2006-12-28 02:58:08 · 15 answers · asked by massenger man 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Cultures & Groups ➔ Other - Cultures & Groups
I actually believe poor language skills and writing skills will be the demise of society.
But as far as your statement goes I am wondering if you realize that the male gender also participates in these non-maritial sexual relations. Basically stating: It takes 2 to tango.
But it was birth control that liberated women allowing them freedom of choice pertaining to thier own lives.
Look up Margaret Sanger and the history of birth control if you really want to know more.
2006-12-28 03:12:38 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
What a bizarre worldview you must have!
Society is not filthy -- people who obsess over whether society is filthy are often angry and fearful and frustrated and mildly pathological.
And what business is it of yours, whether 'female gender' persons have sex or not?
If I was mean-spirited and it wasn't a holiday week, I could say that either your socialization classes or potty training went very, very badly, or you have stopped taking your meds, or both.
I'm sorry for you that you feel angry and afraid of society. Society doesn't necessarily hate you or despise you (yet).
So there is still time for you to discover that society is filled with -- YES! -- wonderful people, boring people, lazy people, happy people, sad people, etc -- just like you and your family (if you have one).
Maybe your religion forces you to believe that women and their sexual activity need tro be controlled; if so, you are probably very afraid of women, in general.
There are a few places left on earth which are stuck in the Middle Ages -- maybe that's where you were born.
But if you hope to have a productive life, interacting with most people in most societies on earth -- then try to soften your approach -- at least a little.
(Alright, I admit it, after-Christmas sales make me just a little edgy and caddy, but I'm only human.)
So, have a nice day, Mr. Clean and Righteous Penis-Man.
2006-12-28 03:25:58 · answer #2 · answered by Marc Miami 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Hell no! Why should males always be allowed or even encouraged to have sexual relations before marriage and females told it is wrong? I don't know that 'marriage' in the christian-traditional sense if even the best way to go. Why have 'illegitimet' children? Why not do it the old Celtic way where the child was not considered illigitimet no matter the circumstances of its conception. Life is too uncertain, and humans are made to experience pleasure in sexual relationships, the only creatures who are, therefore it is more of a sin to not let ourselves experience this divinely given gift (within the realm of good morality and precautions against STDS and unwanted pregnancies of course) than to have sex before marriage. I don't believe in infidelity, but if you are not married, I do not see the harm as long as both partners are of legal age and willing and engage in such relations in a responsible manner.
2006-12-28 03:07:01 · answer #3 · answered by harpertara 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
No, sex is not in and of itself 'dirty'. I have to guess that you aren't thinking that restricting sexual relations with women means that encouraging sexual relations with men is ok... so that means all forms of sexual expression outside of marriage are 'filthy'
So then what? Do you think you can have 20 years of being told an act is disgusting and then with a few words of a clergyman you will find it delightful?
What makes society disgraceful is the way it treats the least of its people and animals. It is allowing children, the elderly and the poor to suffer, far more than they have already done.
Sex is only as good or bad as the people doing it.
2006-12-28 03:14:33 · answer #4 · answered by justa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Do you think that sexual relations are limited to 'filthy' females? In a hetero relationship, there would also be a 'filthy' guy and in homosexual relationships there are 'filthy' males and females doing 'filthy' things to each other. Maybe you dislike women or you just dislike sex itself. Granted, a sexual relationship should be, in my opinion, within the confines of a marriage, but that's not reality! Freely going from one partner to another is not just promiscuous, but it's dangerous these days. However, those in long term monogamous relationships experience the closeness and depth of really knowing their partners ... nearly as well as married couples. Where's the 'filth'?
2006-12-28 03:07:09 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
No, why would it? Just because a couple isn't married, sexual relations between them wouldn't make it filthy or perverse if they were an exclusive couple. I think it would be a mistake to remain a prude virgin and then get married, you have to sample the way of life to know what you want / need.
2006-12-28 03:06:40 · answer #6 · answered by Pfo 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
probable so. even regardless of the indisputable fact that, that freedom would be impinged upon each time we altered the regulation as that's written. If we accompanied that good judgment, we ought to in no way be morally justified in changing the regulation. regardless of each thing you do not have rights that permit you to regulate others, till the others place themselves right into a particular difficulty knowingly. particularly, we would desire to degree the changing of the regulation through four standards: existence, liberty, assets, and the pursuit of happiness. gay marriage does not kill human beings through layout. Nor does it take anybody else's freedoms away, or threaten every person's assets inherently. the only way it threatens someone's skill to pursue happiness is whilst they get their kicks through denying gay marriage. when you consider that your freedom to pursue happiness is meant to end on the factor that it infringes on yet another's skill to realize this, that distinctive standards isn't a stable argument against gay marriage. regardless of each thing, gay marriage did no longer kill the dinosaurs. in case you definitely need to income this intimately, study a community of philosophy generally happening because of the fact the social contract. Thomas Hobbes, John Locke, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau are stable philosophers to study.
2016-12-15 09:46:10 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Not really, no. Racism and poverty make a society filthy, but premarital sex just offends some people.
2006-12-28 03:05:55 · answer #8 · answered by Victoria 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
no, i wont to test the brakes b 4 a ride the bike first. As long as ur safe its all good.
2006-12-28 03:05:39 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Well the syntax of the question aside, no, this is a very silly statement that you make.
B
2006-12-28 03:02:37 · answer #10 · answered by Bacchus 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