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: 4
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:20 PM
link   
reply to post by LordBucket
 


Thankyou for your reply. But I have a question: What if we reverse the canvas analogy? What if the woman becomes the painter on which man is the canvas? See, that's where it changes for me due to my belief in 'equalism' as we have covered. Why is it that a wife should be a virgin and a man experienced in sex before they enter into marriage? Or even the other way around? I know, I will admit this as my own personal preference, but I know if I was entering into a sexual relationship whereas it would be my 'first time', I would want it to be my partners first time as well. I'm sure there are other people out there that would feel the same, and others that wouldn't.

Just a question out of curiosity: Would you think there is something a little 'more' special about two virgins both engaging in sex for both of their very first times as opposed to only one or the other being a virgin, or neither of them?

Also, another personal question to satisfy my own curiosity if you don't mind answering; what experiences cement your belief in incarnation?




posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:23 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


The way you dress can indicate internal beliefs. If a women dresses in an attempt to win the attention of a males eyes to something other than what matters the most (her face), then it shows an internal longing for this attention.

In the same way, you have a troubled youth who has grown up in a broken, abusive, alcoholic home and dresses on the extreme end of the spectrum. It clearly reflects internal emotions and conflicts. What is on the inside comes out on the outside.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:25 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


But that is not the case for ALL people. Therefore you are wrong to generalize that way.

And I am not attempting to start an argument or anything, I just think your view is feminist and too linear for the world we live in. You can't blame our current predicament on sex.

I would blame it on the lack of sex. Or the lack of sexual expression.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:38 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


No, you're right. It's not the case for all people. However, the dysfunctional of consumer-saturated, corporatist America (and the rest of the world) comes out in multiple forms, including terrible parental ethics, overworked citizens, broken homes, individualist ideologies, anti-collectivist beliefs, materialist goals, and over all, a world bloated with consumption and the need to be better than the next person by any means possible. People lack attention so they seek it, and they do it with vigour disregarding external consequences. To deny this is to deny the very world that comes out of your television, magazine, block-busting movie, local mall, and ultimately your reality.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:49 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 


I completely agree with you on what you have said.

But Sexuality is not the driving factor in this dispute. Advertising is.

~Keeper



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by tothetenthpower
 


I agree as well, but like you said, sex sells. Regardless, I'm a strong advocate of banning Internet pornography, but this is besides the topic, and obviously very controversial. (If China can do it, why can't we?)



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:06 PM
link   
Anyone ever see the old flick "Cherry 2000" ? It featured two examples: high tech lust and depravity, and a real relationship the old fashioned way.

Cherry was, at that time, the quintessential every mans dream girl. Pamela Gidley was a knock out.

Here is the synopsis;

Directed by Steve De Jarnatt
Starring David Andrews, Harry Carey, Jr., Melanie Griffith, Brion James, Ben Johnson, Tim Thomerson

"In this arch sci-fi sex comedy-cum-action extravaganza, a hard-nosed female mercenary helps a hapless yuppie find a new body for his robot girlfriend in the post-industrial wasteland of the American Southwest. In the year 2017, what little remains of civilization feeds off the scrap heap of 20th century waste, while even casual sex has become a matter of regulations and contracts. Like many other members of the L.A. white-collar elite, Sam Treatwell (David Andrews) takes refuge in a quasi-marriage with his beloved sex robot, Cherry (Pamela Gidley). After a soft-focus, bubbly sexcapade short circuits Cherry's body, Sam considers replacing her, but the shoddy production values of modern robots make it obvious that the vintage appliance is irreplaceable. To put it simply, the guy's in love. The wistful romantic therefore heads out to The Zone, a forbidding no man's land, where he hopes to find a new "chassis" in which to insert Cherry's unique personality chip. To do so, he needs the help of a "tracker," and E. Johnson (Melanie Griffith) is just the woman for the job. The gun-toting, red-headed road warrior leads Sam through a dystopian desert landscape full of psychopaths and opportunists toward their final destination: an abandoned warehouse full of antique androids. Along the way, Sam learns what it's like to interact with a woman who has brains and a heart instead of a microchip. Filmed in 1986, Cherry 2000 didn't receive its limited theatrical release until 1988, the same year star Griffith received an Oscar nomination for her role in Working Girl. Griffith and director Steven de Jarnatt previously worked together on the pilot for the 1980s revival of Alfred Hitchcock Presents. Ben Johnson, veteran of many a Hollywood Western, appears as E. Johnson's mentor, Six Finger Jake. ~ Brian J. Dillard, All Movie Guide "

www.spout.com...

