>>22431
>>22434
Wow, Terry mk2. Also, found pic.

>>22066
>Right now an egotist, consumerist view seems to gaining ground - for a while now -, the pleasure of the individual matters and partners are viewed as consumer products, have one and when done with it get a new one.
>So a new zeitgeist would change how people view sexuality, yes.

You make the point that taking the virginity of an immature youth (mentally) and discarding her is to her detriment. I assume further that you say this is not healthy for any woman. I believe the natural process for both males and females is to copulate, make children and raise those children. I'm not trying to dictate what a father should be, essentially the role is defined by the needs of the moment. However, a woman without a child to care for or a man to support her in that endeavour is an understandably miserable creature. So to use women in such a way is not only selfish but cruel. That's a very logical view of sex.

Now in contrast we get to mans basic instinct, which is reflected in the animal kingdom, more primitive cultures and in mans history. A mans instinctual drive is to pick women up left and right and fuck them, like the ram does with the sheep or really any other mammalian species. Ram1) "I want female, I fuck now." Ram2) "No, this my female, you can't have" Ram1) "Then I kill you and take all your females." In a civilised society we view this as pure savagery, not only because there would be constant killing but also because we can look at the misery of others and not want it to happen to us, we empathise with what would be our enemy. So we all agree killing and raping is bad and we are better off not doing it to each other. This however still leaves men with the basic drive to constantly fuck, regardless of how much self control he has over his actions.

Now the current situation where we have womens 'liberation' where men pick women up and put them down freely comes after generations of the church enforcing marriage, where men would be shamed for acting too instinctively. If a mans wife wouldn't have sex, he's left with either beating and raping the mother of his children or having sex elsewhere (in other cultures as another wife.) However the church seemed to merely introduce shame and force people to act instinctively in private, I believe what is public knowledge of affairs and church related sex scandals isn't even the full picture.

So in my estimation, while I agree with your ideals and can agree you may be able to force them upon people for their own good, I struggle to see how you can change the way people view sexuality.

Sorry it took so long for me to reply.