-
Website
http://artofmanliness.com -
Original page
http://artofmanliness.com/2008/05/18/the-virtuous-life-chastity/ -
Subscribe
All Comments -
Community
-
Top Commenters
-
Marisa Duma
2 comments · 2 points
-
vanderleun
2 comments · 137 points
-
Alison_H
4 comments · 1 points
-
Corey
15 comments · 2 points
-
jurisnaturalist
3 comments · 23 points
-
-
Popular Threads
I fully agree with the idea of compatibility. It is located more in the mind the the physical make up of the two people.
I think it depends on the person. I feel like monogamy might be more difficult if you didn't have the context of other women when you are young.
Today, women open their legs with pleasure and its often seen as empowering to be a sexually active unmarried woman. Due to the fact that sex is at its core an animalistic-sense driven aspect of human existence it comes as no surprise that the slow erosion of sexual chastness has led to the promiscuity we see today. Man, like any animal, acts on instinct when it comes to sex. You are asking men to deny their instinct and walk away when the female counterpart is inviting them to bed. Yes Im passing the buck to the women, but I argue that they are the ones that have changed, not the man. We've always been this way (i.e. unchaste), its simply that our counterparts have decided to embrace the sexual freedom we, as men, have always longed for.
Brett, great post. I know you were worried about how to handle it, but I think you spoke the truth very well and very forthrightly. I should pass this around to some of my single friends.
You'll never know the joy of monogamy if you don't practice it. I have several friends who are older men who have never been in a long term, committed relationship and they all say that they know they're missing something.
College girls, and guys are in transition periods in their lives. Living in towns they won't stay in, dating people they probably won't be with in 4 years time, learning about themselves. People switch jobs a lot, change their minds and have a lot of social and cultural mobility. Dating shouldn't be any different.
You need to think more about your theory on dating, courting, and monogamy and how it fits into life in 2008.
I reject the idea that you can't trust and respect a person you don't know. That seems like a highly jaded view of life. If you can't trust a person you've just meet that you've obviously got chemistry with how can you trust people at work you barely know, or strangers who help you in your daily life? Yes it's not always the case but that's what makes life so complex.
If you can't trust and respect other humans that you don't know all the past details of their life thats your problem.
You don't have to feel hurt after mutual beneficial sex. If you are hurt you're probably not being honest with yourself or your partner. I think it's a great way to get practice being brutally honest with the person you have sex with. Maybe that's why so many marriages end in divorce. People aren't use to being honest with themselves in the bedroom and carry it over to their monogamy.
All the casual sex I've had I've always talked to the girl about what she wants and what I want. You limit yourself if you don't communicate with a partner and you don't have to be married to do it. And it's a myth that men won't try to get the girl off if it's not in a relationship. Again I think the problem lies with the man who wrote this.
I think the best thing to do is learn what you like with those that might not be perfect for you. LEARN to become friends with those you are intimate with. Learn to connect sex with communication. LEARN not to lie to yourself when you're with another human. LEARN to talk about all the kinky shit you love to find a person who loves it too. The challenge is to turn a hook up into a long term sex partner whom you can see a lot, but you don't have to date if you don't want too.
I think this article suggests holding people back from their potential happiness under the guise of a "noble" male myth.
I think as you have pointed out that there are a number of issues in our culture that stem from our casual attitude toward sex. One that I didn't see you mention concerns unwanted pregnancies. For many, sex is not without it's consequences no matter how good modern birth-control seems. There is no clean and easy way around a pregnancy. Such matters can haunt one for years.
The word 'chastity' has a precise definition, i.e., abstention from extramarital sex. Men may choose whether or not to be chaste, but attempting to redefine the virtues to fit one's own practices is relativistic nonsense. Sin is still sin.
—Henry David Thoreau
1. abstaining from sexual relations (as because of religious vows)
2. morality with respect to sexual relations
#2 makes chastity open to interpretation. A particular religion does not have ownership over the definition of chastity. Take a look at Franklin's definition of chastity. It's certainly different than a Christian's definition. And there are differences between what a Buddhist and a Hindu would say, or a Jew and a Muslim. And there isn't even agreement amongst Christians about what is chaste. Some say chastity means not kissing before you're married, some say kissing is okay but you can't touch each other's parts, some say you can have oral sex but not penetrative sex.
"Relativism" means saying that all of these views are equally right. I don't say that. I say that the definition of chastity varies from man to man. That's a fact, is it not?
I just reread my post and see that I probably came off as far more harsh than I had intended. I apologize! My point, however, is that there is and has been general agreement about what 'chastity' means. A Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Jew, and a Muslim—if they follow the teachings of their religion—would all recognize extramarital sex as unchaste.
For what it's worth, Oxford defines 'chastity' as 'the state or practice of refraining from extramarital, or esp. from all, sexual intercourse'.
I also think that is bologna that you have to have sex with someone before marriage to tell if you're compatible. That's just something people tell themselves to ease the guilt when they're just going for what they want. There are ways of telling if you and your partner will be sexually compatible without taking a "test drive". Hopefully you find one another attractive and feel that there is some chemistry between the two of you to start with. If you enjoy hugging, kissing and cuddling that's a good sign also. And even if things are awkward or less than spectacular at first, as mentioned, its something that you can improve on. Sex is a powerful thing and should not be regarded lightly.
you say it yourself, that you need to "learn to become friends with those you are intimate with". accept it works better if you switch it around.
