It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Sexuality in Today's culture

page: 1
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:22 PM
link   
In a recent religious thread, which can be found here, there sprang an alternate topic which I think I should start a separate thread for the sake of not derailing the original one. It regards a topic that I am very passionate about, so I'll try to be civil
.
It regards the use of sex, sexuality, and the sexual exposition of the human body evident in abundance in todays western (and European) culture. I'm sure there are many different opinions, so please feel free to discuses your own!

*This is intended to be a 'non-religious perspective' topic

It's everywhere: Television, magazines, literature, video-games, movies, you name it. If the medium has a way of conveying the idea, it will involve one of life's cheapest (generally) and most exotic experiences one can have. (Note: I do not speak from experience
) Sex. And this makes it a hot topic to talk about. (No dual meaning intended) We see it everyday, and these past few decades, have begun to be bombarded with it since the moment a teenager hits puberty and knows what it means. Our pop-culture which dominates the majority of teenagers' lives mostly includes music and music videos produced by Sony BMG, Atlantic, and other large record companies, and it's most popular form is female-dominated Hip Hop and Pop, and male-dominated 'Gansta rap. In movies, it includes big blockbusters which include spectacular violence and CGI, story lines, but unfortunate a scene or two of sex because that's what our culture is orientated to demand. (Can't we have our gloriously orchestrated violence without the sex?) In video-games, it comes in the form as big-breasted and sleazily dressed females playing secondary characters (because often games are played in first person view) or in arcade 3rd person view fighters. In magazines, they dominate the check-out line where a family pays for their purchases, advertising "1.8372^10000 ways to have better sex tonight" and "six ways to turn your man on" all-the-while exposing some photo shopped model's breasts (which are not even real) and her body. Is this all necessary?

Aside from optional cultural activities, we see it dominate every day life. The simplest of clothing stores encourages a female to show their cleavage, show more of their legs, and expose as much skin as they can without 'going over the edge'. We do not see this happening in male's clothing as much. Am I going to put the blame on a specific gender? I really don't intend on doing so. (Please stop me if I do.) It seems as if our culture is orientated to go for what we want, and what we want is sex because of it's supposedly awesome nature. We want to get as much of it as we can, and when we can't, we want to get as close to it as we can (even if it's in our minds). Pornography dominates Internet culture, and Internet culture is taking over the masses. Divorce rates are sky high, and it's because we strive for what we want.

This is my own opinion: Mass media and consumerist-saturated capitalism along with large corporate influence has orientated us to want want want. (Basic marketing principal btw). What do we want? We want sex and attention. Without taking religion into this, I firmly believe that the human body is supposed to be properly clothed, and women to wear 'suitable' attire. Now, I'm no Muslim, and I certainly don't mean cover EVERYTHING up, but there is a difference between showing 80 percent of your cleavage and 10 percent. There is also a difference between wearing a short skirt or short shorts, and wearing a skirt or normal shorts.

But of course, that is not what the pinnacle of style is, amirite? Style is meant to tempt man in an attempt for him to later satisfy his urges later on by watching a movie with sexual content, viewing pornography, or doing some other freaky thing. Sex is a multi-million if not billion dollar industry, and sleazy fashion just propels it.

Liberalists will argue every women and man has the right to do what they want, and Individualists will argue that if you are an individual and consenting, it's okay. But it's not, religious beliefs or not. It fuels consumerism; the one thing people are fighting on ATS. It drives selfish human nature. Sexuality is another money making scheme. Am I here to advocate keeping sex in marriage? No. That's my personal beliefs, but not everyone can believe the same thing. But I think it's safe to say that any rational person would agree that sex should be confined to a committed relationship, no?

To say that women (and men) have the right to dress how they want because it's their right, inheritance, their body, bla bla bla, plays right into the corporate scheme. Women who flaunt their body are merely tools of a larger picture driven to create profit and men who advocate and enjoy it are just as much to blame, which in turn increases the reaching arm of a corporation to generate sexual influence, which in turn creates a circle.

If we don't learn how to dress better, get our mind off of sex and pornography, then our culture is just as doomed as if Niburu was on it's way to disrupt our planet's core and magnetic field. Pornography destroys relationships. Sex destroys man's dignity and sleazy dressing destroys the respect of a female. Period.

Oh and before you call me on my 'not blaming a specifc gender', I blamed both men and women equally so yea...it's all good.


