Dear Foxy,
You're not a nun, are you?
Forget sonnet 129; watch Julianne More's splendid film, "Far From Heaven", and then report back. Note the use of colour, just like in "Edward Scissorhands".
Sorry m'dear but no, monogamy is not 'natural'.
It's not my fault; I'm just trying to answer your question. Blame God.

P.S. The most exciting sex I ever 'nearly' had was when a wanton female was on the point of copulating with me at the end of a dead-end street, on the bonnet of my car--despite all my protestations! Unfortunately, a bus pulled up at the point of entry (empty, fortunately) and we were obliged to go to a motel room instead. True story!

Pelican
Your argument is, in essence, that biological causation automatically justifies moral and legal obligation.

Women biologically cause sexual desire in men: so does that automatically and necessarily give rise to a moral and legal obligation on women to provide even involuntary services in satisfaction of that interest?

We need to deconstruct the sexist stereotype by which women have a supposed “need” for services coerced by violence and threats from men so that the women can do what they want to do.

The issue is whether there is a moral and should be a legal obligation, which you haven’t established, except by assuming what is in issue.

>There is really no such thing as casual sex - in that there is always a risk of pregnancy.

There may be no such thing as casual sex *for women*, but there clearly is for men or we wouldn’t be having this discussion – that’s the whole point!

Thus women are rushing to affirm, what they have just now been rushing to deny, that men have a greater interest in casual sex than women.

 If you enter into a that relationship you also make a contract to accept risk as well as responsibility.

That is the quintessential fiction underlying patriarchy, and it’s just that - a fiction.

Contract requires consent. In *contract* a women gets whatever consideration she requires to accept a man’s offer to have sex.

But by your logic, if a woman places herself in a position where she *biologically causes* a man’s sexual desire for her, she has made an enforceable “contract” to give him satisfaction of his desire for her services, whether she consents or not.

Thus we see that western feminists advocate the same bullying proprietorial self-righteous chattel-morality towards men that the Taliban do towards women.

>But, what are you suggesting is reciprocated in return for a father's financial contribution to raise his own child? >Do you mean sex on tap?

It depends on what consideration the individuals offer and accept, and that’s as it should be.

(cont.)

If she stipulates for paternal contributions, then she is morally entitled to it; and if not, not. End of moral issue.

The principle is no different to what women rightly require in agreeing to sex. He can’t just use violence or threats or claim a higher social purpose like the good of the species. He must actually do what she individually requires in order to obtain her acceptance. What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. She needs to offer whatever consideration he requires in order to obtain his acceptance. But if she doesn’t, then there is no moral obligation on him to be her chattel or slave; and no valid appeal to a higher social purpose in the good of the species.

> Men have no more or less responsibility than a woman for raising a child.

Of course *women* say that. They would, wouldn’t they? But the alleged ‘responsibility’ is nothing but a cipher for women’s self-interest, double standards, and readiness to use force.

> The desire to see progeny raised is not related to the amount of sex one receives in return.

If that is true, then the woman should have no problem getting contributions from the father.

But it’s not true: - and the value of *his*contribution is not determined by what *she* wants to use it for; but by what *he* does.

> Both women and men have the same desire to ensure children are raised appropriately without attaching conditions to that goal.

If that is true, then there is no need for forced payments from men is there?

Suzie in her first post said: “I am not really a strong supporter of the need to be married though.”

Would you feel the same way if you had to obtain the man’s consent to contributions to offspring?

Severin
I have not argued what you attribute to me.

Foxy
Just because someone has casual sex, doesn’t mean it’s ‘just physical’, or that ‘sex and emotions’ don’t go together. People can and do have happy, genuine and intimate casual sex.

Dear Squeers,

What a bizarre question.
Why would you think that I'm a nun?
Simply because as a female, I refuse to be pressured
to have sex? I assume that you're an older man,
from the way you need to brag of your sexual
conquests. Well your age is showing.

True sexual freedom today means you're free to explore
and define your own sexual choices for yourself,
free from cultural or peer coercion. There is a sexual
smorgasbord available now, but this doesn't mean you
have to stuff your plate high with everything on the
table. It should be acceptable even to you to realize
that women can peruse the selection and choose only
those tasty morsels that appeal. It can still be
acceptable to have as much as you like, just as it
should be fine to have nothing if you don't feel hungry.

Dear Peter H.,

Sexual standards have changed enormously in the past few
decades. In the 1950s (older generation) women were
supposed to be virgins until marriage. A woman was meant
to have sex with only one person her whole life.
Orgasms, masturbation, the clitoris and the G-spot were
unheard of. Women were chaste and were called whores if
they weren't. Sex wasn't really about enjoyment, for women
anyway. Men had a lot more choices about how they conducted
themselves sexually. It was understandable and necessary
that there was a "sexual revolution" in the 1960s and
onwards. Since then women have been able to explore and
enjoy their sexual nature. But today there has been a
180-degree shift with no middle ground. In the past,
women were not free because they had to be sexually
repressed. Today, many are still not free because now
they are pressured to be sexually promiscuous.

I however, am not one of them! I never have, nor ever will,
let any one decide for me - and neither will most of the
women I know - so you can argue until you're blue in the
face - anyway, whatever works for you -
Good-luck with that!

Dear me, Foxy, you're so busy being indignant that I don't think you've really considered the weight of the argument. But never mind.
I'm only 49, btw, and sadly have very few sexual exploits to brag about. Indeed most of the females I've known were far more promiscuous than I ever was (How can that be, I wonder?); indeed they were almost all the instigators---and 'married' too!

The nun question was an allusion to an earlier post.

You've finally been told the facts of life, Foxy; I really think a little gratitude is in order!

But then, you remain one of OLO's most charming correspondents, and we wouldn't want you any other way.

Dear Squeers,

I don't need you to educate me.
Thanks for the offer though,
and for the compliment that you
paid me in your post unless of course
you were teasing me.

What most people want is a relationship.
They're usually sick of the meaningless
pairings and want something more.

It's completely acceptable however, essential
actually, to put up a boundary and say what's
right for you. And it's equally important that
you define your standards for yourself. You
shouldn't let others reality dominate yours.

If we follow this path, we are much more likely
to attract people and experiences that are a
better match for ourselves.

Anyway, enough said.

Each of us is built differently. What works for
one, may not work for another. Monogamy may not be
everyone's preference. However, it happens to be mine.

49?

Nice age!