Considering: 1. antibiotic drugs are less effective (aka "superbugs"), never mind unpleasant side-effects nobody talks about. Now read up on symptoms of bacterial diseases if they don't get treated/resist antibiotic drugs. 2. antiviral drugs are less effective (more "superbugs"), never mind unpleasant side-effects nobody talks about. Now read up on symptoms of viral diseases if they don't get treated or resist medication. 2b. If it helps, Herpes Simplex (Type 1, predominantly on facial lips but thanks to adapting over the last several decades can now thrive in the "lower areas" too) is found in up to 80% of the adult population, which will be >90% as the rest of the Silent Generation and the Boomers who didn't fiddle with everyone's fritters die.) 2c. It's also worth noting that if diseases weren't ever a factor that it's possible mindsets would be different, though I'd not mentioned the human condition of emotions yet... 3. Truvada for HIV already has a less-than-100% rating and, you guessed it, its efficacy will reduce over time as the same irresponsible behaviors continue atop a belief that all drugs are magical creations (because Darwin's laws are obviously ever-so b.s. unless the word "Darwin" is followed by "Award", only this time the irony is legitimate /sarc... ) 4. Thousands of years ago, "Free love" existed before someone saw then-untreatable diseases and said how those were "sins created to punish" but since the new epidemics are about to unfold and nobody listens to anyone over 40... wheel turns round and round, they might become untreatable again... 5. How do people deal with jealousy/ownership beliefs? Many women, just like men, see their partner as "theirs only". Even in open relationships, it's still there to varying degrees (so teaching a person about open relationships and then the teacher objecting heavily or outright refusing to you live by the same rules they just taught isn't always going to fly over very well). 6. What if a child is made? Is abortion always the best choice? If people are pro-abortion but then complain about people being disposable later on in life (or vice-versa), isn't that a potential conflict of interest, can context be sufficient to keep the issues mutually exclusive? 7. People can lose interest for varying reasons. These partnerships usually involve the well-being of the one you're bonding/having sex with, but one also has their own well-being as well. At what point do people discuss issues or split up if need be? How simple or easy should it be to get one? (Divorce isn't a sin for more reasons than what many religions claim, though it is for some. Since I forgot to mention, what about the child(ren)'s well-being?) Now add in the monetary cost of the drugs, never mind side-effects and mathematical probability of getting something, noting that a 4% chance of getting cooties then means absolutely zilch if you go get a test and, oh dear, the result was "positive" so to that 4 add 96 and there's the number representing the percentage that you'll get it... It's not the 1960s anymore. Neither is it the 1860s, 1060s, -4060s, etc. Needs of one era don't always match up with previous eras. But each era thinks there's a new approach. Can each era be both onto something but still wrong? How can the new ideas be presented best to inform and encourage in the best ways possible? That or "Free love" could become the most expensive rip-off you'll ever get. And yet, for all the relationship styles, the answer almost seems simple: All people need to do is be honest and sympathetic to all risks and keep people they want to practice "love" on in the know so they can make educated decisions - regarding disease or monogamy or how low or high one's sex drive is? Say it upfront, get it over with, in most cases, nothing bad happens as a result (or saves what can be a lot more painful down the road, emotionally or otherwise). But it isn't simple, straightforward, nor easy. There are more facets to the issue, and even those who cheat have a point of view - which can indeed be no less valid - to. And, no, I never cheated. I was cheated on. And I can still admit that, though the ex was an alcoholic drug abuser who didn't care for his life but had no qualms risking others' lives or putting them in harm's way. Not bad considering the line of work he was in at the time... but I digress. Many who cheat don't have underlying problems to begin with and many of them admit there are issues they need to work on. Either which way, it ultimately depends on the partners in question and it's ultimately their business to work out or not, regardless of any information other people opine. But just be outright honest in what one is looking for upfront and deal with issues if they arise later on. My guess is that might help a lot.
I guess they did. I think in my mind I always considered those type of clothes more like dresses than skirts. Jason
The 1920s were actually very much like the 1960s. Flappers were very much like Women's Libbers and were quite sexually liberated, although not as successfully or as enduringly as in the 60s (and they did wear short skirts, but not miniskirts). The post-war Feminist movement of the time succeeded in giving women the right to vote which fueled a powerful liberation trend through the 20s and early 30s. The era also had an anti-racism movement similar to the 60s, but, again, not as successful or enduring. The Great Depression brought on another wave of conservatism.
Agreed on both counts. Whether or not one chooses to engage in 'free love', "no" is an absolute right.
Of course women wore skirts before the 1960s. Women in the 1800s were wearing skirts. Mind you, they were long enough to reach the ground, but they were still skirts. @auntiehill: Holy crap, those '20s looks were hideous.
Maybe people still have casual sex but I think I just kind of like the idea of treating sex as also being something that is anti-establishment. I like how my impression was that it wasn't just something people saw as a personal thing but also part of a bigger picture in how they felt society should, function. Maybe it's just I think society today is just two conservative and I would love a more liberal way of seeing people go about their lives. Granted I know some people like being conservative so I don't want to take that away from them but I think it must be easier to be a conservative living in a liberal society than a liberal living in a conservative society. Jason
To be honest @Jayson I think you're possibly seeing this particular issue through a very specific lens. Without being too intrusive about any of our private lives here one would struggle to go to any festivals, major holiday resorts or even night time town centres and not see evidence of lots of casual sex being both the norm and often anti establishment (albeit possibly not in the way you mean)
Well I live in Oklahoma so that might be why I see things as being so conservative. Also it might be that I don't understand grinder or whatever it is called in how I guess people look for sex on the computer and thus the world nowdays. I mean I have used dating sights before back when I was still thinking it was possible to meet someone but that still felt more conservative I think because your talking to people on a computer instead of in person. Jason
The idea of free love is anti-establishment only because religious roots run so deep in Western Civilization-- even most secular people default to religious rules when it comes to sexuality, especially these days. But the real meaning of free love is that sexuality should just be a normal part of life and not treated as something scary and evil with its own set of bizarre rules that defy logic and the norms of civilization. Sexuality should be considered natural, casual, and fun, not creepy, pervy, and ew.
Isn't sex something rather serious to most people? If its a serious matter than how can it ever be "casual"?
Because it can be both. Because these things are not mutually exclusive. Because love is not a finite resource. Because there are over seven billion people in the world who all have their own lifestyles. Et cetera.
"Love" robots will soon largely eliminate casual sex, and possibly, bring about a reboot of notions such as "courtly love", with couples taking the time to evaluate each other more as life partners and potential parents rather than rushing into hormonally driven mistakes. At least, that's what I'd like to think.
But doesn't that only work if the entire world was embracing freedom and tolerance? If people don't like your views on sex and they have power then it's really hard for people to live the lives they want to live if they go against what the mainstream wants. Then you got to find someone who also shares your own values which can be hard if your raised in the wrong culture that would be welcome to that. I doubt many people living in Iraq who wanted to live the life of hippies would find it kind of easy to do over there or heck even here in America like the Bible Belt. Then you got peer pressure from people who will want you to live like them and it seems kind of hard to actually find love or even casual sex if that is all your into. I guess the internet helps a little but I can tell you from experience the internet is not as reliable unless your living in a big city were you got more potential matches. If you live in area with few people you tend to just have to settle and then you got people like me who kind of fall through the cracks. Shy or has problems knowing how to interact with people because of trust issues and unsure as to what sex and love really would mean for me. How can I ever really find someone to love when I don't even understand myself? Jason