Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What makes ppl (and especially guys) want to "sow their wild oats", to begin with?
I don't understand the underlying psychology, behind the concept? Why not just ideally have one great, long-term, committed, steady love interest, exclusively, that you want to marry and be with, forever? Pls explain the rationale to me, that some ppl have for wanting to have many, short-term love interests, rather than one or only just a few, long-term love interest(s), that goes straight into a marriage?
The answer to your initial question is very plain and simple : Because of the present culture and media which makes a ton of money off of encouraging the populus to live as they like sexually in conjunction with people being willing to suppress their moral conscience in order to get their lustful/hedonistic needs met asap . This is the recipe for Americas favorite pastime of unrestrained Sexual Hedonism . Thus the quest for men as well as women , are to sow thier ''oats' in an uncaring, apathetic, people-using manner which not only offers a deceptive form of 'freedom' ... but which also further increases the degrading way the sexes look at each other (just a copulatory venture regardless of the often destructive personal outcome IE: Emotional ramifications from being used, STD acquisition , possible death from AIDS and HPV in women, pregnancy needing an Abortionist to kill the Particpants developing child , birth resulting in only the Mother sticking around , et al...) . The almighty coveted (illicit) Copulation comes at a great price to individuals as well as an entire Nation . And, that is whats behind the 'sowing your wild oats' syndrome aka : 'No ones going to tell me how to live MY life' excuse ---- people being thier own 'god' .
1. Some people "sow their wild oats" because they are genetically inclined to do so, while others may be doing for a more mental reason (not wanting to "miss out", etc.).
2. Some people who do this "get it out of their system", while there are others who feel they need variety later on as well. Perhaps the former were "shopping around", whereas for the latter, they're just oriented toward variety.
3. Some people just don't need to sow their wild oats. That's just how they're wired.
4. Any and all of the above can apply to both men and women.
However, the following illustrates an interesting difference between men and women:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Miss Crabcakes
I for one, think it is better to have that "wild oat" period in your life because you get it out of your system. There was a time in my 20's when I was out clubbing, drinking and partying nearly every night. I was single and meeting all kinds of guys. I honestly thought I'd never get tired of it. But by the time I hit my 30's and met my now-husband, it began to get old. I am now grateful for those swinging single days because I had my fun and experiences but I don't crave that anymore. Had I had married at 20 and skipped it, I might have been more likely to crave what I missed out on and possibly taken my marriage for granted. It was also in dating all those losers that made me appreciate my husband more.
The above provides a classic example illustrating that women, when they're in their "sowing oats" phase, will fixate overwhelmingly on guys who are drunk losers. This is to the detriment of the more sober, intelligent men, who might also need a "sowing oats" phase, but have little opportunity. After they've been left out in the cold like that, it's no wonder that a lot of American men have completely sworn off American women and look elsewhere, or even expatriate. Why would any self-respecting, quality men in their 30s want to become providers for women who gave them the cold shoulder throughout their 20s? It makes no sense, honestly. Fortunately, there are other options.
1. Some people "sow their wild oats" because they are genetically inclined to do so, while others may be doing for a more mental reason (not wanting to "miss out", etc.).
2. Some people who do this "get it out of their system", while there are others who feel they need variety later on as well. Perhaps the former were "shopping around", whereas for the latter, they're just oriented toward variety.
3. Some people just don't need to sow their wild oats. That's just how they're wired.
4. Any and all of the above can apply to both men and women.
However, the following illustrates an interesting difference between men and women:
The above provides a classic example illustrating that women, when they're in their "sowing oats" phase, will fixate overwhelmingly on guys who are drunk losers. This is to the detriment of the more sober, intelligent men, who might also need a "sowing oats" phase, but have little opportunity. After they've been left out in the cold like that, it's no wonder that a lot of American men have completely sworn off American women and look elsewhere, or even expatriate. Why would any self-respecting, quality men in their 30s want to become providers for women who gave them the cold shoulder throughout their 20s? It makes no sense, honestly. Fortunately, there are other options.
It is more accurate to associate the willful sowing of wild oats (sexual immorality) , with a personal deficiency of viewing the opposite sex as an available object to use for self-centered gain. It is a character defect that should be overcome in the name of Human dignity which the Perpetrator himself/herself demands others treat them according to. Put short : Treat others the way that you want to be treated , or that youd want your little Sister to be treated by Others.
It is more accurate to associate the willful sowing of wild oats (sexual immorality) , with a personal deficiency of viewing the opposite sex as an available object to use for self-centered gain. It is a character defect that should be overcome in the name of Human dignity which the Perpetrator himself/herself demands others treat them according to. Put short : Treat others the way that you want to be treated , or that youd want your little Sister to be treated by Others.
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. I'm not the first to have this idea, see the following from an older thread:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay F
I have heard that in church singles groups you often have this situation...The men are the "good guy" types, most were never married and pased over when they were younger while the women have lot's of baggage from their younger bad boy phase. Some men are interested in the women with baggage, others are not.
... 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...
Yet where would We be if the World did not contain Some that feel the Need to whip Us into Shape?
Yet where would We be if the World did not contain Some that feel the Need to whip Us into Shape?
