Sexuality

[wadlez]

Government laws which regulate prostitution, in combination with government enforced media censorship and political correctness, has repressed sex and sexuality and has made exchanges of any kind for sex immoral. The current social norms and shared morals which people understand sexually acceptable behaviour is artificial and unreasonable. It creates a distorted vision of how people are and should act which is completely incongruent with reality and only serves to make people feel guilty for their natural instincts. If these instincts are immoral and frowned upon by society then mankind have created a society not for them but for an ideal, in which they can only live through repression and deliberately censoring their own mind.

In this post I would like to focus on the effects of condemning the exchange of sex for material goods and services. This has far reaching consequences which shapes the minds and behaviour of everyone in such a system, yet has been conditioned to just be accepted and overlooked.
The government actively censors and regulates the sexual content of the media, such as nudity, sex scenes, sex themes etc. They also make prostitution illegal (the extent of which varies for different countries), and regulate the media for shows which they view as influencing immoral sexual practices such as womanizing, prostitution and bizarre sexual behaviour (fetishes). A politically correct view of sex is then promoted (in line with feminist ideals) which in combination with the regulations, sexually represses society by forging shared morals on sex such that sex is generally viewed as negative.

The value of sex has consequently been artificially inflated. For a man to get sex he cannot simply exchange money with a consenting women, as not only is it illegal but this man will be humiliated, ostracized by friends and the community, must sleep with unattractive women, can be ridiculously expensive, face massive guilt and runs the serious risk of getting infectious diseases (compared to if not underground and immoral).
The morals pushed onto society, as previously mentioned, then further limit mans opportunities and make most sex practically and socially impossible or illegal because of the limited acceptable relationships and people viewing sex as negative. Like it or not, older men are attracted to 16 year olds, despite how repressed this view is and how immoral these men are made to feel.

A women is now bestowed with a commodity of which society holds no higher value. Feminists push this repression as liberating, they believe this allows women to be respected, will free them of being sexual objects and encourage women to develop their minds. Unfortunately this had had the opposite effect. Women of course use their most powerful tool and occupy most of their time developing it, they compete with one another and rank their position in society by their sexual attractiveness. Since it is so artificially powerful and sought after other aspects such as the development of the mind have no chance to compete. So this leaves women as sexual objects, each competing in who is more attractive as the primary goal in life.

I want to keep this brief as this would take countless novels to fully explain and requires the reader to independently elaborate on to understand, so I'll make only one more point to clarify. As an interaction of the factors I have just explained, men are equally affected and their lives are shaped to simple low level paths where they pursue being attractive and the fitting archetypes which allow them to be partners to these women (at the cost of pursuing higher level ideals and developing their minds).

 

[Vrecknidj]

The whole thing is an extention of the differences between a woman's certitude of maternity and a man's lack of certitude of paternity and the strategis that have been devised by members of both sexes to cope with the realities of the consequences of this. I don't really see this as a problem so much as a symptom of something that people don't strive to actually understand anyway. People are more intersted in their own agendas than trying to get at the root of thee things.

Dave

 

[ashitaria]

The fact that women are viewed as sexual objects isn't so much as the men's fault as the women. As the point had been made, some women want to be viewed as sexual objects and even take pride in it.

The problem is that the number of women that don't put as much priority in looks as other women is rare, and thus the value of women is based on their looks more than their intelligence.

Also, I prefer legalizing prostitution as, like you, I am critical of society's standards. After all, we are human and we can't stop our nature, and perhaps legalizing prostitution will cause sexual crimes to diminish, though most sexual crimes is based on control and aggressiveness.

Of course, child prostitution is out of the question....

 

[wadlez]

"The whole thing is an extention of the differences between a woman's certitude of maternity and a man's lack of certitude of paternity and the strategis that have been devised by members of both sexes to cope with the realities of the consequences of this"

The shared morals people have towards sex could naturally be shaped towards the way they are without goverment intervention, but if thats the case then why the need for goverment enforcment (complete with the huge loss of civil liberty) if things would be like this anyway.

"The problem is that the number of women that don't put as much priority in looks as other women is rare, and thus the value of women is based on their looks more than their intelligence"

These woman who invest most of there time in looks are going the most popular path and are the pillars of our society. This sounds mean but the women who dont are generally unattractive or social outcasts. This works for them as they develop mentally instead, so its like a blessing in disguise

 

[BigApplePi]

I don't know about the differences between men and women's wishes, but society as a whole must have families which are healthy and prosper for society to be at its best. This conflicts with those who wish to satisfy their individual non-family desires. Now society (United States) can set up prostitution for those non-family people and has.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prostitution_in_Nevada

The problem here is not every individual has easy access. For such individuals to have that access they will have to go up against those who sport the family ideal. I think that is why prostitution remains underground. Laws are made to support the wishes of the many but they are variously enforced. Those who wish to go up against these laws can do so but they will take their chances.

 

[wadlez]

"I don't know about the differences between men and women's wishes, but society as a whole must have families which are healthy and prosper for society to be at its best. This conflicts with those who wish to satisfy their individual non-family desires"

"The problem here is not every individual has easy access. For such individuals to have that access they will have to go up against those who sport the family ideal"

Having legal prostitution doesnt go against "the family ideal" as its done in private, what people do in private has nothing to do with anyone else. More importantly, regulating prostitution does not stop prostition, regulating drugs does not stop people taking drugs, it only pushes it underground so it is unsafe and the money supports criminals.

The whole negative view of sex which make it viewed as contrary to "family ideals" is pushed through media censorship and is so incongruent with reality that it either greatly represses those who try to abide by them, or makes people feel like outcasts who dont.