You also say, "The challenge is to turn a hook up into a long term sex partner whom you can see a lot, but you don’t have to date if you don’t want too." Isn't that a perfect example of using someone for your own gratification without any responsibility. That seems contrary to the idea of true manliness that is trying to be resurrected here.
the great thing about Franklin's Virtues is that they are timeless. Honesty, industry, and the others always seem to be accepted. But chastity has taken a big hit and always seems to have to fight to prove its worth.
you also say that you "think this article suggests holding people back from their potential happiness under the guise of a “noble” male myth." In college, I never saw someone truly happy about a random hook-up. Guys, on the surface, put on a pretty good cover. But most that are honest with themselves have a tough time with it and often think about the girl much longer than they admit. Girls have a much harder time with it and most I know are crushed the first couple of times. But after they keep doing it, they bury those feelings and just go with it. There is something really wrong about that. I think it affects people much more than they let on.
And not to mention the stress of pregnancy and all the other stuff comes from random sex.
Someone also mentioned instinct. I don't think sleeping around is instinctual at all. Thousands of years of evolution (or creation, whichever works for you) have developed a system that releases hormones and chemicals that tell your body to connect to that person. The theory goes that the more sex you have the stronger the bond becomes. So, loving and leaving is actually going against what your body is telling you to do.
Great Article, Brett. Nicely handled. Whether you subscribe to monogamy, no sex before marriage, or sex every night - respecting your partner and yourself is always important.
If men could only see how sex and emotion are undenyably linked, then we would see a world that has far less problems with sexuality, and the mystery of sex would remain intact.
All of you who espouse the sowing of wild oats have probably never had to deal with the negative consequences of uncomitted sex. Namely, STDs, unwanted pregnancy, and a host of other ills. It is all fun and games until something goes wrong.
Most people are completely unequipped to handle it, when they find out they have been deceived about their lover's health, abandoned when pregnancy occurs, or any other sexual misadventure.
On the other hand, nothing is better than being with someone you love and trust completely...It one of the things that make life worthwhile...
A)
Applying reason to your sexuality, and living with it in accordance to your condition in life. Being chaste for an unmarried man and a married man are different, but both are to practice chastity. For unmarried men, chastity is celibacy, and more. For married men, chastity is fidelity (physical and mental), loving your wife, and not using her for sexual pleasure. Sex in marriage isn't an end unto itself, but a way of deeper union between spouses, coming closer together through pleasure, and most important, the physical incarnating of the love between spouses, children.
B) Controlling your sexuality, not being controlled by it. This illuminates the freedom that comes with chastity, you are in control. Being unchaste is like being an alcoholic, you are a slave to the vice.
Also, the school of thought of utilitarianism is a big thing to avoid. It says that all things can be used to bring oneself the greatest security/happiness/pleasure, just so long as you don't hurt others. This is the fundamental school of thought that lead to the sexual revolution. It is the "consenting adults" standard for what it seen as legit sex.
However, it is never right to just use another person without a consideration for their personhood, especially in a sexual way.
There is an excellent book on this by the Polish philosopher/ethicist/cleric Karol Wojtyła (Pope John Paul II).
Call me old fashion, but I like to kinda get to know a woman and see if she's right or hopeful with me before I sex her up.
The blame for this behavior works both ways, and lies on both sides of the fence.. Fix your wording so you don't come off so insulting to the men and women who actually try.
You are telling us what we should, and should not do, believe, say, think, or do. I have one profound question that I need you to answer thoroughly, and that is "why?".
Your Own Man: I'm afraid your parents don't really form a very persuasive argument on their own. Unhappy marriages and divorces are certainly very common today, but I think that's largely because people have gotten a lot lazier and have started to feel more entitled.
Everyone seems to think that if they aren't constantly ecstatic, they've made a mistake in their career or marriage. Perhaps one is not entitled to a perpetual state of pleasure.
I also think people make idiotic choices as far as mates go - branding themselves and looking for someone that shares their "lifestyle." Sharing a favourite band with someone does not make you compatible, nor does sharing a political conviction.
Lastly, for someone who repeatedly makes reference to modern times, you sound like someone who is poorly acquainted with and regrettably naive concerning said times, namely a baby boomer or second-year college student.
Thanks, nonetheless, for responding intelligently and not just saying "VIRGIN!"
On the down side I had to deal with one abortion, one bout with chlamydia, 2 with crabs and one with scabies. On the balance, well worth it.
@George-I believe I gave 3 very compelling reasons on "why."
I say go for it! Sex is fun and healthy. Experiment a bit, be safe (you can avoid many of the pitfalls with some precautions) and learn what you can about pleasing another person. Your life will be richer for it!
"I then went abstenant for the next 3 years."
Woah. Did you still find yourself in social situations that lead to sex? i.e. did you have to lock yourself away from provocatively dressed women with sex on their mind (see clubs/bars in any city)?
Damn. Thats very impressive. Does abstenance include no masturbation? :-s Talk about detox.
This statement is disrespectful to women.
