What's the deal with sex?

Get Email Updates Email this Topic Print this Page

midas77
 
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 11:15 am
@Casualty,
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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Mon 16 Jun, 2008 07:13 pm
@midas77,
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.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 05:48 am
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
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.

If a form of government legalizes prostitution to minimize rape it is sustituting one crime for another, and in fact, for a third one, of organizing an army for the purposes sanctified murder. It reminds me of a story of Frederick the Great who had a great gift of recognizing people and remembering names. He once rod into a cavelry camp and saw a man he knew being punished. Why do you punish this good soldier? he asked. For having sex with his horse was the answer. Don't punish him; said Fred; put him in the infantry... It is hard for me to imagine that once in the infantry that the soldier would not suffer from some similar confusion as to the proper target of his affection.

Let me see if I can lay this out for you. Rape is a form of violence, and most would concede that fact. Yet, so is prostitution, because instead of a weapon to coerce a victim into compliance as with rape, in prostitution, the whole injustice of an economy is used to coerce a victim into compliance. Sex with a protitute is an act of violence. It has the danger of injury in disease, or mental problems. It is an act, and one not generally legal, and not of affection. Sex can be, and usually is a form of love, and is not an economic relationship. While some sell what they do, what they make, a person forced to sell what they are, is a slave. Since love, affection, or caring are not a part of prostitution, its opposite, not love, affection, and caring are a part of prostitution, and any act likely to injure with a purpose opposite of love is an assault.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 06:09 am
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
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.

Off with yer head.

You should remember that no one can get enough sugar. When people sell sex on tv, they are not selling sex, but selling tv. 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. Relationships are difficult to maintain. What then, if in a difficult relationship, some one offers you cheaply what some one else has given you freely as part of a larger, life long relationship? Do you say: Why should I put up with this crap if I can get the same sex without the emotional pain? When young, people are encouraged to enjoy variety, and to think of sex as a goal in itself, and it is only later that a person learns that the relationship of love of which sex is a part is the essential of a happy life and of life itself.

I think turning sex into a commodity is a serious crime, and what people really need as a commodity is the knowledge to realize the part healthy sex plays in a healthy life. Behind it all is women as property, or as objects, or as status symbols, and women as equals has no part in it. It is not that the traditional moral view of women is better for society or women than the amoral view that actually plays upon the traditional view for its titilation. A new morality will follow a new understanding of human relationships, and many people grow into just such a morality and understanding eventually.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 07:00 am
@Fido,
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 Smile

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.

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.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 09:54 am
@Khethil,
Khethil wrote:
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 Smile

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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 11:42 am
@Fido,
Fido,

"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.

"What then, if in a difficult relationship, some one offers you cheaply what some one else has given you freely as part of a larger, life long relationship?"

Again, you must realize your views of sexual intercourse are not everyone else's. To some it isn't a 'commodity'. Therefore, it's not about bargaining over. Even if you got sex the first night from the person, it doesn't mean a worthwhile, loving relationship couldn't bloom. I think your morals on the act of sex may be inhibiting you to see other considerations here. I think that's also insulting to women that do decide to have sex initially - to you they are just delivering cheap commodity?

"..The relationship of love of which sex is a part is the essential of a happy life and of life itself."


Here you go again applying sex to the idea of love and happiness. Not everyone believes sex is placed right next to love and happiness. Some do not overdramatize it as much as you. To some people, sex is just sex.

"I think turning sex into a commodity is a serious crime, and what people really need as a commodity is the knowledge to realize the part healthy sex plays in a healthy life."


I completely agree that people need knowledge of all things. And yes, I do think it's important people are taught about healthy, safe sex..we should be teaching them both sides, and every side! We give them the information, without pushing how we think sex relates to life. Let them come to their own conclusions!

"Behind it all is women as property, or as objects, or as status symbols, and women as equals has no part in it"

No, you can't make the direct correlation here. Sure, I will agree that the use of sex as a commodity, as you note, can lead to objectification. But, I don't think the reason for female discrimination is directly because of sex. Hell, many males treat women like **** even when they're not horny.

We can't just lump everything together like this and call it a day. Sure, perhaps having sex as a commodity DOES hurt our society. But then again, we could sit here and name off a ****ing list that aren't even sex related. The point here is - let people come to their own conclusions about the act of sex! Don't say: "Sex is a core part of happiness and love, so you must cherish it or else you will be contributing to the downfall of humankind!"
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 11:48 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
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.


Objectification has existed long before sex was on television, buddy. You're approaching this as if it's a newfounded threat to humanity. Centuries ago there were prostitutes, centuries ago sex was also a commodity. Perhaps because of the traditional values most held in the middle of the last century, we assumed humanity would just stay as Quakers. Do you want to go back to a time when women had to wear long dresses in order not to show any leg? A time when boys were strapped to their beds when they slept over a young female's home so the boy wouldn't do anything?Wink A world in which everyone should wait for marriage, no questions asked?