 

[Cognisant]

Sterilize children at birth with non-invasive methods (we have the technology) then this isn't as much of an issue as sex regulation would need only be limited to the protection of children from harm (either physical or psychological). Lets face it who hasn't accidentally walked in on their parents, sure it's an awful experience but it's not psychologically harming; the point I'm getting at here is that sex isn't something that needs to be hidden away, it’s in instances of pornography or advertising where the psychological harm occurs (and regulation is required) because its a misrepresentation of an otherwise healthy activity.

If a child happens upon a couple in a park or whatever it doesn’t really matter, but if a young teenager is watching pornography on the internet, then there's a potential for harm; if anything a child's exposure to adults participating in healthy sexual practices would help protect said child from the corrupting influences of targeted medias.

Like it or not, older men are attracted to 16 year olds, despite how repressed this view is and how immoral these men are made to feel.

I can't help but wonder if such fetishes could develop in a sexually liberal society, now I'm not saying older men will not find 16 years olds and such attractive, just that in the presence of healthy outlets for their libido, well to be metaphorical, why run a mile for a slice of cake when there's a perfectly good apple in hand?
(within the context of the metaphor the fruit is not symbolic)

 

[BigApplePi]

Having legal prostitution doesnt go against "the family ideal" as its done in private, what people do in private has nothing to do with anyone else. More importantly, regulating prostitution does not stop prostition,, it only pushes it underground so it is unsafe and the money supports criminals.

The whole negative view of sex which make it viewed as contrary to "family ideals" is pushed through media censorship and is so incongruent with reality that it either greatly represses those who try to abide by them, or makes people feel like outcasts who dont.

I will return to the family as ideal because with modern population growth that could be changing. Supposely males are promiscuous while females are homebodies. That means as far as evolution goes males had to be kept at home so the family could be supported. The way to do that was to make sexual intercourse very pleasant. This would keep the male at home if he was committed to one partner. Allowing him access outside the home would weaken this.

If prostitution becomes too easy (low prices, easy access, pleasant experiences) what if the family were to collapse? There has to be a way to put a cap on family deterioration by not making it too easy.

 

[BigApplePi]

A personal comment on sexuality after reading this from this blog:

"Sunday, June 21, 2009

Males and females, the symbiotic relationship

"Guys are only after one thing"

What a sad situation. Males dating females for a short time just to get in there pants. Females being lonely because the guys they want wont commit to them, every guy seems to only be after sex.

Females, unlike males, have few interests. Attractive girls interests are as follows: Partys, clubs, clothes and guys. Females have social groups who's heriarchy is established by ascending order of attractivness to males. When not at work these groups will get really dressed up and go out to clubs. You dont go to clubs to have conversations or to be with friends because at a club you cannot really talk as its much to loud and crowded with strangers.
Guys go to clubs to meet and pick up girls. Girls go to clubs to either be picked up, to flirt or to fufill some instinctual social desires, showing there social status by attending social rituals (obviously unconciously). A female determines there value by how good a man they can attract.
The major point being, females are very simple and predictable. There lives primarily evolve around guys. When a girl is dating a guy, the guy becomes literally there entire world as they have no drives or interests of there own, so live for the guy. Girls will talk to there friends about there guy and gossip about other girls and there relationships.
The point, what can a guy be interested in from a woman apart from sex?
Girls all have the same interests and experiences, there not going to be incredibly unique or even very different from any other girl you meet. There primary interest in guys and partys renders them simple. Conversation with them from a mans perspective is boring, useless and predictable.
A woman expects massive commitment from men and to fill a massive void, the void which is filled in males by there interests. Being so simple females cannot really offer anything in return apart from sex, yet they will complain when men only want them for this one thing, when there dumped for not being good in bed or if a more attractive female comes along.

Obviously this is not 100% of woman, I am making an generalization/simplification for this analyses. It does seem to hold true for most woman though"

Interesting read but is it true? Since the title of your thread is "sexuality", can we mention sexual differences? I spent a few years on a bulletin board. It started with mixed sexes. After a while the guys began a pissing contest. Pretty soon the bulletin board was laden with nothing but testosterone. I found it fun at first but after a while the females could not keep up. They left. The board become hard, divisive. The softness and need for sympathy, agreement, consolation was absent. The bulletin board deteriorated and is now on the verge of collapse. To me (a male) woman are the joy of life. Too much maleness and I'm unhappy. Personally I don't want the most attractive women in the group. After winning her, there is too much maintenance. Too much hassle competing with another male. I'd rather have a female exactly at my level.

How do other males feel?

 

[ashitaria]

"The whole thing is an extention of the differences between a woman's certitude of maternity and a man's lack of certitude of paternity and the strategis that have been devised by members of both sexes to cope with the realities of the consequences of this"

The shared morals people have towards sex could naturally be shaped towards the way they are without goverment intervention, but if thats the case then why the need for goverment enforcment (complete with the huge loss of civil liberty) if things would be like this anyway.

"The problem is that the number of women that don't put as much priority in looks as other women is rare, and thus the value of women is based on their looks more than their intelligence"

These woman who invest most of there time in looks are going the most popular path and are the pillars of our society. This sounds mean but the women who dont are generally unattractive or social outcasts. This works for them as they develop mentally instead, so its like a blessing in disguise

Hm...it is true that the women who invest more of their time on looks are the pillars of society, being able to manipulate crowds, appearing on television and all that, but the women that do develop mentally may be the ones who contribute more in the long run, workers are great in demand.

Of course, with the biasness we experience nowadays, good-looking women may very well be picked over unattractive ones in job-interviews. Sexualty causes alot of problems *sigh*.

Of course, government will still be needed for enforcement, but the best thing to do is let what is be what is, for matters like sexuality and speed limits. Of course, punishments must still be dished out for rape....

In any case, sexual attraction is by all means ok (and natural), but our culture prevents people from seeing past the appearance.

