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: 3
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   
I think the basic issue here is what is never said. People in our culture specfically are not taught that sex is something special that happens to people at (hopefully) some point in their lives. That it can be healing, spiritual, and deeply beneficial for someone if within the confines of an (i use the greek word) "agape" relationship.

Instead it is a commodity, as you all have said. It is no longer something to be waited on, to look forward to. Human sexuality has become less of an aspect of humanity and more of a commodity to be run out and purchased...for free! All you have to do is act like the TV!

The entertainment moguls employ some of the most inherently nasty psychological tricks through advertizing to win you over to the thought that you are somehow "incomplete" without this experience. No guy is going to want to pay attention to you if you're fat and don't look like you're at least easy. And no girl is gonna want to # you if you don't have biceps and a clear-skinned face.

Only the real issue is that this is not the way PEOPLE work. That is how business works. People see these images and here this music, and feel as though it would be so wonderful to have what these people have. Seeing commercials that hang the loss of relationships over you're head if you don't get medicated or in debt.

I believe that the chief desire of humans is to be known completely, 100 percent, through and through, and loved regardless. Sex is being advertised as the ultimate means to that goal. So what you have is a female population looking to belong, and a male population looking to just have fun. The only variant is that sometimes its the other way around.

You see people walking around rigid, nervously laughing at things they don't really find funny, bad communication skills, a willingness to submit, and absolutely NO imagination. Its like I tell my roommate, "If I could fall asleep on command like you can for 8-14 hours at a time. I wouldn't do drugs at all, there would be no real reason to. Sleep is the ultimate escape."

All that’s really happening is masses of people that want to be loved and believe every way they were told to go about getting it, and if it doesn't work out for them, there is no middle ground. It was either his or her fault.

And another thought, why is sexual tension marketed as such a horrible thing? Are all of our privates going to explode if we don't #? I think sexual tension is good, ESPECIALLY in men. It forces us(men) to find other creative outlets for our sexual prowess, which so often changes the world through invention and intellect. Of course, I’m not saying sex can't inspire creativity. I am saying however, that the BEST kind of inspiration comes directly from the soul when it is being fed by great sex that is specifically designed for the soul (soul-mates).

Too bad our souls have 0% value here
People will structure their lives around what makes them feel good. Its just that, buy and large, this has nothing to do with the soul and its mission.

I personally held out for sex until 23 and now wish I had waited longer.




posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 12:35 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


Welcome to ATS.

I recently touched on this subject in a thread about Human Resources. Sexuality as a consumable "commodity" is rampant in many countries that have been Westernized.

We view one another as a resource to be consumed and used up. It is not only the labor or monies one possesses that are viewed as commodities but even our very humanity, of which sexuality is a part.

There's nothing wrong with the human form; nothing innately flawed or improper. It was our original state (if you believe the Genesis account). Where the impropriety comes into play is when we degrade our own humanity and that of our fellows by reducing them to a "thing" or object; a resource or commodity for our consumption.

I don't go to the movies or watch television or buy magazines but still I'm assaulted daily by the "in your face" billboards, check-out stand tabloids, even the secretary at my insurance office. (She's apparently never read 'Dress For Success').

It's when people advertise THEMSELVES as a commodity offered for sale that I get uncomfortable and offended. Not from some prudish Victorian rigid morality but from the fact that a HUMAN being is degrading themselves (and by extension, me) with their advertising. In essence, such blatant disregard for modesty (both male and female) shows a flagrant lack of self-respect.

By trying to "show their wares" and improve their marketability in an ever increasingly jaded market place, people are degrading themselves into cheaper "assets". We SHOULD be better than this. We ought, as the crowning of creation, to take a little more pride in our status rather than trying to emulate the lower life forms. We are not rutting animals. We don't need to "show plumage". I think everyone knows what's behind the zippers.



