creators home
creators.com lifestyle web
cheryl lavin

Recently

Meet Cute In the movies they call it a "meet cute." That's when the boy — let's call him Brad, head of the Young Republicans — is scheduled to debate Chris, head of the Young Democrats. Well, Brad arrives at the debate, breathing fire, and finds …Read more. Is My Ex-Husband Having A Mid-Life Crisis? Dear Cheryl, My husband of 24 years and I were divorced six weeks ago, with a decent degree of civility and warm feelings. Last week, much to my surprise, he informed me and our 20-year-old daughter, that he's getting married in two weeks to a woman …Read more. Divorce: End or Beginning? Sometimes it takes more than a divorce to end a relationship. Nori met Simon 11 years ago when she was 30. At the time, she'd been divorced for 18 months after a nine-year marriage. She had two sons, 5 and 8. Simon was 24. "He was looking for …Read more. The Other Half of the Subject We recently heard from Heather, the 38-year-old college professor with a Ph.D. in romance languages who's dating Pat, the 42-year-old carpet installer. To her amazement, she's fallen in love with a man who prefers Dunkin' Donuts to Starbucks. Ethan …Read more.
more articles

Will the Last Virtuous Woman Please Turn out the Lights?

Comment

It seems almost hard to believe that once upon a time (Actually, it was just a few generations ago) a pregnant, unmarried young woman was sent out of town to "visit her aunt."

Today, there are TV shows that celebrate pregnant unmarried teens. Over half the young women who have babies aren't married. One sociologist called marriage "a luxury."

The times they have changed. Is that a good thing? Not really, says Beth.

"I've noticed that most of your columns feature a certain type of single woman. Let me call your attention to a recent column headlined "Once a Booty Call Always a Booty Call." It featured a reader, Diane, griping that the man she'd an affair with — while he was married — refused to become emotionally involved with her when they reconnected following his divorce.

Another reader, "Catch 37," bemoaned the fact that her boyfriend of all of two months, whom she was already bedding, wasn't providing enough "security" in their relationship.

Back in my mother's day, when women were still ladies, women like this weren't "booty calls" or "insecure." They were "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps."

I know the world is different today, but I'm constantly appalled at the skanks women have turned into. Diane and "Catch 37" are cases in point. They brought their problems on themselves.

Women today behave abominably and then refuse to take responsibility for the disastrous consequences of our actions. We sleep with men we barely know; we have affairs with married men; we date a succession of bums; we stay in relationships with creeps who treat us and our children with contempt; and we willingly shack up with men, serving as their unpaid cooks, housekeepers and nannies— all while complaining bitterly that men don't respect us!

Gee, I wonder why not? Could it be that there is nothing left to respect?

In the 1960s, women were told that the sexual revolution would liberate us.

It has not. Anyone who thinks that women have actually benefited from it is a fool. Instead, it has reduced us to a series of cheap, easy sex partners who don't deserve to be taken seriously.

I represent a dying breed. I'm the dinosaur of single women, and my voice needs to be heard before I go completely extinct. I feel like I'm utterly alone in my beliefs.

Or am I? Are there still women out there who have a moral code and are willing to live by it? And are there still men who actually prefer virtuous women to floozies? I would be very interested in hearing from them. Assuming, of course, that either still exists.

Sincerely,

Tyrannosaurus Beth

Readers, I'm guessing there are many women out there who have a moral code and live by it. It just might be a different moral code than Beth's. And I'm sure there are men who prefer "virtuous women" to "floozies." But again, I'm not sure their opinion of what makes a woman virtuous and what makes her a floozy would be the same as Beth's.

Women, what is your moral code? Men, how do you define virtue?)

Have you met dates through the Internet? How's that working for you? Send your tale, along with your questions, problems and rants to cheryllavinrapp@gmail.com. To find out more about Cheryl Lavin, and read features by other Creators Syndicate writers and cartoonists, visit www.creators.com.

COPYRIGHT 2012 CREATORS.COM



Comments

42 Comments | Post Comment
I agree with Beth. I don't care what others do, save for those whose choices, others have to pay up and cover for them. I, myself, have made mistakes, fortunately, not ones that screwed my life up or someone else's forever. I eventually learned everything Beth has said...want respect? Then act respectable. It's especially more important that women be more careful because we are the ones who get pregnant and we are the ones who owe the best to the lives we bring into the world. Many of these, "single mothers," (and before someone gets pissy, this does not include widows) have no clue or are too narcissistic to figure this out.

Yes, men play part in this endless tale of woe, but if women were more selective about the men they let in their bed, were more careful about their choices, then these loser immature males would never get the chance to be a deadbeat dad or get the chance to make these women miserable with their antics .
Comment: #1
Posted by: Miss Sashay
Fri Feb 24, 2012 6:47 AM
Thank you Beth and Miss Sashay. I have nothing more to add, you've both said it perfectly. Cheryl probably doesn't have any interest in women having a GOOD moral code (DEFINE A MORAL CODE -everybody makes up their own Yay!).

If women started acting respectable, there'd be no train wrecks for her to write about.
Comment: #2
Posted by: Lori
Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:08 AM
Yes Beth, you ARE a dying breed. Thank god. I"m tired of being judged by narrow minded people like you, who think YOUR morality is the only and correct one, and it is based solely on females (NOT MALES!) sexual expression.

As far as I'm concerned YOU (and the two above posters) are the ones with no morals. Or compassion. Or understanding. Or tolerance. Or openmindedness. Just arrogance and judgment. No thanks.

And honestly, if being a floozy means I can have the kind of sex I want, with who I want (don't mistake this for having no standards I have incredibly high standards-I don't date men who are misogynists, married, uneducated, lazy). I own my own home, take vacations when I like, am planning on further education. I have done my best to give back to the world, working as a teacher and am now aiming to be a sex therapist.

I'm way to busy having fun and living life on my terms to be judging and shaming other for their choices. Perhaps you too Beth should get a hobby.

So here is my moral code, short and sweet. Live and let live. Do no harm. Judge not, lest ye be judged. Act with kindness and compassion.

Comment: #3
Posted by: Walkie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 7:40 AM
Re: Walkie

That would be all fine and dandy, but because of how easy it is nowadays to get a woman in bed, men's expectations have changed, and their willingness to contribute to a relationship has diminished as a result.

Therefore what these women (me included, until I grew up and finally gained some self-respect) do in the bedroom impacts a lot more women than you think.
Comment: #4
Posted by: Janie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:01 AM
I think, like most things, there is a middle ground here. Beth seems to be all the way over on one extreme, and the women she complains about all the way over on the other. I think there's probably plenty to complain about with either extreme, but I also think that most women fall somewhere in between those two points.

I also think it's perfectly fine for Beth and her soul sisters to feel as they do. Women's liberation doesn't mean that all women should act the same way, but that women should be free to choose what they want to do. I think it's great that Beth understands the kind of woman she wants to be and is living her life that way. What I am less enthusiastic of is this automatic assumption that any woman feeling differently is WRONG or BAD or ends up in trouble. That's clearly untrue, and is a serious flaw in how Beth presents herself (ie, judgmental and unsympathetic).

Note that I would also be just as unsupportive of an extremely sexually free woman who wrote in to mock and disparage women who choose not to have sex before marriage; again, I think it's fine to understand yourself, what you want out of life, and be honest with your paramours -- it's just that I don't think there's any need to insult or denigrate people who make different choices than you do. That's unnecessary, unless you need the self-esteem boost for some reason?

Many, many women disagree with Beth's interpretation of the results of the "sexual revolution"; Beth shouldn't assume that her own personal experience is universal to all women. And, frankly, there's an insult to men in all this, that somehow ALL men are the same and because some women are "sluttier" that ALL men ONLY want "sluts" now. That's also flatly untrue, as many of my straight friends in successful straight relationships keep telling me.

But that's the inherent problem with the kind of "black-and-white" thinking that Beth evinces. Life, and people, are of a spectrum, not "one thing or the other"; women are not just either "madonnas" or "whores". (Oddly enough, that's a very old-school male attitude that I suspect Beth in some ways buys into.)

Women being sexualized and marginalized by men affected far more than simply how freely women had sex, and you can't really separate out the progress women have made in business and politics in the last half-century without including the progress made in the "sexual revolution" -- they are intertwined far more closely than I think Beth would like to acknowledge.

All that being said, I think Beth should be applauded for knowing what *she* wants and understanding how she wants to move forward in her life. I just don't think she's right to be so judgmental of women who've made different choices, and I think she exaggerates her case by being overly simplistic in how she views her own gender, and that the reality is nowhere near as "black and white" as she makes it out to be. Real people are more complicated, and that's a good thing, in my opinion.
Comment: #5
Posted by: Mike H
Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:23 AM
Janie-
And I respectfully disagree. What I (or anyone) do in the bedroom (or don't do) should not affect anyone but me or my partner. If you choose to let others sexual behaviour affect you or your relationship, that is solely your issue. Not mine. Note I'm using your and mine in the general sense, not specific to us :)

I do think you are making assumptions about other people's sexual behaviour based on your own personal experience. Just because you equate being promiscuous with lack of self respect doesn't make that true for others. I consider myself promiscuous in the sense I've had sex with many partners, but I am certainly not lacking self respect. I have in the past wanted short term no strings relationships. Does not for one second mean I allowed myself to be used or treated poorly.

Also. I disagree that women's behaviour has diminished mens expectations. But even if that is true, it is up to each individual to communicate what they want, and to only accept what they want. Again, if you accept a crappy relationship because the man you are dating doesn't think he needs to commit or support you emotionally, that is YOUR issue. Not anyone elses.
Comment: #6
Posted by: Walkie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:16 AM
This is the kind of letter which makes me utterly, completely, fuming mad.

So women who have casual sex and shack up with men are skanks, are they? Also, "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps." It's all their fault that men who are ‘creeps' and ‘bums' don't respect them.

Are we really to believe that these unsavory males would behave like perfect gentlemen if women would just say no and stop being so easy? It's just another version of the same old tired theory: women are to blame when men mistreat them. There is not a word of criticism for the lowlifes who use and mistreat them, or for the married men that are unfaithful to their wives. I guess those poor guys just can't help themselves; there are so many slutty females around.