Did you ever consider that maybe the views of sex as this overdramatized connection to love have actually been the culprit to the way sex is now viewed? You tell someone not to do something so many times, they will naturally want to do it. Maybe if we just laid off our kids instead of shoving down their throats our views on the act of sex, they wouldn't be so promiscuous. Hell, they think they're "cool" doing it now. And why would they consider it "cool"? Perhaps because they are defying our views.
 
Doobah47
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 05:18 pm
@Fido,
Quote:
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.
I apologise for not reading the entire thread, but this caught my eye in the opening post.

Pure alcohol - or maybe as near as I could come to pure alcohol (grappa, for the time being) - will not neccessarily improve my philosophy, so why should a purist life lead to greater well-being? Leaving 'truth' aside (for I'm sure that the 'truth' is impossible), purity would demand the human to excrete non-stop, drinking water purified via chemicals and eat extracted foodstuffs alien to 'life' - if religion teaches anything, it teaches the retainment of 'life' (no stealing, no murder, no development of things which encumber one's 'life'), so how could a religion teach 'purity' in modern times?

My belief is that 'purity' is simply a best (most beneficial) choice for hedonists; that choosing a vegan, non-sugared, non-sexual and tee-total life is actually a choice founded in a hedonistic desire for what one might call 'the best high' or 'incorrupt'. Perhaps this might be because life is inordinately and perpetually corrupted by parts of life that obstruct other parts of life (like a tiger mauling a human on his way to a parliamentary discussion on the preservation of tigers).

So we could say that such ideals are simply hedonistic, in which case I question those who omit constipation from the guide to life (religion). Surely one must be as active as possible, eating as little as possible, excreting as little as possible and gaining a sufficient 'high' - they say "god is most high"!




Upon referring to the second part of the quote, I regard the satiation of desire as secondary to the prevention of desire in the hedonistic context: one feels more 'effect' if one rejects a cigarettes than if one consumes a cigarette, in exactly the same way one feels more active/aggressive/flirtatious if one rejects the compulsion to copulate. Surely these examples show that the rejection of simple addictions/desires leads to a heightened sensibility. In football games and war, the players are said to leave their wives for perhaps a week or more prior to the engagement, do you wonder why this is so? Women seeking children are perhaps more inclined to copulate with a perfect mate, is this because they desire a conclusion greater than it's parts? Surely desire is surpassed by the rejection of desire, in that such rejection infers a greater pleasure.
 
Fido
 
Reply Tue 17 Jun, 2008 08:23 pm
@Zetherin,
Zetherin wrote:
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.


Well; not every form of love is romantic love, but all love requires trust, and the intimacy of couples should be theirs alone to share, and in a sense, the sexuality that is normally taboo helps with this so long as it is shared with one alone.[/B][/I]
[QUOTE]
"What then, if in a difficult relationship, some one offers you cheaply what some one else has given you freely as part of a larger, life long relationship?"

Again, you must realize your views of sexual intercourse are not everyone else's. To some it isn't a 'commodity'. Therefore, it's not about bargaining over. Even if you got sex the first night from the person, it doesn't mean a worthwhile, loving relationship couldn't bloom. I think your morals on the act of sex may be inhibiting you to see other considerations here. I think that's also insulting to women that do decide to have sex initially - to you they are just delivering cheap commodity?

[/QUOTE]
Not in the least. People, even women people are desparate for loving relationships. Will they put their body on the table as an offering? I am certain of it, but that does not mean love will grow. If it does not, and the offer of love is rejected the intimacy which might comfort and bond becomes a source of pain.

[QUOTE]
"..The relationship of love of which sex is a part is the essential of a happy life and of life itself."

Here you go again applying sex to the idea of love and happiness. Not everyone believes sex is placed right next to love and happiness. Some do not overdramatize it as much as you. To some people, sex is just sex.
[/QUOTE]Most people know they are missing something in life but it is quite common to be blind to it, and if you are, my pointing it out to you won't do a bit of good. Listin to you: Sex is just sex, and ... fireworks are just noise, and diamonds are just sparkley.


[QUOTE]
"I think turning sex into a commodity is a serious crime, and what people really need as a commodity is the knowledge to realize the part healthy sex plays in a healthy life."

I completely agree that people need knowledge of all things. And yes, I do think it's important people are taught about healthy, safe sex..we should be teaching them both sides, and every side! We give them the information, without pushing how we think sex relates to life. Let them come to their own conclusions!
[/QUOTE]
Nonsense. Sex is the means by which culture becomes immortal. Should we just throw a bunch of facts in the air and let idiot children pick the ones they want? Surely you must be kidding me, because youth enjoys sex, but they didn't invent it. And I have read a lot about sex by the braille method, and it may all be interesting, but what other cultures did about sex, and how they managed their affairs does not shed much meaning on our culture and our practices. All people stick with what works, excepting you, who seem to want to hand over a perfectly rigged game to chance.