[edit on 21-10-2009 by whitewave]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 01:09 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


Whats rational thinking other then opinion? And what do you mean by committed? You mean in a relationship, well I'm in one with you too OP, I love you too. Check out my philosophy on relationships its quite interesting to me anyways --> www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 21-10-2009 by 4stral4pprentice]



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 02:59 PM
link   
reply to post by bismarcksea
 


I'm sorry that your attitude has enabled you to miss my point entirely. I never suggested what you quoted in any way. To be fair, a burka can be considered 'covering up' as much as wearing a turtle neck. Do I suggest women wear turtlenecks all the time or guys should never wear v-necks? No. I highly insist you read each of my posts regarding this issue, along with LordBuckets if you really want to grasp this context of this discussion. Until then, please leave your blatant and poorly placed assumptions about my opinions at bay.

Thanks in advance.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 07:52 PM
link   
Emotionless sex: Sex addiction. It is very real. It isn't so much as getting a "high" from sex but to experience the subtile differences between different people. Sure, a part of me wishes that I was still a virgin that saved himself for marriage. But it is also an experience in life that I would not be so willing to trade away.

To do something as a lifestyle choice, find it disagreeable in time, and move away from that lifestyle is a growing experience. You find out things about yourself. And yeah, it did break up a great relationship later because I wouldn't allow myself to do "more experimental" things with her. Hard to explain that you can't do "this" because doing "this" may make me look at you from a different and uncaring frame of mind. A path that I do not want to walk back down.


And love at first sight, yeah it does happen. Too bad the timing was always wrong for the one. And my past haunted me on the second (see above)



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I don't mind the way things are right now.....but we should have better sex ed. for our children.

I think there are more important things to worry about than whether the neighbours wife waters her grass wearing a bikini.

Ahhhhh.....for example...getting rid of my 5 mega pixel camera and buying a 12 mega pixel one.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 08:34 PM
link   
This is simply a result of the problem, not the problem in and of itself.

Sex and sexuality are normal and can be positive or negative depending on the society, as there's never been a society without both.

American culture is broken, and perhaps it was never proper to begin with. American culture has pretty much always been about conquest and power more than greed specifically.

The Woman's Rights and Civil Rights movements didn't help, and neither is the Gay Rights movement. They were effective, but at what price?



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:24 PM
link   
Sex ed for kids. hmmm. What age do you start at? The kids are already being sexualized with "prostitot" clothing and TV (we monitor everything our kid watchs, ESPECIALLY DISNEY AND "ABC family".

Parental abdication is the root of much of our issues.

The wife and I were looking for some clothes for our kid and a 7-8 year old girl was wearing a skirt damn near to her ass, knee boots, and makeup. Pedophile delight right there. Way to go parent!

I had no idea about sex until my early teens and then it was fairly cursory.
Dove soap has some good commecials for young girls telling them its ok for them to "look like kids, dont worry about being a size "0". Look at some of the "super models" nowadays. Most look like they're strung out on drugs and recently beaten. What do you expect from the "pink mafia" that most of these eurotrash designers clamour for.


The OP is (as best i can tell) talking about how sex has went from an enjoyable, natural thing to a means of social destruction. Kill the family, kill the country. Check your "communist checklist" for the destruction of America.

I love women (my wife is a "broad shouldered bitch" and will tell you so). She has plenty of curves and shows it off....with taste and southern manners. My wife HATES the womens lib movement but is a strident feminist in the way of Lilith. She believes that women "give their Power away" to easily. There is NO reason 12 year olds should be getting knocked up! The stigma is gone. The boys that do it? They just laugh and go on with no repercussions. There is NO respect for others or self.

I've had been around some my self as a young man. FOREMOST in my mind was the determination that the girl involved DID NOT get pregnant. Had she, there would have been a marriage. PERIOD. Never had sex with someone I didnt think i could possibly marry. My wife and I were dating for 3 years and married another 3 before we ever got pregnant. WE decided when. Its not rocket science.



posted on Oct, 21 2009 @ 10:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by felonius


The OP is (as best i can tell) talking about how sex has went from an enjoyable, natural thing to a means of social destruction. Kill the family, kill the country. Check your "communist checklist" for the destruction of America.



I thank you for, unlike others, extracting the essence of my post so clearly. But please don't associate The United States of America's current political and social downfall with communism. It spits in the very face that is benevolent collectivism. Lenin wouldn't be proud.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 06:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by For(Home)Country

Originally posted by felonius



It spits in the very face that is benevolent collectivism. Lenin wouldn't be proud.


