honeymoon with the WHOLE family?

[peezey 0]

I am who I am and I am a woman who thinks that many women who will openly say they won't have sex outside of marriage do it a whole lot more than they admit

I missed this the first time. It's a very defensive comment as well as an offensive insult. Why is it necessary to demean women who say they won't have sex out of marriage as hypocrites in order to validate your own position that it's ok to have sex outside of marriage? Is it about guilt, or is there something inherently more noble about announcing one's hedonistic tendencies than there is about saving oneself for marriage so that it will have a sweetness that cannot be equaled by bed-hopping in search of the kind of intimacy one gets from committment?

I find it curious that you need to juxtapose openly saying that you will have pre-marital sex with saying that one will not engage in such a practice by including a defensive comment that puts down those who disagree with you even as you are not attacked. I'm not intending to attack myself, just making an observation about your strange way of making your point.

Somehow you seem to think that I am the child of hippies who raised me to be like them. I have said before that I am the daughter of a strict Baptist minister who also happened to be a child molester. I went to Christian high schools and a Christian university (one of the largest in the nation) and I am not "assuming" anything, rather speaking of what I saw with my own eyes.

I guess I can't expect people who see sex differently from what I do to understand my viewpoint so I guess there's no point in trying to explain myself.

I think that it is a bit hypocritical to say one fights for women's rights and then deny that women have just as strong of a need for sex as men do and assume that if a woman has sex outside of a committed relationship she is somehow being exploited or easy or fast or that she is buying into the whole Larry Flint porn world.

I guess I'm just lucky that my husband's favorite writer is Simone de Bouvier, not someone I'm guessing any of you have even heard of, much less read. He understands that treating women differently in this area than we treat men is just another form of sexual discrimination. That said, we both agree that when someone chooses to enter a monogomous relationship, they should take that committment seriously and not betray the other person's trust.

Jenn, Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say. Human liberty is something everyone needs to respect. Just because it isn't something you would personally choose to do doesn't give you the right to prohibit someone else from doing it. No two people are going to think exactly alike, so when some group dares to think they have a right to decide how other people should live their lives there will be major problems.

Amera, I agree. I've seen so many teens get pregnant because their parents felt that teaching them about birth control would somehow condone them having sex. Hello! They're already doing it. Teens don't frequently look for their parents approval before deciding to impulsively respond to their hormones.

szsz, are you really so non-empathetic that you can't understand being supportive of those you do not choose to be like? I am for gay rights, but I am not gay. I think gay people should have as much right to marry and live together as husband and wife as I do, even though I do not want to go live with another woman as her spouse. I've stood in Home Depot before and chatted with the mid 50s gay male "mother" of two adopted children before and did not freak out when the kids called him "mom" although I could tell that was the normal response he got and he was worried that I would. It was obvious to me that these two kids had two parents that loved them, which was definitely better than growing up in an orphanage somewhere with hundreds of other kids sharing a few caretakers.

Why do people have to be so freaking narrow-minded about what other people choose to do with their lives? It's really nobody's business but their own. That's all I was trying to say.

VP, One does not have to be religious to know that murder is wrong. Non-religious people do have moral values too, maybe not always the same as those who are religious, but many times more humanitarian.

ETA: of course, if he were a God fearing individual, I bet he would feel some sort of duty to take care of his children regardless of whether the law makes him or not

Yeah right! I know plenty of "god fearing" men who don't pay their child support, or pay it only reluctantly, at the bare minimum the law forces them to. My ex was one of them.

Perhaps your husband isn't as intellectual as you consider him, or perhaps there is a huge misunderstanding about de Beauvoir (spelled correctly) by you or him or both of you. First of all, she did engage in writing but is not considered a writer. She is considered one of the foremost French thinkers and philosophers of the 20th Century. She did write considerably to express her views on women in society, but also wrote extensively about her own struggle with the men in her life, most noteably Jean-Paul Sartre and Nelson Algren. These two men were her great loves and absolutely adored her intellect and sexual open-ness, but only at home and in the bedroom, privately. A significant portion of Sartre's work was co-authored by de Beauvoir, but she is not given credit. It is widely known she had a long itme affair with Algren, but he was infuriated by her choice to explore her own sexuality in writing vis a vis their relationship. Finally, she was an open bisexual, but also found women to be as mysongynistic as men in romantic relationships. Much of her own behavior led to the formation of her philosophy of women as "other" and the acceptance by society that men are superior to women.

