor— As usual, your comments are better than my article! And I thank you for it.
"Far more people know what the Bible says than actually understand what it means."
This is a classic sentence that explains a whole lot about the world today.
I knew when I wrote this that it would be provocative. Nobody else was stepping up to the plate so I decided to swing for the fences. At the very least, it got an important conversation started. At best, even a couple of people who were offended, were touched by it in some deep dark place.
I am surely glad you "got away" as I'm sure your wife, children and grandchildren are. A one woman man—that is the best possible life. I was on that path but got thrown off it—like off a horse. God Bless You!
Allan,
I will add that sadly I lost a few long time female readers of mine whose comments above are the last I ever from them.
James
I'm sorry to hear that some readers left, but a similar thing happened to Jesus in John 6:60-69.
When many of his disciples heard it, they said, "This is a hard saying; who can listen to it?" But Jesus, knowing in himself that his disciples were grumbling about this, said to them, "Do you take offense at this? Then what if you were to see the Son of Man ascending to where he was before?
It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh is no help at all. The words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life. But there are some of you who do not believe." (For Jesus knew from the beginning who those were who did not believe, and who it was who would betray him.) And he said, "This is why I told you that no one can come to me unless it is granted him by the Father." After this many of his disciples turned back and no longer walked with him. So Jesus said to the Twelve, "Do you want to go away as well?"
Simon Peter answered him, "Lord, to whom shall we go? You have the words of eternal life, and we have believed, and have come to know, that you are the Holy One of God."
Jesus you're not: But it is part of the disciple's calling never to be afraid to risk being misunderstood.
In fact, I am considering writing a hub called 'Women keep silent in the churches'. It may well silence a few critics if they take the time to read some surprising conclusions, and don't shoot from the hip contrary to the spirit of Proverbs 18:13 - 'If one gives an answer before he hears, it is his folly and shame.'
Allan,
I appreciate your words of encouragement. You are such a pleasure to have as a friend. And, of course, you are right. Some will take offense when the truth is presented without varnish. :)
I'll be looking forward to that Hub.
Universal Laws says:
3 months ago
As a woman, what does your wife think of this hub?
I take it she was one of the "good girls" who you married having had a few rounds with the "bad girls"?
I reckon you will be in for an interesting ride with this hub with the female fraternity and the males who do not classify women who are sexually active and enjoy it as "bad girls"!!!!
Were you a bad guy or a good guy in your mindset James and what on earth does that mean?
Namaste