My apologies if this was meant in jest. As in texting, the simple written word (without being expounded) can be unclear.

So long as humans are at the current state of evolution, no form of communism/socialism/collectivism can survive without attempting to destroy the spirit.

Capitalism (not this predatory crap we have now) encourages freedom. C/S/C stifles it. The only reason Russia and China have introduced a watered down version is they were about to tank. They have now created a greater disparity of people with the new oligarchs. Percieved freedom is not freedom indeed. We are starting to realize this here.

America has her warts but she's the best one here. The a'holes at the top are breaking her knees a bit more everyday though. This too shall pass.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 07:20 AM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


Hey, For(Home)Country. Been another day, but I see you still haven't addressed a bunch of things we left unfinished.

1) What is "marriage?" You suggest that it's best for sex to only occur within marriage. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing at this point, but what is marriage? What it is really? Is it a legal contract? Is it personal approval from God? What is it?

2) Why do you place such tremendous importance on sex? Why is sex so holy to you that may only occur within a formal process? Do you appreciate the irony that you're complaining about the preoccupation our society has with it, but you appear to idolize sex? You're christian, yes? I'm accusing you of idolizing sex. Worshipping it, and perceiving it as a holy thing. Why else would it be restricted to marriage? You appear to wish to bring sex into the temple, and to keep it there where it may not be desecrated by the unworthy masses. You don't feel this way about love, or emotion. After all, Jesus said to love everybody, right? Why is love to be passed out casually, but sex reserved for only the most "pure?"

3) Now that you realize that saying something "should" be simply means that you personally expect it, would you like to revise any of your previous statements? For example, when you say that you "firmly believe that sex should be within marriage" really all you're saying is that you personally expect it to be that way. That's fine, but surely you understand that your own personal expectations have very little pull on anyone else. Is there anything you'd like to clarify with your newfound understanding of what "should" means?

4) Finally, I would also still like to hear you explain your preception of male/female. I've given you a brief explanation of my perception of gender relations, at least so far as "physical" gender relates to more fundamental natural forces: yin/yang. You've suggested that you disgaree with my view, and that you foudn it distasteful, but you've yet to give me your own view. My impression is that you've never thought about it clearly enough to get a good understanding of your own view, and I'd like you to think about it enough to try to explain it to me. My guess is that your belief system regarding male and female contradicts itself, but you haven't realized that. So if you don't mind, please explain to me what male are female are, how they are different, and what is the proper manner for them to relate with one another?

5) Any questions for me?

Looking forward to your responses.



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 01:32 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


I have a question for you, not to derail the topic but that last post of yours is a bit in tune with what i talk about in my philosophy with relationships, could you give me your comment on it? It would be much appreciated, i would also appreciate the OP's comment, you can find a link for it in my post above.

P.s. I whole heartedly agree with the OP



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 02:06 PM
link   
reply to post by 4stral4pprentice
 




my philosophy with relationships,
could you give me your comment on it?


Yes. Reply is here







[edit on 22-10-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 11:10 PM
link   

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


Hey, For(Home)Country. Been another day, but I see you still haven't addressed a bunch of things we left unfinished.

1) What is "marriage?" You suggest that it's best for sex to only occur within marriage. I'm not agreeing or disagreeing at this point, but what is marriage? What it is really? Is it a legal contract? Is it personal approval from God? What is it?


Sorry, I've been busy with studies these past few days; University midterms coming up but I have time now, so I will respond as best as I can.

Marriage to me is a:
a. a legal contract recognized by the state
b. the un-faltering commitment by both parties to endure to the end (Till death do us part), regardless of circumstances.
c. The Forsaking of "all others" where "others" is the possible opportunities to develop an intimate relationship with someone else
d. Confessing these wishes and desires to God, acknowledging you have come into terms between yourself, your partner and God of marital commitment.

Of course, this is just my definition, it is obviously different to everyone else.