@ BigApplePie, I'm 14 (and therefore very inexperienced and immature), but if I were to choose a girl, as long as she isn't hideously ugly, I'm ok. What matters is her personality. I don't want a girl who believes that everything should belong to her, I don't want a girl who asserts her beliefs and stereotypes on me, I don't want a girl who is overly emotional. I want a girl who is original and doesn't go with the flow, a girl who doesn't spend 90% of her time socializing or putting on make-up. Unfortunately, such girls are hard to come across these days.

 

[BigApplePi]

@ BigApplePie, I'm 14 (and therefore very inexperienced and immature), but if I were to choose a girl, as long as she isn't hideously ugly, I'm ok. What matters is her personality. I don't want a girl who believes that everything should belong to her, I don't want a girl who asserts her beliefs and stereotypes on me, I don't want a girl who is overly emotional. I want a girl who is original and doesn't go with the flow, a girl who doesn't spend 90% of her time socializing or putting on make-up. Unfortunately, such girls are hard to come across these days.

ashitaria. You'll eventually get there. Sounds to me like you want a girl who in SOME way will relate to you without clobbering you and at the same time has something herself. Perfect.

 

[ashitaria]

ashitaria. You'll eventually get there. Sounds to me like you want a girl who in SOME way will relate to you without clobbering you and at the same time has something herself. Perfect.

Che. I'm 14, and I can't even imagine myself in a relationship. Kissing? Hugs? Ick.

Maybe in a few years. :P

 

[wadlez]

I can't help but wonder if such fetishes could develop in a sexually liberal society, now I'm not saying older men will not find 16 years olds and such attractive, just that in the presence of healthy outlets for their libido, well to be metaphorical, why run a mile for a slice of cake when there's a perfectly good apple in hand?

I agree

I will return to the family as ideal because with modern population growth that could be changing. Supposely males are promiscuous while females are homebodies. That means as far as evolution goes males had to be kept at home so the family could be supported. The way to do that was to make sexual intercourse very pleasant. This would keep the male at home if he was committed to one partner. Allowing him access outside the home would weaken this.

If prostitution becomes too easy (low prices, easy access, pleasant experiences) what if the family were to collapse? There has to be a way to put a cap on family deterioration by not making it too easy.

Thats a good point. I dont think that familys will colapse as this view asserts that only woman want to stay home and men are forced to stay home only as a means to get guarenteed sex. This could of been the case back in primitive times (Thats still a stretch), but is definatly not the case now, fathers love there kids just as much as mothers and would do anything for them. I think that they sacrifice sexual gratification for this ideal if anything.

If familiy life is the natural and best state for humans then you should expect this to come about without it being forced onto us by goverment regulation.
Woman will try to attract partners more with there minds and other attributes rather than just sex, then familys would begin from those relationships

Its interesting you bring up the post "the male and females the symbiotic relationship"as that is an application of this problem. I agree that there is a need for balance of femininity and masculinity and too much influence from either side is bad, but this post isnt really dissenting against that. Rather its showing a problem which could be due to society artificially leaning too far to the feminine side and the repercussions.

"I want a girl who is original and doesn't go with the flow, a girl who doesn't spend 90% of her time socializing or putting on make-up. Unfortunately, such girls are hard to come across these days."

Exactly my point

 

[echoplex]

Here's an idea: What if it were made so that females were 60% (or more) of the population? I mean, there's a reason so many guys want to go to schools where males are outnumbered. I'm not saying this would be any kind of solution, or even ethical. I'm just curious how this might affect our views of sex and prostitution. It seems that the general idea is that competition, at least to some extent, is "bad" whenever the "losers" have no outlet to fall back on. Perhaps a disproportionate amount of females would take stress off of the system, so to speak.

Then again, it may create a new stress. It's no coincidence that I'm a heterosexual male proposing this. I'm not exactly unbiased here. Females' opinions would be interesting.

 

[BigApplePi]

I didn't write the below. It is from an anonymouns donor ---

While I agree with what you're arguing, I wonder if you're aware of just how many double standards you're citing. Not to mention there are at least a dozen more solid arguments that could be used to support your arguement imho. For example arguments based upon public health, economics, criminal organization (which you mentioned later), human trafficking, and sex tourism, rather then the ramifications of males deprived of sex.

Also you seem to have a small phobia of Feminism, which is not nearly as influential as you seem to believe it to be. Most of what you are attributing to them was actually a consequence of religious influence.


---Quote---
A politically correct view of sex is then promoted (*in line with feminist ideals*) which in combination with the regulations, sexually represses society by forging shared morals on sex such that sex is generally viewed as negative.
---End Quote---
Nope, as i I mentioned, it's based on religious ideals, which is a very far cry from gender equality.


---Quote---
The value of sex has consequently been artificially inflated. For a man to get sex he cannot simply exchange money with a consenting women, as not only is it illegal but this man will be humiliated, ostracized by friends and the community, must sleep with unattractive women, can be ridiculously expensive, face massive guilt and runs the serious risk of getting infectious diseases (compared to if not underground and immoral).
---End Quote---
The prostitute is completely ostracized and imagine how many unattractive males she has to sleep with. You may justify it since she gets paid, but how many prostitutes really have a choice in their profession? For the most part they're merely a pimp's chattel. You act like illegal prostitution is so damaging to customers, but it's far more demeaning and damaging for the prostitutes.

You seem to take the stance that since it is written in a males biology to sleep with as many attractive women as possible, they automatically should be able to. Well it's written into a females biology to be selective, even if it's only for a one night stand. So if a male can't sleep with women he finds attractive for free, that's not injustice, that's Darwinism.


---Quote---
Like it or not, older men are attracted to 16 year olds, despite how repressed this view is and how immoral these men are made to feel.
---End Quote---
It's repressed, but because indulging it would be immoral. In a similar way it's considered immoral to plan or daydream about murdering someone, even if you don't go through with it.


---Quote---
A women is now bestowed with a commodity of which society holds no higher value.
---End Quote---
nitpick- An attractive women possesses this commodity, and it's the men who determine what is attractive.