I wish some of these rotten men (especially the ones that go around fathering and abandoning children) could get a taste of the kind of cruel treatment women have had to endure when their morals are less than perfect. It would do them a world of good.

The problem with women like Diane and Catch 37 is that they are not being honest with themselves about what they want. They really want commitment and love, but they go about trying to find it by entering into casual or unethical sexual relationships. This won't work, because a woman who wants a committed relationship needs to find a man who values commitment. The woman who is cautious and selective about who she gets involved with is simply doing what she has to do to weed out the losers and find the good men.

Tyrannosaurus Beth-

For heaven's sake, get a grip. I don't know what sort of people you've been hanging around with, but there are quite a few people of both sexes who don't go around falling into bed on a first date, cheating on their spouses, having several sex partners at once (unknown to the partners involved), and making babies out of wedlock. There are other people who have standards for relationships, so don't talk as if you're the last virtuous female on the planet. Get involved in church groups, charitable organizations or clubs for particular interests. There are a number of good, decent people out there.




Comment: #7
Posted by: JMG
Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:59 AM
@JMG

WELL SAID.
Comment: #8
Posted by: Walkie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:05 AM
Beth is judging all women by only a few examples. She contradicts herself by saying that any woman who believes that the sexual revolution was beneficial is "a fool," but then she claims that women like she is are almost extinct. Maybe if more women who enjoyed the sexual revolution would write in, she'd see that it hasn't been all bad.

I came of age in the 70s, when casual sex was becoming accepted. I had sex when I wanted to, and when I didn't want to, I didn't. I used birth control and practiced discretion. I met a young man, fell in love quickly, and we're still in love. I don't feel the need to defend what I did, because it's nobody's business and I don't feel defensive about it.

While Beth condemns several generations of women who have enjoyed the new morals, they are enjoying their husbands, children, and grandchildren. I'm sure they're not as happy as she is, though, as she sits alone, protecting her golden "flower." She may find if she hangs onto her "petals" too long, that nobody will want it.

There's nothing wrong with wanting to remain a virgin. It's her air of superiority that's annoying. And, Beth, if you're wearing a chastity ring, take it off. Those things are scary on anyone over the age of 18.
Comment: #9
Posted by: Annies Fan
Fri Feb 24, 2012 11:49 AM
Beth sounds . . . . . . . frustrated to me.

I suggest she go out and have a "good time," if you know what I mean, to get rid of some of that built-up tension. Who knows, she might like it and develop a new perspective on the issue.
Comment: #10
Posted by: AWC
Fri Feb 24, 2012 12:15 PM
JMC,
Well put. I also would like to add that the number of "out of wedlock" babies means absolutely nothing with respect to the (imagined) promiscuity of women. I know several women and men in steady, monogamous, long-term relationship with the the other parent of their children, but not legally married. A few decades ago, marriage was a woman's security blanket, meal ticket, and retirement plan. Few women worked in the professional world and earned decent incomes to support themselves. Harvard Law School, for example, didn't even admit women until the 1950s, and when they did admit them, it was a heavily men-dominated world. Now, about half of HLS graduates are women. If "one sociologist" called marriage a luxury, I would like to know what this sociologist meant. Might it be the fact that marriage no longer carries with it the financial protections it once did and, therefore, there is little to no point for a lot of men and women to get legally married?
In general, one has to be extremely careful throwing statistics around. For example, statistics on teen pregnancies often include only female teens, not accounting for how many male teens become fathers. The numbers also include pregnancies within early marriages, and the social perception of such marriages has changed over the past 4 or 5 decades. When my mother married at 19, it was normal. All of her friends and classmates were getting married left and right. Today, most people (including myself) shake their heads disapprovingly at a 19-yo announcing that he/she is getting married.
One also has to be very careful in drawing general conclusions from letters written to advice columnists. People in healthy, steady relationships don't write to Cheryl Lavine, but that in no way implies that they are rare or non-existent. Teens who refrain from becoming sexually active until they are older, or who successfully use contraception do not end up on "Teen Mom" reality shows, but they do constitute the majority of the population between 13 and 19. ( According to CDC data, the average age of the first sexual intercourse for American teens is right around 17 years of age).
Comment: #11
Posted by: Ariana
Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:08 PM
Sorry, it was supposed to be JMG. Sorry for the typo.
Comment: #12
Posted by: Ariana
Fri Feb 24, 2012 3:09 PM
I am SO tired of women who sleep with men outside of marriage as lacking in morals, as tramps, as floozies, skanks, etc.
For my money, an adult woman who sleeps with a man out of wedlock can be more virtuous than a woman who withholds sex primarily so she can get that all-important ring on her finger.

I will agree that many people -- men and women alike -- fail to act in ways that would benefit them in the long term, and that this is what makes up much of Tales from the Front. The hormones that addle the brain in the throes of attraction tend to cloud judgment, and we often have to touch the stove to learn that it is, indeed, hot -- just as we were warned. Do I believe that the situations depicted in Tales from the Front make up the majority of cases in male-female relationships -- that all of us women are running out to sleep with married or abusive men who treat our kids and ourselves with contempt? Nope. I believe Cheryl is not above printing the most jaw-dropping cases in an attempt to provoke discussion, though.

I do believe that women have benefited from the sexual revolution, as well as from feminism. Call me a fool if you like, Beth, but I've been married 30 years next month, and yes, I had sex with other men before I met my husband; even lived with one for awhile.

And in my lifetime, and my mother's, I know of women who were so frightened by the prospect of divorce -- because they had no earning power -- that they put up with affairs or abuse. I saw women who had far more kids than was good for them or their family, because there was no contraception or because they were told contraception was a sin. I recall a time when they only way a woman not born into money could get it was to marry it, and so felt forced to marry a man she didn't love just to get private school education for her yet-to-be-conceived kids. I know of a woman who was treated with thinly veiled contempt by the nuns while recovering in the hospital from a miscarriage until she asked her husband to please bring her wedding ring to her -- at which point she became treated with solicitous sympathy. See, they'd thought she was a "floozy" recovering from an illegal abortion!