2) Why do you place such tremendous importance on sex? Why is sex so holy to you that may only occur within a formal process? Do you appreciate the irony that you're complaining about the preoccupation our society has with it, but you appear to idolize sex? You're christian, yes? I'm accusing you of idolizing sex. Worshipping it, and perceiving it as a holy thing. Why else would it be restricted to marriage? You appear to wish to bring sex into the temple, and to keep it there where it may not be desecrated by the unworthy masses. You don't feel this way about love, or emotion. After all, Jesus said to love everybody, right? Why is love to be passed out casually, but sex reserved for only the most "pure?"


I'm sorry, but a few of your assumptions are ill-placed. I do not idolize sex nor do I wish to bring it into the 'temple'. I'm simply stressing the intimacy that occurs in sex, and that sexual intercourse is not something that should be taken lightly because it creates a strong bond (scientific proof is available if you disagree, but I believe we already discussed that and you yourself well-aware of it) between the two individuals. To turn sexual intercourse into something as common as soda consumption among teenagers is to destroy one of the most intimate experiences two people can have because it becomes common and meaningless; already something you seem to think it is, hence this discussion.



3) Now that you realize that saying something "should" be simply means that you personally expect it, would you like to revise any of your previous statements? For example, when you say that you "firmly believe that sex should be within marriage" really all you're saying is that you personally expect it to be that way. That's fine, but surely you understand that your own personal expectations have very little pull on anyone else. Is there anything you'd like to clarify with your newfound understanding of what "should" means?


Yes, should means 'based on personal opinion, I think that...', but an opinion is based on something, no? And we believe in opinions for a reason; we either have experiences, beliefs, or other influences that drive us to settle on an opinion we believe is 'right'. Me and you are both discussing why we think our opinions are right, right now.



4) Finally, I would also still like to hear you explain your preception of male/female. I've given you a brief explanation of my perception of gender relations, at least so far as "physical" gender relates to more fundamental natural forces: yin/yang. You've suggested that you disgaree with my view, and that you foudn it distasteful, but you've yet to give me your own view. My impression is that you've never thought about it clearly enough to get a good understanding of your own view, and I'd like you to think about it enough to try to explain it to me. My guess is that your belief system regarding male and female contradicts itself, but you haven't realized that. So if you don't mind, please explain to me what male are female are, how they are different, and what is the proper manner for them to relate with one another?


I'm not too sure what you are asking here, so I will state what I think you are asking to clarify, in-case I am incorrect in my assumption: You are wondering why I believe that men and women should not have such 'distinct' roles, and why I do not believe in using women as a utilitarian tool as they are 'designed' to be 'used'? I will answer this question. If I have perceived your initial question wrong, then please say so and we can re-evaluate my response.

I believe that in utilitarian circumstances, men and women are created equal. Biologically, there are obvious differences between male and female which I hope is known knowledge to you that I don't have to clarify. Emotionally, men and women are different but only in limited ways. (I'm a firm believer in 80 percent Nurture, 20 percent Nature Theory) If males and females grow up in stable homes (let me guess, you're going to ask me to define stable?) then they can come out of them with generally stable attitudes and looks on life. Of course, there are infinite variables that effects one's life, so this cannot be completely clarified. I believe that in all social levels of life, men and women are equal. In the workplace, in the home, in the church, etc. I believe men and women need to treat each other with respect, and culture needs to de-emphasize the stereotypes of hormone driven men pursing women to have sex with, and over-complex, superficial females basing all confidence in attractiveness and ability to attract the stereotypical 'macho-man' given above.

Back to your question, I'm not quite sure what your asking me to reconsider? Yes, I have my own opinion, but I believe it is generally a wide-spread one, common and basic: Men and Women are equal in all social aspects. Unless brainwashed past the point of no return, there should be no reason to see either gender as lesser or more, nor as a mere sexual object.
Hope those answer your questions.

Questions for you: I believe you'll respond to them in your own responces.

Again, sorry for the late reply



posted on Oct, 22 2009 @ 11:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by 4stral4pprentice
reply to post by LordBucket
 


I have a question for you, not to derail the topic but that last post of yours is a bit in tune with what i talk about in my philosophy with relationships, could you give me your comment on it? It would be much appreciated, i would also appreciate the OP's comment, you can find a link for it in my post above.