[edit on 083131p://222 by For(Home)Country]

[edit on 083131p://222 by For(Home)Country]

[edit on 083131p://222 by For(Home)Country]




posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:43 PM
link   
Sex sells man. It works both ways, Now look at the movie New Moon (for the record, i hate twilight). and look at jacob the werewolf, don't you think he is meant to atract the girls to the theatre seats (besides being a main character)?

Now, with guys, just show a s****y girl on t.v. and most will pay attention to the product, (or her for that matter).

This just plays on the human's natural need to mate with another. That's all. The buisness/advertising world has just capitolized on another thing to sell their *snip*.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
reply to post by The Killah29
 


Yes, but it's one of dominant corporate capitalism's lowest forms, and it's killing our culture, and wrecking what is supposed to be one of the greatest things people can aspire to: A marriage between two people whom of which are intimate, best friends that are supposed to work together until they die. Why has that become such a rarity? (well, not rare, but less than half the time this occurs). I believe that the pure sanctity of marriage and the respect for body should not be invaded regardless of your religious/non-religious beliefs or political/economical beliefs.

Edit: Sorry for the wall of text by the way. It must be very tedious to read for you and others

[edit on 083131p://222 by For(Home)Country]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:47 PM
link   
A good example of this, further proving your point:

I was browsing through a magazine belonging to my sister (she is in 8th grade). I was honestly surprised by what I saw. This magazine was directed at young girls and was full of scantily clad women. This image of beauty is young girls are seeing in the media, naturally they will try to imitate this.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:48 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


It is not just the sexual side of things that has become completely corrupted.

Greed is repackaged as ambition and encouraged from a young age.

People are encouraged to be suspicious of homeless people because they might be faking their circumstances.

People are encouraged to beware of anyone in need for they might strike you down if you approach them to help.

People are extremely judgemental as well, earlier this year I was driving past what looked like a black bag on the road, I could not see very well as it was dark, I swerved past it and stopped the car when I saw all the people standing pointing. I walked over and there was a small crowd of people pointing and chattering about some man who was on drugs. I went over and it turned out that it was an old man who had fallen over flat in his face, he was unconsious and if I had not been there to call an ambulance rather than point he would probably have died.

When it comes to music, when I listen to it these days its almost as if a good and evil thing is going on with the lyrics if you pay attention. I guess that is a refection of society as well.

I have also experienced witnessing a woman walking in front of me being hit by a bus, nobody seems to do anything but look at people that are hurt. I literally had to shake a man to get him to give me his phone to call the woman an ambulance. If I had not been there to grab her from her fall to the concrete it could have been different as well.

I could go on but id rather show you what I see daily, I am fortunate enough to have anything to give to anyone and good health....





[edit on 20-10-2009 by XXXN3O]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
reply to post by The Killah29
 


Yes, but it's one of dominant corporate capitalism's lowest forms, and it's killing our culture, and wrecking what is supposed to be one of the greatest things people can aspire to: A marriage between two people whom of which are intimate, best friends that are supposed to work together until they die. Why has that become such a rarity? (well, not rare, but less than half the time this occurs). I believe that the pure sanctity of marriage and the respect for body should not be invaded regardless of your religious/non-religious beliefs or political/economical beliefs.


But didn't you hear? Culture is already dead.
and btw, if you look at the word culture CULT-ure. take that into account.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 08:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by NJE03
A good example of this, further proving your point:

I was browsing through a magazine belonging to my sister (she is in 8th grade). I was honestly surprised by what I saw. This magazine was directed at young girls and was full of scantily clad women. This image of beauty is young girls are seeing in the media, naturally they will try to imitate this.


I do not know if you know this but in victorian times it was the complete opposite.

Big women were seen as attractive because it was a sign of wealth and health.

Thin women were seen as unattractive because it was a sign of poverty and poor health.

Thats further proof of how influenced we all are when it comes to attraction.




posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:05 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 




Is this all necessary?


Well, of course it's not necessary. It would be possible to have a society without it.



I firmly believe that the human body is supposed to be
properly clothed, and women to wear 'suitable' attire.


Upon what do you base "is supposed to be?" Supposed to be according to whom? According to what? If you want to suggest it might be healthier, then I'm willing to listen to your reasons for thinking so...but "SUPPOSED to be" is very different from "would be nice if."

