Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

The War on Sex is Awful

page: 3
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by SpringHeeledJack
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


It's just the sort of subjective viewpoint the weak and powerless will always try to force onto others. It's the impression that if they cannot control their own urges, there must be a law to control everyone. It's a classical example of cognitive dissonance.

Others here are definitely projecting and assigning their own pedophile and bestiality fantasies onto others. Nothing of the sort was ever mentioned yet somehow it is brought forth and assigned. Maybe lithium in the water is a good idea after all...


Just because your upset your post was removed doesn't mean you take it out on others.
LoL
Where did anyone say that these values had to be enforced? Oh i guess you just made that up.




posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:47 PM
link   
reply to post by SpringHeeledJack
 


Yes, an appeal to a tradition that isn't there, to boot. MasterGemini speaks as though the nuclear family unit and all of the prudish morals associated with it (Father Knows Best!) underlie the successful development of the First World. This is absurd, of course; the tight-knit nuclear family didn't exist as such until the twentieth century. Before that there were many family models that were not expressly enforced by the government's morality police.

For example, even though the age of consent in the past was much lower, or didn't exist at all (12 year old girls were married off to farmers in 17th century New France; Quebec stands today as an affluent and powerful Stadt) we Westerners still became powerful and wealthy.

Look at the inverse of his argument; America and the West are in decline right now, in the century after the nuclear family and "family values" became dominant political forces! They were on the rise in the pre-modern age, when families came in all shapes and sizes!
edit on 30-7-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by Stormdancer777
I just read this today, nice timing,

Is pornography driving men crazy?

globalpublicsquare.blogs.cnn.com...

Scientists Discover Drug-Resistant Gonorrhea 'Superbug'
healthland.time.com...


with 700,000 new cases in the U.S. each year, and an estimated 340 million new cases each year globally.




No porn is absolutely not driving men or woman crazy. This author is a complete moron and exactly the problem. She is overanalyzing sex - a very simple thing.

I love how she basically says men need to be cured. ha
How about the author cures herself of her emotional hang ups. Newsflash... Your genitals are no more special than the next woman's, no matter what synthetic cover up you use to try and get sex from your mates.

This is the kind of chick who is not meant to handle sex. Probably cries when there's no foreplay and the man goes for the goodies. Guess what you delusional drama queen, it's called real life


It's late, interesting topic, see you in the morning.
edit on 113131p://bSaturday2011 by Stormdancer777 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 30 2011 @ 11:55 PM
link   
reply to post by pplrnuts
 


Yes, from now on ATS isn't a site to discuss any other topic than THEE number one most important topic..

And that's yet to be determined.



Maybe you should read up on Freud. He sure seemed to think sex was important.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by SpringHeeledJack
 


Yes, an appeal to a tradition that isn't there, to boot. MasterGemini speaks as though the nuclear family unit and all of the prudish morals associated with it (Father Knows Best!) underlie the successful development of the First World. This is absurd, of course; the tight-knit nuclear family didn't exist as such until the twentieth century. Before that there were many family models that were not expressly enforced by the government's morality police.

For example, even though the age of consent in the past was much lower, or didn't exist at all (12 year old girls were married off to farmers in 17th century New France; Quebec stands today as an affluent and powerful Stadt) we Westerners still became powerful and wealthy.

Look at the inverse of his argument; America and the West are in decline right now, in the century after the nuclear family and "family values" became dominant political forces! They were on the rise in the pre-modern age, when families came in all shapes and sizes!
edit on 30-7-2011 by SmedleyBurlap because: (no reason given)


Actually this is the age raised by the hippy and free love generation.
Where did I ever say a father knows best model, those are some odd words to try and put in my mouth.

I was talking about a strong family unit, I never defined it as nuclear you did. You keep inserting things to avoid the point.

Now explain to me why all the age of consent laws are much higher now when we are a more prolific presence on the planet than when we married at 12 years old?



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 12:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1
reply to post by pplrnuts
 


Yes, from now on ATS isn't a site to discuss any other topic than THEE number one most important topic..

And that's yet to be determined.



Maybe you should read up on Freud. He sure seemed to think sex was important.


He was also a coc aine addict

he almost killed a woman drugging her while he was high



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:04 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


Hi, Smedley:

I think you have brought up some really interesting points, and I pretty much concur.....Star and flag.

That said....I am ordering those who have declared war on sex to STAND DOWN! Cease and desist with your carpet bombings! We shall have no more, because we here at ATS refuse to allow any further military action against our SEX! The AUDACITY of the attack is outrageous enough! LOL



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by MasterGemini

Originally posted by Turq1
reply to post by pplrnuts
 


Yes, from now on ATS isn't a site to discuss any other topic than THEE number one most important topic..

And that's yet to be determined.



