"Unlike men"? I find that bizarre. So previously immoral or promiscuous men have less trouble "return to a state of wholesomeness" than women do, is that really what you're saying (and/or, perhaps more to the point, what the Buddha teaches)? I thought this answer started well, though.

Probably why you remain a puthujjana rather than are an Ariya Puggala. It’s strange how you believe you can judge the Buddha and assert the Buddha missed the boat

Oh, so that was your explanation of Dhp 242 -- and Dhp 242 is your justification for your explanation -- understood now.

In my life, I was once involved with two women. Then when I saw the wrong of extramarital sexual intercourse, I simply dropped it. I never had an emotional issue about it. I went immediately from two women to celibacy. Where as I have never met a woman like this. I know women after 30 & 40 years still trying to work out where, why, how, etc, their relationships went wrong. They continue to blame the man and never realise they made the mistake of not only sexual immorality but choosing an incompatible man. Find me a woman who admits her past relationships were "immoral". Thanks

One woman was all for me but I did have a strong bond I'd say. If you "simply dropped it" I'm not sure that supports your assertion that women are unlike men. More to the point perhaps you're quoting modern references and perhaps your own socio-political beliefs, while the OP was asking what the Buddha taught.

The Buddha said to avoid women. Obviously your comments are the product of lust & beguilement. You have repeatedly made comments on this forum that encourage sexual lust rather than take a view that reduces lust. Since I have had no problems with sexual lust for many years, I know what I am talking about. My posts represent the Buddha and other religious Prophets. Where as your views are Cultural Marxism. What purpose do you think your comments serve? To attract women to Buddhism for you to lust over them or exploit them for money?

Reading your "unlike men etc.", my reaction was, If they are neither traceable in the Discourses nor verifiable by the Discipline, one must conclude thus: 'Certainly, this is not the Blessed One's utterance; this has been misunderstood... -- it was the "unlike men" doesn't sound to me like the Blessed One's words, nor the doctrine from the Theragatha. If anything I suspect it's "men" are more generally "offensive" (and/or entangled, with attachment disorders, etc), but I will avoid that in case generalising is sexism and "projection".

We have already quoted the suttas, where a specific teaching is given about women & misconduct. It exists for a reason. Where as you continue to post lust and now slander against Buddhists. The bottom line is you appear to promote the view that have promiscuous sex with women is OK. The Buddha said: "misconduct is the taint in a woman".

To be honest I might add that a more immediate or personal reason why I'm not keen to "generalise" is that I find that's associated with suffering, like an identity view or "being" -- but I also think it's potentially rude or mistaken, or so confused that it's "not even wrong".

Chris. Your ideas are Cultural Marxism. They are not Buddhism. The Buddha did not teach about "equality". The Buddha taught: "misconduct is the taint in a woman". The Buddha taught: "misconduct is the taint in a woman". The Buddha taught: "misconduct is the taint in a woman". The Buddha taught: "misconduct is the taint in a woman". The Buddha taught: "misconduct is the taint in a woman".The Buddha taught: "misconduct is the taint in a woman".

And you interpret that as "unlike men", apparently, which I found invraisemblable.

That doesn't entirely surprise me, given what I read here -- but I will not take that as a lesson in sexual morality for men.

Evidence wise, DD provided mostly, but not completely, a good answer. Nevertheless, your statistics/numbers & links you posted can be subject to subjective bias and confirmation bias, where you draw only data that fits with your experiences & attitudes. You said: "Women use antidepressants", but this statement does not say the immediate cause of their use. It's not particularly events OR OUR gender that CAUSES our emotions, but our thinking. Refer to Dhp 3-5. Gender/biology, personal history, environment are just strong influences but not the immediate cause. I AM NOT FOR PROMISCUITY but

you better acknowledge that you processed the two relationships with your women in an inadequeate way. I don't know. Maybe they felt hurt because of the break-up & now you judge women as being too fragile. Further you pointed our radical feminism & "when seriously blamed". But all these are extremes and it follows from extreme situations/attitudes follow extreme emotional reactione (as you mentioned upsetness etc.) There are women who like sex & try out a lot of sexual things. You take Buddha's quote (about dominance) & seek for evidence in the real world but a relationship had better be equal

In fact, I could even assert that some women like to be dominated. It's all someehat relative and depends on the individual. We are more than just this or that. Human beings are highly complex, with a lot of facettes. Even the Buddha said this, that there are different people with different inclinations. A statement which is difficult to dispute. We better abandon the idea that it's only men that do sexual misconduct. I personally know some women who cheated on their boyfriend (even one muslim woman). Calling yourself this or that doesn't eliminate your FALLIBILITY or sense desire altogether.

Yeah and I cannot begin to see what it is I've ever written which you imagine "promotes the view that have promiscuous sex with women is OK" -- so far as I can tell my references include definitions of the third precept, but ... apparently the Koran for example says, that it's OK to have two wives, "if you treat them equally" -- some men see that ("treating them equally") as impossible, and therefore as an absolute prohibition. I also see nothing written in the suttas which "promotes promiscuous sex" -- and vanishingly little to distinguish "men" from "women" except in the Vinaya.

Maybe they felt hurt because of the break-up & now you judge women as being too fragile @F2TF I've read about everything Dhammadhatu posted on this site and so perhaps I may see other elements than that one, from his personal history, which inform his views -- but I don't this is the place for personal psycho-analysis.

Yes agree, no place for psycho-analysis, but then we also better be careful not to superimpose our views and mix it with Buddha's teaching, or interpret a quote in a way that fits with one's attitudes. This is always the problem with religious text, however. It also seems passive-aggressive by Dhammadhatu whenever someone disagrees with his views. If you do, you'll suffer with sense-desire & hell for eternity, & just live a miserable putthujana life (this is not kind & compassionate articulated). Somewhere I know where this thinking belongs to (I am looking at you Christianity & Islam)

The cited quote by WebMD above doesn't show that the increase in antidepressants is due to promiscuity or broken marriage. I am not saying it cannot completely, it definitely can, but, in the article there were other reasons, namely: 1) lesser health-stigma; 2) social media. As the article mentions, these are possible theories. I am not even denying that women, due to societal conditioning, to lesser mental & behavioural skills (such as assetiveness etc.) to change their adversities, hence the antidepressant use. But the quote does not fully support DD's view, at least not according to article

Keep denying suffering. Keep looking for ways to justify having harmful sex with women.