So upon what do you base this?



there is a difference between showing 80 percent of your cleavage and 10
percent. There is also a difference between wearing a short skirt or
short shorts, and wearing a skirt or normal shorts.


Ok. But I would suggest that the difference is largely in social custom. In the depths of Africa, a woman running around completely topless is probably not an erotic phenomenon. But in some cultures, even showing hair may be considered erotic.

I assert that the difference is purely a matter of social convention. There's nothing fundamentally "sexually mysterious" about the human body. It's the mystery...it's the hiding of the body that makes it erotic. This is why lingerie works. It hides just as much as it reveals.

If people in our society were in the habit of running around completely naked, your "showing 80 percent of cleavage" would be without meaning.



Sex is a multi-million if not billion dollar industry


Yes. But interestingly, this would not be possible if it weren't for all the sexual and emotional repression we have in this society. Nobody would pay for pornography if nakedness were the norm. Nobody would pay for sex if sex were readily available without all our social constraints of guilt and obligation. A social convention of prudeness creates an artificial scarcity of sex, which in turn generates a greater demand for it.



Sexuality is another money making scheme.


No. Sexuality is simply a method for gender relation. It is being manipulated to be a money making scheme.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:28 PM
link   


Well, of course it's not necessary. It would be possible to have a society without it.


Very well then, I'm glad we can agree on that. But western society will always exist with it until captialism becomes more regulated.



Upon what do you base "is supposed to be?" Supposed to be according to whom? According to what? If you want to suggest it might be healthier, then I'm willing to listen to your reasons for thinking so...but "SUPPOSED to be" is very different from "would be nice if."

So upon what do you base this?


Nudeness is what our culture has made it out to be, like you have stated. But due to the constraints within flow of time, we cannot undo what our culture has already done with the immediate effects. Thus, nudeness is regarded (in our culture) as something erotic and ultimate; as a teenager, we are told that having sex with a hot girl is the ultimate goal, setting the men apart from the boys. I base this statement upon the fact that it is unorthodox for people to pursue pure self gratification without regards to consequences to themselves and others. What do I base that on? Look around this board. People are crying for change, crying for a revolution, crying to break free from the influence of the powers that be. This is what the powers at be want: They want us to become disorientated as to what is wrong so that EVERYTHING sells, good AND bad. If we don't go for what is wrong, half the capital market is eliminated.



Ok. But I would suggest that the difference is largely in social custom. In the depths of Africa, a woman running around completely topless is probably not an erotic phenomenon. But in some cultures, even showing hair may be considered erotic.

I assert that the difference is purely a matter of social convention. There's nothing fundamentally "sexually mysterious" about the human body. It's the mystery...it's the hiding of the body that makes it erotic. This is why lingerie works. It hides just as much as it reveals.

If people in our society were in the habit of running around completely naked, your "showing 80 percent of cleavage" would be without meaning.


I must admit, a very good point. But like I said, we cannot immediatly undo what our culture has done. Because in the west it is this way, an opposite of what our selfish instincts tell us is what is necisary to change our culture and morally align it with the virtues of respect for others and our bodies.



Yes. But interestingly, this would not be possible if it weren't for all the sexual and emotional repression we have in this society. Nobody would pay for pornography if nakedness were the norm. Nobody would pay for sex if sex were readily available without all our social constraints of guilt and obligation. A social convention of prudeness creates an artificial scarcity of sex, which in turn generates a greater demand for it.


I would go out on a limb to say that both mine and your statement is true. They make sex so scarce that when it is popular, it booms. The two are a simple supply and demand graph: Decrease supply of sexual exposition, you increase the price of it, the price people are willing to pay to feed their sexual addiction. The higher price people are willing to pay, the more companies produce it to generate revenue, which in turn drives supply back up, making it popular again. Economics 1200.




No. Sexuality is simply a method for gender relation. It is being manipulated to be a money making scheme.


Our statements were essentially the same: Sexuality is used to make money is the principal. Whether the chicken or the egg came first is irrelevant. (Not really, but I just like using the word irrelevant)



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:30 PM
link   
It's backwards to say the least.

It's out there so much yet we can't seem to talk or be open about it personally without it being awkward. Like parents having a hard time talking to their children or the lack of talk at school.

And I hate all the connotations surrounding it. A girl has to look photo shopped to be sexy, has to dress sleazy, and if she sleeps with a couple of guys she's a loose whore.

