"Virgin shaming": I know we have a lot of "but what about men's problems?" people out there.

[Owyn_Merrilin]

snip

Double posting so you can get a notification. (To mods: there was a misplaced tag that made a nested quote completely broken. I've fixed it in my post, but it didn't fix the notification problem.)

Edit Edit: Aw crap, extra mixup here; I edited what I only meant to copy and paste from. New post going in below.

 

[Damien Black]

There's plenty wrong though with expecting men to have a large sex drive. And thus 'slut shaming', or in the case of men, "virgin shaming".

But men do have larger sex drive, there are studies that proves it. I admit it the differences between both genders aren't that big, and man are easier to please than woman, but in the end it's still a fact than in general man have bigger sex drive.

And this sounds like another problem in society, the expectation for men to 'initiate' or 'be dominate', and a woman to 'be submissive'. The whole idea of male dominance like that screams of patriarchal thought.

Whose fault is that? I don't think it's either man or woman. Woman even expect to have some benefits, a user up there mentioned some.

There are an equal, or greater number, of studies which say the exact opposite. That, when protected by anonymity, women report higher sex-drives and urges than men protected by that same anonymity. The "males are hornier than women" studies I've seen haven't taken into account and attempted to minimize societal pressures... which no one is arguing encourages the "playa/virgin" dichotomy of the genders.

On a personal level, I don't go after promiscuous women for the same reason I wouldn't go after a promiscuous guy: I find sex to be a highly emotional act that I only have with someone I deeply care for. Having sex frequently and outside of relationships doesn't make you a lesser person in my eyes, it just makes you one with an at least apparently different morality than my own.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't some vast conspiracy, it is a term used to describe the typical distribution of power and wealth within society. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. This unjust distribution of power and wealth is the root of a major chunk of society's problems.

 

[bigwon]

Anyone who isn't getting nookie is getting short changed me thinks.

on the topic though, people are still just as (or a teeny weeny less) primitive now as they were thousands of years ago....give them some more time.

Your or else self sufficient, a leech, or withering away....single or not....bottom line.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h71PxUz4_g0

 

[ablac]

OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

1. OP is a man. I can neither confirm nor deny that Lilith has tits, but Lilith is a man.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

Ok I should clarify although I thought I was pretty clear. Read the first paragraph. Mentions custody rights as a way men believe they are persecuted and dismisses them. That is truly insulting. I knwo this is about sexuality but that couldnt go ignored its simply too ignorant and to ignore it would make me feel like I was agreeing with him when he was blatantly wrong. I figured Lilith was a girl because he talks like a girl who knows sod all about guys. I still think from how he has responded in the thread that he is a girl because no guy would be that ignorant of their own gender. What she said about men having unequal rights (dismissing them) meant found it hard to take anything she said seriously and my post was about this attitude and ignorant feminism which this stemmed from. If you are going to make points like 2. and 4. then elaborate. Gender roles are the cause of the problem with custody laws but the OP dismissed female gender roles sometimes benefitting women being complained about by men. Patriarchy is a fallacy and you need to elaborate past making the point if your going to say something like that.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

also if I guy has "virgin" as a pre-requisite...yeah..fuck you

I know right?

HOW DARE PEOPLE HAVE PREFERENCES??? HOW DARE THEY?!?!? DAMN FUCKING SEXIST PIGS!

alright..I may have come across as a little more agressive than needed..suuure its their right and all

but its damn hypocritical if you ask me (mabye less if they guy himself is a virgin) to me its less about treating me as a person..and more as property..or a "prize"

liek I said..I dont think virginity is all that "special" and coming from the days of relious, I dont think anyone is "unpure" or "corrupted" if they have had sex

This is off topic, but I really had know idea that you were a lady Vault101; now I feel like I am meeting you for the first time.

 

[Dense_Electric]

*Vomits*

- Women usually get served first at restaurants, get into many clubs for free, get free drinks, while men rarely get such special treatment.

Just going to point this out: women are rarely asked first what they wish to order in restaurants, assuming that you look like a guy who is financially capable. The implicit assumption is that the male will offer both orders and handle any complications or additions. Even when the food is served, according to etiquette, neither party should start eating before all food is on the table and the server has left... meaning that this itself is a moot point. It is, in fact, another way in which men are treated preferentially.