In short, she was a brilliant thinker and most certainly opened the door for the 2nd Wave Feminists, especially in the U.S. However, just because she wrote about women being treated as the "second sex" in society, she encountered significant personal issues of her own, and often couldn't apply her own philosophy to her own life.

Finally, if you or your husband know anything about feminist theory, especially that of someone as brilliant as de Beauvoir, not the least because of her mastery of existentialist thought, you would be VERY CLEAR in the fact that she would NEVER have opined that a woman who CHOOSES ANYTHING FOR HERSELF, including abstaining from sex before marriage, is anything less than a feminist.

In the simplist terms, it seems to me you are absolutely anti-feminist & thoroughly mysongynistic when you decide to label and judge other women because of their choices. If you cannot argue your point without personal attacks, you should stay off the board until you learn more about thoughtful debate.

[PalestineMyHeart 1,897]

[Ban Hammer 13,346]

[AngelK96 0]

[doodlebug 3]

First of all, this thread has once again turned into the "hot topic" that burns my backside every time I read it. Really, I could care less if someone is with their husband before marriage. It's none of my business.

Doodle, back to the honeymoon topic. My husband and I had our own flat for 1 week, then his family wanted us to stay with them. At first it was a bit uncomfortable, but after a day, it was like living with my own sisters. I love them all! Everything will be fine.

Thanks!!!

[Veiled Princess 1]

OK, VP, you shocked me with this one. It is rather a liberal concept that breaks from your normally conservative stances.

I guess I am not as predictable as you thought huh?

[Jenn! 918]

So if a couple within a society feels they are married by the exchange dates and milk, an exchange of vows between the two, etc. their sex is then less harmful to society because they too are married according to their standards?

In my opinion yes. Because they are committed to each other in the sense that they consider themselves to be married and both parties have an expectation of what the other's rights/responsibilities/etc are.

OK, VP, you shocked me with this one. It is rather a liberal concept that breaks from your normally conservative stances.

But, VP, you also said that you think pre-marital sex should be illegal. But it's ok to have sex if you are not married as long as you consider yourself to be married. Sorry, I don't understand.

[Veiled Princess 1]

But, VP, you also said that you think pre-marital sex should be illegal. But it's ok to have sex if you are not married as long as you consider yourself to be married. Sorry, I don't understand.

I don't understand where the misunderstanding is.

[Jenn! 918]

But, VP, you also said that you think pre-marital sex should be illegal. But it's ok to have sex if you are not married as long as you consider yourself to be married. Sorry, I don't understand.

I don't understand where the misunderstanding is.

How could such a law be enforced if it is not required that the state recognize the marriage?

[Veiled Princess 1]

But, VP, you also said that you think pre-marital sex should be illegal. But it's ok to have sex if you are not married as long as you consider yourself to be married. Sorry, I don't understand.

I don't understand where the misunderstanding is.

How could such a law be enforced if it is not required that the state recognize the marriage?

We've had those laws in the states for 200 years and haven't been able to enforce them even with registered marriages.... now we've had to do away with them... so obviously state recognition of marriages hasn't helped in that.

[Bosco 1]

We've had those laws in the states for 200 years and haven't been able to enforce them even with registered marriages.... now we've had to do away with them... so obviously state recognition of marriages hasn't helped in that.

I don't think they haven't been able to enforce them but have chosen not to.

[Veiled Princess 1]

We've had those laws in the states for 200 years and haven't been able to enforce them even with registered marriages.... now we've had to do away with them... so obviously state recognition of marriages hasn't helped in that.

I don't think they haven't been able to enforce them but have chosen not to.

A little of both I think... but they haven't been able to... when someone tried to enforce it it was taken to supreme court and ruled unconstitutional because of privacy rights

[Jenn! 918]

[Henia 11]

Silly Ladies, tricks are for kids

[honeyblonde 0]

I don't think it applies to only women's rights but to the society as a whole...

I agree that women have sexual desires/needs as strong as men but I still believe they should be married before fulfulling them just like men.

Men also lose out because of premarital sex... when a woman has a little baby boy and the father has left her hanging because he was never committed to her or the idea of a family in the first place, then that boy has lost a father and this is something very important in any child's life... male or female...