Men meanwhile are suppose to sleep around with every girl they can. They're also suppose to have these unrealistic size cocks and even if they're bigger than useful, it's not big enough and you need some kind of pill.

I know this thread really doesn't want to get to much into religion, but in society you also have pressure from those who think it's a sin before marriage.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:39 PM
link   
reply to post by EarthFallingApart
 


But see, people are not designed to have sex with multiple partners, men AND women. I swear that if people stuck with one partner there would be little to no STD's. But of course, I don't have evidence to back that up so take it with a grain of salt. I agree that it is sick that men use the number of women they have slept with as some sort of trophy; a bragging right. Just terrible. However, I also firmly believe that sex should be within marriage, and at the very least a stable, committed relationship. Why would you think otherwise? So you could please your primal urges? Because you're in 'love'? Love developes over time. Love does not start at first sight. Unfortunately, that is what we are taught. Looks looks looks. Send all the looks to hell and all we are left with is genuine love, like grain when wind has blown away all the chaff.

[edit on 093131p://222 by For(Home)Country]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 




western society will always exist with it
until captialism becomes more regulated.


Regulated? That's a rather large leap of logic that really goes outside of the bounds of what I think you intended for this discussion...and honestly I have a difficult time believing that you really believe. Transitions back and forth between social prudishness and permissiveness have happened in the past. They will happen again. Government regulation is not neccesary.



Thus, nudeness is regarded (in our culture) as something erotic and ultimate; as a teenager, we are told that having sex with a hot girl is the ultimate goal, setting the men apart from the boys.


I agree, but this could be changed through any of a number of means. For example...let's say absolutely nothing is done, and for the next decade or so we sink into an orgy of extreme debauchery...sexual diseases then become rampant, large numbers of people die from AIDS, people realize that careless sex may lead to death, and so people choose to pursue other interests.

This probably isn't an ideal solution, but point being, while we agree on the current state of affairs, I assert that we're by no means stuck with it. The situation can be changed, with or without deliberate action on our part. We have options. Religiously motivated government regulation to suppress sexuality is not the only answer. And it's probably not the best answer.

In any case, personally I think focusing on solutions is getting a bit ahead of ourselves. Rather than arguing back and forth over whether solutions are possible...I would much prefer we ask ourselves what kind of society we want to have. It's much easier to get to where you're going after you've decided where it is.



Sexuality is used to make money is the principal.
Whether the chicken or the egg came first is irrelevant.


It's very relevant when you're seeking solutions to a perceived problem. If I point a gun to your head and order you to rob a bank...I assure you it would matter to you whether a police officer at the scene perceived me as the cause of the problem, or you.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 09:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
reply to post by EarthFallingApart
 


But see, people are not designed to have sex with multiple partners, men AND women. I swear that if people stuck with one partner there would be little to no STD's. But of course, I don't have evidence to back that up so take it with a grain of salt. I agree that it is sick that men use the number of women they have slept with as some sort of trophy; a bragging right. Just terrible. However, I also firmly believe that sex should be within marriage, and at the very least a stable, committed relationship. Why would you think otherwise? So you could please your primal urges? Because you're in 'love'? Love developes over time. Love does not start at first sight. Unfortunately, that is what we are taught. Looks looks looks. Send all the looks to hell and all we are left with is genuine love, like grain when wind has blown away all the chaff.

[edit on 093131p://222 by For(Home)Country]


I didn't add my opinion, but I share a similar view.

I believe sex should be with someone you love not lust, but it doesn't need to be within marriage.

I've been with my girlfriend for 3 years now. Whether we end up with together for the rest of our lives doesn't matter but I love her therefor I believe it's perfectly ok to have sexual relations.

My definition of Love:

You truly love someone when you would go out of your way to do something for the person you love. Like if you're freezing but she's even colder you give her your gloves and hat for her to be warm.
Or wake up at the crack of dawn on a day off to go drive her because her car's in the shop.

When deep down you would do similar acts because you think it's right, and not to get something in return then you truly love someone.

With that said, our bodies are hard wired as teenagers (boys especially) to reproduce. How should we classify this category. I mean there is a primal side to sex, should we repress it or accept it. Something to think about.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:03 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 

What don't I firmly believe, just wondering since that wasn't clear?
But yes, it is a big leap to suggest regulation (and maybe another topic of a thread?
) However, theocratist agendas within the government to regulate sexual exposure is not what I have in mind. Like I've stated, I don't believe we need religion to explain this particular area of sexual perversion.
But in stating that you want to address where we want our culture to go, rather than solutions, then I will go along with that.