Huh. In my experience the female members of my party almost always have their orders taken first. I'd say maybe it's a regional thing, but the part of Florida I'm from is the polar opposite of the American deep south, so I don't know.

Free drinks are another thing like this; it's assumed that the man has more income to toss about and thus, in an objectifying way, should be paying for what he wants.

Perhaps, but in that case it's a sweeping generalization. To assume that all men have such disposable income (or that no women do) is absurd.

As for clubs? That tends to be bouncers trying to score points and keep competition out... it's just men being dicks to each other.

That's probably true, and part of the reason I don't club - the bouncers in every single venue I've ever been to were phenomenal assholes who I'd like to shoot. I guess this merely heightens my desire to shoot them.

To sum that little bit up, while perhaps fiscally disadvantageous, it is by no means negatively discriminatory against men; unless you are in the camp that believe everyone should pay the same taxes regardless of income. This is, unfortunately, yet another (though minor) example of the inherent cultural assumption that men are, at least financially, superior to women. Assumptions of superiority are the exact opposite of discrimination in fact.

Negatively discriminatory or not (of course it's negative, I'm paying for something I could get for free if I'd happened to have been born with a vagina instead of a penis), discrimination is discrimination is discrimination.

Often times I bring up the restaurant/club/drink/door/whatever thing and people jump on me because it's "no big deal." But that line of thinking doesn't hold up - after all, how much effort was it for blacks to walk the extra twenty feet to the back of the bus? They didn't fight it because it was a huge inconvenience, they fought it because of the principle of the thing.

 

[Vault101]

This is off topic, but I really had know idea that you were a lady Vault101; now I feel like I am meeting you for the first time.

Hi, Im Vault101 and Mass effect is my favorite game on the citadel...

nice to meet you

 

[ablac]

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't some vast conspiracy, it is a term used to describe the typical distribution of power and wealth within society. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. This unjust distribution of power and wealth is the root of a major chunk of society's problems.

What your on about is elitism and wealth inequality. Wealth equals power, separate discussion on whether thats rights or not, and wealth resides with men because men are the most likely to become wealthy through business because of discrimination but also practical reasons. Women have kids or can have kids and thus are less attractive to employers and so have trouble getting into business. There are many women in business but thye have either inherited their role or started their own business. Discrimination is illegal but its difficult to outright claim sexism was the reasoning of a decision. Most employers can avoid hiring anyone they dont want to and this goes for most things with wealth and power.

 

[JediMB]

I'm just going to step into this thread and state for the record that I'm a male virgin, and I'll be 28 in August.

In part because I have little interest in sex for the sake of sex, and largely because of low self-esteem not leading to any lasting relationships. Oh well. It's not my primary concern right now, though, since I'm trying to get back to school with university studies in order to become a teacher.

Reading LilithSlave's opening post, I didn't feel like I had anything to object to.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Actually no, i cant say ive heard of that play.
It's quite a novel way to fix a war
Yes I'm aware of male POWs as slaves, and particular strong male specimens used as breeding stock by female aristocracy.

Do you feel the Victorian era, being relatively recent, still has its hooks in today's outlook on sex ? I think religious connotations also have a significant influence. Christianities purity of sin, and aspects of Muslim women only being second class.

The victorian era definitely still has bearing on the modern world, and it definitely was a high point for sexism -- at least as we view it today[footnote]Many institutions that we see as sexist had a pretty logical basis in the reality of the times they came from; even dowries and bride prices were a good thing for both sexes in their heyday.[/footnote]. However, the rumors of its prudery have been greatly exaggerated. It seems like humans in general like to remember the past as a better time than the present (the fabled "good old days,") but also like to remember the people who have come before them as more primitive mentally, socially, and technologically, even in cases where none of the above are true.

Oh, by the way, the male sex slaves comment was actually aimed more at male masters of male slaves. The ancient Greeks and Romans had a very different view of sexuality than most westerners do today; to put a simplified form of the Roman view into modern terms, it's only gay if you're the one receiving, and freed slaves were assumed by society to have received at some point. Women didn't exactly have problems procuring sex either, but my point was that it wasn't only women who were taken by men as spoils of war, nor were they the only ones raped as a part of that.

