100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: One man's prude is another man's principled person | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
Dodo, we've given you that definition several times. I believe it can be summed up with the phrase "overly concerned with the apperance of primness or propriety".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is still something that I haven't figured out. If a person is called a prude, then is that person being complimented for being virtuous, or is the person being criticize for being virtuous? Edit: Or is the person simply being acknowledged as being virtuous? No, if you want to get into virtue ethics then you can go and read Aristotle. His doctrine of the mean states that virtue is like a sort of midway point between two extremes. Cowardice is a vice and so is foolhardiness but courage is a virtue for example. You can see from those dictionary definitions that a prude is someone that is excessively concerned with propriety. In Aristotelean terms prudishness is a vice. Also, Aristotle basically saw morality or "the good" as what the people of his society thought was good. So again, you can go back to those definitions of what a prude is and it is someone that is excessively concerned with propriety compared with "community standards". So no, there is nothing in any of those definitions that says that "prude" is just a term for a virtuous person and you are just being daft if you think that's what the dictionaries say or that it's supposed to be a compliment. Happy now? or is it the virtue and sluttishness the vice? I think you are coloring it with what you want a woman to be (either one is an extreme anyway and few extremes are really healthy - that's me, not aristotle) 
That's the point. A "virtuous woman" is neither a prude nor a slut. That is just a truism that follows from the meanings of the words. yes I can agree with that in essence, but what constitutes virtuous is relative, and virtous would not be juxtaposed to prudish in your Aristotlian equation because they are not true opposites, or opposites at all. they are both relative terms each having their own correct usage opposite. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Let's try another approach. A person is not a prude because that person waits until marriage before participating in sexual intercourse. So, what does a person have to do in order to be a prude? I gave you three definitions, dodo. Did you not like them? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
What I wrote is basically the definition of prude. You're trying to make it sound much worse for some reason. From Wiki: A prude (Old French prude meaning honourable woman) [1] is a person who is described as (or would describe themselves as) being concerned with decorum or propriety, significantly in excess of normal prevailing community standards. They may be perceived as being more uncomfortable than most with sexuality or nudity. From http://www.thefreedictionary.com: One who is excessively concerned with being or appearing to be proper, modest, or righteous. Merriam-Webster: a person who is excessively or priggishly attentive to propriety or decorum; especially : a woman who shows or affects extreme modesty In case it was missed before. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Dodo, we've given you that definition several times. I believe it can be summed up with the phrase "overly concerned with the appearance of primness or propriety".
The above-cited definition of prude isn't always the definition that men use. It is not uncommon for a man to label a woman a prude just because she won't have sexual intercourse outside of marriage. In such a case, the word prude is used to belittle a woman because she won't participate in premarital sexual intercourse. So, what does a person have to do in order to be "overly concerned with the appearance of primness or propriety"? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, continuing to post the same tired old question ad nauseam on an internet forum might be a good start...
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, continuing to post the same tired old question ad nauseam on an internet forum might be a good start...
OK, you got me there. 
