Reading about this thread reminded me of the olden time fertility rites. One of which is in Old Testament about the sacred prostitutes of Baal. I read somewhere that those prostitutes are given sometimes as form of prize in fertility contest, the more cows you produced or the most wheat you harvest is the criteria, and you spend a day or two with the prostitute. Well, we call them prostitute now but to those practising the rites they are priestesses.
Another thing that comes to my mind is one of the practices of the aborigine tribes in Asia. At a certain age, that is the age of menstraution, so it may be from 13-14, the girls of the tribe are placed in a segregated place. The soon to be young warriors can visit them at nights. Only when the female get pregnant can they be married.

In the Catholic canon law, impotence on either part of male or female invalidates marriage. Infertility however does not.

What's my point? I am just thinking how sex is viewed by soicieties in different times and different places. Its function in society differs on the need of that society. Imagine Sex as a raffle prize. Every farmer and herder will work double time for that. Or in the case of the tribe where population is a big deal because they are so few.

There is a red light district in Netherlands where Sex for Money is legal. But i don't think people will start shooting each other because it is (decay of morals). I read somewhere that during the liberation of Berlin (i'm not sure of its veracity) some goverment officials there, allowed prostitution dens to operate discretely in order to minimize rape among its soldiers and it did minimize rape.

As Donnie Darko said, "What's the point of living, if you don't have a ****?"...

The problem with the initial post, in my opinion, is the OP fails to consider that not everyone shares his/her idea of morality. I think it's presumptuous to say someone is less pure simply because they express sexuality differently. While the instant gratification of sex may leave you disgusted in our culture, it seems to be a more positive sign to me than anything. The reason why it permeates every ****ing movie we watch is because there's still that little bit of excitement and shock that comes from the idea (Which is slowly dying...seeing tits in movies now means almost nothing. Hell, it's expected!). As time passes, and sex eventually becomes something that we consider natural, not shocking or immoral, it will have lost it's place in pop culture, so to say. Though, it's doubtful that time will ever come, as there will always be those with a moral standing against it (or maybe not...)

But to put yourself on a pedestal and believe you're better than those that wish to be open about the normal act of reproduction? Well, I don't agree with that in the slightest. However, I do see where you're coming and the reason for this way of thinking. If you choose to stand with both feet on the ground and not consider anything else, then so be it - Everyone looks our their own window! But please don't then hang those that wish to live their life differently, that's all I ask.

Very interesting thread.

Fido hit on a real tweak-point; that of using sexual innuendo to sell products. I am deeply ashamed at the tools used to sell products; fear mongering, band-wagoning and every sort of sexual suggestion to make a buck. I see no end, unfortunately, to sexual commodification. The greed of the human animal; though it fuels many a nation, continues to usurp every honest effort to grow as a species.

As far as sexual objectification (of females in particular) goes; I have mixed feelings on this one. When used to sell stuff, it's reprehensible. When males, through natural inclinations become fixated - to some greater or lesser extent - on the female form this is (I believe) a normal permutation. We have to be careful here though because although males, too, are often devalued down to the value of their body, I see it as obvious that feminine objectification is much more profuse . When we objectify a person (that is, to, consciously or otherwise, base their worth based on fixation of one or more parts), the danger is that we - intentionally or not - can interact with them based on that alone. This is subtle, but I believe very real. Most ladies I've spoke with on this matter can verify that they can feel it; many seem to know when they're being condescended to - that in the conversation/interraction, such is being done in a sexually-sloven manner.

Yet as I stated, I believe it to be the nature of the male for this to happen. Therefore my take is to honestly endeavor to remain conscious of it and do my utmost to compensate (e.g., keeping the eyes on the eyes, respecting my wife when in the presence of other attractive females, being aware of the potential effects of my exposure to pornography, etc.). Nope, I'm not always successful (but who always is, ever) - sometimes making the honest effort to mitigate the negative effects of a positive process is necessary. We rail against the effects of natural urges mis-used - its a battle that'll never end.

As far as sexuality as an element in a culture's "moral decline" is concerned. I'll readily agree with those sentiments expressed that it's not due to humans freely expressing themselves (this is a right, it is not something anyone else has any license to judge). Problems rear their head when such expression disagrees with the sensibilities of those making judgments. Sexuality simply is; period. Its only in our assessment of its effects that we judge it right or wrong.

A few months back I finished the compiled works of "The Psychology of Sex", by Havelock Ellis. It was by no means the pre-eminant work on sexual psychology (it is well-dated), but its volumes are filled with examples of how humans express themselves, how cultures control and view sex and the like. Its voluminous, to be sure, but a good read for those wanting to dive *deeply* into human sexuality. This, to be sure, doesn't make me any expert (nor would I be so presumptuous as to make that claim), but it did give me a good bit of insight. I'd also highly suggest the more-contemporary work "Survival of the Prettiest" (Nancy Etcoff) as a patently-outstanding examination of sexuality. Other good ones (since I'm on a roll here) are "The Naked Ape" by Desmond Morris and "Love, Sexuality and Matriarchy" by Eric Fromm.

