Friday, January 21, 2011

The Single Man's Sexual Revolution

There's a saying about free milk and pricey cows that fits here.



Researchers found that since women in the 18- to 23-year-old group feel they don't need men for financial dependence, many of them feel they can play around with multiple partners without consequence, and that the early 20s isn't the time to have a serious relationship. But eventually, they do come to want a real, lasting relationship. The problem is that there will still be women who will have sex readily without commitment, and since men know this, fewer of them are willing to go steady.

Sex has consequences. And it took a University of Texas study to prove it? I think that should have been the headline:

Common sense eludes sexually-active public;
Researches waste time/funding finding it

They weren't the only ones. Their research was based on other research. How difficult can this be to understand? The sexual revolution started with our parents, or even a little before. Yet we still can't see the massive complications, implications, emotional damage and physical disease it brought?

Good golly Miss Molly. Try a new tactic. Casual sex doesn't exist. Not for women. And you can be as independent and progressive and open-minded as you want. It still doesn't exist. We weren't created that way. A woman treating sex like an immoral man is like a man trying to have a baby like a pregnant woman.

Not going to happen. But you can give it a try, if you want. Enjoy the stretchmarks, hormonal imbalance, excruciating pain and eventual death.

But what a ride?

2 comments:

Jerry Pitman said...

Very true. I don't even think it's so much as people are completely clueless as to the implications; but, perhaps, that they don't really want to understand, especially, acknowledge the realities.

We live in such a bent, warped, Godless society that at least two men now have planted an actual womb inside of themselves just so that they could carry a real child... Poor kids...

Tara Lynn Thompson said...

Yes. And ignoring the facts always works out. I mean, when I'm driving and a road starts to curve, I just ignore it. Why should I curve? I don't feel like it. I want to drive straight. And so I do.

Or would. If those trees and buildings wouldn't keep getting in my way.

You are so right, Jerry. There's a lot of "ignoring" the "implications" going on. It's a deficient lack of respect for truth.

But that's okay. Truth doesn't require you accept it or respect it or even like it. It exists just fine without your approval.

You, on the other hand, won't.

And that's the truth.