P.s. I whole heartedly agree with the OP


I'm not quite sure what you're asking here? If you could clarify, I could better respond to what you are asking. Thanks.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 12:40 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 




Marriage to me is a:
a. a legal contract recognized by the state


Are you saying that in your perfect world, sex and marriage would require state approval? I don't think I'd want to live in that world. I think the state has absolutely no business being involved in marriage whatsoever. I can think of no legitimite reason for people to believe that they need the states permission to be involved with one another.



b. the un-faltering commitment by both parties to endure to the
end (Till death do us part), regardless of circumstances.


Ok...but why? Why do you believe sex must occur only between people who have agreed to stay committed until death? Why is to the end of such importance? For example...if somebody were to suggest a "marriage" contract with a fixed duration...say, they agree to be committed for one year...would that be wrong?

Why is "to the death" a pre-requisite for sex?



c. The Forsaking of "all others" where "others" is the possible
opportunities to develop an intimate relationship with someone else


So then, to you, marriage is about possession? Marriage, to you, is a non-competition clause?



d. Confessing these wishes and desires to God, acknowledging
you have come into terms between yourself, your partner and God of marital commitment.


So...formal statement of intent. Ok. Interesting.



To turn sexual intercourse into something as common as soda consumption
among teenagers is to destroy one of the most intimate experiences two
people can have because it becomes common and meaningless;


Why?

Does "loving everyone" make love common and meaningless? Does free intellectual discourse amongst people make it common and meaningless?

Do you understand why I accuse you of idolizing sex? You speak of it as if it were more sacred than love. You speak of it as something that is so important, so valuable, that the idea of it becoming "meaningless" horrifies you. I would ask the question...if sex were meaningless, why is that a bad thing?



I'm simply stressing the intimacy that occurs in sex, and that sexual
intercourse is not something that should be taken lightly because it creates a strong bond


I for one, would say that love is far more intimite than sex. If intimacy, and "strong bonds" are your concern...why are you not suggesting that love should be kept chained and confined within similar rules?



should means 'based on personal opinion, I think
that...', but an opinion is based on something, no?


Well, I did suggest, a few pages back, that if you meant "I think the world would be a nicer place if we did things a certain way" you simply say so, and we could discuss the reasions why you thought so. I simply object to saying "this should be this way" when what someone really means is "I think it would be better for me and people who agree with me if everybody did things my way."



men and women are created equal.
men and women are equal
Men and Women are equal in all social aspects


It's possible this issue might be difficutl for us to communicate for lack of common ground to speak on. Many english speakers tend to use mathematical expressions to convey non-mathematical concepts in a fuzzy, imprecise way. It's so deeply engrained in the language that it's difficult sometimes, for people to realize that their words are imprecise.

I'll try to respond, to clarify...but if you feel we're getting nowhere, feel free to drop this point.

You say that man and women are "equal." I don't disagree, but I don't really understand what you mean by it. Doing my best to fill in the empty spots and try to assume what I think you might mean...my best guess is that you mean to suggest that biological men and biological women are equivalent except for the obvious biological differences. And that any apparent difference beyond that is simply a consequence of social custom, tradition, or basically irrational leftovers from times past.

Is that basically what you're suggesting?

My perspective is different in a non-sequitor kind of way. I don't disagree with it, but neither do I agree with it, because to me the description is kind of besides the point. I tend to think of biological male and biological female as physical, impure (impure meant literally, not as in "dirty") manifestations of non-physical forces. "Male and female" can be used to describe many things that aren't man and woman at all. For example, a painter and a canvass could be metaphorially described as male and female. As could an acorn and the earth. Or even the act of your hand pushing a door open. All these things share a conceptual similarity in the manner of their relation.

"Equality" is sort of irrelevant. I suspect that your reaction to this will be to perceive my description of the feminine role as being somehow "inferior." I don't. When a painter paints on canvass, he is acting opon the canvass. Together they create a painting. A painter without anything to paint on cannot create a painting. A canvass without a painter cannot create a painting. They are both integral to the process of creating a painting, but the nature of their function...what they "bring" to the process is extremely different. Such is the case with man and woman. Saying that men and women are equal may be true...or at the very least, it isn't inaccurate. But it doesn't do any justice to the unique role they each have to play.