Little boys need good men in their lives to teach them how to be good men... little girls need good men in their lives to teach them that a man can and will love her for her and not because she spreads her legs for him.... by depriving either of them of this necessity we have done them a huge injustice and encouraged a negative reaction later on as is apparent in the society we find ourselves in today.

Since when does sex have to lead to pregnancy? There is such a concept as birth control.

I know quite a few people who were legitimately married when they had their kids and still can't get child support, for the very reasons you yourself named - the ex lives in another state and they can't afford to pursue an out-of-state lawsuit.

How often have you seen reading lists posted here? At very least when passing off your intellect spell her name correctly. It is "Beauvoir". A Bouvier is a type of dog.

You are making leaps. Just because I am not an existentialist doesn't mean I find Beavoir inappropriate. Just because I make choices for myself doesn't mean I judge those who choose otherwise or deem them inapprorpriate. Also, having sex outside of marriage doesn't make you more of a feminist or someone who chooses not to less of one. You come across as having no tolerance for views more conservative than your own. If someone expresses them, you project that they are judging you. Don't you realize it is possible for people to make choices that may be more restrictive than yours without them thinking differently of you?

I never said sex between two consenting adults is harmful to society. You should direct that to the people that did.

I did look her name up, just not well enough I see. My French sucks, that I will admit. All those vowels drive me nuts. Also, you are taking everything I am saying like it is aimed at you. Most of it is not. When I quote someone I try to respond to that person but I also respond to others in the same post. Sorry for the confusion. And you know where I've seen your reading lists.

I didn't mean to say that those who chose religion can't think for themselves. I know that many here have chosen Islam after studying many religions. I also see a whole lot of people who, in my opinion, seem to have chosen Islam because it is the "latest fashion" rather than because they even begin to understand the concepts of it. Religion is supposed to be an intimate relationship between an individual and a higher power, but so many of the debates here and that I've seen throughout my life, turn it into some stupid technical discussion of men's interpretations of some book or teaching about how one should conduct themself. That was what I meant.

I am actually quite tolerant of religion, as long as those who chose that path don't go about insulting those who chose not to. Yes, I am human, I do get defensive sometimes. Sorry if that bothers those of you who are so quick to judge others.

I am who I am and I am a woman who thinks that many women who will openly say they won't have sex outside of marriage do it a whole lot more than they admit

I missed this the first time. It's a very defensive comment as well as an offensive insult. Why is it necessary to demean women who say they won't have sex out of marriage as hypocrites in order to validate your own position that it's ok to have sex outside of marriage? Is it about guilt, or is there something inherently more noble about announcing one's hedonistic tendencies than there is about saving oneself for marriage so that it will have a sweetness that cannot be equaled by bed-hopping in search of the kind of intimacy one gets from committment?

I find it curious that you need to juxtapose openly saying that you will have pre-marital sex with saying that one will not engage in such a practice by including a defensive comment that puts down those who disagree with you even as you are not attacked. I'm not intending to attack myself, just making an observation about your strange way of making your point.

Somehow you seem to think that I am the child of hippies who raised me to be like them. I have said before that I am the daughter of a strict Baptist minister who also happened to be a child molester. I went to Christian high schools and a Christian university (one of the largest in the nation) and I am not "assuming" anything, rather speaking of what I saw with my own eyes.

I guess I can't expect people who see sex differently from what I do to understand my viewpoint so I guess there's no point in trying to explain myself.

I think that it is a bit hypocritical to say one fights for women's rights and then deny that women have just as strong of a need for sex as men do and assume that if a woman has sex outside of a committed relationship she is somehow being exploited or easy or fast or that she is buying into the whole Larry Flint porn world.

I guess I'm just lucky that my husband's favorite writer is Simone de Bouvier, not someone I'm guessing any of you have even heard of, much less read. He understands that treating women differently in this area than we treat men is just another form of sexual discrimination. That said, we both agree that when someone chooses to enter a monogomous relationship, they should take that committment seriously and not betray the other person's trust.

Jenn, Thank you for understanding what I was trying to say. Human liberty is something everyone needs to respect. Just because it isn't something you would personally choose to do doesn't give you the right to prohibit someone else from doing it. No two people are going to think exactly alike, so when some group dares to think they have a right to decide how other people should live their lives there will be major problems.