[QUOTE]
"Behind it all is women as property, or as objects, or as status symbols, and women as equals has no part in it"

No, you can't make the direct correlation here. Sure, I will agree that the use of sex as a commodity, as you note, can lead to objectification. But, I don't think the reason for female discrimination is directly because of sex. Hell, many males treat women like **** even when they're not horny.

We can't just lump everything together like this and call it a day. Sure, perhaps having sex as a commodity DOES hurt our society. But then again, we could sit here and name off a ****ing list that aren't even sex related. The point here is - let people come to their own conclusions about the act of sex! Don't say: "Sex is a core part of happiness and love, so you must cherish it or else you will be contributing to the downfall of humankind!"[/quote]

[/QUOTE]
I don't have to tell anyone anything about sex. People, especially the young crave pleasure and intimacy and love, and trust. Their hearts are in the right place but their heads are up their horns. Sex can be a form of a relationship, but so can porn, or advertizing. We have to be warry of people turned into objects before our eyes. A woman as an object of desire, on a magazine cover, or in a home is still an object. That is violence, and it results in the ultimate violence of death where a person is literally transformed into an object. Women are killed in this country, and they are killed in every country because they can be, because our cupidity is so easily turned to antipathy.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 01:10 am
@Fido,
I'm sorry buddy, but I really think you're overdramatizing all of this.

Not every women that is involved with porn views themselves as an object - many actually enjoy it, and why does that upset you? What exactly is objectification to you? Do you mean that split second where you look at a magazine and see a sexual desire instead of a female? Yeah, that's natural, and doesn't mean you will 'objectify' or treat poorly the next female you come across. Not everyone views women on those magazines as objects, and actually, most don't. Most people have the intelligence to realize, ok, yes, they are on the magazines posing but, they are still people. The problem isn't that porn exists, but the people that decide to treat females as lesser beings, and no, that hasn't spawned from our modern idea of objectification. How are all women in magazines violence when the women choose to do such a thing? It seems you're applying these Judo-Christian assumptions here in which there is negativity surrounding all of us and we must rid the world of all evil! The things you think are right may not be as right as you think, and you should try to understand this.

Again, let me make myself clear - We could point out MANY things that may negatively effect society, or women's equality. We could be here for days, but saying that all porn and women in magazines is violence is just absolutely absurd to me.Furthermore, I didn't mean to sound like sex is always just sex, as in fireworks are just sound. On the contrary, sex can have very powerful meaning, and be tied into emotion/love/whatever, but it doesn't HAVE to be. That's my point. If two lovers view sex as a very important deep emotional part of their relationship, I'm all for it, and have even shared that view at times. But other times, I may want sex just for physical desire. I don't think either view on sexual intercourse is wrong. And, I also don't think I'm committing violence by having a one night stand when the woman was completely aware of what was going on and agreed to it! Basically, with your mindset, I guess we were both committing a crime - I was using her as an object, while she was objectifying herself, right?

Second to lastly, what does this even mean, "That is violence, and it results in the ultimate violence of death where a person is literally transformed into an object. Women are killed in this country, and they are killed in every country because they can be, because our cupidity is so easily turned to antipathy."

The person is literally transformed into an object? Well, prospect sounds interesting, however, it'd probably be defying our laws of physics. And yes, women are killed in this country...just as men are, and it isn't because of cupid. In your eyes, however, I guess they're committing suicide, since they chose to be in porn and magazines.

"Nonsense. Sex is the means by which culture becomes immortal. Should we just throw a bunch of facts in the air and let idiot children pick the ones they want? Surely you must be kidding me, because youth enjoys sex, but they didn't invent it. And I have read a lot about sex by the braille method, and it may all be interesting, but what other cultures did about sex, and how they managed their affairs does not shed much meaning on our culture and our practices. All people stick with what works, excepting you, who seem to want to hand over a perfectly rigged game to chance."

What exactly are we doing that's working so much better than giving children a chance to explore and come to their own conclusions? People stick to what works eh? Seems we've been doing alot more sticking than working. Secondly, 'idiot children'? Come on, now. You aren't that naive to believe all children are stupid and can't gain knowledge, reason, and come to a conclusion that is peaceful, are you? You really think pushing these Christian values down the throats of all children really is the right thing to do? Here's a newsflash, it hasn't been working, and, as I noted, can even be regarded as a cause of the problem. My philosophy is guide the child by presenting them with the knowledge, try to steer them in a direction that ends peacefully, but ultimately let them make the right choice. If they decide to have sex without a condom, you let them know there are consequences and that it isn't in their best interest, you show them the meaning of respect and to treat people kindly, but don't force. If they turn out to be a rapist, murderer, then so be it, but I honestly believe there is less of a chance if you don't push but guide. This is especially the case in this time when people can acquire information on a whim, and have so many more people to converse and share ideas with via the internet. Any possible way we look at this will be a game of chance, though. There's no concrete way to go about this that works 100% of the time.
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 05:08 am
@Zetherin,
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.
 