While there are people who live off these kinds of diets, I'm sure a vast majority would tell you that this is very boring and bland. Eat healthy, sure, but don't be afraid to indulge so long as you do it responsibly. So, why should we treat sex any differently? Because a big thick book written thousands of years ago tells us to?
Yes, sex can be very meaningful and special and emotional bonds and all that. But it can be an indulgence as well. Why shouldn't it be? The author of this article acknowledges that there are both men and women who are looking for these types of indulgences. If they hook up with each other, then that's the best fit. When you have a woman or a man getting burned because they weren't on the same page concerning the relationship, that's a lack of communication, and not the fault of the sexual encounter.
On a related note, I knew a lot of women in university who wanted to have purely sexual relationships, but didn't because of the fear of being labeled with a less-than-pleasant colloquialism. Many women did go ahead and engage in the behavior, but then tried to force a relationship out of the situation - when it inevitably failed, they could absolve themselves of guilt by blaming the "playboy" guy.
Finally, the author makes it sound like communication and therapy is the key to all sexual incompatibilities. If that were true, theoretically you could date anyone, with just a little communication and therapy to smooth out the areas where you don't get along. If two people are on the radical ends of a sexual spectrum, no matter how well they get along in other areas, this will cause a problem. Especially in a society that expects monogamy. I find it odd that, again, sexuality is treated differently than any other problem. If it were another issue where two people were on opposite ends of a spectrum - say, one was the outdoors type and another the indoors type - sure there could be communication and attempts at compromise, but there would also be suggestions of just doing on your own or with someone else, or recognizing the incompatibility and finding a new partner. Yet, these solutions are not recognized or hardly viable for sex.
I just find it odd that sex is treated so differently from other areas of our life. If you wish to cut down on wasteful indulgence, the bedroom is one area, sure, but you may also choose to look towards refridgerators and cupboards as well.
"On the down side I had to deal with one abortion, one bout with chlamydia, 2 with crabs and one with scabies. On the balance, well worth it."
I am amazed that both these quotes could come from the same commenter.
When one person is in it for pure pleasure, and the other person thinks you are in it for a relationship, that person is not having their feelings respected.
And your food analogy is quite flawed. I would submit than a predominantly healthy diet with occasional splurges would equal a committed relationship with good sex. A steady diet of junk would equate to a steady diet of casual sex. The latter will bring make you obese and diseased and unhealthy. Any junk food, in any dose, although a reasonable allowance to make, still has zero healthy benefits. The closer you can stick with a healthy diet, the better off you are.
Where you place yourself along the spectrum from completely anonymous random sexual encounters to emotionally-charged sex within a monogamous relationship is totally up to you, but don't resist your personal nature. Casual sex is not for everyone and neither are monogamous relationships. Don't force either one because there is no universally "correct" way to behave sexually; everyone is different.
If you're not ready to have sex in a relationship, you're not experiencing all the person has to offer and in a sense lying to yourself, and your partner, about your compatibility in your relationship.
Do us a favor and do not renew this domain name, you don't deserve it.
I'm not gonna lie, I've been all angsty over the subject covered for a couple of months after I broke up w/ my boyfriend, and this honestly struck home and describes my current situation exactly:
"Even if you can get your jollies from a one night stand, no strings attached, that doesn’t mean your partner feels the same way. While you may be in it for the good time, the woman you hook-up with may develop feelings for you."
Thank you for taking the time to write this (and w/o having to resort to religious arguments) and I'm glad I read it.
MOHAMED THE LAST PROPHET, HAS MENTIONED THAT TOWARDS THE END OF TIME, ZINA ( UNLAWFUL SEX) WILL APPEAR EVERYWHERE.
A RIGHTEOUS MAN WOULD BE WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND SEE A MAN AND A WOMAN HAVING SEX , AND HE WOULD ASK THEM TO AT LEAST HIDE BEHIND THE WALL DOING IT.
I know we are not there yet, but it is slowly coming.
THAT IS WHEN THE ANTICHRIST will appear, not when McCain priest asks him to bomb Iran for the Antichrist to come.
Your missing an r in ur quote.
Hurrah for upholding chastity and editing standards.
There's a reason guys aren't asking girls on dates any more: because girls have ruined what a date is supposed to be. I've tried many times to go on a date with no expectation of sex.... heck, I had the intention of getting to know them.
The universal response "you are just a friend," "this isn't a real date because I wouldn't have sex with you" (when I made no mention of sex), etc etc.
HEck at my school you can't go on a date unles syou are already having casual sex with them! No girl will accept a date offer (or if they do, they will almost always flake) unless you are already having at least oral sex with them. It's a sad state of affairs that's dictated by women.
It's up to women to respect the value of dating and not treat it like a no-win situation. If they want dating to happen, and for more relationships, they need to be open and willing to such things as younger people. If not, then they need to stop the hypocrisy of stuff like this article and update their rants to the modern world.
@ Brett "The problem is that most men don’t ask for a women’s word on whether or not she realizes it’s casual sex before they do it."
I take it you have done plenty of research about this and are not just assuming for the sake of your own argument? You seem to think that women are unable to communicate their own intentions when engaging in a relationship - sexual or otherwise.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that I think you underestimate peoples maturity with regards to casual sex - and yes, there is such a thing. Good sex doesn't have to be built on trust based in love and intimacy. Some of the best sex I've had was based on trust between friends - as a favor - with both of us knowing that it was just that. Something a bit more interesting and stress relieving than watching a movie or shooting the breeze over a beer.