Maybe you should read up on Freud. He sure seemed to think sex was important.


He was also a coc aine addict

he almost killed a woman drugging her while he was high


I was being facetious but thanks for sharing such wondrously irrelevant information.

Founder of psychoanalysis, and also coc aine addict. Got it.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by Turq1

Originally posted by MasterGemini

Originally posted by Turq1
reply to post by pplrnuts
 


Yes, from now on ATS isn't a site to discuss any other topic than THEE number one most important topic..

And that's yet to be determined.



Maybe you should read up on Freud. He sure seemed to think sex was important.


He was also a coc aine addict

he almost killed a woman drugging her while he was high


I was being facetious but thanks for sharing such wondrously irrelevant information.

Founder of psychoanalysis, and also coc aine addict. Got it.


Just thought I would include it as it was critical in his development of said analysis.

It may help someone get a better grasp as to what frame of mind he was in, or just a fun fact.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:10 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:12 AM
link   
 


off-topic post removed to prevent thread-drift


 



edit on Sun Jul 31 2011 by DontTreadOnMe because: Mod Note: Do Not Evade the Automatic Censors – Please Review This Link.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:48 AM
link   
...well, smedley, theres some folks you just cant talk to about SEX and, usually, you cant talk to em about anything else either - especially the atrocities their kind has committed worldwide...

...they're a kinky bunch, no doubt about it... their communion rituals are cannabilistic and their oldest cult endorses necrophilia via having virgins marry a dead guy... i could overlook that if they werent always trying to legislate morality for everyone but themselves...




posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 01:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Wyn Hawks
...well, smedley, theres some folks you just cant talk to about SEX and, usually, you cant talk to em about anything else either - especially the atrocities their kind has committed worldwide...

...they're a kinky bunch, no doubt about it... their communion rituals are cannabilistic and their oldest cult endorses necrophilia via having virgins marry a dead guy... i could overlook that if they werent always trying to legislate morality for everyone but themselves...



Yep and to tie this in with sex,
I was in Egypt in 2009 and wouldn't you surprised by all the phallic artwork that is covered and otherwise made less apparent by museum staff.
LoL
Osiris you old goat.

Just because I don't endorse "free love" doesn't mean I have not experienced it.

Also I suggest you look up the pharmacratic inquisition as to better origins of the body and blood and the holy grail.

And I am very much unaware of these atrocities you are accusing me of? Please elaborate or gtfo with lame personal attacks.
edit on 31-7-2011 by MasterGemini because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Adyta
"War on sex"? What world are you living in?

Almost every movie made has sex in it, or at least sexual innuendos / erotic acts... Even Harry Potter and Disney / Pixar films. War on sex? You mean those commercials I see with nearly naked women claiming I should drink Pepsi? If there even IS a "war on sex", sex is clearly winning... so you can stop complaining.

Why don't you just rename this thread what it's really about; "I wanna have sex with kids / in public / get laid without having to court the person / see naked women everywhere, etc"? Everyone that argues "sex is natural and should be everywhere" usually fall into at least one of the following categories;

1. They wanna diddle kids / young teens.
2. They just wanna oogle topless women.
3. They can't get laid with our views of sex as it currently is.

Which one are you?



You think sex is winning this "war" because it is used in advertising and media? Let me ask you this.. why do you think all these HUGE companies, commercials, films etc are overflowing with sex appeal?

Sex sells.
But what makes it such a GREAT seller?

The answer is... sexually repressed people! Maybe on an ECONOMIC level, sex is seen as acceptable. On a SOCIAL level, sex is completely vilified. Don't believe me? Look at this thread. Look at people throwing out names like "whores" and referring to sexual liberation as "poking anything that walks."

It is really simple to see once you think about it. On a social level, there are definite pressures to maintain a level of prudence. Look at how often females can point out someone in her circle of friends and label her the "slutty one." That seems like an observation to some people, but that label is actually a direct attack on that persons individuality. How does someone feel when their individuality is attacked? They feel threatened. What happens when a person is constantly rejected by their peers over a certain aspect of their self? They either repress the part of their self that makes people call them "different," or they risk being isolated and judged in their social groups. Now imagine this on a LARGE scale, with people of all sorts of unique sexual desires feeling like freaks for having certain sexual desires and being forced to repress them.

That was only ONE example of sex being attacked. How about porn? You'll see many articles claiming that porn is the cause of ruined sex lives in many marriages. These articles are so horribly misleading. With the exception of a few people who may have general problems with addiction as a personality trait, porn has nothing to do with a couples ruined sex life. It is MUCH more likely the relationship with sex issues has communication as well as many other issues unrelated to porn.

I could go on but I don't want to get off topic, I just wanted to show how sex actually isn't winning the war at all. It is ONLY winning if its sole purpose is to make profit. On personal, social, and intimate levels it is failing on a LARGE scale.