 

[ablac]

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

UNless of course you have moral qualms about the whole promiscuity thing. To each his/her own but dont ecourage it if you dont want it actively discouraged either. Sexual liberation is a part of feminism sure but that doesnt mean they want to be promiscius but simply the right to be promiscius.

 

[Stasisesque]

I don't see how hysteria and the dildo, or any other form of cultural workaround would be available to the kid with the scary-religious overbearing parents.

So you're saying it's easier to find porn than a safe, phallic object, for people of times past. Yeah, I don't buy that at all.

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

It had, but in the modern sense the victorian version is the one most people think of, and it is where we got the vibrator from. Besides, the "hysterical paroxysm" part, while not exactly unknown in ancient times, wasn't something that upper class women just paid a doctor to come in and give them; looking it up, and I was unaware that there was much more on the matter in ancient times than some characteristically misogynist remarks from Plato, the options were pretty much have sex with your husband, get a husband, or as an absolute last resort, get some help from a midwife. And even then, it's not exactly as sexless as most people think it was. Humans really haven't changed much over the millennia; we only think we're hypersexualized today because the steamy parts were the last thing your average historian wrote about.

Again, the vibrator was invented centuries before the Victorian era - it just required a bit of good ol' elbow grease to work, the Victorians simply added some of their much adored industrial strength to the long-since accepted method of relieving "female tension".

I agree that historians are the main reason we have so much dodgy male-bias in our records, but people fall victim to popular myth far more often than men have distorted the truth in books. I strongly believe we're at a point now where false information is far more at fault for misandrist views. The Ancient Greeks knew very well hysteria was sexual, the prescribed treatment was sex, or at least sexual release. The fact that they would turn the other cheek to a woman being treated by someone other than a husband is perhaps more progressive than some areas of the world today. The problem with the 19th century is that everything and its psychological cousin could be attributed to hysteria - so yes they did manage to jump back a bit in terms of progression, but less so concerning female sexuality and moreso concerning mental and emotional health. Men would also be diagnosed with female hysteria - when they more typically suffered from some other non-sexual mental disorder.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

1. OP is a man. I can neither confirm nor deny that Lilith has tits, but Lilith is a man.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

Ok I should clarify although I thought I was pretty clear. Read the first paragraph. Mentions custody rights as a way men believe they are persecuted and dismisses them. That is truly insulting. I knwo this is about sexuality but that couldnt go ignored its simply too ignorant and to ignore it would make me feel like I was agreeing with him when he was blatantly wrong. I figured Lilith was a girl because he talks like a girl who knows sod all about guys. I still think from how he has responded in the thread that he is a girl because no guy would be that ignorant of their own gender. What she said about men having unequal rights (dismissing them) meant found it hard to take anything she said seriously and my post was about this attitude and ignorant feminism which this stemmed from. If you are going to make points like 2. and 4. then elaborate. Gender roles are the cause of the problem with custody laws but the OP dismissed female gender roles sometimes benefitting women being complained about by men. Patriarchy is a fallacy and you need to elaborate past making the point if your going to say something like that.

I apologize, I had not seen where Lilith mentioned that in passing, but the later sentences kind of explain why it is kind of strange to think Lilith is dismissing the problems that men have.
Winning custody cases is part of why women are so impoverished. Women are forced into the role of caregiver, which comes with a few benefits that actually aren't benefits at all. Women are both expected and allowed to be the nurturer within society according to current gender roles, meaning that while they win custody cases, it is in a way because they are being forced to win custody cases. This is the same reason that leads many women to aim to get pregnant despite being impoverished, they see raising children as a purpose, specifically theirs, and once they have a whole lot of mouths to feed and one salary to pay for it, they wind up even worse off than before. This also applies to single mothers as a product of divorce.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

I don't see how hysteria and the dildo, or any other form of cultural workaround would be available to the kid with the scary-religious overbearing parents.

So you're saying it's easier to find porn than a safe, phallic object, for people of times past. Yeah, I don't buy that at all.

More to the point, "Hysteria" was a medical term for "horny woman," and orgasms -- the medical term for which was "hysterical paroxysm," were prescribed and given by doctors. Husbands actually paid money to have this done, and it was during the victorian era, where most of those anti-sex ideas that the hypothetical overbearing parents have would have come from. In this hypothetical situation, the overbearing parents would be lining up to pay for their daughter's orgasm. Long story short: History isn't quite as anti-woman as it's been made out to be. It's a lot weirder than that.