---Quote---
Feminists push this repression as liberating, they believe this allows women to be respected, will free them of being sexual objects and encourage women to develop their minds.
---End Quote---
Feminism doesn't have the power to repress sexuality, and it's more about liberating female sexuality than repressing the male sexuality. Again, it's religion that champions these repressions of yours. That's the very design and purpose of religion; to regulate human behavior. Sex being the one motivator that can consistently trump 'the will of God.' It's no small wonder that so many religious institutions go through such difficulty to control it.

Excluding the third world countries that sell sex to westerners, the less superstitious/god-fearing a country is the more sexually free it is. In America, it's apparent when you compare the midwest to the coasts and the country as a whole to the UK.


---Quote---
Unfortunately this had had the opposite effect. Women of course use their most powerful tool and occupy most of their time developing it, they compete with one another and rank their position in society by their sexual attractiveness. Since it is so artificially powerful and sought after other aspects such as the development of the mind have no chance to compete. So this leaves women as sexual objects, each competing in who is more attractive as the primary goal in life.
---End Quote---
I'd argue against the notion that sex is artificially powerful. Throughout history, repressed or not, it's an incredibly powerful motivator in humans. For example if prostitution is legalized, imagine how powerful the corporations developing behind it would become. The very fact that it's repression has such over-reaching effects, is proof of how powerful sexuality is in the human experience.


---Quote---
I want to keep this brief as this would take countless novels to fully explain and requires the reader to independently elaborate on to understand, so I'll make only one more point to clarify. As an interaction of the factors I have just explained, men are equally affected and their lives are shaped to simple low level paths where they pursue being attractive and the fitting archetypes which allow them to be partners to these women (at the cost of pursuing higher level ideals and developing their minds).
---End Quote---
At the very least, men and women both, have had to pursue sex and societal acceptance in lieu of more 'noble' pursuits.

I've heard it argued that the main reason men compete at all is solely so they will seem more attractive to women, at least subconsciously. I don't advocate it, but it's an interesting counterpoint no? Theoretically one could then argue that it's the women who push the men to greater heights simply by being selective, not the man's own merit. If that is true though, then I think it's everyone's civic duty, male and female alike, to be ultra selective.

Would it be unethical to manipulate the sexuality of humanity in order to encourage it's progress? It is a powerful motivator after all. oh well /tangent

I'm curious how your ideas would apply to the homosexual verse though, it's generally one of the first things to arise when one speaks of sexual freedom and you've yet to mention it.

 

[Jennywocky]

Obviously this is not 100% of woman, I am making an generalization/simplification for this analyses. It does seem to hold true for most woman though"

Interesting read but is it true?

I feel like I'm reading a high-school blog entry here that you have quoted.
I don't think real life for many people is like this, especially when you're out of the adolescent phase.

As far as the other comments you made here, I think that definitely a mix of male/female offers some variation on typical interaction. Instead of getting a 'fight to win' style argument, you're going to also have some more nurturing/negotiating styles involved. Both men and women can do either based on individual personality, but in general women are raised and designed to negotiate better, where men are geared to view conflict as something to win. Those who have characteristics of both gender will vary approach based on the situation and desired outcome.

Webforums are self-selecting. People will invest to a certain point, then go elsewhere if they do not feel their style fits. Thus it's not uncommon for more abrasive/competitive styles to send more nurturing/negotiating people to a safe and more communicative clime.

 

[wadlez]

Alright I have allot to go through so Im sorry if I miss anything

Also you seem to have a small phobia of Feminism

I have to admit that this post has that feel to it (accidental). If you ignore the perceived tone of the post and just read the content you'll see that I am not being biased or negatively criticizing feminism, but rather am trying to explain how these laws and regulations are destructive to both males and females by making society overly sexualised at cost of the development of other dimensions.

---Quote---
A politically correct view of sex is then promoted (*in line with feminist ideals*) which in combination with the regulations, sexually represses society by forging shared morals on sex such that sex is generally viewed as negative.
---End Quote---
Nope, as i I mentioned, it's based on religious ideals, which is a very far cry from gender equality.

You cant just say nope, its based on religious ideals. All you need to do is open up a news paper to see commentary about sex roles in television, complaints about immoral sex acts and how such and such a show doesnt push positive ideals.
These may of been formed originally from religion a long time ago and still may be influenced by the religious community in very religious countrys, but thats a whole new kettle of fish. Im sticking to what can be directly observed.

The prostitute is completely ostracized and imagine how many unattractive males she has to sleep with. You may justify it since she gets paid, but how many prostitutes really have a choice in their profession? For the most part they're merely a pimp's chattel. You act like illegal prostitution is so damaging to customers, but it's far more demeaning and damaging for the prostitutes.

You've accidently argued for me. Illegal prostitution is really bad, I forgot to mention how its bad for the woman aswell, cheers.

You seem to take the stance that since it is written in a males biology to sleep with as many attractive women as possible, they automatically should be able to. Well it's written into a females biology to be selective, even if it's only for a one night stand. So if a male can't sleep with women he finds attractive for free, that's not injustice, that's Darwinism.

Then you should find no problem just leaving humans to be human then. Deregulation of the sex industry, stopping massive media censorship and ending the push of the these "positive ideals" should result in the natural order. We would then just be at our natural state and we would also remove massive amounts of beaurocracy and regain civil libertys.

---Quote---
Like it or not, older men are attracted to 16 year olds, despite how repressed this view is and how immoral these men are made to feel.
---End Quote---
It's repressed, but because indulging it would be immoral. In a similar way it's considered immoral to plan or daydream about murdering someone, even if you don't go through with it

Perfect, this is exactly the problem. Sex for two consenting partys is not harmfull to anyone, this moral has been pushed onto us. Comparable to murder! that is how much this has been pushed on people. Absolutely insane

Feminism doesn't have the power to repress sexuality,

I've already explained how they clearly do.

it's more about liberating female sexuality than repressing the male sexuality

I clearly explained that the goal and the actual result for the feminist ideals are extremely different , that being the actual effects of the push for liberating female sexuality has enslaved them. Also you wrote that they dont have the power to repress sexuality then wrote there repressing sexuality for good and not for bad.