I don't expect to change your mind, but I hope to widen your perspective a little bit. There are other world-views than your own.
Imagine a world in which every time you tried something...you had to have it exactly the way it was that first time. Exact. That's what the author is exalting here as an ideal.
The lofted heights that people place sex on are mind boggling at times. Anyways, the entire article is colloquialism and internet-e-pinion spewing at its best.
That's just my opinion.
Also, your statement about sexual preferences and personality being linked is just a stereotype. You may be surprised at some of the sexual secrets the people around you may keep. You just never know if the guy at the watercooler is into S&M, or if the friendly neighbors next door are big-time swingers. A lot of people who lead these lifestyles choose to keep it secret because society can be fairly judgmental about it.
And actually, that's exactly the point I tried to make with the food analogy. The closer a person sticks to a healthy diet, the better. And yet, we don't, not even close. Junk food has zero health benefits but we still indulge in it. The only reason why is because we enjoy it. Yet, aside from the health guru's and certain doctors, people aren't out there decrying candy bars and sodas. No one would look twice at a young, fit, healthy man or woman eating junk. And yet, the people who do indulge in sex purely because we enjoy it are looked down upon and judged. Casual sex may also have zero benefits, but if the people engaging in it can do so responsibly, then what's the harm?
ab's post about "dating" is spot on and I agree with Marty that you have underestimated the maturity of many casual sex partners.
OK, thanks for the ideas from another point of view... Bye, now...
Yes, I've heard the "scientific" view that monogamy is an unnatural state for humans. I have been involved with religious/occult groups that agree with that, and have lived accordingly. If they get married, it's OK if either partner goes out and plays the field. And over the years, each one of those arrangements blew up, causing emotional damage to the original partners, their kids, and most of those who were sexually involved with either partner. I'm sorry--I know what biologists say, but I see no empirical evidence that perpetually keeping one's options open in a relationship actually has any benefit. There is an emotional component that goes beyond reproduction, or even sexual/hormonal desire.
I think this was a great post. I commented in my own blog last year about Ariel Levy's book "Female Chauvinist Pigs", which addresses women's ideas of sexuality in a post-feminist society. She comments, rather appropriately, that society sends a double message to girls--one is that you have to be sexy and desirable to be valuable. The other is not to have sex because it's bad. Has there been any attempt in recent years to reconcile the reality of hormonal desire to actual love and respect in a relationship?
@Khayman-Monogamy doesn't exist in the natural world-so what? Computers, houses, cars, and a whole host of stuff doesn't exist outside of humankind either. Should we not go to college because no squirrel has ever graduated from one? The idea of evolution is that we have progressed into the most complex beings of all the animal world. Unlike the beasts, we don't have to give in to any natural urge. We have rational minds that can make decisions based on things like love and respect.
@Rene-I didn't bring up STD's because I feel like they already get a ton of play and most people are aware of them. The theoretical side of why to avoid casual sex does not get discussed as often. But you are right, STD's and pregnancy are very valid reasons on their own. I was just reading in my Men's Health about how STD's like Herpes can even be transmitted through deep kissing. Yuck.
"We propose that manly sexuality shouldn’t be about the number of women a man beds..."
To have any chance at all for your idea to succeed, YOU need to realize that Human bodies aren't designed to fit the idea. Our bodies have had 5 million+ years of development, and the end result is that our bodies try to be semi-monogamous. Men's bodies tend to want to have offspring with more than one woman. Woman's bodies also want to do the same, but probably not with as many different partners as men do.
If you explain these facts to those you are trying to reach, it will help them understand why they intellectually WANT to abstain 'til they're married, and WANT to be monogamous, and why it is so difficult. They will intellectually understand that their PHYSICAL cravings for sex, and sex with different people, are normal.
For your ideas to work, people's minds will have to FIGHT their bodies, which is very, very difficult to do. MOST of the time, with deep-seated biological demands, like for sex, the biological demands wins out over their intellectual logical decisions. ONLY by explaining the facts, and giving them lots of examples, will they have a chance to overrule their bodies with their minds.
There are many good reasons to wait for sex, and to be monogamous, but it won't happen if we don't face up to the facts of our biological destinies.
cliff
YIP
sex with multiple women is hard-wired into the male psyche and dna...it's what we are meant to do.
stop feeling guilty about fucking and wanting to fuck even more attractive women...just go out and DO IT and ignore this feminist crap article!
National Geographic had an article about the hormonal differences within the body between the initial passionate love a person feels and the bond of a long relationship. here's the link: http://science.nationalgeographic.com/science/h...
i don't know if that answers the question you were asking, but it's an interesting article nonetheless.
There are also not stats to back up your statement of how common this is. I heard the same argument in the 80's and yet people are still dating today. I see them in the movies, in the restaurants, at the fairs, etc. Also most women I talk to say they do not just go with a guy to have sex without some kind of relationship first. Before you say I contradict myself let me say that the one night stands mentioned above are rare and usually with someone they know.