Captcha: Describe BOSE with any word(s)

Mid-fi and overpriced.

Erk, no, sorry. Hysteria was well known about during ancient Greece. The Victorian era brought about the invention of the clockwork dildo, and a lot more recording of the disease - but it had existed for centuries.

It had, but in the modern sense the victorian version is the one most people think of, and it is where we got the vibrator from. Besides, the "hysterical paroxysm" part, while not exactly unknown in ancient times, wasn't something that upper class women just paid a doctor to come in and give them; looking it up, and I was unaware that there was much more on the matter in ancient times than some characteristically misogynist remarks from Plato, the options were pretty much have sex with your husband, get a husband, or as an absolute last resort, get some help from a midwife. And even then, it's not exactly as sexless as most people think it was. Humans really haven't changed much over the millennia; we only think we're hypersexualized today because the steamy parts were the last thing your average historian wrote about.

Again, the vibrator was invented centuries before the Victorian era - it just required a bit of good ol' elbow grease to work, the Victorians simply added some of their much adored industrial strength to the long-since accepted method of relieving "female tension".

I agree that historians are the main reason we have so much dodgy male-bias in our records, but people fall victim to popular myth far more often than men have distorted the truth in books. I strongly believe we're at a point now where false information is far more at fault for misandrist views. The Ancient Greeks knew very well hysteria was sexual, the prescribed treatment was sex, or at least sexual release. The fact that they would turn the other cheek to a woman being treated by someone other than a husband is perhaps more progressive than some areas of the world today. The problem with the 19th century is that everything and its psychological cousin could be attributed to hysteria - so yes they did manage to jump back a bit in terms of progression, but less so concerning female sexuality and moreso concerning mental and emotional health. Men would also be diagnosed with female hysteria - when they more typically suffered from some other non-sexual mental disorder.

Actually, the dildo was invented millennia ago. The vibrator was a Victorian invention. (Almost) all vibrators are dildos; not anywhere near all dildos are (or were, at any rate) vibrators. Other than that, I don't really have anything to disagree with in this post.

 

[TheVioletBandit]

This is off topic, but I really had know idea that you were a lady Vault101; now I feel like I am meeting you for the first time.

Hi, Im Vault101 and Mass effect is my favorite game on the citadel...

nice to meet you

Well, I'm TheVioletBandit and my favorite game is probably Shadow of the Colossus, though it's hard to choose a favorite. Nevertheless, it's very nice to meet you as well.

 

[Revnak_v1legacy]

2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.

...because you and the OP have been using language which is incredibly charged and villainizes an entire 50% of the population. No matter what you reasons, your terminology is aggressive and will be perceived as such. Especially by those of us males who detest the notion of being clumped into a specific societal conception of gender, masculinity, or patriarchy.

Patriarchy isn't some vast conspiracy, it is a term used to describe the typical distribution of power and wealth within society. Whoever told you otherwise is a moron. This unjust distribution of power and wealth is the root of a major chunk of society's problems.

What your on about is elitism and wealth inequality. Wealth equals power, separate discussion on whether thats rights or not, and wealth resides with men because men are the most likely to become wealthy through business because of discrimination but also practical reasons. Women have kids or can have kids and thus are less attractive to employers and so have trouble getting into business. There are many women in business but thye have either inherited their role or started their own business. Discrimination is illegal but its difficult to outright claim sexism was the reasoning of a decision. Most employers can avoid hiring anyone they dont want to and this goes for most things with wealth and power.

Looking at the concepts of the glass ceiling and the glass escalator leads me to believe that there is still a whole lot of discrimination going around, just not active discrimination. And rarely is the reason for this discrimination so. Usually people just do it. A family man usually has no problems getting hired. A single father? maybe. A single mother? Definitely. If it were true that having children would make someone less attractive to an employer those three would be at least relatable, but the poverty rates for single mothers is absolutely staggering.