I could point out, that from your idea of "equalness" it's not such a stretch to conclude that there's no legitimite reason to prevent marriage from beign between two men, or two women. After all, they're all equal to each other, right? But that's not the case. Man and women each bring something unique. I would suggest that a "marriage" between two men, or a marriage between two women, is much like two painters without a canvass, or two canvassas without a painter. There's nothing fundamentally wrong with it, but it's non-functional: you're not going to get a painting.

Incidentally, the "real" reason for marital fidelity and encouraging sex to be kept between two people is explained by this. Imagine a painter with a single canvass. He has an image in his head of the picture he would like to paint. If other people are painting on the same canvass while he does, the resultant picture is probably not going to look like he intended it. Woman are affected, "imprinted" when they are acted on by a man. Multiple men attempting to apply multiple, incompatible imprints tends to create a jarring, messy painting.

Your "to the death" and "non-competition" clauses in marriage is supposed to serve the practical purpose of preventing a bunch of women ending up as abandoned, half-finished paintings that other men who would like to paint different pictures can't use because the canvass would need to be cleaned before painting began anew. "Death" is our canvass-cleaner, and it is why we lose memories between incarnations.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 05:41 PM
link   

Originally posted by LordBucket
reply to [/post by For(Home)Country
 

Are you saying that in your perfect world, sex and marriage would require state approval? I don't think I'd want to live in that world. I think the state has absolutely no business being involved in marriage whatsoever. I can think of no legitimite reason for people to believe that they need the states permission to be involved with one another.


Like I stated above, I do believe that many of my beliefs are not consistent with others, this one especially. When I say that the 'state' plays an important role in acknowledging marriage, I mean that in a complex, systematic society like ours, there are benefits and negative consequences of being 'legally' married. For example, when you go get a loan, sign for a house, and other legal procedures, being recognized by the 'state' can effect the outcome of your situation, legally. Is this crucial to being married to someone in all other aspects? No, but it's just my opinion. I believe it's important to be recognized by the state. I'm not saying you have to think this way though.




For example...if somebody were to suggest a "marriage" contract with a fixed duration...say, they agree to be committed for one year...would that be wrong?


I think that you have very unique values that not many people can relate to, which is interesting. You may feel so inclined to such a 'business' type relationship with a female (I'm assuming your a male), but I have my doubts that any rational female would genuinely feel mutual. But please, feel free to prove me wrong. (Insecure, immature, partying-scene females who are looking for a man to have a good time with to bolster lost self-confidence do not count as 'rational')



So then, to you, marriage is about possession? Marriage, to you, is a non-competition clause?

Precisely. Thank you for classifying that. I would see genuine marriage as nothing less. When you marry someone, it should be a final decision for life. Why do you view it as otherwise?



Why?

Does "loving everyone" make love common and meaningless? Does free intellectual discourse amongst people make it common and meaningless?


Simple: If you loved everyone like you loved your husband/wife, then there would be no point to having a husband or wife. There would be nothing special about occupying that position in your life. From what I gather from your posts, I would assume you are more inclined to believe in the 'pointlessness' of marriage?



I for one, would say that love is far more intimite than sex. If intimacy, and "strong bonds" are your concern...why are you not suggesting that love should be kept chained and confined within similar rules?


See, our opinions differ here, which is fine. I believe that sex is the ultimate form of physical intimacy between two lovers; an act that is intended to be acted out as such. Yes, love is intimate and you can experience many intimate things with your significant other that are not physical, but in my own beliefs, love comes before the sex. But of course, we are two different people! Why would you believe that sex is not intimate, given accounts from other people, scientific evidence, and common knowledge?



I simply object to saying "this should be this way" when what someone really means is "I think it would be better for me and people who agree with me if everybody did things my way."