There's a saying, "if guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
By the same token, we can say, "if casual sex is deemed dishonorable, only the dishonorable will have casual sex."
So obviously, this concept of sowing wild oats being dishonorable was invented by dishonorable people, so they can monopolize the casual sex market. It worked! It also perpetuates itself because as we see dishonorable people engaging in casual sex in dishonorable ways, it reinforces a misconception that the dishonorable ways to do it are the only ways (see 007.5, above).
I propose that we undo this unfortunate situation and remove the stigma. Then, it's only dishonorable when done in a dishonorable way (deception, etc.). Maybe this will encourage women in their "wild oats" phase to do so with sober, intelligent men instead of drunk losers (see Miss Crabcakes, above). Clearly, this is better than what's been going on.
So, to the women out there, would you like to try this new way?
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.
It's more than that...guys wanna get their kicks while they are young. Or some women do too! Pregnancy, std's, or maturity usually gets them eventually.
To this list, I'd add getting hurt emotionally. It's possible to fall in love with a booty call, even if you know better (yes, even for guys). Booty call after booty call take not only a physical toll, but also an emotional one, even for those who are not aware of it. (Ask me know i know ).
I propose that we undo this unfortunate situation and remove the stigma. Then, it's only dishonorable when done in a dishonorable way (deception, etc.). Maybe this will encourage women in their "wild oats" phase to do so with sober, intelligent men instead of drunk losers (see Miss Crabcakes, above). Clearly, this is better than what's been going on.
So, to the women out there, would you like to try this new way?
Um... I don't know why you think that women only sow their wild oats with drunk losers. Pretty much every single guy I've ever dated has been a really nice guy. I'm not really attracted to drunk losers. Never have been.
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.
The "recent radical change" is what happened 2000 years ago (that's recent in the context of humanity). Therefore, following your logic, we should be suspicious of it. I'm suspicious of it, not because of timing, but because it obviously has the effect of giving the advantage to dishonorable men (as I pointed out in my previous post).
Another recent radical change (about 2000 years ago) was the stigmatization of homosexuality. It turns out to have been wrong. Honest casual sex (ethical sluttery) and polyamory are just a matter of orientation, just like gay/straight. As with homosexuality, the only justification for vilifying it is to persecute those who are not like yourself.
Let's make a deal, I won't persecute you for your orientation, and you don't persecute me. Deal?
Quote:
Originally Posted by mysticaltyger
To this list, I'd add getting hurt emotionally. It's possible to fall in love with a booty call, even if you know better (yes, even for guys). Booty call after booty call take not only a physical toll, but also an emotional one, even for those who are not aware of it. (Ask me know i know).
The same hurt happens in monogamous relationships, perhaps even worse (ask me how I know!). Also in "serial monogamy". If you think it's worse in the case of casual encounters and sowing oats, it probably means that's not your orientation and you shouldn't do it. But what right do you have to wag your finger at people who are oriented that way? Those folks have trouble too, but some are able to deal with this orientation more successfully after learning how (see the books Ethical S.lut, Polyamory, etc.).
Just like Knight2009, you've found that it isn't for you, which is fine, and then vilify those who are not like you, which is offensive.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dewdrop93
Um... I don't know why you think that women only sow their wild oats with drunk losers. Pretty much every single guy I've ever dated has been a really nice guy. I'm not really attracted to drunk losers. Never have been.
Sounds great. Perhaps you're a person who knows yourself better than a lot of other women. You asked why I think women are fixated on drunk losers. I didn't just make this up! If you open your eyes, observe people, and read a little, you'll see that a lot of women are doing something different from you. For example, I quoted Miss Crabcakes above, who reports that as her history. Also the quote from Jay F about single women in churches, a lot of them having slept around with "bad boys" (and you can go read the thread I pulled the quote from). If you've never heard of that, well, I don't know what to tell you.
Also, I'm not sure what you mean by "dated". It may be different from what I was talking about, e.g., Miss Crabcakes story of going clubbing almost every night and meeting a lot of different guys, which may be more casual than what you're talking about. Perhaps your orientation is such that you never needed that phase. I'm not one to vilify people for their orientation. I'm OK, you're OK, and Miss Crabcakes (not to pick on her) is also OK. Can we all just get along? My point is that if women who have a casual orientation (for some period) have a strong bias toward drunk losers (as Miss Crabcakes reported), I think it's caused by the principle I cited, ""if casual sex is deemed dishonorable, only the dishonorable will have casual sex." The end of the vilification of casual sex would probably correct the problem.
Like homosexuality, casual sex will happen, and has always happened, whether you like it or not. Wagging your finger at people will not change anything. If it makes you feel good, that's fine, but it's annoying. I'm just making the observation (as many others have) that women who are oriented more casually are extremely biased toward drunk losers (and if you don't know that, just read, or get out more, or if that's too much trouble you could at least read the quotes I cited). The question is not whether casual sex will happen (it will), but who's having it. If you want to defend the status quo (drunk losers having more casual opportunities than sober, intelligent men), then present a good argument in favor of that.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
007.5: Are they immoral? Or is it just you?
).