That's the very design and purpose of religion; to regulate human behavior. Sex being the one motivator that can consistently trump 'the will of God.' It's no small wonder that so many religious institutions go through such difficulty to control it.

Excluding the third world countries that sell sex to westerners, the less superstitious/god-fearing a country is the more sexually free it is. In America, it's apparent when you compare the midwest to the coasts and the country as a whole to the UK.

You argue that its not happening and that its not bad, then try to argue that we should be blaming religion for it instead.

I'd argue against the notion that sex is artificially powerful. Throughout history, repressed or not, it's an incredibly powerful motivator in humans. For example if prostitution is legalized, imagine how powerful the corporations developing behind it would become. The very fact that it's repression has such over-reaching effects, is proof of how powerful sexuality is in the human experience.

The distribution and localization is now artificial, so it is now channeled to make select individuals artifically more powerfull than they would be if not regulated and controlled. This unbalance has had massive effects on society of which I am trying to explain

I feel like I'm reading a high-school blog entry here that you have quoted.

Wow, thanks...

I don't think real life for many people is like this, especially when you're out of the adolescent phase.

The theory can also be expanded to explain ageism. Basically since the focus of society is skewed towards sex, once you get older and no longer sexually attractive you generally take a back seat socially and then focus on careers etc. Without this skew older people would be more respected and included

 

[bluesquid]

wow, a whole thread on how society, viewed from our perspective, overthinks sexuality.

waste of time. You will never change their minds or attitudes about something so concrete. Vapid minds hold on to the concrete.

so why talk about something when all we are doing is stating a collective obvious?

 

[wadlez]

wow, a whole thread on how society, viewed from our perspective, overthinks sexuality.

waste of time. You will never change their minds or attitudes about something so concrete. Vapid minds hold on to the concrete.

so why talk about something when all we are doing is stating a collective obvious?

Its the effects of two things which can be changed, regulating prostitution (and the entire sex industry) and censoring media (aswell as pushing ideals). I want people to understand the true repercussions of this.

 

[Zero]

Sexuality and gender equality is a tricky area and it's very complicated.

It's not only a matter of society or of psychology, but biology, religion, our perception of safety and history.

Society is a slowly evolving creature. Our ideas on sex and gender are changing gradually over time. Consider the fact that way back when divorce was an uncommon and shameful thing. These days just about everyone gets divorced and you're an oddity if you don't experiment.

We've sort of liberate our sense of choice in a partner and made divorce a normal part of life, but that certainly doesn't make divorce any easier. It's a messy and unhappy process, but a "freedom". People are far more careless and have unreasonable expectations for their spouses and marriages, they no longer have to work on a marriage if they simply feel unhappy.

So say we do liberate sexuality. Say we make prostitution legal. There seem like a lot of good reasons prostitution should be legalized. If Legalized it would be overseen and controlled.

But consider what this means for society and who the employees here. If I ask a seven year old what they want to be when they grow up does prostitute seem like a good answer? Very few people probably say they want to be a truck driver or a janitor when they grow up, but we need people in these occupation. We don't technically need prostitutes. As a matter of fact many women in the arena of prostitution don't want to be prostitutes, it isn't their dream job. Some have even mistakenly gotten into it or been forced into prostitution. This isn't a glamorous job and to some it isn't a job it's abusive and a violation of human rights. Sure, there could be prostitutes out there who do it, because they think it's empowering.

My guess would be that empowerment is not the main reason for becoming a prostitute. If you want power go into law. There are clearly alternatives that don't degrade women (or men), that don't have to be hidden from the children (even society at large), that don't put the employee into a dangerous position and that are respected and looked up to.

Would legalizing prostitution actually make it better or just more viewable to the public. Surely the people trying to demolish that image would isolate and look down upon that occupation. We already have such stigmas on erotic dancing and adult material.

The sexual side of humanity is often looked down upon, because it does not reflect what we are capable of at our best. Sex is basic, it's primitive and necessary for the continuation of our species. How we portray it within society depends on the society.

There was a time when people portrayed little bit of sexuality, as it was a more delicate and inappropriate subject. During these oppressive times, we also see a sort of innocence. Consider the very old fashion pin up girls. They're just cute pictures, hardly the erotica we see today. So, have we become free sexually or has our pushing to be freer sexually created a world in which we are (women are) more and more objectified.

As religion loses its grip as an authority in society we turn to these more blatant and rational explanations. Sex is simply an act to continue our species (and it's a way to create social bonding). Women might as well be sexual objects, just as much as men might as well just be sperm banks and sent to war.

The intellectuals and humanitarians in our society want to rise above our baser instincts, accept them and allow them to exists openly (unlike religion perhaps), but at the same time not overemphasize their importance as a sort of absolute identity. Not all women are the same, not all men are the same. Not all people are merely male or female. The world is far more complicated than the simple baser-instincts understandings.

We can't easily change how our media/society portrays people, what people try to hide or what they try to expose. We have to choose to rise above it and portray what we are worth.

And most balanced men don't see all women as sexual objects as all women don't see men as brainless dicks. The primitive thinking people, who actually believe what the media tells them about women being sexual objects to win over or men just being dicks, should live in zoos. They are inferior: they choose NOT to re-examine their intellect, they choose NOT to develop as human beings, they choose not to see the complexities of life, etc...