Amera, I agree. I've seen so many teens get pregnant because their parents felt that teaching them about birth control would somehow condone them having sex. Hello! They're already doing it. Teens don't frequently look for their parents approval before deciding to impulsively respond to their hormones.

szsz, are you really so non-empathetic that you can't understand being supportive of those you do not choose to be like? I am for gay rights, but I am not gay. I think gay people should have as much right to marry and live together as husband and wife as I do, even though I do not want to go live with another woman as her spouse. I've stood in Home Depot before and chatted with the mid 50s gay male "mother" of two adopted children before and did not freak out when the kids called him "mom" although I could tell that was the normal response he got and he was worried that I would. It was obvious to me that these two kids had two parents that loved them, which was definitely better than growing up in an orphanage somewhere with hundreds of other kids sharing a few caretakers.

Why do people have to be so freaking narrow-minded about what other people choose to do with their lives? It's really nobody's business but their own. That's all I was trying to say.

VP, One does not have to be religious to know that murder is wrong. Non-religious people do have moral values too, maybe not always the same as those who are religious, but many times more humanitarian.

ETA: of course, if he were a God fearing individual, I bet he would feel some sort of duty to take care of his children regardless of whether the law makes him or not

Yeah right! I know plenty of "god fearing" men who don't pay their child support, or pay it only reluctantly, at the bare minimum the law forces them to. My ex was one of them.

Perhaps your husband isn't as intellectual as you consider him, or perhaps there is a huge misunderstanding about de Beauvoir (spelled correctly) by you or him or both of you. First of all, she did engage in writing but is not considered a writer. She is considered one of the foremost French thinkers and philosophers of the 20th Century. She did write considerably to express her views on women in society, but also wrote extensively about her own struggle with the men in her life, most noteably Jean-Paul Sartre and Nelson Algren. These two men were her great loves and absolutely adored her intellect and sexual open-ness, but only at home and in the bedroom, privately. A significant portion of Sartre's work was co-authored by de Beauvoir, but she is not given credit. It is widely known she had a long itme affair with Algren, but he was infuriated by her choice to explore her own sexuality in writing vis a vis their relationship. Finally, she was an open bisexual, but also found women to be as mysongynistic as men in romantic relationships. Much of her own behavior led to the formation of her philosophy of women as "other" and the acceptance by society that men are superior to women.

In short, she was a brilliant thinker and most certainly opened the door for the 2nd Wave Feminists, especially in the U.S. However, just because she wrote about women being treated as the "second sex" in society, she encountered significant personal issues of her own, and often couldn't apply her own philosophy to her own life.

Finally, if you or your husband know anything about feminist theory, especially that of someone as brilliant as de Beauvoir, not the least because of her mastery of existentialist thought, you would be VERY CLEAR in the fact that she would NEVER have opined that a woman who CHOOSES ANYTHING FOR HERSELF, including abstaining from sex before marriage, is anything less than a feminist.

In the simplist terms, it seems to me you are absolutely anti-feminist & thoroughly mysongynistic when you decide to label and judge other women because of their choices. If you cannot argue your point without personal attacks, you should stay off the board until you learn more about thoughtful debate.

I am aware of all of the above. I have read her works, and so has my husband. I never said a woman couldn't choose to not be sexually active, I was merely pointing out that I was sick of people acting like women who do make that choice are horrible women.

Nice of you to create a fake ID to disguise your identity. That took a lot of guts! I have no idea who you are, while many of the women I am debating with here are quite close friends. Before you attack me and tell me to leave, why don't you try getting to know some of us here and realizing this is a pretty normal debate for us here or reveal your identity if you have the guts.

How long did it take you to read that little blurb on the internet before you came here to show off your indepth knowledge of Simone's life? How many of her 4 auto-biographies have you read to really understand the woman and how she became who she was?

Do you have any understanding of what a brave person she was to even write the works she did in her time? Yes, she was a great existentialist philosopher, one of the greatest in both mine and my husband's opinion. She was also a great writer. Where did you ever get the impression I thought it was ok to be sexually active anywhere other than at home in private?

I never meant to label or judge other women for their choices, merely to ask them to not do that to those who chose to be different from them. Before attacking me and accusing me of not knowing my facts, try getting yours straight. Yeah, I can't spell in French too good. Whipee!

Edited October 13, 2006 by honeyblonde