And for the record, I don't care to have sex with kids or any of the other nonsense you typed. However, it seems incredibly insensitive, naive and immature to jump to such conclusions about an entire group of people over their opinion about something. Let me tell you something else. In response to your poorly thought out numbered list, I have had the unfortunate experiences in my lifetime of encountering several sex offenders, none of whom ever spoke a word openly about how sex should be "everywhere" as you put it.

Okay, I get it. It's really easy to be angry and threatened about sex when so many other people are shivering in their bones right there with you holding your hand telling you it's okay to be scared. But when it comes down to it, sex is going to mean something different to each and every person. To try and deny or suppress anothers sexuality is a cruel and sadistic act (just as long as this person isn't hurting others!)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:52 AM
link   
the war on sex is useless, its a basic human instinct and nothing will stop any of us from following that instinct



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:54 AM
link   
What I’d primarily like to know is whether there are, or have been, any self-avowed, anti-sex morons who’ve posted on this thread? If so, when & under what circumstances did you realize you’re an anti-sex moron?

Next, I’m curious whether there are any posters who enjoy sex & do not agree with a piece or portions of the OP, regardless your sexual orientation?

I think it would be accurate to characterize my queries as a call to those who recognize that systems of belief & value concomitant to sexuality differ from person to person, state to state, & nation to nation. Beyond that, what is more liberating than acting on that which you believe & value? Perhaps it is sex for some, or perhaps it is sex for some at, hmm, cyclical intervals that exceed normal human appetites. But that speaks more to proclivities I think, steering clear of systems of belief & value. So perhaps the OP is speaking more toward a goal of self-expression that is not constrained by wimpy morals? Well, the OP is a manifesto of sorts bent on waging war against wimpy morals that constrain sexual expression.

It’s not abundantly clear to me what the OP’s underlying hope is: A) that the enlightened be afforded opportunity to express themselves sexually in the manner that best suits their sexual proclivities without constraint; or B) that the unenlightened simply acknowledge their existence? Perhaps there is a C, D, E, and so on to go with that, but the thesis & sub-thesis appear to me to go the route of A & B. The OP appears to even suggest that those of us who remain unenlightened must be forcefully removed from association with the idiot mass (because we're too stupid to know otherwise, I reckon). Then in order to become integrated into the enlightened sense of belief & value, our old system of belief & value with regard to sexuality must be upended to reflect the new & improved species of enlightment; namely, that which is sexual in nature & seemingly unrepressed.

Are there any takers from the unenlightened, idiot mass camp? Just curious.
edit on 31-7-2011 by Axebo because: (no reason given)
edit on 31-7-2011 by Axebo because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 02:58 AM
link   
reply to post by Adyta
 



Is that dog comment serious? Someone enjoys sex with a dog simply because they state they enjoy the act of penetration? The source of that suggestion was from YOUR own mind. If the act of penetration alone was not enjoyable, there wouldn't be so many dildos and vibrators out there being sold.

Your sentence was as relevant as it would be to come to the conclusion that someone enjoys eating chemical waste just because they say they enjoy the act of eating.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 03:21 AM
link   
reply to post by MasterGemini
 


Morality cannot be legislated... Yet the attempts are evident. Ever seen you city's penal code? I bet it's massive. Thrusting it down the throats of otherwise good little girls and boys.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 03:25 AM
link   
reply to post by Axebo
 


There are points I disagree with. Sort of.
I think the OP's focus is too narrow in my opinion.
What this really touches on is a much broader spectrum of people forcing themselves upon others and since I'm stating, that I might as well say I believe the cause to be religion. I suffer no delusion that this won't blow up into a religious debate but that's just my personal take on it.

I WANT LIBERTY.

Save for any physical harm or acts that will lead to physical harm, I say do as you please.



posted on Jul, 31 2011 @ 03:31 AM
link   
reply to post by SmedleyBurlap
 


There really isn't a war on sex going on. It is just a continuation of the Matriarchal Civil War(feminism=left wing matriarchy while traditionalism= right wing matriarchy)/Gender War(men didn't enter the Matriarchal Civil War until 2006-2011, after this point in time a real gender war is being waged) and the matriarchies obsession with controlling male sexuality.

Really look at it all from an unbiased point of view. Women can protest half naked to naked and it is well within their rights. While young men/men can be thrown off of a bus or denied service because their pants are too baggy. But if a boy, young man or man get's an erection in public they could very well end up on a sex offender list(getting an erection in public is considered lewd/indecent public nudity type thing).

You could go on and on about the sexual double standards in our society. But the truth of the matter is in this day and age males in the 21st Century have to abide by both the feminine and masculine Victorian era gender roles.





new topics

top topics



 
11
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join