That's what attitudes like yours got us, Beth. And there was NOTHING virtuous about the way those smug, self-righteous nuns were treating that poor woman in the hospital.
Comment: #13
Posted by: hedgehog
Fri Feb 24, 2012 5:14 PM
"if women were more selective about the men they let in their bed, were more careful about their choices, then these loser immature males would never get the chance to be a deadbeat dad or get the chance to make these women miserable with their antics ...Back in my mother's day, when women were still ladies, women like this weren't "booty calls" or "insecure." They were "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps." " "when women were still ladies" - Where do you get off saying that "women" (e.g. all women but you) are not ladies anymore? (FYI, that statement includes you! haha) So, not one woman, except you, of course, and your mother, can possibly be a lady because we were born in a different decade than your mother? Well, I guess that takes all responsibility out of my hands because I was born too late to even be ABLE to become a lady, huh? Woo hoo! You want all women to change their attitude while yours remains the same: you are the ONLY one capable of being a lady because the rest of us are just ignorant sluts who chose to let the sexual revolution happen in order annoy people like you and to release us from the responsibility of behaving like a "lady". You seem to be under the delusion that you are the ONLY exception and that, while the rest of us can aspire to become ladies, it is virtually impossible for everyone but you because you are somehow smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. It seems that "women" and "skanks" are interchangeable in your mind (as it is for many men), except for yourself, of course. And, boy, you sure let the men off easily. Since you seem to have grown up in the dark ages (I am in my 50's and lived through it too), let me explain sexuality to you. It takes 2 people to have slutty sex and out-of-wedlock children but you seem to assume that women are the only ones responsible and they MUST be the ones to control men at ALL times or they are 'sluts'. What do you call the men who sleep with lots of women without any inclination for relationships? What if they are great early on but turn into losers later? What about taking men to task for their part in the sexual revolution: EXPECTING women to jump into bed with them on the first date as a quid pro quo for dinner and, if they don't, they call you names and disappear? These men make may women feel bad about themselves if they refuse sex and coerce women with this emotional blackmail. Women with low self-esteem or few suitors can be easily manipulated into doing things against their own self-interest. That does not make them sluts. Maybe needy, maybe desperate, but not necessarily floozies as you imply. You seem to think there are only 2 types of women in the world: The virtuous, like you, or dive bar tramps (the rest of us) who sleep with anything that walks. In your narrow view, it is black or white and there is no possible grey area. I call that a self-centered superiority complex and resent the implication that 99% of us are sluts who need to be schooled by you. Yet the men are poo-pooed in the "boys will be boys' vein because it's all those slutty, predatory women, who went wild with their newly found freedom from pregnancy during the sexual revolution, that caused all the problems. The poor little guys are just victims of women's innate sluttiness and can't be blamed for not respecting women because these tramps must have 'forced' themselves onto these sweet, unsuspecting, lousy men, thus deserve the name calling. Why don't you expect men to control their sexual desires, which have also become increasingly slutty? And, waiting until you know someone better? Doesn't that go both ways? What about those women who do wait and are then unceremoniously dumped immediately when the guy gets what they want? According to you, it is their due punishment for being a skank, no matter what the guy did or how many women they may be screwing at the same time. No questions about the guy's behavior at all. They, and you, are all just innocent victims of the sexual revolution that was concocted by the rest of us slutty women (and, I assume, the slutty scientists that developed the pill) to get......what? Treated like dirt by both men and women like you? I, for one, do not jump into bed on the first date yet you paint women like me with the same tainted brush. I have learned from past mistakes yet I am still pressured to have sex when I am not ready so, according to your philosophy, I am also to blame for that whether I have sex or not. I guess I am a tramp for sleeping with a man not my husband and not getting a long-term committment first, even though I have only had 4 relationships in my life at 51. Only those maintaining a moral high ground should be allowed to be hurt by men who mistreat them. The rest of us deserve it and should expect it and have no right to ever feel hurt or disappointed by bad treatment because of our moral failings. Yes, sleep well with your self-righteousness indignation as that, and your pets, are likely to be the only ones you will ever sleep with. In keeping with your desire to go back in time, women like you used to be called "frigid" so should we label you as such? Men will sense that this will be the tone of their entire relationship with you: you will control the sex thus you will control the relationship. Stop being angry at all the other women out there who have what you want but didn't do it under your strict "moral code." Who are you to have expectations about how I should live my life? Your moral code ends at the tip of your nose and no one is obligated to live by it except you. You think that bashing other women is going to help you find a man who respects you? You don't seem to have any respect for anyone except yourself. It doesn't seem like you respect other women and dislike men, so why should anyone respect you just because you loudly proclaim moral superiority while simultaneously being extremely judgemental (which, I believe, is immoral)? Why don't you want to live by my moral code instead, as you imply, I should live by yours? Blame yourself, and only yourself, for the way your life has turned out. It seems you like to finger-point rather than actually discover what it is about you that has kept you single. Desperation and meanness are not attractive and comes across as jealousy. Apparently, all the other women in the world are raining on your 1962 morality parade, thus THEY are the cause of your being single. I am sure your anger, disappointment and superiority are clearly visible to anyone and drives men away. You blame every other woman on the planet for changing society rather than actually look at yourself and your contributions to your situation. I assume you are anti-birth control too, since that is what started it all in the first place. I guess society was just overwhelmed by the tide of bimbos clamoring to have one night stands and for the right to be treated like tramps, so doctor's invented the pill so we could fulfill our slutty destiny? Maybe the purpose of the pill was to undermine society and liberate whores, not to let women (including married ones) have lives outside of childbirth. This lead to women *gasp* working outside of the HOME instead of pregnant with 8 kids running around. Is THAT what ruined society for you, the right for women to control their reproduction, thus their own lives? Non-traditional women cannot be ladies in your book therefore they MUST be sluts. Women are still being paid less than men at 74 cents on the dollar since the 1970's, revolution or not. All the rest of us women (skanks) probably deserve to be paid less due to your assumption of our promiscuity and we must continue to be harassed by women like you who want to control EVERYONE ELSE's lives. And, if you cannot make us see the error of our ways under your moral code, even if we are not promiscuous, we are still bimbos to you. How DARE society change and us with it. Stick with the old tried and true, where women were to be seen and not heard, wore dresses and pearls to cook and clean, had a pipe, slippers and dinner ready for her husband when he came home and had her husband make all the decisions and determine her opinion for her. Stop bashing all the other women who DARE to think differently from you so that you can feel better about yourself. It seems, in your view, that only the women in the world are supposed to control themselves and they MUST do it YOUR way lest they be labelled a tramp while the sweet little unsuspecting men can continue to fall prey to the sluts with no consequences. After all, it is always the woman's fault if a man is drawn to her, right? We must be putting out skanky vibes if a man wants to sleep with us, therefore, we must be skanks. Because, of course, men have no control over themselves and it is up to us women to control men and their behaviors (just like we were told in the 60's. Boys will be boys, girls will be mothers.) If we can't, we are skanks. You really are a dinosaur and should crawl back into your cave. Let the rest of us live our lives the way WE deem appropriate as I have no obligation or desire to let you lecture me into doing things your way. Don't let the revolution hit you on the a** on the way out!
Comment: #14
Posted by: Julie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:56 PM
"if women were more selective about the men they let in their bed, were more careful about their choices, then these loser immature males would never get the chance to be a deadbeat dad or get the chance to make these women miserable with their antics ...Back in my mother's day, when women were still ladies, women like this weren't "booty calls" or "insecure." They were "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps." " "when women were still ladies" - Where do you get off saying that "women" (e.g. all women but you) are not ladies anymore? (FYI, that statement includes you! haha) So, not one woman, except you, of course, and your mother, can possibly be a lady because we were born in a different decade than your mother? Well, I guess that takes all responsibility out of my hands because I was born too late to even be ABLE to become a lady, huh? Woo hoo! You want all women to change their attitude while yours remains the same: you are the ONLY one capable of being a lady because the rest of us are just ignorant sluts who chose to let the sexual revolution happen in order annoy people like you and to release us from the responsibility of behaving like a "lady". You seem to be under the delusion that you are the ONLY exception and that, while the rest of us can aspire to become ladies, it is virtually impossible for everyone but you because you are somehow smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. It seems that "women" and "skanks" are interchangeable in your mind (as it is for many men), except for yourself, of course. And, boy, you sure let the men off easily. Since you seem to have grown up in the dark ages (I am in my 50's and lived through it too), let me explain sexuality to you. It takes 2 people to have slutty sex and out-of-wedlock children but you seem to assume that women are the only ones responsible and they MUST be the ones to control men at ALL times or they are 'sluts'. What do you call the men who sleep with lots of women without any inclination for relationships? What if they are great early on but turn into losers later? What about taking men to task for their part in the sexual revolution: EXPECTING women to jump into bed with them on the first date as a quid pro quo for dinner and, if they don't, they call you names and disappear? These men make may women feel bad about themselves if they refuse sex and coerce women with this emotional blackmail. Women with low self-esteem or few suitors can be easily manipulated into doing things against their own self-interest. That does not make them sluts. Maybe needy, maybe desperate, but not necessarily floozies as you imply. You seem to think there are only 2 types of women in the world: The virtuous, like you, or dive bar tramps (the rest of us) who sleep with anything that walks. In your narrow view, it is black or white and there is no possible grey area. I call that a self-centered superiority complex and resent the implication that 99% of us are sluts who need to be schooled by you. Yet the men are poo-pooed in the "boys will be boys' vein because it's all those slutty, predatory women, who went wild with their newly found freedom from pregnancy during the sexual revolution, that caused all the problems. The poor little guys are just victims of women's innate sluttiness and can't be blamed for not respecting women because these tramps must have 'forced' themselves onto these sweet, unsuspecting, lousy men, thus deserve the name calling. Why don't you expect men to control their sexual desires, which have also become increasingly slutty? And, waiting until you know someone better? Doesn't that go both ways? What about those women who do wait and are then unceremoniously dumped immediately when the guy gets what they want? According to you, it is their due punishment for being a skank, no matter what the guy did or how many women they may be screwing at the same time. No questions about the guy's behavior at all. They, and you, are all just innocent victims of the sexual revolution that was concocted by the rest of us slutty women (and, I assume, the slutty scientists that developed the pill) to get......what? Treated like dirt by both men and women like you? I, for one, do not jump into bed on the first date yet you paint women like me with the same tainted brush. I have learned from past mistakes yet I am still pressured to have sex when I am not ready so, according to your philosophy, I am also to blame for that whether I have sex or not. I guess I am a tramp for sleeping with a man not my husband and not getting a long-term committment first, even though I have only had 4 relationships in my life at 51. Only those maintaining a moral high ground should be allowed to be hurt by men who mistreat them. The rest of us deserve it and should expect it and have no right to ever feel hurt or disappointed by bad treatment because of our moral failings. Yes, sleep well with your self-righteousness indignation as that, and your pets, are likely to be the only ones you will ever sleep with. In keeping with your desire to go back in time, women like you used to be called "frigid" so should we label you as such? Men will sense that this will be the tone of their entire relationship with you: you will control the sex thus you will control the relationship. Stop being angry at all the other women out there who have what you want but didn't do it under your strict "moral code." Who are you to have expectations about how I should live my life? Your moral code ends at the tip of your nose and no one is obligated to live by it except you. You think that bashing other women is going to help you find a man who respects you? You don't seem to have any respect for anyone except yourself. It doesn't seem like you respect other women and dislike men, so why should anyone respect you just because you loudly proclaim moral superiority while simultaneously being extremely judgemental (which, I believe, is immoral)? Why don't you want to live by my moral code instead, as you imply, I should live by yours? Blame yourself, and only yourself, for the way your life has turned out. It seems you like to finger-point rather than actually discover what it is about you that has kept you single. Desperation and meanness are not attractive and comes across as jealousy. Apparently, all the other women in the world are raining on your 1962 morality parade, thus THEY are the cause of your being single. I am sure your anger, disappointment and superiority are clearly visible to anyone and drives men away. You blame every other woman on the planet for changing society rather than actually look at yourself and your contributions to your situation. I assume you are anti-birth control too, since that is what started it all in the first place. I guess society was just overwhelmed by the tide of bimbos clamoring to have one night stands and for the right to be treated like tramps, so doctor's invented the pill so we could fulfill our slutty destiny? Maybe the purpose of the pill was to undermine society and liberate whores, not to let women (including married ones) have lives outside of childbirth. This lead to women *gasp* working outside of the HOME instead of pregnant with 8 kids running around. Is THAT what ruined society for you, the right for women to control their reproduction, thus their own lives? Non-traditional women cannot be ladies in your book therefore they MUST be sluts. Women are still being paid less than men at 74 cents on the dollar since the 1970's, revolution or not. All the rest of us women (skanks) probably deserve to be paid less due to your assumption of our promiscuity and we must continue to be harassed by women like you who want to control EVERYONE ELSE's lives. And, if you cannot make us see the error of our ways under your moral code, even if we are not promiscuous, we are still bimbos to you. How DARE society change and us with it. Stick with the old tried and true, where women were to be seen and not heard, wore dresses and pearls to cook and clean, had a pipe, slippers and dinner ready for her husband when he came home and had her husband make all the decisions and determine her opinion for her. Stop bashing all the other women who DARE to think differently from you so that you can feel better about yourself. It seems, in your view, that only the women in the world are supposed to control themselves and they MUST do it YOUR way lest they be labelled a tramp while the sweet little unsuspecting men can continue to fall prey to the sluts with no consequences. After all, it is always the woman's fault if a man is drawn to her, right? We must be putting out skanky vibes if a man wants to sleep with us, therefore, we must be skanks. Because, of course, men have no control over themselves and it is up to us women to control men and their behaviors (just like we were told in the 60's. Boys will be boys, girls will be mothers.) If we can't, we are skanks. You really are a dinosaur and should crawl back into your cave. Let the rest of us live our lives the way WE deem appropriate as I have no obligation or desire to let you lecture me into doing things your way. Don't let the revolution hit you on the a** on the way out!