I also find your definition of chastity to be sorely lacking. We've seen the studies that show "christian" teens who take a purity pledge yet engage in anal and oral sex. True chastity is not just about behavior but attitude as well. It's not just about sex but how one carries oneself , dresses, talks, places they go and kinds of things they surround themselves with. Back in the day it wasn't just being a virgin that was important but acting like one and presenting like one as well. Your focus on PVI (penis vagina intercourse) as the indicator of sex has grossly limited your argument.
But hey that's just my opinion...I could be right.
I think the vehement dissenters simply don't want to be told that they're doing something that is frowned upon by others. That's really what this boils down to. But when you're living a lifestyle contrary to the popular mainstream of society (in my case, saving sex for marriage with the girl I'm currently courting--and, I plan to ask her father for her hand, haha! I'm so against-the-grain) you get used to people laughing at you for being different.
In short, people who don't agree with this post... welcome to the world where you can't have everything you want and get of scot-free. It's called reality.
Great article. I think the only thing more deleterious to a good sexual relationship than no experience is experience.
for those of you who are inclined to let your neurotransmitters call the shots, you might want to switch from sex to heroin. less emotional risk, better high.
also, for those whose comments are particularly brazen and disrespectful (you know who you are), i hope you are as honest with your potential sexual partners as you are when commenting here.
I lost my virginity at 15 to a guy I knew for about 3 months. We did homework together and hung out for those three months before we has vaginal intercourse, but we were very vocal about neither one of us had a sexual experience. between he and I, we learned many things about the opposite gender. He learned that women fart, crap, burp, stink, and aren't as perfect as your average super model.
I learned that men can communicate, show emotion, and display what they are feeling without having a predetermined set of standards to follow.
He and I were together for a year and a half when he started to cheat on me. Of course, my first reaction to this was "What am I doing wrong?". I know this was spawned from my upbringing by my grandparents about a woman's place in relationships. Now, I know that isn't really how many relationships work these days, but I was obviously young and undereducated about sexual relation growing up in a Christian house hold. I find later on that he had been cheating on me because he wanted to know what sex with someone else was like, but not because I had failed to perform or failed to communicate. It was his curiousity.
Admittedly, after that relationship, I found a few casual sexual partners. Some I was active with for a few months, several were one nighters. By this time, I had been with roughly 15 sexual partners by the age of 17.
Through those experiences, I had learned what some guys liked and many were vocal if you were "doing it wrong". I felt hesitant to inform my partner when he was doing it wrong and that led to many misunderstandings. They were eventually worked out, but usually we both were to blame and accepted that.
The last few relationships I had before my current were what I felt were the fine tunings on what I want and a way for me to develop and define what I enjoyed sexually. These relations ships lasted for many months with each partner and only one I regret not talking more indepth to.
When I met my future spouse, it was at a local coffee shop that I had been known to frequent. He was wearing some eclectic clothing and I found it so amusing I had to talk to him. After some coffee, we went back to my place and we talked about what both of us were looking for in a relationship. Both of us were tired of looking for someone from previous bad experiences and piss poor communication.
Well, we had sex and I could tell he was less experienced and he could tell I was more experienced. Knowing this, he asked me to show him what I like and it shocked me that he cared. It was the first time someone had vocalized their interest in my gratification.
Over the next few months, we saw each other more frequently. I had a few personal emergencies and he was accepting of them and even helped. And all because we could talk to each other. But before you start spouting that it should have come before, we have both enjoyed learned more about each other during our four years and satisfying our physical needs as well.
I can say that the few virgins I had been with were nothing I wanted in a long term relationship. That was one of the few important things. I didn't want someone who worshiped sex and decided to wait until marriage. My first time hurt and was extremely lame compared to others I had been with. And being with a virgin was depressing to me. It made me fee like we both had to work harder at making him better.
Now, you could theorize that if I had waited then we could have worked it out and explored each other together, but with everyone striving to be independent and self-sufficient, it would be unrealistic to me in my life to have to go through that.
It was liberating to lose my virginity. It was liberating to have sex with men. And still is. And my future spouse couldn't be happier with us. We both love talking till the wee hours of the morning and learning more about each other. It may be a unique relationship, but the idea of pre-marital sex doesn't sound so comforting when sex is an important role in any long term relationship.
I guess to use the mentioned ice-cream analogy, I'll say this about myself.
I've tried many flavors. Some were vanilla, some were too exotic. There were some with nuts and a few with fruit. Without trying different flavors, how would I have ever found my favorite? If I had only eaten vanilla ice-cream from the begining and never deviated, I would then assume that this is what all ice-cream is and make it my favorite based on the only flavor provided. But this isn't the case. You have to try a few flavors before you find the one that tickles your tongue. And by sampling other flavors, you are bound to find a lot you don't/didn't like along the way to discovery.
And I'm not knocking those who's favorite ice-cream is vanilla. It's personal choice as is your opnion on manliness. Even though I'm not an advocate of the article, it gives you the insight into someone who doesn't share your same feelings or views. And you should respect that. I know I didn't read "Do this m y way or you fail at life and being a man." If I had, there would be a few hundred comments from all over the internet in less intelligent responses.
Thank you for taking the time to explain why you chose to wait. I respect that, but also understand that by writing something like this, you are inviting anyone who isn't you to voice their opinions. And sometimes rather loudly.
If you listen to your body's urges you are going to be eating well.
The great thing about moderation is it makes you a better person than abstaining. One is far easier than the other.
