What makes ppl want to "sow their wild oats", to begin with?

[SifuPhil]

Originally Posted by Knight2009

[ETA: Responding to Hans63]

And yet, for much of recorded A.D. (and even part of B.C.) Western history, casual s*xual intimacy was considered strictly taboo. I'm not saying that no one did it during the time span in question, but nevertheless, the historical prevailing norms were decidedly *against* casual intimacy, not for it. Is it wise of us as a society, to disregard hundreds of years of historical precedent, for what amounts to essentially a recent radical change and realignment in perspective and norms, basically due to less than 100 years of modern birth control methods?

IMO, we ignore the lessons and teachings of the past, at our own peril.

Oh, laddie, laddie, laddie ... whatever are we gonna DO with ye?!?

Name a decade, a century, a time or a place and I guarantee you there were uncountable instances of casual sex, and NOT just by the low-lifes - we're talking upper-crust citizens, business owners and those who wear their piety on their sleeves.

See, Western civilization started in Greece and Rome, among other less-illustrious but still important areas. Now, shall we sit down and discuss the prevailing sexual mores of those times and places?

[Visvaldis]

"What makes ppl want to "sow their wild oats", to begin with?"

Because there are many fields that desire sowing!

[SifuPhil]

Originally Posted by Visvaldis

"What makes ppl want to "sow their wild oats", to begin with?"

Because there are many fields that desire sowing!

And there is a surplus of sowing machines.

[Phoenix2017]

Originally Posted by SifuPhil

Name a decade, a century, a time or a place and I guarantee you there were uncountable instances of casual sex, and NOT just by the low-lifes - we're talking upper-crust citizens, business owners and those who wear their piety on their sleeves.

You are correct about historical instances of casual intimacy...which is why I also prefaced my post with "I'm not saying that no one did it during the time span in question, but nevertheless, the historical prevailing norms were decidedly *against* casual intimacy, not for it."

Some possible historical eras where casual intimacy was (moreso than not) considered taboo:

1. Roman Empire (after the influence of Christendom, the early Church, and later the Roman Catholic Church, etc.)
2. Medieval England
3. Victorian England
4. Puritan America

See, Western civilization started in Greece and Rome, among other less-illustrious but still important areas. Now, shall we sit down and discuss the prevailing sexual mores of those times and places?

So noted -- ancient Greece and Rome were rather well-known for their carnal indulgences, both heteros*xual and homos*xual. But the s*xual mores of Rome changed considerably with the growing influence of Christianity (see #1 above), correct? And even Greece in all of her intimate debauchery, still had her Vestal Virgins and virgin priestesses, right?

[fleetiebelle]

Name a decade, a century, a time or a place and I guarantee you there were uncountable instances of casual sex, and NOT just by the low-lifes - we're talking upper-crust citizens, business owners and those who wear their piety on their sleeves.

Heck, half the British aristocracy was given their titles because they were illegitimate descendants of various monarchs.

Like anything in history, what people said they did and what they actually did are completely different. Prostitution was rampant in Victorian England.

[007.5]

Originally Posted by Hans63

There's a thing in psychology called projection. Example: an extrovert sees an introvert being quiet, and thinks, gee, the only reason I'd be that quiet is if I'm afraid. So he must be afraid. Then the introvert sees the extrovert and says, gee, the only reason I'd be that talkative is if I'm nervous. He must be nervous. But in reality, both are doing what's normal within their own context.

If you see others sowing their wild oats as being immoral, it tells us something about you (that if you were to do that, it would be with immoral intentions), and nothing about them.

The reality is, some people have immoral intentions, and some don't. You can tell which ones don't, because they're the ones who are careful to limit their actions to that which is with mutual agreement among informed, consenting adults.

I had posed the question in a previous thread ("Sow your wild oats before settling down: Good or bad advice?") and the consensus was, to each his own, but most people felt it was of some value in their life.

So, I don't think your opinion is universally applicable. If you're still unclear on how to see this objectively, ask a psychologist, or people with more experience than yourself.

One other point, even if your opinions were true in an objective sense, and applicable to all people (which you so boldly believe it to be), it would do nothing to change my conclusion that a quality man in his 30s would be justified in ignoring the majority of American women who have followed the trend of spending their 20s sleeping with drunk losers. ....

We all have an intrinsic moral conscience that we can obey or suppress .... and a Will that can pretend wrong isnt wrong so we can get our way. Its called Human Depravity and its the main action theme in todays me, me , me culture. Wise people refuse to follow it and not partake in its massive delusion that has swept American society into utter degradation.

[SifuPhil]

Originally Posted by Knight2009

You are correct about historical instances of casual intimacy...which is why I also prefaced my post with "I'm not saying that no one did it during the time span in question, but nevertheless, the historical prevailing norms were decidedly *against* casual intimacy, not for it."

"Prevailing norms" meaning the majority, I assume ... so my question then becomes, are we talking about actual practice or social perspectives? Big difference I would think.

Some possible historical eras where casual intimacy was (moreso than not) considered taboo:

1. Roman Empire (after the influence of Christendom, the early Church, and later the Roman Catholic Church, etc.)

I grant that the Romans cleaned up a lot of the Greek customs that they inherited as well as introducing many of their own - the Lex Scantinia for one, even though that law had more loopholes than a security deposit on a NYC apartment. But again, what was on the books and what actually happened are two different animals. I think the biggest change in the Roman Empire was the idea that a relationship wasn't so much about gender as it was about power - who was "top" and who was "bottom" - a structure they may well have borrowed from the Church..

