|
|
|
|
|
|
by TriinT
6014 days ago
|
|
|
I never thought I would say this one day, but I believe that puritanical attitudes exist for a reason. Not that long ago, one could die of syphilis. Many other STD's would result in infertility. The sexual revolution is only a few decades old, and it was made possible by penicilin, antibiotics and advances in Medicine. You call anti-sex attitudes "ridiculous", while "anachronistic" would perhaps be a better word. |
|
|
The other half is that a person with a large number of prior sexual partners is more likely to cheat in a long-term relationship, less likely to be sexually satisifiable by one person, and less able to form the intense bonds of trust and love that a relationship requires.
Thus, the "puritannical" stance on casual sex is as relevant and useful today as it ever was. In fact, it's more useful now than it was 1000 years ago; although STDs are much more curable, raising children is considered to be a 20+ year, shared process, making the intact family desirable.
What's disgusting is the double standard-- the stud/slut dichotomy-- that allows men to behave badly with few consequences. My opinion is that women have the power to end the double standard; if women stop being attracted to promiscuous men, for a man to be slutty will be seen as being as foolish and self-damaging as it is for a woman, and the double standard will disappear.