This whole post is full of useless metaphors and doesn't even discuss the virtue as it relates to old Bennie. You mention it once and don't tear apart his explanation.
Also, most of your virtue posts make it seem like your view of the world is formed by the OC and the Real World.
Here is a more short and sweet reason for not having pre-marital sex: God said not to do it....so don't do it.
But most will anyways, because they cannot put aside their stubborn "want-to's" or the traditions of the time and listen to the guidance our Creator has given in his Holy Word.
I agree that if you listen to the full range of your body's communications you will discover that eating well is most enjoyable, as is sex in the context of a committed-for-life relationship. I, myself, eat extremely well, avoiding sugar and animal products and eating more green vegetables than a cow. I also married as a virgin.
As a kid, I pretty much ate pop-tarts and microwave quesadillas. That was my instinct. I also got tingly in my girl-parts when I saw pictures of Jonathan Taylor Thomas. Using sex as a method to attempt physical gratification is childish and ultimately, I believe, the costs outweigh the benefits. Same with the pop-tarts. I can see the appeal, but, people, grow up.
On another note, from the tone of many of the "save it for a committed relationship" comments I suspect the real impetus for taking this attitude is a religious one. If your religion forbids casual sex then don't do it. For those of us who are not bound by such beliefs, don't deny your body one of life's greatest gifts. Have good, safe sex, be considerate of your partner and revel in the joy of what your body can experience.
Personally I had 30 partners before finally settling down and getting married and I am better for it.
You are missing the whole point of the article at hand:
Our society has mislead you to believe that "free and unrestricted" sex is the way to be "Cool" and in the "in" crowd. Im sure you've reaped many benifets from getting your beef curtains pounded over and over again, and I have no doubt that you were "safe" about it. But the point still stands, We are human, vastly different in many ways from our animal cousins, especaily when it comes to sex. I would bet you that the majority of men would not enjoy being with a woman that has had 30 partners (is your husband even aware of that fact?), and the minority that would enjoy it would not be the kind of man that you would want to support you anyways. Im not saying that eveyone should be perfect, and I myself have had sex before I was married. The idea of throwing yourself around to many different people is the problem and what is portrayed to our youth today. That mentality that you defend is turning our populace into a society without morals (and im not speaking on religious terms). Besides, what could you have been doing with all that time you were getting your brains screwed out? Getting an education, or bettering yourself? Or how bout not giving people the impresion that you are a flimsy whore? You'd be surprised what a network of people (lets say, for example, a workplace) can find out. Boning 30 people in your hay day might have been fun for 2 minutes at a time, but reality will slap you hard when your life is adversly affected by the those same decisions.
I have two questions.
1) Why is it such a bad thing to uphold the values that our fathers and grandfathers held?
2) What should a man be like in your opinion in today's society?
And yes my name is really John Wayne....my father decided to name me after an actor who stood for many of the ideals supported on this website and I am damn proud of it too.
2. There is no one definition of what a man should be like. That is the problem here. you are using this victorian idea of gender roles to say "This is the only way to be a man". It disgusts me. It's narrow, xenophobic, and absurd. If you want to be a man like that and follow that specific culture then more power to you, but don't impune anyone else's manhood for living their lives the best way they see fit.
This whole site reeks of John Wayne's problem. He was a draft dodger, a rich snob, and as much as a hollywood club hopper as the next movie-star. He felt guilt his whole life over the fear that he wasn't manly. That's why he devoted his life to bad films (isn't it lucky for his success that most stars had been drafted) and authoritarian politicians so he could appear rough and brave. He was a hypocrite and too scared to come to terms with his own lifestyle, there is nothing worth admiring about him.
Then we get into this religious moralizing about sex that out and out lies. Cheap sex is not crappy sex for everyone. Having multiple partners will no ruin monogamous sex for most people. This is what you get when you deal in shady absolutes, you get exposed as a liar.
Then we have the comments filled with Jesus-Freaks and a woman who calls someone who enjoys sex a whore. I thought america had purged itself of such inane puritanical ideology during prohibition. Again, if you deal in absolutes with no reasoning or science behind it all you are doing is lying through your teeth based on your own limited sexual experience.
So until the author is a degreed sexologist or allows competing views to be present all we have is some rural minded christian who thinks there is such a thing as an "american culture" preaching about how you should save it for Jesus...whoops, I meant marriage.
"So until the author is a degreed sexologist or allows competing views to be present........"
Ummm, what would you call the comment section? You know the part where douche bags like you get to say your piece?
Ah yes, the classic retort of douchebag. You completely disassembled my argument with reason, logic, and fact. Good job, you are a credit to your race/religion/nation. Though next time at least keep me in suspense before dropping such a well reasoned bomb.
Oh, and the comments are just that, comments. I was referring to an article on the site with opposing views.
And the “douche bag" wasn’t a retort. I simply don’t know how else to label someone who is so insecure in his arguments he must resort to exaggerated language and rail against the absence of logic and science and yet not include any himself.