If the author of the OP agrees that a woman isn't a prude because she won't have sexual intercourse outside of marriage, then I will drop my objection. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is still something that I haven't figured out. If a person is called a prude, then is that person being complimented for being virtuous, or is the person being criticize for being virtuous? Edit: Or is the person simply being acknowledged as being virtuous? No, if you want to get into virtue ethics then you can go and read Aristotle. His doctrine of the mean states that virtue is like a sort of midway point between two extremes. Cowardice is a vice and so is foolhardiness but courage is a virtue for example. You can see from those dictionary definitions that a prude is someone that is excessively concerned with propriety. In Aristotelean terms prudishness is a vice. Also, Aristotle basically saw morality or "the good" as what the people of his society thought was good. So again, you can go back to those definitions of what a prude is and it is someone that is excessively concerned with propriety compared with "community standards". So no, there is nothing in any of those definitions that says that "prude" is just a term for a virtuous person and you are just being daft if you think that's what the dictionaries say or that it's supposed to be a compliment. Happy now? or is it the virtue and sluttishness the vice? I think you are coloring it with what you want a woman to be (either one is an extreme anyway and few extremes are really healthy - that's me, not aristotle)
That's the point. A "virtuous woman" is neither a prude nor a slut. That is just a truism that follows from the meanings of the words. yes I can agree with that in essence, but what constitutes virtuous is relative, and virtous would not be juxtaposed to prudish in your Aristotlian equation because they are not true opposites, or opposites at all. they are both relative terms each having their own correct usage opposite. I disagree. I gave you the example of the virtue of courage and told you that Aristotle states that "foolhardiness" would be a vice but are courage and foolhardiness "true opposites" and would a foolhardy person not perhaps believe that they were courageous and say that they are braver than someone that is merely courageous but not rash? Priggishness is not a virtue and a prig is not an extremely virtuous person. A prude may believe that they are extremely virtuous or claim to be but they are simply a prude, okay? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, continuing to post the same tired old question ad nauseam on an internet forum might be a good start...
OK, you got me there.
If the author of the OP agrees that a woman isn't a prude because she won't have sexual intercourse outside of marriage, then I will drop my objection. Why should the OP change what he said just to suit your needs? I've given you three different definitions of prude. All basically saying what I said before and you've chosen to ignore them. If you don't like what the actual definitions are, there's not much else to be said. People don't need to change their own minds just to please you, though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
People don't need to change their own minds just to please you, though. Wow... Holy thread convergence, Batman! Whoa.... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wait a minute!
What if the author of the OP had a non-judgmental meaning in mind when he used the word prude in the OP? Nowhere in the OP does its author say that a woman is a prude just because she won't have sexual intercourse outside of marriage. The fact that other men might say that doesn't imply that the author of the OP says that. Now that I am aware of other definitions of prude, I am willing to give the author of the OP the benefit of the doubt. I am now aware that I could have misinterpreted his use of the word prude. Again, if the author of the OP agrees that woman isn't a prude just because she won't have sexual intercourse outside of marriage, then I do not have a quarrel with him. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you now objecting to me changing my mind about the message in the OP? Are you objecting to me now giving the author of the OP the benefit of the doubt? You debated me in order to get me to change my mind. Well, I did. You won. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There is still something that I haven't figured out. If a person is called a prude, then is that person being complimented for being virtuous, or is the person being criticize for being virtuous? Edit: Or is the person simply being acknowledged as being virtuous? No, if you want to get into virtue ethics then you can go and read Aristotle. His doctrine of the mean states that virtue is like a sort of midway point between two extremes. Cowardice is a vice and so is foolhardiness but courage is a virtue for example. You can see from those dictionary definitions that a prude is someone that is excessively concerned with propriety. In Aristotelean terms prudishness is a vice. Also, Aristotle basically saw morality or "the good" as what the people of his society thought was good. So again, you can go back to those definitions of what a prude is and it is someone that is excessively concerned with propriety compared with "community standards". So no, there is nothing in any of those definitions that says that "prude" is just a term for a virtuous person and you are just being daft if you think that's what the dictionaries say or that it's supposed to be a compliment. Happy now? Do you deny that the word prude originally referred to a virtuous person? If it is not virtuous to be a prude, then when you call a person a prude, are you saying that there is something wrong with the person? Earlier, I used the analogy of water and oil. The two are incompatible because they do not mix. Yet, the incompatibility doesn't mean that there is something wrong with either the water or the oil. If the OP is supposed to be just a commentary about incompatibility, then it wasn't necessary to use the word prude to describe someone who is incompatible. No, of course not but it is conservatism to want to "nail people to crosses" for being different. You should read John Stuart Mill on this perhaps. He talks about how society has progressed from ignorance to the more enlightened and liberal state that it's in today.
