Dear Journal,

It’s interesting to me, to see how ignorant society was back in the 1800’s. It’s sad to see woman treated as objects and only falling into two categories either they were at home and “pure” category or they were in the “impure” but necessary to keep the woman at home “pure” category. It’s funny to see how this how this Dr. so and so Stacey was telling us about the other day can say practically in the same sentence that sexual intercourse is a necessity for the men in order to relieve them while keeping their wife’s at home and “pure” , only looking at them as undesirable fertility gate keepers, then turn around and say unprotected sex with shop girls or brothel girls leads to Syphilis and many of the men would contract it and bring it home to their wife’s and their unborn babies, If the men where trying to “protect” their wife’s  and their children then this completely contradicts the reason. I think that desiring your woman is a far less evil then bringing home an incurable sexually transmitted disease. You have to wonder how woman became a man’s object. Someone so vital in the continuance of man is stripped of her dignity and forced to have sex with men for money and not for love and the woman who is in some cases forced to marry a man and bare his children without being pleasured. It seems to me that the man just wanted to get his cake and eat it too. I don’t understand the hierarchy here, if woman are the reason man is alive then why are woman treated as dispensable? I understand that in a way man has been punishing woman since the day she took the fruit from the forbidden tree and gave it to her husband to eat, ultimately casting man away from God and onto a barren earth and many of the older days consisted of biblical teaching and rules but jeez that was a long time ago and if men were smart they would start protecting their woman like a group of bees would protect their queen bee since she is the key to their continuance of life.