As far as the sticky subject of Prostitution goes; once again I believe this comes down to a practice that is neither inherently good or bad to the human animal except in how it happens to take place. Is it allowed to take place in such a way as to "criminalize" it? Is it vilified by those whose morals are offended? Is it done in such a way as to allow the young (those too young to have any hope of making a rational, adult-informed decision) to be warped by elements of abject human sexuality they're not otherwise prepared for? And again, all these elements are complex and wholly dependent on culture's views, sensibilities, mores, etc., etc.

The history of prostitution is quite interesting. Someone here in the thread mentioned the Priestesses, who were (by a hegemonous, practical definition) prostitutes. Yep... and the variety and profuseness of various forms of prostitution throughout history (and even today!) defies calculation. Once again, whether or not it was seen as 'good' depended exclusively on the judgments made by individuals.

Ok... I'll shut this post down... bear with me

Quote:

I believe sexual expression between humans (of any combination) taps into very ancient forces (genetic, perhaps?) that bond us one to another. It is a source of joy and fulfillment that is our right to enjoy. No individual, no institution, no church nor any government has any right or license to limit or to place value-judgments on its expression. Leading to procreation, I believe it combines into the closest thing we'll ever experience to Divinity.

Rights are defended by community, and one could generally define community as those who support your rights. Rights are a form of relationship, and they do not stand alone, and just as with every form of right, the society has the power and the obligation to determine which rights lead to the health and life of the people. It is no wonder that all behaviors whether pleasurable or not are proscribed if they result in death, injury, or disease.

Quote:

Good subject - many apologies for the length of this post.

EDIT: Another important work on this subject exists, though I wouldn't recommend it except to ADULTS who have a strong stomach, The Marguis De Sade's, "120 Days of Sodom" is an epic description of murderous, disgusting human sexuality in its most extreme forms.

Look; I must tell you that the objectification of people is not only likely to result in violence, but is an essential part of it, because morally we cannot do unto others as long as we know they are like us, and suffer and bleed like us. Only the viewing of enemies as animals, which is a form of object can we justify killing them. We cannot do violence to others on the basis their prizing life exactly as us, having dreams, and desires like ourselves. Such behavior would color us as the worst of saddists.
People considered as objects can be denied essential meaning, and for that reason their deaths are not murders, and their sufferings are no crime. Now; I am not painting me white and you black. Why do we like our magazines? It is because they objectify people. We cannot look at people. We cannot compare, imagine, fantasize. Where can any man look at a woman not his wife without drawing attention and recrimination. If we cannot do it in public, perhaps we should not do it. Perhaps there is something bad, even slightly criminal in looking at pictures in a magazine or on tv. And is there an injured party? Certainly every man who looks up the skirt of every paper or plastic woman must look a little down at his own love. It is not just that some women are paid once and stared at for hours, but compared to a fast food cook, they don't recieve even a portion of their product. In addition, the ability of some, for a mere token of money, to demean other people, and ridicule and devalue all they have to share as an intimacy -is the ability to do injury. Stuff like we see all over, loaded with sexuality, or pregnant with sexual innuendo sends a message that women can be bought, as an article of commerce. It may not seem like much, but it is a vast insult to an entire sex. On the one hand, people should have some natural discretion to determine what is best for themselves, and if you do not allow some freedom of expression then you risk having all women set apart in a harem of second class status. If it is not free expression so much as traffic in sexuality for profit; then it should be prosecuted as a crime.

But what is right? In reality, one must chose as to pursue what we deem as true and pure, or to follow down a endless fixation drenched in sexuality and agony.

Fido,

[QUOTE]
"What people do not realize is that the ability with the desire to turn sex into a commodity cheapens the only thing most people have to give to each other as a bond, and proof of their love"

I don't agree with this at all. I think one of the key reasons why it's so over dramatized is because people have this view. Sex is NOT the only thing you can provide a loved one, and I really don't know why people believe that.

If one woman gets a wheelbarrow full of money for demeaning all women it should be a crime. If she hates all women for some reason and she does it for free she should have the freedom. The fact is, that if there were no profit in it there would be very little of it, and certainly little crime.

Show me where any right is a right without the support of some community. Why is sex with who ever, or how ever a right when murder is not. I'd don't see where you have given the rights thing much thought. Rights are not right only because people desire them, but because they are literally right, and that is why is German and French the word right has become the word for law.

If one woman gets a wheelbarrow full of money for demeaning all women it should be a crime. If she hates all women for some reason and she does it for free she should have the freedom. The fact is, that if there were no profit in it there would be very little of it, and certainly little crime.
And I am not pushing christian values, and it is beside the point since all religions support what is proven healthy behavior. The Christians in holding women in an inferior position to men are as responsible for the violence, death, and injustice women suffer as the pornographers, or advertizers, or the movie makers.

Sexual act in itself, in my honest opinion, does not have moral values - the same way eating food does not offer morality in itself. We eat to nourish life, we do sex to propagate life. This are ordinary biological function and facts of life. Why so many taboos then? All these are social constructs. And these social constructs which passed as norms of society must not be made absolute and be applicable to all societies. It serves different functions in different forms of communal life.

Allow me guys to give a hypothetical scenario. All of a sudden the human race was wipe out and the people left alive is just four. You, your wife, your sister and your mother. Your wife is barren, you knew that for years now. To whom will you perform sex then?