As for the oppression via religion. Everyday religion is evolving and losing it's authority. However, I don't think we have any place to be judging religious people. Despite their stunted intellectual pursuits they often have far more stable families and social networks. The religions that are continually living within our society can't keep to the old ways or we'd imprison them for horrendous violations of human rights.

Religious people aren't always rational, as they are very much like children. They subscribe to a set of beliefs and to an authority that tells them how to live their lives, what is good, what is bad and pretty much sets up a whole "how to live" system for them.

But what is so bad about people coming from whole families and marrying people they've known in their churches and this ancient, huge network of people and support? In church settings, where people have been going to church since they were children, it isn't unusual for people to marry people they knew at some point in their childhood, or their families knew each other.

I don't know what this complex is officially called, but I'm going to call it the "Farm Family Complex". The Farm Family Complex really doesn't pose a threat to society or either gender. Females don't necessarily only work in the house. A Farm Family needs all the workers they can get and everyone works together. The females may be regarded in a different light and thought of on a more innocent stereotypical way, but the same goes for males. It's very matter of factual, a hen lays an egg, a rooster fertilizes. But in this case the family tends to work together and the mother and father work together, because that's what they're taught to do. They're a team, they may play slightly different roles, but it's not suppose to be the male having all the authority.

In the version of Christianity I was raised in we're told to be friends first. The common understanding of woman being the emotional partner, etc... was the understanding of females, as the common understanding of male was just as stereotypical. The irony being that most people aren't that way, but in a general sense, in writing and preaching, that's how the two sexes are approached (and there are only two sexes). It's understood that relationships require teamwork and, of course, their faith in God. Every church I've been to and the people I've known to get married see the preacher/minister and have "pre-marriage" consoling/talk. People are not suppose to have sex before they get married, which often results in religious people getting married earlier. And despite this rule, people in liberal churches have sex anyway.

I suppose you could say they suffer a sort of oppression for a community and sense of security. It's an easy prepackaged little life if you ask me. I can't settle for the simplicity and lack of knowledge, but I don't blame people who do. In the US I would not say this is a sort of oppression as people can gravitate away from religion and be "religious" in name.

There are certainly religions that have abused females, they tend to segregate into their own communities. I think religion tends to be more balanced in the greater social construct. Religion and it's influence is a huge topic though. I tried to keep it on the issue of sex, gender and how relationships are reflected upon.

There's more now, than ever, that is going into our understanding of sex and gender, etc...

There are people going a step further and trying to demolish our understanding of gender via biology. My opinion on gender, sexuality and sex is in biology. Biology isn't really as simple as we make it out to be. It's the only beautiful thing, filled with all the complications and complexities. But in order to relate to other people, I say, we rise above it.

 

[wadlez]

We've sort of liberate our sense of choice in a partner and made divorce a normal part of life, but that certainly doesn't make divorce any easier. It's a messy and unhappy process, but a "freedom". People are far more careless and have unreasonable expectations for their spouses and marriages, they no longer have to work on a marriage if they simply feel unhappy.

An interesting point. People get %50 of all assets belonging to the marriage when they split. Sex roles have evolved where predominatly woman stay home and protect the children while the men went out and hunted. Our brains are both wired for such and explains the general psychology of the sexes.
In turn most men work and make money while many woman are stay at home wives, its what we are wired to do. So now with the law where partners split assets 50/50, woman no longer need the mans income or have respect for it, so they get divorced. I believe this is the real reason for the increased levels of divorce.

We don't technically need prostitutes. As a matter of fact many women in the arena of prostitution don't want to be prostitutes, it isn't their dream job. Some have even mistakenly gotten into it or been forced into prostitution. This isn't a glamorous job and to some it isn't a job it's abusive and a violation of human rights. Sure, there could be prostitutes out there who do it, because they think it's empowering.

First of all, we do need prostitutes. Many men want sex, there is a massive market there.
Second, Of course many of the woman who are currently prostitutes dont want to be, its illegal, they would be working underground to world of drugs and crime, aswell as how morally wrong its been perceived to be (and people love pushing there morals onto other people).

My guess would be that empowerment is not the main reason for becoming a prostitute. If you want power go into law. There are clearly alternatives that don't degrade women (or men), that don't have to be hidden from the children (even society at large), that don't put the employee into a dangerous position and that are respected and looked up to.

Read my post again please, Woman wont get into prostitution to be empowered, its been made illegal with the goal of empowering woman. You may be missing the idea im trying to explain here.

Would legalizing prostitution actually make it better or just more viewable to the public. Surely the people trying to demolish that image would isolate and look down upon that occupation. We already have such stigmas on erotic dancing and adult material.

The sexual side of humanity is often looked down upon, because it does not reflect what we are capable of at our best. Sex is basic, it's primitive and necessary for the continuation of our species. How we portray it within society depends on the society.

If you see the point of this post it is that the regulation of the sex industry in combination with media censorship and the push for these "positive ideals" has turned most young woman into sex objects. So the idea of this post is that we are shaping our young woman into primitive basic paths where there is no development of the mind. Again I think you should reread and try to understand my post.

There was a time when people portrayed little bit of sexuality, as it was a more delicate and inappropriate subject. During these oppressive times, we also see a sort of innocence. Consider the very old fashion pin up girls. They're just cute pictures, hardly the erotica we see today. So, have we become free sexually or has our pushing to be freer sexually created a world in which we are (women are) more and more objectified.

There was a time when people portrayed little bit of sexuality, as it was a more delicate and inappropriate subject. During these oppressive times, we also see a sort of innocence. Consider the very old fashion pin up girls. They're just cute pictures, hardly the erotica we see today. So, have we become free sexually or has our pushing to be freer sexually created a world in which we are (women are) more and more objectified.

Awesome point, I didnt even think to compare with with earlier more repressed times. Alright woman were massively objectified back then, this is really good evidence towards what I am saying. They were considered useful for functions such as cooking/cleaning/etc, a man could move out of home, and was expected to, and support himself, but a woman never could. They couldnt even vote in allot places. Any one who agrees with my criticism now would hate to live back then.