Comment: #15
Posted by: Julie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:59 PM
"if women were more selective about the men they let in their bed, were more careful about their choices, then these loser immature males would never get the chance to be a deadbeat dad or get the chance to make these women miserable with their antics ...Back in my mother's day, when women were still ladies, women like this weren't "booty calls" or "insecure." They were "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps." " "when women were still ladies" - Where do you get off saying that "women" (e.g. all women but you) are not ladies anymore? (FYI, that statement includes you! haha) So, not one woman, except you, of course, and your mother, can possibly be a lady because we were born in a different decade than your mother? Well, I guess that takes all responsibility out of my hands because I was born too late to even be ABLE to become a lady, huh? Woo hoo! You want all women to change their attitude while yours remains the same: you are the ONLY one capable of being a lady because the rest of us are just ignorant sluts who chose to let the sexual revolution happen in order annoy people like you and to release us from the responsibility of behaving like a "lady". You seem to be under the delusion that you are the ONLY exception and that, while the rest of us can aspire to become ladies, it is virtually impossible for everyone but you because you are somehow smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. It seems that "women" and "skanks" are interchangeable in your mind (as it is for many men), except for yourself, of course. And, boy, you sure let the men off easily. Since you seem to have grown up in the dark ages (I am in my 50's and lived through it too), let me explain sexuality to you. It takes 2 people to have slutty sex and out-of-wedlock children but you seem to assume that women are the only ones responsible and they MUST be the ones to control men at ALL times or they are 'sluts'. What do you call the men who sleep with lots of women without any inclination for relationships? What if they are great early on but turn into losers later? What about taking men to task for their part in the sexual revolution: EXPECTING women to jump into bed with them on the first date as a quid pro quo for dinner and, if they don't, they call you names and disappear? These men make may women feel bad about themselves if they refuse sex and coerce women with this emotional blackmail. Women with low self-esteem or few suitors can be easily manipulated into doing things against their own self-interest. That does not make them sluts. Maybe needy, maybe desperate, but not necessarily floozies as you imply. You seem to think there are only 2 types of women in the world: The virtuous, like you, or dive bar tramps (the rest of us) who sleep with anything that walks. In your narrow view, it is black or white and there is no possible grey area. I call that a self-centered superiority complex and resent the implication that 99% of us are sluts who need to be schooled by you. Yet the men are poo-pooed in the "boys will be boys' vein because it's all those slutty, predatory women, who went wild with their newly found freedom from pregnancy during the sexual revolution, that caused all the problems. The poor little guys are just victims of women's innate sluttiness and can't be blamed for not respecting women because these tramps must have 'forced' themselves onto these sweet, unsuspecting, lousy men, thus deserve the name calling. Why don't you expect men to control their sexual desires, which have also become increasingly slutty? And, waiting until you know someone better? Doesn't that go both ways? What about those women who do wait and are then unceremoniously dumped immediately when the guy gets what they want? According to you, it is their due punishment for being a skank, no matter what the guy did or how many women they may be screwing at the same time. No questions about the guy's behavior at all. They, and you, are all just innocent victims of the sexual revolution that was concocted by the rest of us slutty women (and, I assume, the slutty scientists that developed the pill) to get......what? Treated like dirt by both men and women like you? I, for one, do not jump into bed on the first date yet you paint women like me with the same tainted brush. I have learned from past mistakes yet I am still pressured to have sex when I am not ready so, according to your philosophy, I am also to blame for that whether I have sex or not. I guess I am a tramp for sleeping with a man not my husband and not getting a long-term committment first, even though I have only had 4 relationships in my life at 51. Only those maintaining a moral high ground should be allowed to be hurt by men who mistreat them. The rest of us deserve it and should expect it and have no right to ever feel hurt or disappointed by bad treatment because of our moral failings. Yes, sleep well with your self-righteousness indignation as that, and your pets, are likely to be the only ones you will ever sleep with. In keeping with your desire to go back in time, women like you used to be called "frigid" so should we label you as such? Men will sense that this will be the tone of their entire relationship with you: you will control the sex thus you will control the relationship. Stop being angry at all the other women out there who have what you want but didn't do it under your strict "moral code." Who are you to have expectations about how I should live my life? Your moral code ends at the tip of your nose and no one is obligated to live by it except you. You think that bashing other women is going to help you find a man who respects you? You don't seem to have any respect for anyone except yourself. It doesn't seem like you respect other women and dislike men, so why should anyone respect you just because you loudly proclaim moral superiority while simultaneously being extremely judgemental (which, I believe, is immoral)? Why don't you want to live by my moral code instead, as you imply, I should live by yours? Blame yourself, and only yourself, for the way your life has turned out. It seems you like to finger-point rather than actually discover what it is about you that has kept you single. Desperation and meanness are not attractive and comes across as jealousy. Apparently, all the other women in the world are raining on your 1962 morality parade, thus THEY are the cause of your being single. I am sure your anger, disappointment and superiority are clearly visible to anyone and drives men away. You blame every other woman on the planet for changing society rather than actually look at yourself and your contributions to your situation. I assume you are anti-birth control too, since that is what started it all in the first place. I guess society was just overwhelmed by the tide of bimbos clamoring to have one night stands and for the right to be treated like tramps, so doctor's invented the pill so we could fulfill our slutty destiny? Maybe the purpose of the pill was to undermine society and liberate whores, not to let women (including married ones) have lives outside of childbirth. This lead to women *gasp* working outside of the HOME instead of pregnant with 8 kids running around. Is THAT what ruined society for you, the right for women to control their reproduction, thus their own lives? Non-traditional women cannot be ladies in your book therefore they MUST be sluts. Women are still being paid less than men at 74 cents on the dollar since the 1970's, revolution or not. All the rest of us women (skanks) probably deserve to be paid less due to your assumption of our promiscuity and we must continue to be harassed by women like you who want to control EVERYONE ELSE's lives. And, if you cannot make us see the error of our ways under your moral code, even if we are not promiscuous, we are still bimbos to you. How DARE society change and us with it. Stick with the old tried and true, where women were to be seen and not heard, wore dresses and pearls to cook and clean, had a pipe, slippers and dinner ready for her husband when he came home and had her husband make all the decisions and determine her opinion for her. Stop bashing all the other women who DARE to think differently from you so that you can feel better about yourself. It seems, in your view, that only the women in the world are supposed to control themselves and they MUST do it YOUR way lest they be labelled a tramp while the sweet little unsuspecting men can continue to fall prey to the sluts with no consequences. After all, it is always the woman's fault if a man is drawn to her, right? We must be putting out skanky vibes if a man wants to sleep with us, therefore, we must be skanks. Because, of course, men have no control over themselves and it is up to us women to control men and their behaviors (just like we were told in the 60's. Boys will be boys, girls will be mothers.) If we can't, we are skanks. You really are a dinosaur and should crawl back into your cave. Let the rest of us live our lives the way WE deem appropriate as I have no obligation or desire to let you lecture me into doing things your way. Don't let the revolution hit you on the a** on the way out!
Comment: #16
Posted by: Julie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 8:59 PM
"if women were more selective about the men they let in their bed, were more careful about their choices, then these loser immature males would never get the chance to be a deadbeat dad or get the chance to make these women miserable with their antics ...Back in my mother's day, when women were still ladies, women like this weren't "booty calls" or "insecure." They were "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps." " "when women were still ladies" - Where do you get off saying that "women" (e.g. all women but you) are not ladies anymore? (FYI, that statement includes you! haha) So, not one woman, except you, of course, and your mother, can possibly be a lady because we were born in a different decade than your mother? Well, I guess that takes all responsibility out of my hands because I was born too late to even be ABLE to become a lady, huh? Woo hoo! You want all women to change their attitude while yours remains the same: you are the ONLY one capable of being a lady because the rest of us are just ignorant sluts who chose to let the sexual revolution happen in order annoy people like you and to release us from the responsibility of behaving like a "lady". You seem to be under the delusion that you are the ONLY exception and that, while the rest of us can aspire to become ladies, it is virtually impossible for everyone but you because you are somehow smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. It seems that "women" and "skanks" are interchangeable in your mind (as it is for many men), except for yourself, of course. And, boy, you sure let the men off easily. Since you seem to have grown up in the dark ages (I am in my 50's and lived through it too), let me explain sexuality to you. It takes 2 people to have slutty sex and out-of-wedlock children but you seem to assume that women are the only ones responsible and they MUST be the ones to control men at ALL times or they are 'sluts'. What do you call the men who sleep with lots of women without any inclination for relationships? What if they are great early on but turn into losers later? What about taking men to task for their part in the sexual revolution: EXPECTING women to jump into bed with them on the first date as a quid pro quo for dinner and, if they don't, they call you names and disappear? These men make may women feel bad about themselves if they refuse sex and coerce women with this emotional blackmail. Women with low self-esteem or few suitors can be easily manipulated into doing things against their own self-interest. That does not make them sluts. Maybe needy, maybe desperate, but not necessarily floozies as you imply. You seem to think there are only 2 types of women in the world: The virtuous, like you, or dive bar tramps (the rest of us) who sleep with anything that walks. In your narrow view, it is black or white and there is no possible grey area. I call that a self-centered superiority complex and resent the implication that 99% of us are sluts who need to be schooled by you. Yet the men are poo-pooed in the "boys will be boys' vein because it's all those slutty, predatory women, who went wild with their newly found freedom from pregnancy during the sexual revolution, that caused all the problems. The poor little guys are just victims of women's innate sluttiness and can't be blamed for not respecting women because these tramps must have 'forced' themselves onto these sweet, unsuspecting, lousy men, thus deserve the name calling. Why don't you expect men to control their sexual desires, which have also become increasingly slutty? And, waiting until you know someone better? Doesn't that go both ways? What about those women who do wait and are then unceremoniously dumped immediately when the guy gets what they want? According to you, it is their due punishment for being a skank, no matter what the guy did or how many women they may be screwing at the same time. No questions about the guy's behavior at all. They, and you, are all just innocent victims of the sexual revolution that was concocted by the rest of us slutty women (and, I assume, the slutty scientists that developed the pill) to get......what? Treated like dirt by both men and women like you? I, for one, do not jump into bed on the first date yet you paint women like me with the same tainted brush. I have learned from past mistakes yet I am still pressured to have sex when I am not ready so, according to your philosophy, I am also to blame for that whether I have sex or not. I guess I am a tramp for sleeping with a man not my husband and not getting a long-term committment first, even though I have only had 4 relationships in my life at 51. Only those maintaining a moral high ground should be allowed to be hurt by men who mistreat them. The