Also, I wouldn't toss around the word insecure on a site whose purpose seems to be telling other people their not manly, but they can teach you to be.
ostentatious displays of wealth as individuals age, so those young men who choose not to invest in human capital end up celibate or with increasingly less desirable partners as time progresses, because of their low earning potential
@JamesK -- There's a whole world of blogs, TV shows, movies and other media promoting the viewpoints of promiscuousness, metrosexualism, ungodliness, irrisponsibility and indifference. If that's the life you want, go for it. We're not stopping you. Just let us live the way we want to as well.
@the McKays -- Keep it up
It's a broken, broken world - it's awesome to see some Truth once in a while.
I'm not merely against extramarital sex, I'm against dating and going steady. Wind sprints and up-downs are practice drills for football. Batting cages and fielding practice are practice drills for baseball. Suicides and free throws are practice drills for basketball.
Going steady is a practice drill for divorce. Divorce is NEVER harmless. In the very best of situations, it is merely the least of all evils.
If you're not courting, your social engagements with the opposite sex should be in group settings.
Sex always involves communication. One thing it always says is, "I give myself completely, entirely, and wholly to you." This is only truly mutually beneficial when it is true. If you give yourself completely, entirely, and wholly to somebody else later on, then it's a lie to BOTH partners and yourself. That is the true dishonesty of hooking up (the truth is, I'm not all yours) and contraception (all of me is yours, except for fertility).
So what if hook ups are popular? Vomitoriums were popular in Rome, as was the practice of abandoning infants of an undesirable gender. Not long ago, sooty smokestacks were popular, because they were a sign of progress. More recently, so was smoking. A thing does not become a good just because it's popular.
So what if people can't live up to the ideal of chastity? Heck, people don't even all live up to the ideals of avoiding theft and murder. Do we then suggest that there's not much point in telling people not to kill and steal, because you can't stop the ones who want to do it? Self-control and discipline are good things in any arena.
Really, what kind of freedom is it when what you pursue enslaves you?
By contrast, my wife was chaste and had only been with like 3 guys. She got curious, because she hadn't been with many, and cheated on me. Now we're divorced.
As a side note, I challenge you to tell me Cassanova was not one of the manliest human beings alive.
This idea that chastity is somehow unnatural for men is strange. It assumes that a male is essentially an irrational conduit of his penis and that he must follow its guidance if possible. I think some men might take issue with that! As several commenters have pointed out, just because you have the urge doesn’t make it advantageous or ‘right’ in some deep biological sense. Your sperm might reach lots of ladies while you as an individual might die/become diseased in the process – nature doesn’t care – but you might! I wouldn’t rely on biological imperatives for individual moral guidance.
I also find it interesting that the ‘natural promiscuity argument’ tends to emphasize the glories of male promiscuity. Talk to any man who’s discovered his wife has been cheating on him (and this is increasingly common). If nature hates monogamy so much, why aren’t they guys cool with it when their woman cheats? Why aren’t they encouraging it – just for variety’s sake?
Sure, sometimes sex is just a thrill between near-strangers but for those who’ve had great sex, it gets real depth and power in a committed relationship. The kind of desire that can span a stream of arguments, the details of daily life, and waning physical beauty is more than the thrill of conquest. It is the intense, immediate knowledge that someone who actually knows you - the imperfect and incomplete you - wants you specifically. There is no greater ‘yes’!
A man bridles his passions and controls them. An animal acts out his passions.
I choose to be a man.
The big problem as I see it is that being unchaste makes you the type of person who finds true love repulsive. So what is true love? St. Thomas Aquinas points out that the pagan Aristotle perceived two kinds of love. The first kind of love (which I will call desire) is the love of something because of what it gives us. I love good food because it tastes good and makes me feel good. The second kind of love (which I will simply call love) is when we love something for it's own sake and not for what it gives us - and this is the starting point of friendship.
If you really love someone though you don't just wish them well, you actually give of yourself for the sake of their own true happiness. How much you love is measured by how much you give.
This points to the problem of lust and why being unchaste makes love repulsive. Several people have brought up the idea of needing to find out if they're "sexual compatible" with the other person, that they learned some really neat sex tricks from other partners or porn, that wide-oats need to be sowed, etc. The problem with all of these is that it's all about providing pleasure, ultimately for yourself. Even the people who want to provide pleasure to their partner get a great deal of pleasure from the pride of "performing well" and from the gratitude that they receive. But none of these things involve sacrifice. None of these things involve giving up what you have for the good of another.
The problem with promiscuity is that something can create a new life and unite two people together in an intimate way that involves (at least) two people and uses it for one's own person pleasure. That's called being selfish. And that is why unchastity is not manly. Because men think of others before themselves. And men who are great lovers reserve their first thoughts for the beloved. And people who think like that and love like that give their bodies totally to the one whom they have already totally committed their lives.
Like the many of the virtues on Ben Franklin's list, this one has to do with moderation, foremost.
Sex is fun. But like any other fun, special, intimate, sacred (or however you'd like to define it) thing, too much can be a bad thing.
All of the virtues Franklin lists should be taken as a whole. That is, they all interrelate. Justice - wrong no one; e.g. communicate with your partner(s) and make sure they feel the same way you do about sex. Temperance is also defined as "Moderation and self-restraint, as in behavior or expression" not only as it relates to food and drink.
The list goes on. It's all about being a productive, happy, helpful human being and member of your community and society. That's all.