Now this is my own crazy vision, and obviously you'll probably tear it to shreds, but that's okay. I envision a culture where women have respect for their bodies and men; women recognize that men are more supseptable to lustful temptations triggered via visual stimulation, and choose to not let this be the focus of their intention. Instead, women have respect for that fact, and want to do their best to prevent men from thinking lustful thoughts by wearing clothing that covers up key areas that men pay attention to. (I don't think I need to go in-depth as to what those areas are). Men, in return, cease to view women as walking vaginas, trophies, sexual goals, and accomplishments. Rather, men and women are equal and should be treated as such. I believe a man should put as much effort into his appearance as a female (minus makeup
), but in keeping in line with decent morales. Women are also suseptable to be tempted by male-body exposure. That is no lie, although it is less known and maybe less common.

My ideal society is where corporations don't capitalize on sex or sexual exposure. But like I said, that elminates a large market; hence it's just a dream. You know, everyday I gain more and more respect for my own girlfriend because she refuses to conform to everyday standards amungst women who wear low-cut tops and upper-thigh exposing bottoms. She is none-the-less the most attractive female I know (I am not bias of course), and the way she dresses only adds to her prettiness. I believe a female can be attractive without exposing her body in a sexual manor, and same thing goes for men.

If society can pull this off, I will be happy.

Edit: Gotta go do the dishes, brb in 20 mins.

[edit on 103131p://222 by For(Home)Country]

[edit on 103131p://222 by For(Home)Country]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:05 PM
link   
Sex sells plain and simple.

People like hot chicks and hot guys.

Hollywood got my money today and why well they showed me Gerard Butlers rear and damn it I loved it...lol Yes I fell for their trap in my own way but oh well we both gain something.

I also work as an exotic dancer and that whole business is based around sex. Those bars make millions, yes millions. Many of the high end ones do and even some of the smaller ones. Its a money maker to shake your money maker
Im all for it but I dont think it needs to be in everything I see...

EXAMPLE and those who I have talked to will know why I am saying this. The sex scene in the new Stargate I felt was very unnecessary and didnt fit in IMO but hey they have to be sexy now so they put it in the first episode and why? To draw people in and Im sure it worked. People wouldnt shut up about it on message boards I frequent besides ats for days.

I think people need to be taught there is a difference trampy and sexy. Shorter doesnt mean sexier.

As for guys being sexy, I swear the ufc was made for women.
oh I love it!



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:11 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 




But see, people are not designed to have sex
with multiple partners, men AND women.


"Designed?" Justify this.



I agree that it is sick that men use the number of women
they have slept with as some sort of trophy; a bragging right.


...ok, but your perception of it as "sick" is largely a result of your personal relations to the concepts of guilt and obligation. I would suggest that fundamentally, a man taking pride is sleeping with large numbers of women is not "bad" or "evil" in any way. It may be indicative of emotional immaturity. But so is being sickened by it.



I also firmly believe that sex should be within marriage, and at the very
least a stable, committed relationship. Why would you think otherwise?


You're the one making an assertion, not me. I'd ask you to justify your own statement before assuming that I disagree with it and asking me to justify that it's not true.

In any case, to even try to answer the question, we would need to settle on a good definition of what marriage is. To some, marriage is the tacit approval from God for a union to occur. To some, it is a legal technichality. To others it may be a badge of honor, or a receipt, or an arbitrary goal that they were taught by too many Disney cartoons that they were "supposed" to go after...or any of a number of things.

What is this "marriage" thing of which you speak, that you suggest "should" be present for sex to occur? What is marriage?

And what do you mean by "should?" In my experience, "should" is a word people use to manipulate others by implying that things would magically, somehow be better if they were true, when really it's simply that the speaker has a personal preference that they wish to make seem more important than it really is.

Tell me what marriage is, tell me what "should" means...and then ask your question again. At the moment, your meaning is unclear to me. And I rather suspect...that it is unclear to you too.



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:31 PM
link   
So finally a thread that drew me into joining after lurking forever...