The intellectuals and humanitarians in our society want to rise above our baser instincts, accept them and allow them to exists openly (unlike religion perhaps), but at the same time not overemphasize their importance as a sort of absolute identity. Not all women are the same, not all men are the same. Not all people are merely male or female. The world is far more complicated than the simple baser-instincts understandings.

Thats good but doesnt really apply

We can't easily change how our media/society portrays people, what people try to hide or what they try to expose. We have to choose to rise above it and portray what we are worth.

I am saying we should stop goverment censorship etc which we can do.

The primitive thinking people, who actually believe what the media tells them about women being sexual objects to win over or men just being dicks, should live in zoos. They are inferior: they choose NOT to re-examine their intellect, they choose NOT to develop as human beings, they choose not to see the complexities of life, etc...

The media does not tell them woman are sexual objects just to win over men, the goverments agenda is the opposite, the effects of which is the whole point.

You make some very interesting points, which would be good on another thread, but I really think overall you may of overlooked some areas and hence misunderstood my post.

 

[Zero]

1.
That's a very simplistic view of divorce.

To nature, a single man is expendable. Woman, however, must live to carry a child for 9 months, give birth (hopefully live), then care for a completely helpless being. Few creatures are born so helpless. And one male can impregnate several females (even though our chance of pregnancy is only 20%).

But people are social animals, we're ideally in groups and societies, as it greatly assists our ability to live a long time.

Most of the women I know, who are divorced, are divorced because their husbands left them. As a matter of fact, I know no people who've divorced simply because the female had no "respect for his money". That's perhaps the most absurd reason I've heard for divorce. Having him perish in some way would leave her with all the assets and I have seen gold diggers.

Additionally, if it was a matter of money and the man's authority, everyone in my family would be divorced, but the opposite is true. No one in my is divorced and all the women work, often with the men. And I know a "stay at home wife" who's husband simply left her.

Most of the time it would seem the reason for divorce is misplaced expectations. People grow and change, sometimes people grow apart. Other times they get stuck in a rut and feel trapped. The reasons I've seen people get divorced are for a lack of communication and/or connection between the married couple.

2.
First of all, you assume all prostitution is for men. Second, it sounds as if you think their desires are so overpowering and all important that we SHOULD have prostitutes for them. Why can't males provide some kind of substance to interest a female and coax her into sex? Isn't this the whole idea behind clubbing, bars and etc...? It would be a shame to understand men as only disposable sperm banks.

Even animals have mating rituals. If we go upon this "men want sex, therefore they should get it", evolution should do its part and we should see an increase in females. Or there shouldn't be so many males. Then the few who are left will get all the sex they want and for free.

Do you think, without these morals or this sense to protect women, we'd be better off? That drugs and crime wouldn't be a part of it? Of course it would. Women don't want to jump into bed with every stranger who wants some ass. Maybe some would do it, for the quick cash, but others would rather live a normal life and not have to have some sweaty weirdo on and in her every night.

I think this comes down to the fact that we need to kill off males, as they are the problem.

3-4.
Your post hardly makes any sense, you've mixed several ideas and notions and you're clearly arguing from a male perspective. Additionally, you make sweeping accusations. Not everyone is sexually repressed or care what people think of them. What is it to "simply exchange money for sex"? This isn't natural. Like I mentioned, even animals have mating rituals. It is not unnatural or unusual for humans to want to impress each other. Females and males are competitive for mates and that's how nature would have it.

At one point you're arguing the suppression of sexuality has made females into sexual objects. What has made females, not only into sexual objects, but objects is more complex. It isn't one particular thing and the development of it is far beyond our culture and time in history. How is it that cultures can have and respect a goddess and yet women aren't allowed in intellectual arenas? There are many images of "The woman". For instance, the objectification of women is due to the idealized versions, not only in sexuality, but in being unobtainable. A woman can be a "goddess", she can be unobtainable. It created a woman who isn't fathomable.

Consider that, from this point of view, woman are demanding, powerful and confusing, so an alternative little slut a man can pay to have sex with is better. But the idea that women are unfathomable has been created. Women aren't as confusing as the media, in all forms, has made them out to be. Women are people, they want to be treated like people, but they're often treated like objects and dismissed as this unfathomable, unobtainable headache. There are books, movies, games, plays, etc... about how different men and women are and how confusing and weird women are. It comes down to that if you don't like being told you're angry when you're angry, well she doesn't like it either.

In literature around the world women are used as objects to represent ideas, morals and are metaphorical. Females are represented in a way that makes them background characters. This isn't a SIMPLE matter of sexuality, it's much more complicated. Think of all the movies out there, for instance, the majority of movies focus on a male protagonist. If it focuses on a female it's likely a romance or some genre that's other than mainstream. Take into consideration the fact that romance is not mainstream and considered a female area, "chick flicks". The male in a movie almost always has a female love interest. She plays a secondary part that is only there to compliment the man. I think Avatar is a somewhat humorous example. All the females who don't play into stereotypical parts die. They have no place in society. This is constantly re-integrated into every bit of media and society. This is, ultimately, why women are made into sexual objects, it's because women are "Secondary" and objects, abstractions, etc..., they have been for a long time. Few cultures have managed to develop differently and we've eradicated them.

This is information anyone who has studies gender would know. Sexual oppression has it's own effects, some of which may be linked to the bigger picture. However, any oppression typically results in people rebelling against it. And we've had that many times with sexual revolutions. Sex is not a hidden thing. So we don't think it's appropriate for prostitution to be legalized, perhaps it isn't. Somehow there are thousands upon thousands of men who can find sex for free. They have affairs, they have girlfriends, they have wives, they have one night stands, they have multiple wives...etc.