“The follies which a man regrets most in his life, are those which he didn’t commit when he had the opportunity.”
yeah... that blows, i regret turning down opportunity and i can only hope it's worth it. but then it all comes back to the self control thing, and it pisses me off. so i have a hard time, and it's pretty bi-polar but whaddaheck i guess i can live with it.
and let's just say he's not too happy with that flavor of ice cream.
i wouldn't want to live with that...
the whole thing pisses me off
As with anything, sex should be performed in a responsible and honest manner. As far as hook up culture is concerned, yes...both sides have responsibilities. In my opinion, you need to be honest with yourself (especially as a woman) about what you expect from someone. Do you really think that a casual sexual relationship or a host of one night stands will get you fulfilling love? Trust me...from experience...it won't! It is true...many men will not respect you if you just throw yourself around. We are talking about being very promiscuous...not sleeping with your boyfriend or having just a few or several sexual experiences for whatever number of reasons. If you are looking for a commitment, it is probably better to hold out (at least for a while) until you know the person.
Being an aspiring sexologist...I know how many men assume you are a whore since you are so interested in sex...and then assume you have slept with many men. In my opinion, this comes from this doctrine of how "real women" are so pure and asexual while whores are the only ones fantasizing! Judging a person based on these standards is demoralizing in itself. All women who are virgins are not "good women." Some are vain, egotistical, selfish, and quite bitchy. All women with sexual experience (even bad ones) are not complete whores and may make a better suited partner. A relationship is built on so much more than this...and people should be taught how to have better relationships by being honest, respectful, and trustworthy!
If you love a person (especially unconditionally) you won't be so wrapped up in their previous sex life anyway. Yes, if your partner is on video, has had more people than he/she can count, has an STD, has slept with many of your friends or co-worker, or still wants to live promiscuously, then there are demanding issues. To be so upset simply because she slept with someone before you is just being VAIN!!!! It is selfish to expect someone to completely have dedicated themselves to you...and to have never experienced someone else. You don't know why that person is that way (it could be a pressing issue like child abuse) and he/she may very well want to change...especially if they love you!
To be this judgemental is to be most unlike Jesus. He gathered around him those society would not accept, and help them heal without being critical about it. If you want to be more like your savior, I suggest you spend time with the prostitutes, people infected with HIV/AIDS, victims of child abuse, and all the men and women you are criticizing in this article. Everyone has a reason to be who they are....and I think Jesus would be more sympathetic and understanding...not worried about how well you kept your legs closed!
Side note: I am speaking of people who are misleading themselves by having a sexual lifestyle that is not fulfilling....such as I have experienced before I decided to abstain until I found the right partner. I am not speaking of those (especially men) who think people are simple sex toys that are there for their personal satisfaction. Some of the comments on this site show that they exist...and should be avoided!
I don't care what you believe in, who you are, or how you evolve as a person from here until whenever: you will ALWAYS have to carry that baggage, at least until you find some real forgiveness.
Oh, and, be sure to say hello to your litle boy or girl someday. They would be the one calling you daddy.
I visited your website through Google and found it be informative and interesting. Really it's a good website. Thanks for your your valuable efforts.
Sex simply cannot be good unless it has a perfect combination of foreplay, stimulation and final intercourse. This entire factor should be completely synchronized in order to have better sex. Better sex is all about erotic enjoyment which arouses your partner into multiple orgasms. Read on to find out how you can have better sex too and achieve mind blowing results in bed.
Everybody dreams about having and giving the best sex sessions ever. Sex can be a major problem for many people, and not because they aren't getting any, but because they don't perform very well.
Keep up the fantastic work!!!!!!!!
Try chastity. Whether its your in a new relationship or your single. Try it. I can't explain it but it changes you for the better. You become more in touch with yourself and with women. Its like you've told your brain, "ok forget our little friend down there. What else you got?" You may surprise yourself. And you most surely will impress the ladies (and not with your morals). You let yourself get too drawn into sex and it will become bad (hmmm... at least worse). It will become, whether you mean for it to happen or not, all about the bits (yours and hers).
Take sex off the table and a kiss becomes powerful. Like how it felt when you were a teenager (or i guess these days, pre-teenager). Touching her leg with your hand will feel electric.
Can't explain it. Try it. If you try it and you disagree, go back to sex. It won't fall off because you haven't used it for a bit. What do you have to lose?
you are a fucking moron.
"what a load of christian popaganda.
sex with multiple women is hard-wired into the male psyche and dna…it’s what we are meant to do.
stop feeling guilty about fucking and wanting to fuck even more attractive women…just go out and DO IT and ignore this feminist crap article!"
It is NOT wired into the male DNA. Though it is true that humans have instinctual sexual desires, it is not a biological requirement for males to have multiple partners.
I am far from a feminist, and even farther from a conservative. Quite frankly, I'm not even religious. But I have not lost sight of the fact that men do exist who value the importance of monogamous relationships. For me, hooking up is a LOT of fun. Fun, not fulfilling. But seeing that someone actually took the time to post that men's purpose is to have sex with multiple women is enough to make me want to stop having sex just to deprive men of the pleasure. I'm not going to because, duh, who wants to do that, but, seriously, think about what you're thinking before you publicize it. Your comment makes you sound like a bigot and a douche bag. I'd like to think better of someone who has taken the time to actually read the article.
To the author,
Interesting perspective.
Ali