Like I said, should is used in a form that implies things should be done in the way the person states, and it should be like that for everyone because the person who is making the statement believes that what they believe is the optimal ideology and best applied to everyone, not just people who agree. Bluntly, people who disagree are wrong.

Yes, that's what I mean by 'should'.



It's possible this issue might be difficutl for us to communicate for lack of common ground to speak on. Many english speakers tend to use mathematical expressions to convey non-mathematical concepts in a fuzzy, imprecise way. It's so deeply engrained in the language that it's difficult sometimes, for people to realize that their words are imprecise.


Actually, equal is an English term used in mathematics. It's origins mean 'level', 'uniform', or 'identical'. It's used in math when two variables are identical, but essentially is derived from English use. It is not a mathematical expression. If I said 'f(male)=2(women)^2 - 36' that would be a mathematical expression.



Is that basically what you're suggesting?


Yes. So you believe in incarnation? Interesting. How does that effect the way you view sexuality and it's properties?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 




I think that you have very unique values that not many people can relate to, which is interesting.


Thank you, but when I ask you why you believe something, please don't assume that I disagree with it. I want to know why you believe it. For example, I gave you reasons in a previous post why marital fidelity and avoiding casual sex can be of tremendous benefit.

Doesn't change the fact that I want to understand why you think so, because clearly our reasoning is very different.

For example...Islam has a rule against eating pig. It's an excellent rule, when interpreted correctly. There are certain parasites that like to live in pigs, and eating undercooked pork tends to give people trichinosis. If your society doesn't know about parasites, and isn't very good about cooking meat, then not eating pigs is a very good idea. But...there's a big difference between that and saying "Pigs are filthy, evil devil-spawn, therefore we won't eat them."

Why you believe the things you do is just as important as what the beliefs are.

"Don't eat pig" is really not the point. "Don't get parasites" is the point. And I think this is the nature of some of our disagreements. I agree completely that there are some very valid reasons for marriage, fidelity, and minimizing sexual contact...but like not eating pig, these are not the underlying goal. They're simply methods that are more or less proper for different people with different understanding.

Telling someone who knows to cook their meat that they shouldn't eat pig is silly. Similarly, telling everyone to only have sex within marriage is going to be silly for some people.

So...when I ask why you believe something, please consider that maybe I don't disagree with it, but would like to know how you came to those beliefs, so that we can discuss it and try to identify the more fundamental cause.



From what I gather from your posts, I would assume you are more inclined to believe in the 'pointlessness' of marriage?


Not at all. I see marriage as an arrangement with the potential for a great deal of practical benefit for both society and individuals. In fact, I said so in the last two paragraphs of the post you're replying to. But, like not eating pig...these things are more or less useful for different people in different circumstances.

Marriage is a practical solution for some of our problems. But like any solution, if it is applied without understanding...there is potential for difficulty.



If you loved everyone like you loved your husband/wife, then there would be no point to having a husband or wife.


Not neccesarily.

Sex is a physical-level manifestation of the act of change. In the ideal case, there is equal participation between masculine and feminine forces. For example, try to image five different painters all painting on the same piece of canvass. The resulting painting is going to be a mess, and not what any of the painters wanted. This tends to be the result of having multiple men all "acting upon" the same woman.

Marriage can perform the function of assigning masculine with feminine forces. Especially in a world where men require time to imprint a woman to become the sort of woman they want...it can be convenient to not also have to worry about undoing the painting done by others.

Also, like I mentioned in a previous post, marriage can perform the function of preventing societies from having an excess of "half-painted" that can result from being used by men and then thrown away. It isn't good for them, and it isn't good for society.

But once again, it's important to understand why these things are the way they are, so as to not get caught up in the solution as the rule, instead of viewing the solution as merely one possibel solution within a particular context. For example...even within the context of a society that values marriage for its practical benefits, I could argue that having some "loose" women would also have its benefits. Working with our metaphor of the painter, odds are good that the first time you sit down and start painting, you're probably not going to produce a masterpiece. There may be benefit to having some sketch pads to doodle on first. You may notice that Jesus in the bible did not seem particularly offended by prostitutes. I would suggest that they may have been contributing a great deal to society by allowing men a venue to come to understand their masculine role without permanently damaging a future wife.