Khethil
 
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 05:43 am
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
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.


Fido,

Lots of generalizations there.

If I may venture an observation; it appears you have well-intentioned motives here that seem to be aimed at championing the oppressed and downtrodden. Bravo! This is a good thing and you are to be commended for your motives (if this be the case). But there are subtleties and complexities to this (that others have tried to communicate) that I believe you're missing; and yes, I may be wrong in that, I don't know you. Not trying to change your mind here, just talkin, that's all Smile

Subtle Objectification occurs in everyday life; you, me, we all do it. Any time you refer to someone (in thought, word or deed) that refers to an attribute or role they carry, you "objectify". In the context we're talking, we're not referring to treating someone exclusively as an object without the respect due to a person.

Yes; many women are put in unbearable circumstances and do things to survive that are painful. Yes, many compromise their own values to earn a living. These people deserve our compassion and everything we can do to help. But please know that this doesn't mean every prostitute falls into this category. I see it as unduly harsh and judgmental to assert so. I've had a number of prostitutes as just friends (both in the U.S. and abroad) and know a good number who'd take great exception to this generalization.

Males and females alike express their sexuality as they like. It is - to my mind - inappropriate to place value judgements on this expression that condemn all like behavior as "demeaning". If you (or anyone) sees it as such; fine, but an open mind and honest respect for someone's self-expression is in order here. Its egocentric to categorically judge motives that we don't know on an individual level.

I think I understand where you're coming from; and, if this is true I applaud your efforts. All people who are in unhappy, compromising positions should be aided. But this is a deeply personal issue. Sexual expression is a right (not one based on community or state judgments, but simply for being alive and of age). I think it prudent we respect women and not categorize all perceived behavior to motivations we don't know.

Cheers!
 
Fido
 
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 08:40 am
@Khethil,
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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 06:40 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
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.


Show me a wrong that isn't a wrong without the support of community.

There is no literally right. Right and wrong are concepts we apply, so stop searching for a universal right - there is none. We can only go off of how we feel, and what our intentions are, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are better. For instance, when I am kind to people, I don't do it to look good in God's eyes (I'm actually agnostic), I do it because I feel it benefits humanity...and that is a concern of mine. Some don't even care about humanity, and while I don't share the same sentiments, I try to see where they're coming from.

Law isn't necessarily "right", even without looking at all this through a philosophical lense. I mean, some laws may inconvenience, and even discriminate, even if the initial intention of the law wasn't so. Why? Because ultimately it comes down to the judge, attorney, people, that decide the case. And while we like to think there's always a good idea of justice in the courts, we all know isn't always one. And even if one notion of justice was acquired, who's to say there's not someone that would disagree?

I don't quite see your correlation between sex and murder. Murder is taking another's life, completely stripping them from the ability to think - which I don't agree with. Sex, when entered into mutually, isn't intentionally hurting either party. And, even when it does hurt, I don't feel it's the act itself that did the harm. For instance, if a young male or female is emotionally distraught, for whatever reason, after a sexual encounter, it could be because of a number of things. But I don't think we can hold the act itself to blame. Sex can be absolutely beautiful, or it can be absolutely disgusting (I say this in a sense to say that it can have opposite moral notions).
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Wed 18 Jun, 2008 06:50 pm
@Fido,
Fido wrote:
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.


You're right, I was too presumptious saying you were trying to apply CHRISTIAN moral values. That was stupid of me.

What I should have said is your moral standing in general.
 
midas77
 
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2008 06:29 am
@Zetherin,
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.
 
Zetherin
 
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2008 11:48 am
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
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.


I completely agree, and that's my point. The perceptions of sex are social constructs, we must realize that, and not speak of them as absolute.
 
midas77
 
Reply Sat 21 Jun, 2008 01:17 pm
@Zetherin,
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?
 
Khethil
 
Reply Sun 22 Jun, 2008 06:26 am
@midas77,
midas77 wrote:
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?


ow! Now there's a terrible situation to be in.

Do I want the human race to survive bad enough to try and procreate with my sister or mother? Would such a coupling net viable offspring? At the risk of diverting the intent of the question, I'd have to say 'no'; only because (from what I understand), four people isn't sufficient enough a gene-pool for the species to become viable.

Perhaps some of you genetics enthusiasts could shed light on that...
 
 

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.02 seconds on 04/12/2024 at 06:18:09