 

[ablac]

OK OP I want to ask about your first paragraph. Feminists don't recognise men's problems because "they realize that society is a patriarchy". It isnt. Your just a fucking moron who thinks that because they possess a pair of tits they are consistently discriminated against for totally impractical reasons. I want to have a long ass discussion and I can bet many of your dumbass feminist beliefs can be dismissed on account of practicality and, while there is certainly discrimination, it is not as widespread as you believe. Men arent a minority but nor are women. Just because you think half the fucking species(big generalisation there kind of, I dunno, sexist?) runs the country (it doesn't)that you are obliged to not recognise that men face problems as well especially in child care laws. Please explain to me how the hell men dont deserve the same rights as women in that regard as you infer this is correct or that it doesn't matter. I sympathise with reasonable feminists who can actually see where they are persecuted and where they are not and actually give a flying fuck about the fact that women, wrongfully, have superior rights to men in certain areas. If oyu overlook that then dont you dare complain about exclusivity and discrimination because you exercise it just as much.

1. OP is a man. I can neither confirm nor deny that Lilith has tits, but Lilith is a man.
2. Gender roles and patriarchy are the reason for those problems that men face too. I really don't get how people always miss that.
3. When the fuck did child care come into this? Right now you're getting pissed off at someone for things they never said, never even addressed.
4. Society is still very patriarchal and men still are in charge. Not you certainly, but men. There are better examples I could come up with, but fuck it.

FUCK YOU RAV4!!!!

Ok I should clarify although I thought I was pretty clear. Read the first paragraph. Mentions custody rights as a way men believe they are persecuted and dismisses them. That is truly insulting. I knwo this is about sexuality but that couldnt go ignored its simply too ignorant and to ignore it would make me feel like I was agreeing with him when he was blatantly wrong. I figured Lilith was a girl because he talks like a girl who knows sod all about guys. I still think from how he has responded in the thread that he is a girl because no guy would be that ignorant of their own gender. What she said about men having unequal rights (dismissing them) meant found it hard to take anything she said seriously and my post was about this attitude and ignorant feminism which this stemmed from. If you are going to make points like 2. and 4. then elaborate. Gender roles are the cause of the problem with custody laws but the OP dismissed female gender roles sometimes benefitting women being complained about by men. Patriarchy is a fallacy and you need to elaborate past making the point if your going to say something like that.

I apologize, I had not seen where Lilith mentioned that in passing, but the later sentences kind of explain why it is kind of strange to think Lilith is dismissing the problems that men have.
Winning custody cases is part of why women are so impoverished. Women are forced into the role of caregiver, which comes with a few benefits that actually aren't benefits at all. Women are both expected and allowed to be the nurturer within society according to current gender roles, meaning that while they win custody cases, it is in a way because they are being forced to win custody cases. This is the same reason that leads many women to aim to get pregnant despite being impoverished, they see raising children as a purpose, specifically theirs, and once they have a whole lot of mouths to feed and one salary to pay for it, they wind up even worse off than before. This also applies to single mothers as a product of divorce.

Ok well thats as much a psychological need as a societal one. Women do not have to fight for custody aand if they dont want it then thye shouldnt. They might be pressured to take it but it isnt fair on the child to do that. Men are equally competent. Women arent impoverished and if custody is an issue then they had the children by choice or atleast what led to the children. Read what Lilith has been saying all throuhout the thread. Its passive aggressive sexism against men from the start. To dismiss such a blatant aspect of gender inequality 'because they're men' is ignorant and offensive. She said nothing to remedy this that I can see so im not sure where you are coming from. Op has demonstrated she is competent at being a consistently stupid poster with this thread and everywhere else she has opened her damn mouth and im sick of hearing it so I want to confront her about this because I find it unacceptable.

 

[Bertylicious]

Isn't sexual liberation meant to be an essential element of women's rights? Aren't "slut slammers" just parroting pre-lib patriarchal sobriquets?

Personally I think an experienced woman is extra sexy. A woman who enjoys sex, who enjoys my body and wants me to enjoy hers, is far more appealing than a woman who doesn't.

Sex is awesome, healthy and should be encouraged.

UNless of course you have moral qualms about the whole promiscuity thing. To each his/her own but dont ecourage it if you dont want it actively discouraged either. Sexual liberation is a part of feminism sure but that doesnt mean they want to be promiscius but simply the right to be promiscius.

Moral qualms? WTF?

Are you saying that sex is bad?