If a pure, virgin bride is a pristine canvass upon which to paint your master work...a few loose women may be a potential practice-pad that you can draw on and erase without worrying about the smudges left over from previous paintings. And, from the perspective of woman, I suspect that there are joys to be had in either lifestyle: that of a cherished, beautiful wife, or as woman who enjoys the company of many men but is kept by none. There is a place for both prize mares and sturdy workhorses.

Our society is only having a problem with this because we are mixing the two. If you take a prize mare and have her drag a cart, you will ruin her. And if you take a workhorse and put her on display, you're wasting your time. Our society is trying to tell women they can be both horses. It's impractical.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:35 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 




Why would you believe that sex is not intimate


I have not said, and I am not saying that sex is not intimate. But I would say that it is less intimiate than love.



Bluntly, people who disagree are wrong.


There is much danger to be had on the road where that thought leads.



equal is an English term used in mathematics.
It's used in math when two variables are identical


That was kind of my point. One may be equal to one, but male is not equal to female. There is a disconnect in concept. Male and female may have "equality" in some senses, but they are not identical. They are different things. Saying that they are "equal" is misleading.



So you believe in incarnation? Interesting. How does that effect the way you view sexuality and it's properties?


I suppose it may predispose me towards accepting variety and multiple solutions to problems. For example, if we only ever get to live a single life, it becomes far more important to "do it right." With multiple lives, there would be more room to "make mistakes" because you'll have the opportunity to try again.

More importantly though...I suppose it could be argued that belief in reincarnation may predispose one towards the idea that there is no fundamental "single way" to do things. In my mind, experience has value in and of itself. We're not here to "win" life. If a person lives a life as a celibate priest, forsaking relations with the opposite gender entirely...that's an interesting life with its own flavor, and its own character. And if a person lives a life of drunken hedonism, sleeping with anybody and everybody they can...that too, seems like a interesting life with its own character. Each life is sure to have both joys and pains that the other lacks. And if we're "allowed" multiple lives, I for one would choose to experience a variety of different types of lives, each with their own character and flavor.

But if you only get one, then experiencing any lifestyle for the sake of the experience seems a terribly unwise choice.

Yes, belief in reincarnation is likely to lead to a different perspective than belief in only a single life followed by paradise or damnation. As you said earlier, "people who disagree are wrong." If you only believe in a single life, that might make sense. But to me...when I see somebody leading a life that I wouldn't choose for myself, how can I say that they are wrong? Maybe their last five lives were all lived as saints, and they want to do something else now. Who am I to say that's improper? Of course, that works both ways: if someone lives half a dozen lives as a hedonist, is it any stretch to think they might choose something different in the next? The point of living is to experience life, and to choose who and what we want to be. Free will. Life is not a deadly game that must be played a certain way to win a prize.



[edit on 24-10-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


I think that as westerners, we like to think that we do everything more and "better" than everybody else. When it comes to sexuality, we are the PRUDES of PRUDES.

We are a 2 century old gold medal winners in being prudes.

If you want proof, take a vacation to Japan and tell me that they don't like sex more than we do.

Now I can see that we like to "sell" sex and sexuality more than most other nations on the planet, but that is a symptom of our entertainment and consuming industry.

Let's face the fact here, the only reason that we have " a lot" of sex in our culture, is because we realized that it sells. If abstinence starting selling movies tomorrow, you could get that every movie coming up would carry a G rating.


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.


Well the Japanese have been around a lot longer than we have, and they do just fine with a RIDICULOUS ammount of sex and pornography. So does Germany among other places.

And the respect of a female only becomes tarnished when WOMEN allow it to be. I am sorry but if you are going to allow other people to label you based on your appearance, then there is a huge pshychological problem in this country that runs far deeper than sex.

And there is no dignity to destroy anymore. As humans the only thing we have done for the past ten thousand years is figure out better ways to kill each other, and you are going to say that we are morally killing ourselves with sex? There are WAY bigger problems in the world that contribute to a negative view of women than sex does.

~Keeper

~Keeper

[edit on 10/24/2009 by tothetenthpower]



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join