As far fetched as this film was...it captures the core of our underlying baseness. It certainly made women objects of lust! The men are mostly losers.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 09:13 PM
link   
reply to post by For(Home)Country
 




What if the woman becomes the painter on which man is the canvas?


I would simply refer you to my post on page 2, where I described masculine/feminine in the context of yin/yang:

"I'll grant you that as real human beings, we're not in rapport exclusively with either the masculine or feminine principal. A man does possess feminine qualities. A woman does posses masculine qualities."

This is depicted in the yin/yang symbol: within the white swirl, there is a central black dot. Within the black swirl there is a central white dot.

I would also refer you to my post on page 3 where I said:

"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."

Being a man does not mean that one exhibits purely yang, nor does being a woman mean that one will exhibit purely yin. Yes, a woman may "write" upon the canvass of a man. However, generally speaking, someone who manifests in a male body will probably be more in tune with yang forces than someone who manifests in a female body. A man will generally have more paint, and a woman will generally have more canvass.

So if a woman paints upon the canvas of a man, then she paints upon the canvas of a man. This happens as part of the natural flow of events. The shape of the riverbed guides the water, but so too does the flow of the water shape the riverbed.

Does that answer your question?



Why is it that a wife should be a virgin and a man experienced in sex before they enter into marriage?


Please stop assuming that I believe things I have not said. I am not saying it "should" be this way. I am saying that it is a valid solution to some problems some people may have.

However, I thought the metaphor was clear: a man who practices painting may become a better painter. A virginal bride may be spoiled and damaged by a man who has no idea what he's doing. It is possible for a man to become similarly damaged, but since he "has less canvas" than a woman, he's less likely to. By "knowing" several women, provided a man does not become damaged in the process, he may come to know what he really wants, and learn how to properly create it in the woman he chooses.



Would you think there is something a little 'more' special about two virgins both engaging in sex for both of their very first times as opposed to only one or the other being a virgin, or neither of them?


"Special" is very vague. You appear to be assiging value to a thing for the sake of assigning value to it. I would prefer to work with understanding so we can make choices that are likely to give us the results we want.

The primary benefit of two virgins is that all canvass in either of them is available for pure, unblemished use by the other. For some couples this will be ideal.



I'm sure there are other people out there that would feel the same, and others that wouldn't.


Yes. It's difficult to say what is "best" because different people may work differently, have different needs, different awarenesses, etc. Some men may need "practice." Some women may need "de-frosting."

Like with eating pigs, I think it's best to understand what's going on, rather than simply confining oneself to a few general rules. The rule of not eating pig can be a disservice if it leads to someone starving to death. Making a rule of "two virgins married" may prove to be a similar disservice if a man who doesn't know what he wants is coupled with a woman is is scared to death of men. In a case like this, the canvas of the woman is unreceptive to the mans paint. But her paint will tend to write on his canvas the idea that men are scary. So the man learns that he is evil, which he then reinforces upon her by writing to her canvass, and the two create a cycle that is not very healthy for either of them. In a case like this, both of them sleeping around, he so that he may learn what he wants, and she so that she may relax and learn that men are not evil, and that it is proper to be a woman...may be of benefit.



what experiences cement your belief in incarnation?


Well, first off I'd object to your suggestion that my belief is "cemented." I don't firmly belive in reincarnation. It simply seems the best explanation. I recognize that it's not the only expanation, and I recognize that I'm not in a position to directly know.

To answer the question though, it's not quite so much that I believe in reincarnation, as that I can see no reason to assume that consciousness would be limited to one incarnation.

It would require its own thread to do the concept justice, but starting from the assumption that we're spiritual beings, and that the mechanics does exist for us to experience physicality...what possible reason could there be to assume that there would be a limit of one physical body over the course of eternity?


[edit on 24-10-2009 by LordBucket]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by For(Home)Country
Would you think there is something a little 'more' special about two virgins both engaging in sex for both of their very first times as opposed to only one or the other being a virgin, or neither of them?


Yeah, the "special" is disappointment from all the hype.

Rolling with this whole canvas metaphor
, the first time is not as special as people make it seem to be. The painter doesn't know how to paint and the canvas doesn't know what to be painted really is.

The "special" only comes the first time a beautiful painting is painted. With that said, you partially do have a point but it's very minute.

I would assume couples who have started from scratch together will look back on the first time kind of like a painting you did when you were 3. It's "special" but you get a good laugh from it.



new topics

top topics



 
7
<< 1  2  3   >>

log in

join