Let's introduce Religion! Now don't get all lathered up...I'm talking about the social implications of religion. When a populace is strongly religious, it can be easily assumed that a much higher percentage of the population has a strong ethic regarding what is right and wrong. Whether or not we agree on the details is immaterial.

Now imagine TPTB trying to pull the crap they are orchestrating in another era, an era of the world...say after WWII, where people were humbled by loss, and much more grounded in traditional morality. Wouldn't happen imo. People would have risen up long ago and demanded immediate change (and not the kind our current govt is delivering)!

I submit to you all that while, yes sex sells...and yes, humans are subject to a base drive to procreate...and yes, naked skin fires off happy neurons...

...the slide in sexual ethics in the world since the 60's has at least been quietly approved of by TPTB (and I believe encouraged). If we believe 10% of the junk we post here we know that this multi-generational conspiracy is spawned by some of the most devious minds imaginable. There is no way that their endgame goals could be realized without destroying morality and ethics, destroying the family unit, and destroying belief in God. All with the goal of making humanity spineless...questioning right and wrong, so that when faced with great wrongs, we are too fat and selfish to stand in it's face.

A society that embraces unfettered sexuality is incompatible with those three values. THAT is why humanity has been sliding down this sex-slickened slope.

No culture in history that has embraced sexuality as we do has survived. In fact, mankind "resets" to morality and family in the face of hardship...every time...maybe there's something to it?



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket





"Designed?" Justify this.


Emotional issues that arise with having sex with multiple partners, complications, STD rates amounst those with higher number of partners, etc..



...ok, but your perception of it as "sick" is largely a result of your personal relations to the concepts of guilt and obligation. I would suggest that fundamentally, a man taking pride is sleeping with large numbers of women is not "bad" or "evil" in any way. It may be indicative of emotional immaturity. But so is being sickened by it.


When I use the term sick, I mean in a context referring to how it is a despicable and un-natrual act, dangerous, emotionally costly, and physically harmful. Saying that it is my own 'personal' beliefs are an indication of the disorientation that has occurred; it has now become the 'normal' to have multiple partners and people don't even regard it as an issue anymore. Tell this to your wife. See what she thinks of you having multiple partners. If she is cool with it, gimme a call.



You're the one making an assertion, not me. I'd ask you to justify your own statement before assuming that I disagree with it and asking me to justify that it's not true.

In any case, to even try to answer the question, we would need to settle on a good definition of what marriage is. To some, marriage is the tacit approval from God for a union to occur. To some, it is a legal technichality. To others it may be a badge of honor, or a receipt, or an arbitrary goal that they were taught by too many Disney cartoons that they were "supposed" to go after...or any of a number of things.

What is this "marriage" thing of which you speak, that you suggest "should" be present for sex to occur? What is marriage?

And what do you mean by "should?" In my experience, "should" is a word people use to manipulate others by implying that things would magically, somehow be better if they were true, when really it's simply that the speaker has a personal preference that they wish to make seem more important than it really is.

Tell me what marriage is, tell me what "should" means...and then ask your question again. At the moment, your meaning is unclear to me. And I rather suspect...that it is unclear to you too.


Sorry, I didn't mean "you" as in you specifically. I meant a generalization, so please forgive my mis intended direction. I didn't mean for you to interpret it that way. And as I said, I personally stress marriage, but I don't expect others to, hence my statement regarding strong committed. Surely you agree that sex is healthiest within the confines of a strong, dedicated relationship?

[edit on 103131p://222 by For(Home)Country]

[edit on 103131p://222 by For(Home)Country]

[edit on 103131p://222 by For(Home)Country]



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:43 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


I work in the film industry and I don't think there is a grand design to corrupt the morals of America. The film industry and entertainment industry in general just give the people what they want. The industry has its own section of researchers that try and spot trends, fashion and style so they can appeal to a targeted demographic. Yes it is about money.
Capitalism and entrepreneurship at its finest. There is no conspiracy of corruption.

If your are offended by contemporary style and fashion; start up your own design studio with your own aesthetic. Promote it with your ideology.
Here in the west we operate in a free market. Exercise your freedom to express yourself but please allow others the same respect.

If you want change in attitudes do something other than whining on the WWW. The free enterprise system is alive and well.

Start up Christian fashion house, design studio, film company. It's not as hard as you might think to find venture capital. Who knows, it could be a trend.




western society will always exist with it
until captialism becomes more regulated.