rest of us deserve it and should expect it and have no right to ever feel hurt or disappointed by bad treatment because of our moral failings. Yes, sleep well with your self-righteousness indignation as that, and your pets, are likely to be the only ones you will ever sleep with. In keeping with your desire to go back in time, women like you used to be called "frigid" so should we label you as such? Men will sense that this will be the tone of their entire relationship with you: you will control the sex thus you will control the relationship. Stop being angry at all the other women out there who have what you want but didn't do it under your strict "moral code." Who are you to have expectations about how I should live my life? Your moral code ends at the tip of your nose and no one is obligated to live by it except you. You think that bashing other women is going to help you find a man who respects you? You don't seem to have any respect for anyone except yourself. It doesn't seem like you respect other women and dislike men, so why should anyone respect you just because you loudly proclaim moral superiority while simultaneously being extremely judgemental (which, I believe, is immoral)? Why don't you want to live by my moral code instead, as you imply, I should live by yours? Blame yourself, and only yourself, for the way your life has turned out. It seems you like to finger-point rather than actually discover what it is about you that has kept you single. Desperation and meanness are not attractive and comes across as jealousy. Apparently, all the other women in the world are raining on your 1962 morality parade, thus THEY are the cause of your being single. I am sure your anger, disappointment and superiority are clearly visible to anyone and drives men away. You blame every other woman on the planet for changing society rather than actually look at yourself and your contributions to your situation. I assume you are anti-birth control too, since that is what started it all in the first place. I guess society was just overwhelmed by the tide of bimbos clamoring to have one night stands and for the right to be treated like tramps, so doctor's invented the pill so we could fulfill our slutty destiny? Maybe the purpose of the pill was to undermine society and liberate whores, not to let women (including married ones) have lives outside of childbirth. This lead to women *gasp* working outside of the HOME instead of pregnant with 8 kids running around. Is THAT what ruined society for you, the right for women to control their reproduction, thus their own lives? Non-traditional women cannot be ladies in your book therefore they MUST be sluts. Women are still being paid less than men at 74 cents on the dollar since the 1970's, revolution or not. All the rest of us women (skanks) probably deserve to be paid less due to your assumption of our promiscuity and we must continue to be harassed by women like you who want to control EVERYONE ELSE's lives. And, if you cannot make us see the error of our ways under your moral code, even if we are not promiscuous, we are still bimbos to you. How DARE society change and us with it. Stick with the old tried and true, where women were to be seen and not heard, wore dresses and pearls to cook and clean, had a pipe, slippers and dinner ready for her husband when he came home and had her husband make all the decisions and determine her opinion for her. Stop bashing all the other women who DARE to think differently from you so that you can feel better about yourself. It seems, in your view, that only the women in the world are supposed to control themselves and they MUST do it YOUR way lest they be labelled a tramp while the sweet little unsuspecting men can continue to fall prey to the sluts with no consequences. After all, it is always the woman's fault if a man is drawn to her, right? We must be putting out skanky vibes if a man wants to sleep with us, therefore, we must be skanks. Because, of course, men have no control over themselves and it is up to us women to control men and their behaviors (just like we were told in the 60's. Boys will be boys, girls will be mothers.) If we can't, we are skanks. You really are a dinosaur and should crawl back into your cave. Let the rest of us live our lives the way WE deem appropriate as I have no obligation or desire to let you lecture me into doing things your way. Don't let the revolution hit you on the a** on the way out!
Comment: #17
Posted by: Julie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:12 PM
"if women were more selective about the men they let in their bed, were more careful about their choices, then these loser immature males would never get the chance to be a deadbeat dad or get the chance to make these women miserable with their antics ...Back in my mother's day, when women were still ladies, women like this weren't "booty calls" or "insecure." They were "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps." " "when women were still ladies" - Where do you get off saying that "women" (e.g. all women but you) are not ladies anymore? (FYI, that statement includes you! haha) So, not one woman, except you, of course, and your mother, can possibly be a lady because we were born in a different decade than your mother? Well, I guess that takes all responsibility out of my hands because I was born too late to even be ABLE to become a lady, huh? Woo hoo! You want all women to change their attitude while yours remains the same: you are the ONLY one capable of being a lady because the rest of us are just ignorant sluts who chose to let the sexual revolution happen in order annoy people like you and to release us from the responsibility of behaving like a "lady". You seem to be under the delusion that you are the ONLY exception and that, while the rest of us can aspire to become ladies, it is virtually impossible for everyone but you because you are somehow smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. It seems that "women" and "skanks" are interchangeable in your mind (as it is for many men), except for yourself, of course. And, boy, you sure let the men off easily. Since you seem to have grown up in the dark ages (I am in my 50's and lived through it too), let me explain sexuality to you. It takes 2 people to have slutty sex and out-of-wedlock children but you seem to assume that women are the only ones responsible and they MUST be the ones to control men at ALL times or they are 'sluts'. What do you call the men who sleep with lots of women without any inclination for relationships? What if they are great early on but turn into losers later? What about taking men to task for their part in the sexual revolution: EXPECTING women to jump into bed with them on the first date as a quid pro quo for dinner and, if they don't, they call you names and disappear? These men make may women feel bad about themselves if they refuse sex and coerce women with this emotional blackmail. Women with low self-esteem or few suitors can be easily manipulated into doing things against their own self-interest. That does not make them sluts. Maybe needy, maybe desperate, but not necessarily floozies as you imply. You seem to think there are only 2 types of women in the world: The virtuous, like you, or dive bar tramps (the rest of us) who sleep with anything that walks. In your narrow view, it is black or white and there is no possible grey area. I call that a self-centered superiority complex and resent the implication that 99% of us are sluts who need to be schooled by you. Yet the men are poo-pooed in the "boys will be boys' vein because it's all those slutty, predatory women, who went wild with their newly found freedom from pregnancy during the sexual revolution, that caused all the problems. The poor little guys are just victims of women's innate sluttiness and can't be blamed for not respecting women because these tramps must have 'forced' themselves onto these sweet, unsuspecting, lousy men, thus deserve the name calling. Why don't you expect men to control their sexual desires, which have also become increasingly slutty? And, waiting until you know someone better? Doesn't that go both ways? What about those women who do wait and are then unceremoniously dumped immediately when the guy gets what they want? According to you, it is their due punishment for being a skank, no matter what the guy did or how many women they may be screwing at the same time. No questions about the guy's behavior at all. They, and you, are all just innocent victims of the sexual revolution that was concocted by the rest of us slutty women (and, I assume, the slutty scientists that developed the pill) to get......what? Treated like dirt by both men and women like you? I, for one, do not jump into bed on the first date yet you paint women like me with the same tainted brush. I have learned from past mistakes yet I am still pressured to have sex when I am not ready so, according to your philosophy, I am also to blame for that whether I have sex or not. I guess I am a tramp for sleeping with a man not my husband and not getting a long-term committment first, even though I have only had 4 relationships in my life at 51. Only those maintaining a moral high ground should be allowed to be hurt by men who mistreat them. The rest of us deserve it and should expect it and have no right to ever feel hurt or disappointed by bad treatment because of our moral failings. Yes, sleep well with your self-righteousness indignation as that, and your pets, are likely to be the only ones you will ever sleep with. In keeping with your desire to go back in time, women like you used to be called "frigid" so should we label you as such? Men will sense that this will be the tone of their entire relationship with you: you will control the sex thus you will control the relationship. Stop being angry at all the other women out there who have what you want but didn't do it under your strict "moral code." Who are you to have expectations about how I should live my life? Your moral code ends at the tip of your nose and no one is obligated to live by it except you. You think that bashing other women is going to help you find a man who respects you? You don't seem to have any respect for anyone except yourself. It doesn't seem like you respect other women and dislike men, so why should anyone respect you just because you loudly proclaim moral superiority while simultaneously being extremely judgemental (which, I believe, is immoral)? Why don't you want to live by my moral code instead, as you imply, I should live by yours? Blame yourself, and only yourself, for the way your life has turned out. It seems you like to finger-point rather than actually discover what it is about you that has kept you single. Desperation and meanness are not attractive and comes across as jealousy. Apparently, all the other women in the world are raining on your 1962 morality parade, thus THEY are the cause of your being single. I am sure your anger, disappointment and superiority are clearly visible to anyone and drives men away. You blame every other woman on the planet for changing society rather than actually look at yourself and your contributions to your situation. I assume you are anti-birth control too, since that is what started it all in the first place. I guess society was just overwhelmed by the tide of bimbos clamoring to have one night stands and for the right to be treated like tramps, so doctor's invented the pill so we could fulfill our slutty destiny? Maybe the purpose of the pill was to undermine society and liberate whores, not to let women (including married ones) have lives outside of childbirth. This lead to women *gasp* working outside of the HOME instead of pregnant with 8 kids running around. Is THAT what ruined society for you, the right for women to control their reproduction, thus their own lives? Non-traditional women cannot be ladies in your book therefore they MUST be sluts. Women are still being paid less than men at 74 cents on the dollar since the 1970's, revolution or not. All the rest of us women (skanks) probably deserve to be paid less due to your assumption of our promiscuity and we must continue to be harassed by women like you who want to control EVERYONE ELSE's lives. And, if you cannot make us see the error of our ways under your moral code, even if we are not promiscuous, we are still bimbos to you. How DARE society change and us with it. Stick with the old tried and true, where women were to be seen and not heard, wore dresses and pearls to cook and clean, had a pipe, slippers and dinner ready for her husband when he came home and had her husband make all the decisions and determine her opinion for her. Stop bashing all the other women who DARE to think differently from you so that you can feel better about yourself. It seems, in your view, that only the women in the world are supposed to control themselves and they MUST do it YOUR way lest they be labelled a tramp while the sweet little unsuspecting men can continue to fall prey to the sluts with no consequences. After all, it is always the woman's fault if a man is drawn to her, right? We must be putting out skanky vibes if a man wants to sleep with us, therefore, we must be skanks. Because, of course, men have no control over themselves and it is up to us women to control men and their behaviors (just like we were told in the 60's. Boys will be boys, girls will be mothers.) If we can't, we are skanks. You really are a dinosaur and should crawl back into your cave. Let the rest of us live our lives the way WE deem appropriate as I have no obligation or desire to let you lecture me into doing things your way. Don't let the revolution hit you on the a** on the way out!
Comment: #18
Posted by: Julie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:13 PM
"if women were more selective about the men they let in their bed, were more careful about their choices, then these loser immature males would never get the chance to be a deadbeat dad or get the chance to make these women miserable with their antics ...Back in my mother's day, when women were still ladies, women like this weren't "booty calls" or "insecure." They were "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps." " "when women were still ladies" - Where do you get off saying that "women" (e.g. all women but you) are not ladies anymore? (FYI, that statement includes you! haha) So, not one woman, except you, of course, and your mother, can possibly be a lady because we were born in a different decade than your mother? Well, I guess that takes all responsibility out of my hands because I was born too late to even be ABLE to become a lady, huh? Woo hoo! You want all women to change their attitude while yours remains the same: you are the ONLY one capable of being a lady because the rest of us are just ignorant sluts who chose to let the sexual revolution happen in order annoy people like you and to release us from the responsibility of behaving like a "lady". You seem to be under the delusion that you are the ONLY exception and that, while the rest of us can aspire to become ladies, it is virtually impossible for everyone but you because you are somehow smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. It seems that "women" and "skanks" are interchangeable in your mind (as it is for many men), except for yourself, of course. And, boy, you sure let the men off easily. Since you seem to have grown up in the dark ages (I am in my 50's and lived through it too), let me explain sexuality to you. It takes 2 people to have slutty sex and out-of-wedlock children but you seem to assume that women are the only ones responsible and they MUST be the ones to control men at ALL times or they are 'sluts'. What do you call the men who sleep with lots of women without any inclination for relationships? What if they are great early on but turn into losers later? What about taking men to task for their part in the sexual revolution: EXPECTING women to jump into bed with them on the first date as a quid pro quo for dinner and, if they don't, they call you names and disappear? These men make may women feel bad about themselves if they refuse sex and coerce women with this emotional blackmail. Women with low self-esteem or few suitors can be easily manipulated into doing things against their own self-interest. That does not make them sluts. Maybe needy, maybe