2. Medieval England

Disagree. They were a rowdy bunch!

3. Victorian England

Agree partially. Again, the facade was there but the casual sex went on. Prostitution reached a zenith in Victorian England and pornography was really born there.

4. Puritan America

Remember that the original Puritans were an activist group of clergy within the Church of England - when they came here they were filled with hope. But America being what it is, they still probably had casual sex against the Puritan wishes. You're right in that it was probably a time of very little casual sex, though.

So noted -- ancient Greece and Rome were rather well-known for their carnal indulgences, both heteros*xual and homos*xual. But the s*xual mores of Rome changed considerably with the growing influence of Christianity (see #1 above), correct? And even Greece in all of her intimate debauchery, still had her Vestal Virgins and virgin priestesses, right?

See above where I mentioned the Greeks and Romans - so yes, Rome raised the bar a bit, but with the increasing population I don't know if it had the desired effect - anyone outside the immediate vicinity of Rome probably copulated just as copiously.

Greece may have had her virgins, but again I think you're mixing appearances with actuality. Of course none of us here can say what really went down back then, but we've inherited so much else from them I would be surprised if their randiness wasn't handed down as well.

[Phoenix2017]

Very fascinating...many thx for your interesting comments and thoughts there SifuPhil...

And you are right...actual behavioral practices can differ considerably from abstract social norms. Just like the old adage of practicing what one reaches, and actually doing what one says, and not just saying it.

But all in all, some very interesting food for thought...thx again!

<ponders and reflects some more>

Originally Posted by SifuPhil

"Prevailing norms" meaning the majority, I assume ... so my question then becomes, are we talking about actual practice or social perspectives? Big difference I would think.

I grant that the Romans cleaned up a lot of the Greek customs that they inherited as well as introducing many of their own - the Lex Scantinia for one, even though that law had more loopholes than a security deposit on a NYC apartment. But again, what was on the books and what actually happened are two different animals. I think the biggest change in the Roman Empire was the idea that a relationship wasn't so much about gender as it was about power - who was "top" and who was "bottom" - a structure they may well have borrowed from the Church..

Disagree. They were a rowdy bunch!

Agree partially. Again, the facade was there but the casual sex went on. Prostitution reached a zenith in Victorian England and pornography was really born there.

Remember that the original Puritans were an activist group of clergy within the Church of England - when they came here they were filled with hope. But America being what it is, they still probably had casual sex against the Puritan wishes. You're right in that it was probably a time of very little casual sex, though.



See above where I mentioned the Greeks and Romans - so yes, Rome raised the bar a bit, but with the increasing population I don't know if it had the desired effect - anyone outside the immediate vicinity of Rome probably copulated just as copiously.

Greece may have had her virgins, but again I think you're mixing appearances with actuality. Of course none of us here can say what really went down back then, but we've inherited so much else from them I would be surprised if their randiness wasn't handed down as well.

[Hans63]

Originally Posted by Hans63

If you see others sowing their wild oats as being immoral, it tells us something about you (that if you were to do that, it would be with immoral intentions), and nothing about them.

The reality is, some people have immoral intentions, and some don't. You can tell which ones don't, because they're the ones who are careful to limit their actions to that which is with mutual agreement among informed, consenting adults.

Originally Posted by 007.5

We all have an intrinsic moral conscience that we can obey or suppress .... and a Will that can pretend wrong isnt wrong so we can get our way. Its called Human Depravity and its the main action theme in todays me, me , me culture. Wise people refuse to follow it and not partake in its massive delusion that has swept American society into utter degradation.

The intrinsic moral conscience, when not suppressed, is what leads people to be careful in the way I mentioned above. Perhaps you suppress yours, which is why my comment escaped your attention. Read it again (see above).

I guess you're the same kind of person who would say homosexuality is evil. You want to vilify them only because their orientation is different from yours -- "they're wrong because they ain't like ME." By doing so, you are an example of the me, me, me epidemic. You are serving no one but yourself and others who share your selfish views.

Same is true when you vilify those of other orientations (e.g., poly). Even if they do it ethically (e.g., informed consent), you still have a problem. Why? Because you project your own immoral intentions onto them (read my "projection" discussion again, unless the truth hurts your ego too much). You ought to look at your own immoral desires and wash yourself of them before you point your finger at others as a means to project your impurities onto them (which may be giving you personal satisfaction but does nothing for others).

You have no authority to tell others how to live, especially when they live more peacefully and honorably than you do. That's your ME fixation at work. When you grow up, you may find it in your heart to respect those who are different from you. As an adult, you will stop using excuses (like your own egocentric views of morality) to dictate to people, and notice that there are people (at least some people) who live and let live, peacefully and harmoniously. That's what marks the difference between ME fixation and something more respectful. You can outgrow your ME fixation, but you have to want to.

Until then, I guess it's growing pains for you. So, keep telling people what to do, keep wagging your finger, keep spouting off your "holier than thou" nonsense. We'll still be here to witness your process. Maybe you just need to get tired of yourself.

Not to sound too serious, just a friendly reminder. Good luck.