Indolent and conformist perhaps is another way to describe this.
I fail to see how this a good thing.
A young generation perpetuating pointless taboos imposed on them rather than making their own experiences frankly is a sad development.
I fail to see how this a good thing.
A young generation perpetuating pointless taboos imposed on them rather than making their own experiences frankly is a sad development.
I was merely stating that committing sexually can in fact be a good thing, and that the parent comment cannot speak for everyone.
Because more often than not that someone you've invested in is hurt by your casual sex with others.
Why would be compartmentalizing the casual sex more "rational" than not?
Notions like "waiting for Prince Charming" or the one things like purity rings are a symptom of in my opinion are indeed naive and against human nature.
But we are talking strictly about the ability to have fulfilling monogamous relationships, not the validity of "prince Charming" narratives or purity rings.
The earlie sex and teenage pregnancies were consequence of the taboo. Not other way round.
There's a whole social/psychological/emotional bunch of things that often goes along with sex and it's probably better to figure that out in high-school when stakes are low and nobody around expects those relationships to last... as long as nobody gets pregnant.
Apart from that both perceptions can be right: That society expects people to behave by certain standards yet at the same time by a certain age people are expected to somehow magically have made some experiences that contravene these very standards.
Such an environment and the cognitive dissonance involved probably doesn't exactly make it easier to make the right decisions for yourself.
My future kids will have very hard time trying to be rebellious in the usual, conformist way. Stupid haircut, unpleasant music, unacceptable clothing, out-of-bounds societal outlooks, skipping school and causing trouble here and there? That's not rebellious at all, that's what old people did in their days. Now if they'd try to live uptight life in abstinence of all kinds, lead by strict morals and ethics.. Fuck you, now that'd be rebellious and may even make me mad once in a while.
Historically people have experimented with various modes of existence and found that some restrictions help with some things. Even if they attributed this to some religious decree, there are usually experimental results behind advocating this or that (like the taboo of incest comes from inherited diseases, and the taboo against adultery aims to reduce the infighting and pain between groups).
However, mindlessly perpetuating instead of questioning them simply because "It's always been that way." is just cargo cult thinking.
We will never find out if these taboos are still valid in today's society if we don't question or test them.
E.g. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Chesterton%27s_fence
Questioning something doesn't mean doing away with it just because it's old. It means asking yourself (and others) if it still makes sense from today's point of view.
Not "mindless questioning" though, which is the kind I explicitly wrote about, and which amounts to knee-jerk rejection.