desperate, but not necessarily floozies as you imply. You seem to think there are only 2 types of women in the world: The virtuous, like you, or dive bar tramps (the rest of us) who sleep with anything that walks. In your narrow view, it is black or white and there is no possible grey area. I call that a self-centered superiority complex and resent the implication that 99% of us are sluts who need to be schooled by you. Yet the men are poo-pooed in the "boys will be boys' vein because it's all those slutty, predatory women, who went wild with their newly found freedom from pregnancy during the sexual revolution, that caused all the problems. The poor little guys are just victims of women's innate sluttiness and can't be blamed for not respecting women because these tramps must have 'forced' themselves onto these sweet, unsuspecting, lousy men, thus deserve the name calling. Why don't you expect men to control their sexual desires, which have also become increasingly slutty? And, waiting until you know someone better? Doesn't that go both ways? What about those women who do wait and are then unceremoniously dumped immediately when the guy gets what they want? According to you, it is their due punishment for being a skank, no matter what the guy did or how many women they may be screwing at the same time. No questions about the guy's behavior at all. They, and you, are all just innocent victims of the sexual revolution that was concocted by the rest of us slutty women (and, I assume, the slutty scientists that developed the pill) to get......what? Treated like dirt by both men and women like you? I, for one, do not jump into bed on the first date yet you paint women like me with the same tainted brush. I have learned from past mistakes yet I am still pressured to have sex when I am not ready so, according to your philosophy, I am also to blame for that whether I have sex or not. I guess I am a tramp for sleeping with a man not my husband and not getting a long-term committment first, even though I have only had 4 relationships in my life at 51. Only those maintaining a moral high ground should be allowed to be hurt by men who mistreat them. The rest of us deserve it and should expect it and have no right to ever feel hurt or disappointed by bad treatment because of our moral failings. Yes, sleep well with your self-righteousness indignation as that, and your pets, are likely to be the only ones you will ever sleep with. In keeping with your desire to go back in time, women like you used to be called "frigid" so should we label you as such? Men will sense that this will be the tone of their entire relationship with you: you will control the sex thus you will control the relationship. Stop being angry at all the other women out there who have what you want but didn't do it under your strict "moral code." Who are you to have expectations about how I should live my life? Your moral code ends at the tip of your nose and no one is obligated to live by it except you. You think that bashing other women is going to help you find a man who respects you? You don't seem to have any respect for anyone except yourself. It doesn't seem like you respect other women and dislike men, so why should anyone respect you just because you loudly proclaim moral superiority while simultaneously being extremely judgemental (which, I believe, is immoral)? Why don't you want to live by my moral code instead, as you imply, I should live by yours? Blame yourself, and only yourself, for the way your life has turned out. It seems you like to finger-point rather than actually discover what it is about you that has kept you single. Desperation and meanness are not attractive and comes across as jealousy. Apparently, all the other women in the world are raining on your 1962 morality parade, thus THEY are the cause of your being single. I am sure your anger, disappointment and superiority are clearly visible to anyone and drives men away. You blame every other woman on the planet for changing society rather than actually look at yourself and your contributions to your situation. I assume you are anti-birth control too, since that is what started it all in the first place. I guess society was just overwhelmed by the tide of bimbos clamoring to have one night stands and for the right to be treated like tramps, so doctor's invented the pill so we could fulfill our slutty destiny? Maybe the purpose of the pill was to undermine society and liberate whores, not to let women (including married ones) have lives outside of childbirth. This lead to women *gasp* working outside of the HOME instead of pregnant with 8 kids running around. Is THAT what ruined society for you, the right for women to control their reproduction, thus their own lives? Non-traditional women cannot be ladies in your book therefore they MUST be sluts. Women are still being paid less than men at 74 cents on the dollar since the 1970's, revolution or not. All the rest of us women (skanks) probably deserve to be paid less due to your assumption of our promiscuity and we must continue to be harassed by women like you who want to control EVERYONE ELSE's lives. And, if you cannot make us see the error of our ways under your moral code, even if we are not promiscuous, we are still bimbos to you. How DARE society change and us with it. Stick with the old tried and true, where women were to be seen and not heard, wore dresses and pearls to cook and clean, had a pipe, slippers and dinner ready for her husband when he came home and had her husband make all the decisions and determine her opinion for her. Stop bashing all the other women who DARE to think differently from you so that you can feel better about yourself. It seems, in your view, that only the women in the world are supposed to control themselves and they MUST do it YOUR way lest they be labelled a tramp while the sweet little unsuspecting men can continue to fall prey to the sluts with no consequences. After all, it is always the woman's fault if a man is drawn to her, right? We must be putting out skanky vibes if a man wants to sleep with us, therefore, we must be skanks. Because, of course, men have no control over themselves and it is up to us women to control men and their behaviors (just like we were told in the 60's. Boys will be boys, girls will be mothers.) If we can't, we are skanks. You really are a dinosaur and should crawl back into your cave. Let the rest of us live our lives the way WE deem appropriate as I have no obligation or desire to let you lecture me into doing things your way. Don't let the revolution hit you on the a** on the way out!
Comment: #19
Posted by: Julie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:13 PM
"if women were more selective about the men they let in their bed, were more careful about their choices, then these loser immature males would never get the chance to be a deadbeat dad or get the chance to make these women miserable with their antics ...Back in my mother's day, when women were still ladies, women like this weren't "booty calls" or "insecure." They were "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps." " "when women were still ladies" - Where do you get off saying that "women" (e.g. all women but you) are not ladies anymore? (FYI, that statement includes you! haha) So, not one woman, except you, of course, and your mother, can possibly be a lady because we were born in a different decade than your mother? Well, I guess that takes all responsibility out of my hands because I was born too late to even be ABLE to become a lady, huh? Woo hoo! You want all women to change their attitude while yours remains the same: you are the ONLY one capable of being a lady because the rest of us are just ignorant sluts who chose to let the sexual revolution happen in order annoy people like you and to release us from the responsibility of behaving like a "lady". You seem to be under the delusion that you are the ONLY exception and that, while the rest of us can aspire to become ladies, it is virtually impossible for everyone but you because you are somehow smarter and more enlightened than the rest of us. It seems that "women" and "skanks" are interchangeable in your mind (as it is for many men), except for yourself, of course. And, boy, you sure let the men off easily. Since you seem to have grown up in the dark ages (I am in my 50's and lived through it too), let me explain sexuality to you. It takes 2 people to have slutty sex and out-of-wedlock children but you seem to assume that women are the only ones responsible and they MUST be the ones to control men at ALL times or they are 'sluts'. What do you call the men who sleep with lots of women without any inclination for relationships? What if they are great early on but turn into losers later? What about taking men to task for their part in the sexual revolution: EXPECTING women to jump into bed with them on the first date as a quid pro quo for dinner and, if they don't, they call you names and disappear? These men make may women feel bad about themselves if they refuse sex and coerce women with this emotional blackmail. Women with low self-esteem or few suitors can be easily manipulated into doing things against their own self-interest. That does not make them sluts. Maybe needy, maybe desperate, but not necessarily floozies as you imply. You seem to think there are only 2 types of women in the world: The virtuous, like you, or dive bar tramps (the rest of us) who sleep with anything that walks. In your narrow view, it is black or white and there is no possible grey area. I call that a self-centered superiority complex and resent the implication that 99% of us are sluts who need to be schooled by you. Yet the men are poo-pooed in the "boys will be boys' vein because it's all those slutty, predatory women, who went wild with their newly found freedom from pregnancy during the sexual revolution, that caused all the problems. The poor little guys are just victims of women's innate sluttiness and can't be blamed for not respecting women because these tramps must have 'forced' themselves onto these sweet, unsuspecting, lousy men, thus deserve the name calling. Why don't you expect men to control their sexual desires, which have also become increasingly slutty? And, waiting until you know someone better? Doesn't that go both ways? What about those women who do wait and are then unceremoniously dumped immediately when the guy gets what they want? According to you, it is their due punishment for being a skank, no matter what the guy did or how many women they may be screwing at the same time. No questions about the guy's behavior at all. They, and you, are all just innocent victims of the sexual revolution that was concocted by the rest of us slutty women (and, I assume, the slutty scientists that developed the pill) to get......what? Treated like dirt by both men and women like you? I, for one, do not jump into bed on the first date yet you paint women like me with the same tainted brush. I have learned from past mistakes yet I am still pressured to have sex when I am not ready so, according to your philosophy, I am also to blame for that whether I have sex or not. I guess I am a tramp for sleeping with a man not my husband and not getting a long-term committment first, even though I have only had 4 relationships in my life at 51. Only those maintaining a moral high ground should be allowed to be hurt by men who mistreat them. The rest of us deserve it and should expect it and have no right to ever feel hurt or disappointed by bad treatment because of our moral failings. Yes, sleep well with your self-righteousness indignation as that, and your pets, are likely to be the only ones you will ever sleep with. In keeping with your desire to go back in time, women like you used to be called "frigid" so should we label you as such? Men will sense that this will be the tone of their entire relationship with you: you will control the sex thus you will control the relationship. Stop being angry at all the other women out there who have what you want but didn't do it under your strict "moral code." Who are you to have expectations about how I should live my life? Your moral code ends at the tip of your nose and no one is obligated to live by it except you. You think that bashing other women is going to help you find a man who respects you? You don't seem to have any respect for anyone except yourself. It doesn't seem like you respect other women and dislike men, so why should anyone respect you just because you loudly proclaim moral superiority while simultaneously being extremely judgemental (which, I believe, is immoral)? Why don't you want to live by my moral code instead, as you imply, I should live by yours? Blame yourself, and only yourself, for the way your life has turned out. It seems you like to finger-point rather than actually discover what it is about you that has kept you single. Desperation and meanness are not attractive and comes across as jealousy. Apparently, all the other women in the world are raining on your 1962 morality parade, thus THEY are the cause of your being single. I am sure your anger, disappointment and superiority are clearly visible to anyone and drives men away. You blame every other woman on the planet for changing society rather than actually look at yourself and your contributions to your situation. I assume you are anti-birth control too, since that is what started it all in the first place. I guess society was just overwhelmed by the tide of bimbos clamoring to have one night stands and for the right to be treated like tramps, so doctor's invented the pill so we could fulfill our slutty destiny? Maybe the purpose of the pill was to undermine society and liberate whores, not to let women (including married ones) have lives outside of childbirth. This lead to women *gasp* working outside of the HOME instead of pregnant with 8 kids running around. Is THAT what ruined society for you, the right for women to control their reproduction, thus their own lives? Non-traditional women cannot be ladies in your book therefore they MUST be sluts. Women are still being paid less than men at 74 cents on the dollar since the 1970's, revolution or not. All the rest of us women (skanks) probably deserve to be paid less due to your assumption of our promiscuity and we must continue to be harassed by women like you who want to control EVERYONE ELSE's lives. And, if you cannot make us see the error of our ways under your moral code, even if we are not promiscuous, we are still bimbos to you. How DARE society change and us with it. Stick with the old tried and true, where women were to be seen and not heard, wore dresses and pearls to cook and clean, had a pipe, slippers and dinner ready for her husband when he came home and had her husband make all the decisions and determine her opinion for her. Stop bashing all the other women who DARE to think differently from you so that you can feel better about yourself. It seems, in your view, that only the women in the world are supposed to control themselves and they MUST do it YOUR way lest they be labelled a tramp while the sweet little unsuspecting men can continue to fall prey to the sluts with no consequences. After all, it is always the woman's fault if a man is drawn to her, right? We must be putting out skanky vibes if a man wants to sleep with us, therefore, we must be skanks. Because, of course, men have no control over themselves and it is up to us women to control men and their behaviors (just like we were told in the 60's. Boys will be boys, girls will be mothers.) If we can't, we are skanks. You really are a dinosaur and should crawl back into your cave. Let the rest of us live our lives the way WE deem appropriate as I have no obligation or desire to let you lecture me into doing things your way. Don't let the revolution hit you on the a** on the way out!
Comment: #20
Posted by: Julie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 9:13 PM
Sorry for the multiple posts. It either never posts my comments (and I check back often) or it will post it multiple times. I have serious trouble getting my comments to post yet, when I get frustrated and repost, it does this. I have emailed the webmaster several times with no reply. It will often tell me I have an incorrect Captcha when I know it was correct. Then I have to log in again and it won't post and will log me out every time.