You know what you are suggesting there don't you? No Thanks!!



posted on Oct, 20 2009 @ 10:44 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 




What don't I firmly believe, just wondering since that wasn't clear?


You appeared to be implying that the only possible way for the status quo to change would to for the government to step in and create regulation...maybe make pornogrpahy illegal, maybe mandate that clothing cover certain body parts...whatever.

If that's not what you meant..ok. Again, that's what you appeared to be saying, but that interpretation didn't really fit with the rest of the discussion. So I assumed it wasn't what you really meant.



But in stating that you want to address where we want our culture to go,
rather than solutions, then I will go along with that.


Ok. Yes, I think that would be a great move. If, as a society, we really decide that we truly want to be prudes...I'm ok with that. If we sit down rationally and decide that we truly want to deliberately recreate sodom and gomorrah ...I'm ok with that too. Or anywhere in between. For me, the important thing is that whatever happens, I want it to be because we decided to do it on purpose, because that was what we wanted. Not have it be what we ended up with because we weren't paying attention, or because somebody with ulterior motives managed to manipulate us into believing it was a solution to an imaginary problem.



this is my own crazy vision
culture where women have respect for their bodies and men
do their best to prevent men from thinking lustful thoughts
Men, in return, cease to view women as walking vaginas, trophies, sexual goals, and accomplishments

etc,


It's difficult for me to give you a meaningful reply because my basic perspectives on...well, reality...are fundamentally different. What is this "respect" thing you speak of? To me, "respect" is being aware of the proper place of a thing, and treating it accordingly. However...the way you use the word, I get the impression that you're using it to suggest a "holiness" to things that I'm not certain is justified. For example...if the function of a car is to drive people places, and you understand this...and you use the car to drive you places, then you're treating the car with proper "respect." Idolizing the car, placing it on an altar and bowing to it is not "proper respect." Obsessing over the car and insisting that nobody but you touch it is not "respecting" the car. Hiding the car under a cover so nobody will see it and want to drive it is not "respecting" the car. It is idolizing it. I'm not convinced that the most proper relation between masculine and feminine is exclusive possession. I suspect that the male need to possess women, the need to have as many as possible, and the need to keep them to ourslves may be an idolization. The entire notion of women hiding themselves from men...to keep them from "thinking lustful thoughts," in principal that seems like an abomination to me. It is proper for a man to make use of a woman. Whether that use is physical, sexual, emotional, or otherwise...it is proper for a man to make use of a woman. This idea of "thinking lustful thoughts" can only be an idolization. But even if a man does idolize a woman, that's not her fault, that's not her problem. She's not responsible for that. And, if she allows herself to be put to the use of his idolization, she is serving her proper purpose by being used by a man. This idea that women must hide themselves to prevent men from idolizing them...it seems like altogether a broken way of looking at things.

To me it seems like you recognize that humanity has some weaknesses, some failings...and you're attempting to design a society to accomodate those failings. Me, I would rather correct the failings in humankind, so that they no longer exist...so creating a society to accomodate them is pointless.

In any case, I lean towards overcoming weaknesses and faillings by fulfillment rather than denial. If someone irrationally craves sex, I say give them sex until they no longer want it, rather than tell them that they're bad and make them go without.

The deeper problem in our case is not that desires are beign fulfilled. It's that desires are being created. As you've described, our corporate environment is creating an artificial, and unsatisfyable desire for sex. That's the problem. Not the sex.



My ideal society is where corporations don't capitalize on sex or sexual exposure.


*shrug*

Personally, I envision a society where corporations don't exist. Instead, technology ia abundantly available to pretty much do whatever we want, and it's so easy to do the things we want that mechanical needs can easily be fulfilled by hobbyists.

That description might not resonate with you...so let me give you one possible example: Let's say somebody invents a star trek style replicator, and then uploads the plans to build it to the internet. He then uses the replicator to replicate a dozen more replicators, and gives them to each of his neighbor, who then do the same in turn. Within a short period of time, the entire planet could be running off of replicators and replicated solar panels and wind turbines. Money and corporatism would be irrelevant. People would suddenly havea great deal of time on their hands, and even if 90% of the population decided to fall into extreme hedonism, there'd still be plenty of geeks and hobbyist engineers to keep society running, simply because they enjoyed doing it.

That's the kind of society I'd like to live in.



[edit on 20-10-2009 by LordBucket]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join