Oh, wow. Are you saying that one isn't nailing a person to a cross by calling that person a prude? Also, isn't it being subjective to equate sexual liberalism with enlightenment? Yes, glad that you can read and I did say that it isn't "nailing someone to a cross" to call them a prude. Perhaps where you live prudes are persecuted but simply putting it to someone that they are being a prude is not persecution or harassment. Are you trying to goad me into flaming you? Who is trolling here? I simply posted a thread where I stated that you can find out if someone is a prude if you bring up the topic of sex. You claim to accept that it is not wrong to have sex before marriage. Very well; would you agree then that telling someone that they are wrong to have sex before marriage would be a prudish thing to do? Sorry if you are having so much difficulty grasping the meaning of a word after nine pages of this and even being given clear definitions of the word as it is used in the English language. You are trying to put words into my mouth by saying that I am equating sexual liberalism with enlightenment. Again, you claim that you do not think that it is wrong to have sex before marriage. Why is that then? Could it be perhaps because we now live in a world where people are not burned for being witches, even if in America there are a large number of religious fundamentalists that are extremely vocal and there are still arguments about science and religion that were settled in Europe hundreds of years ago? Enlightenment is understood as the overcoming of ignorance through reason. People now do not generally preach about "fornication" but we can have reasonable debates about whether or not sexual promiscuity is a good or bad thing. You posted in another thread trying to say that having sex if you are not actually married can never count as "cheating". I refute that proposition because if two people are in a commited relationship and one of them goes behind their partner's back and has sex with someone else they are a cheat, whether there was a religious ceremony or a legal contract or not. "Cheating" is a form of promiscuity where someone acts in an immoral way and does something that most reasonable people would say is wrong for reasons that I surely do not have to explain to you. Going about getting girls pregnant when you are not prepared to then face up to your responsibilities to those children or spreading sexually transmitable diseases is not morally responsible behaviour. I do not believe that I am being a prude by saying any of this. Neither do I believe that failing to provide sex education to young people out of prudery is a good thing and it can lead to those young people getting the diseases and the babies if responsible adults do not at least try to educate those young people about what is known as "safe sex" as well as trying to tell them that they should not rush into having sexual intercourse until they are ready and about loving relationships etc. "Sexual liberalism" is merely about rights and responsibilities. People now have the right to have sex in a responsible way without being persecuted by prudes. Women now have rights that they did not formerly have and so do homosexuals. This is "sexual liberalism". Not calling someone a fornicator because they are sexually active but not married is sexual liberalism. Saying that it is not wrong to have sex before marriage is sexual liberalism. You may be using the term "liberalism" in a different way than I am because you are an American but please do not ask me to explain to you what that word means as well or I'm going to have to give you a lecture on philosophy that is going to go way off topic and I frankly do not have the time or the patience to do that just now. I could suggest some more books that you could read though if you like. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Are you now objecting to me changing my mind about the message in the OP? Are you objecting to me now giving the author of the OP the benefit of the doubt? You debated me in order to get me to change my mind. Well, I did. You won. No, that was about you wanting the OP to change his mind in order for you to change yours. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the author of the OP agrees that a woman isn't a prude because she won't have sexual intercourse outside of marriage, then I will drop my objection. I agree with the OP; a woman who will not have sex outside of marriage isn't a prude—she's principled. A very big difference, and a good one, especially in this day and age. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If the author of the OP agrees that a woman isn't a prude because she won't have sexual intercourse outside of marriage, then I will drop my objection. I agree with the OP; a woman who will not have sex outside of marriage isn't a prude—she's principled. A very big difference, and a good one, especially in this day and age. Just curious - if women who don't have sex outside of marriage are principled, what are women who do have sex outside of marriage? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
After carefully reviewing the last few pages of this Topic. We have come to the conclusion this is one of those times that all must agree that this Topic has run it's course.
There are times that everyone will not agree on a Topic and this is one of those times. Everyone has a different opinion and everyone will not agree on a Topic. We all have different views how something is taken. It does not make anyone wrong with their views, just we look at things different. With that said we have decided that this one has ran it's course. Therefore at this time we are locking this thread. Please do not create another on the same subject. Site Mod Kristi |
|
|
|
|