So sorry as it is annoying to see my LONG posts multiple times.
Comment: #21
Posted by: Julie
Fri Feb 24, 2012 10:08 PM
I've seen first hand the hand wringing and tears that fall from the faces of my friends who have allowed themselves to be manipulated and used by men. They are not floozies, they simply lack self esteem and self worth, grasping at any companionship they can find.

And Beth, I am an prime example of what the sexual revolution was all about. Unlike my mother's generation, I was given the freedom to choose whatever career I wanted and do NOT have to depend on a man as my meal ticket and retirement. I chose when to have my children and am teaching my boys to respect woman as equals. I don't have to suffer an abusive marriage because I have nowhere as to go. If my husband suddenly loses his mind and leaves our family, I can easily support myself and my children. THAT'S what the sexual revolution was about. To give women a better future. I don't like to see women selling themselves short by accepting less, either, but don't blame the sexual revolution on that.
Comment: #22
Posted by: happymom
Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:51 AM
They were "floozies," "bimbos" and "tramps."

Actually, they still are - except that thanks to "sensitivity training" the men know better than to let the women hear us talk about such things. "Bimbo" is still in use, but "whore", "slut", and "skank" are much more popular.

Women that want to be taken seriously need to treat their sex life as if they were something other than hormone-crazed adolescents that leapfrog from partner to partner.
Comment: #23
Posted by: "Hank"
Sat Feb 25, 2012 8:05 AM
Parable for a Certain Virgin

Oh, ponder, friend, the porcupine;
Refresh your recollection,
And sit a moment, to define
His means of self-protection.

How truly fortified is he!
Where is the beast his double
In forethought of emergency
And readiness for trouble?

Recall his figure, and his shade—
How deftly planned and clearly
For slithering through the dappled glade
Unseen, or pretty nearly.

Yet should an alien eye discern
His presence in the woodland,
How little has he left to learn
Of self-defense! My good land!

For he can run, as swift as sound,
To where his goose may hang high—
Or thrust his head against the ground
And tunnel half to Shanghai;

Or he can climb the dizziest bough—
Unhesitant, mechanic—
And, resting, dash from off his brow
The bitter beads of panic;

Or should pursuers press him hot,
One scarcely needs to mention
His quick and cruel barbs, that got
Shakespearean attention;

Or driven to his final ditch,
To his extremest thicket,
He'll fight with claws and molars (which
Is not considered cricket).

How amply armored, he, to fend
The fear of chase that haunts him!
How well prepared our little friend!—
And who the devil wants him?

Dorothy Parker


And hello Ma... er.. "Hank." We thought you'd died or something.
Comment: #24
Posted by: Joannakathryn
Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:15 AM
There's also an awful lot of the "golden age" magical-thinking in Beth's analysis. The fact is, there's ALWAYS been pre-marital sex, and some past generations had plenty of it as well. A genealogist friend of mine said long ago that the records are filled with quote-unquote "premature" babies born a mere 7 or 8 months after a wedding, and it's pretty clear these were "shotgun" weddings.

I think there's a virtue in being more up-front and honest about these things, frankly, rather than everyone "pretending" that there's a moral standard that almost everyone's secretly breaking in one way or another.

Also, having only a single sexual partner for your entire life is absolutely no indicator of whether or not you are a "good" person. Most of my contemporaries who are straight and in successful relationships, the women had multiple partners before finding their current husband, and all of them are in marriages that have lasted far longer than the national average.

A good, moral person is honest, kind, compassionate... whether or not they enjoy lots of sexual partners in their life, or only one, is irrelevant.
Comment: #25
Posted by: Mike H
Sat Feb 25, 2012 9:51 AM
Interesting ideas presented by people. I find myself agreeing more with the "virtuous dinosaur" then with the more PC group.

I don't think it's just a women's lib fault thing though so much as a societal shift that leaves many people shaking their heads and other celebrating. The shift in society has gone from family and society centered ( as with the virtuous dinosaurs code) to the ME/MYSELF/I society we seem to have now. One has only to look at some of the comments for proof with the " i can sleep with whomever (I) want because it makes (ME) happy so screw you" types or the "You can't call (ME) a bimbo etc etc because (I) don't like it and really it's just low self-esteem." types. Flat out, if it was 50-60 years ago, these people wouldn't act the ways they do today because of the society at the time. The society today allows such behavior so here it comes. During WW2, we banded together, everyone sacrificied and great things were accomplished for the US and the world. If we were asked to do that today, it would be a monumental failure. However, if we were asked to hold rally's to support something like gay marriage ( a make me feel good for helping without really giving anything up idea) people show up in droves.

The problem is who gets taken care of anymore. Since special interests get the attention these days, societys is " happy/free/liberal" which makes conservative family types upset. In the past it was reversed with the other side upset. Who knows what it will be in 30-40 more years with the backlash that is starting up now. I just hope I'm still around to notice.
Comment: #26
Posted by: Jess
Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:49 AM
RE: Hank, #23 "Women that want to be taken seriously need to treat their sex life as if they were something other than hormone-crazed adolescents that leapfrog from partner to partner."


So, males sleeping around like whores with sluts is OK and calling them sluts is OK because only WOMEN can be sluts? Men who sleep with many women are called Players, not whores or skanks and are applauded. It takes 2 to have sex yet it is only the women who must have consequences. PUUULLLEAAASE! You men can leapfrog from partner to partner all you want yet is, AGAIN, only the women must stop acting like "hormone-crazed adolescents". They are sleeping with MEN so the MEN are also acting that way yet, for some reason, it is only the woman's fault and she deserves to be degraded. I am so tired of being told that, not only do I have to control my own sexuality but I also must control the men's as well because, of course, it is a man's RIGHT to be promiscuous. I am totally gagging right now.
Comment: #27
Posted by: Julie
Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:27 PM
RE: Hank, #23 "Women that want to be taken seriously need to treat their sex life as if they were something other than hormone-crazed adolescents that leapfrog from partner to partner."


