I recall some truly awful and some truly awesome sex of various persuasions- none of which did me any harm at all. The wowserism that understandably came in with AIDS needs to be tempered with the fact that we are sexual beings and that we need to find what works sexually for us. I have trouble believing that most of us can strike lucky first go. I have been happily cohabiting with a woman for the last 15 years and if I had been a “good girl” I would never have experimented and discovered the joys of lesbian sex.

The young women I did see damaged during those naughty seventies and eighties were struggling to overcome societal and familial beliefs about women’s sexuality. Thank goodness I have always had a tin ear for social mores and the fact that my parents subcontracted childrearing to my older siblings who merely locked me in the cupboard when I got too stroppy.

It may prove enlightening to those who believe poor morals, cheap sex and using people are okay.

For the second time Spana, do the “morals” emanate from a celestial dictator? If they don’t, you also have a problem in calling your rather subjective application of utilitarian theory or sex_as_consumerism theory “morals”.

Hamilton in that book said:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Freedom_Paradox:_Towards_a_Post-Secular_Ethics

Freed from want, discrimination and oppression, we huddle together like sheep seeking one another’s comfort after the fences have been taken down, habituated to the domesticated life and fearful of what lies beyond. (p. 218)

Clearly he doesn’t know a lot about sheep: with no fences they go wandering off in all directions apparently without fear, huddling in small groups occasionally, actually just like isolated humans in social contact in a frontier setting. (Would like to see any statistics on the “fearful”)

Here we go, from that link:

In part two, Hamilton provides the metaphysical basis for his analysis – and for his resolution. The moral life has its basis in a conformity – a creative and vibrant conformity – with Schopenhauer’s noumenon, a “metaphysical absolute” or “universal essence”.

So someone who doesn’t conform, to Spana/Pell/Abbott
ad nauseam, must be…evil and immoral wallowing around in that nasty, vile abominable practice of casual sex!!!

“The heavens will open and the righteous wrath of God shall descend upon ye, and there will be a weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth!”

“But Reverend Paisley, I haven’t got any teeth.”

“TEETH SHALL BE PROVIDED”

Forget capitalism and all you claim to have seen. Have you ever had casual sex?

I have and I can assure you that sometimes it has been great and other times less enjoyable. Still, I would no wish to deny, change or judge those experiences. It is all part of growing up.

One thing for sure, I do not go round proclaiming I know how other people should behave in relationships because that is their business and it would be ugly and preachy.

Of course he understands, Patricia!

He is Mr People Skills, remember?

Nicely explains why the sexual liberation of women doesn’t necessarily result in political emancipation or vice versa. Graeme’s reference to the claim that the “personal is public” and by inference political cries out for comment on how cynical politicians can be in exploiting any issue, particularly one inviting discussion on sex and gender together!

I’m not for a moment suggesting that Tony Abbott planned this one! Surely though, having often crossed swords with the likes of Gillard and Roxon, he might have anticipated their response and that of the feminist lobby? And there’s an even broader constituency out there to offend in all those who’ve gone to the altar heavy with child or borne offspring out of wedlock. And what about all those other women and ‘girls’ out there dutifully and let’s hope joyfully serving the needs of single red-blooded Aussie males?