So, males sleeping around like whores with sluts is OK and calling them sluts is OK because only WOMEN can be sluts? Men who sleep with many women are called Players, not whores or skanks and are applauded. It takes 2 to have sex yet it is only the women who must have consequences. PUUULLLEAAASE! You men can leapfrog from partner to partner all you want yet is, AGAIN, only the women must stop acting like "hormone-crazed adolescents". They are sleeping with MEN so the MEN are also acting that way yet, for some reason, it is only the woman's fault and she deserves to be degraded. I am so tired of being told that, not only do I have to control my own sexuality but I also must control the men's as well because, of course, it is a man's RIGHT to be promiscuous. I am totally gagging right now.
Comment: #28
Posted by: Julie
Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:28 PM
RE: Hank, #23 "Women that want to be taken seriously need to treat their sex life as if they were something other than hormone-crazed adolescents that leapfrog from partner to partner."
So, males sleeping around like whores with sluts is OK and calling them sluts is OK because only WOMEN can be sluts? Men who sleep with many women are called Players, not whores or skanks and are applauded. It takes 2 to have sex yet it is only the women who must have consequences. PUUULLLEAAASE! You men can leapfrog from partner to partner all you want yet is, AGAIN, only the women must stop acting like "hormone-crazed adolescents". They are sleeping with MEN so the MEN are also acting that way yet, for some reason, it is only the woman's fault and she deserves to be degraded. I am so tired of being told that, not only do I have to control my own sexuality but I also must control the men's as well because, of course, it is a man's RIGHT to be promiscuous. I am totally gagging right now.
Comment: #29
Posted by: Julie
Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:28 PM
RE: Hank, #23 "Women that want to be taken seriously need to treat their sex life as if they were something other than hormone-crazed adolescents that leapfrog from partner to partner."

So, males sleeping around like whores with sluts is OK and calling them sluts is OK because only WOMEN can be sluts? Men who sleep with many women are called Players, not whores or skanks and are applauded. It takes 2 to have sex yet it is only the women who must have consequences. PUUULLLEAAASE! You men can leapfrog from partner to partner all you want yet is, AGAIN, only the women must stop acting like "hormone-crazed adolescents". They are sleeping with MEN so the MEN are also acting that way yet, for some reason, it is only the woman's fault and she deserves to be degraded. I am so tired of being told that, not only do I have to control my own sexuality but I also must control the men's as well because, of course, it is a man's RIGHT to be promiscuous. I am totally gagging right now.
Comment: #30
Posted by: Julie
Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:29 PM
"I am so tired of being told that, not only do I have to control my own sexuality but I also must control the men's as well because, of course, it is a man's RIGHT to be promiscuous. I am totally gagging right now."

Hook, line and sinker....

Yeah, because everyone respects a man that can't keep it in his pants. That's why John Edwards is still a leading politician.

Might want to lean how to stop extrapolating everything to fit into the retarded ideas contained your worn-out copy of Cosmo from 1975.
Comment: #31
Posted by: "Hank"
Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:38 PM
RE: Hank, #23 "Women that want to be taken seriously need to treat their sex life as if they were something other than hormone-crazed adolescents that leapfrog from partner to partner."

So, males sleeping around like whores with sluts is OK and calling them sluts is OK because only WOMEN can be sluts? Men who sleep with many women are called Players, not whores or skanks and are applauded. It takes 2 to have sex yet it is only the women who must have consequences. PUUULLLEAAASE! You men can leapfrog from partner to partner all you want yet is, AGAIN, only the women must stop acting like "hormone-crazed adolescents". They are sleeping with MEN so the MEN are also acting that way yet, for some reason, it is only the woman's fault and she deserves to be degraded. I am so tired of being told that, not only do I have to control my own sexuality but I also must control the men's as well because, of course, it is a man's RIGHT to be promiscuous. I am totally gagging right now.
Comment: #32
Posted by: Julie
Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:57 PM
RE: Hank, #23 "Women that want to be taken seriously need to treat their sex life as if they were something other than hormone-crazed adolescents that leapfrog from partner to partner."

So, males sleeping around like whores with sluts is OK and calling them sluts is OK because only WOMEN can be sluts? Men who sleep with many women are called Players, not whores or skanks and are applauded. It takes 2 to have sex yet it is only the women who must have consequences. PUUULLLEAAASE! You men can leapfrog from partner to partner all you want yet is, AGAIN, only the women must stop acting like "hormone-crazed adolescents". They are sleeping with MEN so the MEN are also acting that way yet, for some reason, it is only the woman's fault and she deserves to be degraded. I am so tired of being told that, not only do I have to control my own sexuality but I also must control the men's as well because, of course, it is a man's RIGHT to be promiscuous. I am totally gagging right now.
Comment: #33
Posted by: Julie
Sat Feb 25, 2012 2:58 PM
"Hank"--I'll see your John Edwards and raise you Newt Gingrich.
Comment: #34
Posted by: Annies Fan
Sat Feb 25, 2012 4:23 PM
You mean that same Newt Gingrich that is thoroughly and openly reviled in many quarters for being a two-faced jerk?
Comment: #35
Posted by: "Hank"
Sat Feb 25, 2012 7:07 PM
That's the one. He's also still a leading politician. Didn't Fox News try to put a positive spin on the fact that he'd been unfaithful? We'll never see Edwards in politics again, but Newt the horse's patoot is still going strong.
Comment: #36
Posted by: Annies Fan
Sat Feb 25, 2012 11:24 PM
Yeah, there are still too many men who get away with it without any real consequence, the old-fashioned double-standard is still alive and well.

Hopefully that will change, though. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander, and vice-versa. That's part of the whole deal with the sexual revolution, and that's a good thing.
Comment: #37
Posted by: Mike H
Sun Feb 26, 2012 4:43 AM
So women who don't wait for marriage before they get sexual are floozies, skanks, bimbos and tramps, heh?

I have bad news for you: men who see sexually active women as deserving of those epiteths think the exact same thing of a "respectable" woman even if she marries a virgin - the woman just becomes their personal legal whore, espected to be at their beck and call 24/7 and without a right to say no because "this is what she was married for".
Look at the countries where it is demanded that women be chaste, pure and marry a virgin: are they respected and well treated? No - they're considered less than human and treated like property.

You're damn right that the sexual "revolution" (in itself) has liberated no one, and that's because too many men will avail themselves to the freebees of course, but have not changed their mind about sex - men who get around are manly and virile while women who get around are sluts (Hank being kind enough to supply us with an immediate case in point). Clamping a chastity belt on women is not the way to fix this.

What has liberated women is not so much the freedom to f***, but rather getting the right to vote, getting accepted in law and medical schools, laws that put an end to women being legal minors all their lives and the development of birth control which, more importantly than sexual freedom, meant that women were no longer slaves to pregnancy andf could accomplish something else besides raising children. And about that too, the mentalities are still very much in the same place... as I often point out.

Frankly, women who are the ones who stand the lose the most if they don't bother so sample the goods before such a big-ticket purchase as marriage: sexual satisfaction is more guaranteed for men than it is for women. Personally, I wouldn't want to "reserve myself" for marriage, only to find out after the chuch bells have stopped ringing, that I married a sexual sadist.

All this being stated, Miss Dinosaur, there's a plethora of Christian dating sites where you'll find plenty of men looking for "chaste" women, so your complaint about the scarcity of men with "similar values" is full of scheisse. You just wanted to step on your soapbox and greatly chastise us countless unchaste jezebels and scream it from the rooftops how much better YOU are. Blpblpblpblpblpblp.

@Annies Fan
Of COURSE Beth is judging all women by a few examples. A few CAREFULLY SELECTED examples. Aint nothin' worse for a woman than another woman...

@AWC
"Beth sounds . . . . . . . frustrated to me. "
Well, if course! She ain't gettin' none and boy, is she pissed about THAT!

Comment: #38
Posted by: Lise Brouillette
Sun Feb 26, 2012 3:04 PM
If the LW wishes to remain a virgin until marriage, that is her choice. I once defended a young woman who was being mocked by her "friends" for being a virgin. However, I don't think virginity should be confused with virtue. That's mixing apples with oranges, and other women have a similar right to make other choices without being subjected to bad names.

She says that custom was common "in her mother's day." The only way she could have that idea is if her mother told her that. I'm probably old enough to be her mother, and I have news for her: even in her mother's day, only biggots said things like that. Those were the same people who used the "n" word, the "s" word, the "m" word, the "w" word, etc. It's time to shake that aspect of Mama's influence and start seeing the world through your own eyes, unjaded by past prejudices.
Comment: #39
Posted by: Madelyn
Mon Feb 27, 2012 7:22 AM
Very well said, Madelyn.
Comment: #40
Posted by: hedgehog
Mon Feb 27, 2012 10:55 AM
>>RE: Hank, #23 "Women that want to be taken seriously need to treat their sex life as if they were something other than hormone-crazed adolescents that leapfrog from partner to partner."<<

And yet, these "hormone-crazed adolescents"-type women are walking the aisles getting married every day, while sour old maids are sitting home alone, single into their old age. Go figure.

Comment: #41
Posted by: Joannakathryn
Mon Feb 27, 2012 1:01 PM
Well, actually men(probably not all) have always wanted to have sex with lots of women without any commitment or guilt. In the past it was difficult as the women were also not so willing and also there was fear of fathers and brothers. The sexual revolution changed that. It did make men happy and also women too who could be like men. It would have benefited women if men could have given birth too. What we define as virtue is actually being practical. It does no good to your self-esteem or your health to know that you were only good enough to be slept with. How many women can say that they slept with a guy knowing full well that he was not interested in anything other than sex and if there was another woman there willing to have sex with him he would have gone to her?
Comment: #42
Posted by: surefoot
Tue Feb 28, 2012 10:44 AM
Already have an account? Log in.
New Account  
Your Name:
Your E-mail:
Your Password:
Confirm Your Password:

Please allow a few minutes for your comment to be posted.

Enter the numbers to the right:  
Creators.com comments policy
More
Cheryl Lavin
Apr. `14
Su Mo Tu We Th Fr Sa
30 31 1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17 18 19
20 21 22 23 24 25 26
27 28 29 30 1 2 3
About the author About the author
Printer friendly format Printer friendly format
Email to friend Email to friend
View by Month