"Men want sex" isn't a good reason for prostitution. Men should WORK FOR IT, like every other species on the planet. Our censorship is also a silly reason to think woman are objectified. To think it could be that simple. It's hilarious.

5.
It seems to me you haven't study gender very much.

Etc.
Your post is confusing at best. If you're proposing some kind of government, media evil due to censorship you should find a way to focus your topic. It seems you're blaming censorship for making women into sexual objects, but the whole process of gender in society is much more complex. Censorship is a grain of sand into the complexity of the issue.

If you're tying to say oppression leads people to rebel and act in the opposite manner, then yes, that's often the case. Perhaps feminists did go too far and there was an opposite reaction. That is one topic and it's jumbled in there with sexual oppression and the opposite effect. There are many reasons that women might reject a "feminist" appearance, it may be that women have different personalities, like men. It could be that women are trying to gain an appealing appearance to men, because media has warped the ideal female to something impossible and rather the sexuality portrayed in the media is causing the problem.

However, there's much more the objectification to women.

If you're trying to defend sexuality, then you need to focus on that and not bring gender into it, because that's getting into complicated stuff.

If you're simply defending sexuality in our society, then that's easy enough to talk about and pretty simple. We've come a long way and very liberal compared to many other countries. The main reason for sexual oppression has been religion and as a matter of fact could easily make this a discussion about religion and not gender. Religion has long been used to control people and it's easy to use sexuality as a tool.

The US is slowly losing connection with its roots and many people are not religious or as strongly religious and are more liberal in their sexual actions. But we, as a society, have to consider what is best for everyone and the reason for censorship is usually for children. That is created "artificially" by a society. By 12 a female can potentially become pregnant. In some societies females marry at 14. In our past people married younger, even during a time when there was probably more censorship. The standards today are a part of the evolution of our society. People don't get married at 14, they're not even considered adults until 18 and that's still very young to marry for most. But the reason this happens is because our society is advanced. We train people, we go through school and find a place and settle down before we start families. It's a matter of stability and people want a certain amount of censorship for that feeling of safety and stability.

We're hardly censored compared to some countries. Wasn't Korea that couldn't have World Of Warcraft, because of how much bone/corpses and "offensive" material was in the game?

 

[Zero]

Here are the jumble of topics you actually have:

A. Government Censorship

B. Immorality

C. The Effects of "Condemning" the exchange of sex for material goods...

D. Portrayal of "Feminist". This is completely ignorant of the fact that there is a lot of borderline sexual content in the media. This is also ignoring the idea of "general audience" and what that means.

E. You arguing that the Government enforces morals or makes them and makes people feel guilty. That's ridiculous. The government censors, but that's because the people demand it. The people are the majority. When the majority turns so should the government and if it didn't we'd have a revolution on our hands.


F. Sexuality viewed as negative.

G. Artificially inflating sex...Somehow you're arguing that the chance of infectious disease would be less if this were "moral" and "legal". I hope this isn't a point, because it's funny. Sex should be free. It cost a little effort.

H. "Morals are pushed onto society". Morals are not pushed onto society. They're upheld by society. They are a piece of society.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/society

I. You argue that old men should be allowed to ... have sex with sixteen year old girls, because they're attracted to them. Warrant?

J. Woman are "commodities". By male standards.

K. Feminists have created the opposite effect.

You have many jumbled unrelated points. You make all kinds of assertions that are clearly uneducated and have no evidence to back them up. You're also a sexist in all your ponderings. You obviously approach this as if Men are the "normal", everyday people. You don't separate men from people or society or think of the fact that men are just as effected by the media as women and that they're not rebelling, but rather imitating the media. You're defending only the males point of view.

Ultimately, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your topic isn't even clear. You don't have any material to back up you assertions.

 

[wadlez]

Most of the women I know, who are divorced, are divorced because their husbands left them. As a matter of fact, I know no people who've divorced simply because the female had no "respect for his money". That's perhaps the most absurd reason I've heard for divorce. Having him perish in some way would leave her with all the assets and I have seen gold diggers.

Additionally, if it was a matter of money and the man's authority, everyone in my family would be divorced, but the opposite is true. No one in my is divorced and all the women work, often with the men. And I know a "stay at home wife" who's husband simply left her.

Most of the time it would seem the reason for divorce is misplaced expectations. People grow and change, sometimes people grow apart. Other times they get stuck in a rut and feel trapped. The reasons I've seen people get divorced are for a lack of communication and/or connection between the married couple.

"Statistics tell us that women instigate more than 75% of today's divorces. This flight of women from marriage has prompted books such as Maggie Gallagher's The Abolition of Marriage: How We Destroy Lasting Love. Gallagher calls for a return to fault divorces as a "cure" for divorce. She feels the individual's right to choice and self-gratification has brought an "institution" to the brink of extinction."

From: http://www.cyberparent.com/women/marriage1.htm

"The proportion of divorces initiated by women ranged around 60% for most of the 20th century, and climbed to more than 70% in the late 1960s when no-fault divorce was introduced: so says a just-released study by law professor Margaret Brinig of George Mason University in Arlington, Virginia and Douglas Allen, economist at Vancouver's Simon Fraser University. The researchers undertook one of the largest studies ever on divorce, using 46,000 cases from the four American states that keep statistics on which partner initiates the action. In addition to women filing twice as often, the researchers found, they are more likely to instigate separations and marriage break ups. "

From: http://fathersforlife.org/divorce/divmen.htm

"Green's experience may ring bells for a growing number of Australian men. In 2004, the Australian Bureau of Statistics recorded 52,747 divorces – an increase of more than 20 per cent from 1984.
A closer look at those statistics reveals that 41 per cent of applications for divorce were lodged by women. Another 28 per cent were the result of joint applications, leaving men as the initiators in 31 per cent of cases.
As those numbers might suggest, separation comes as a shock for a good proportion of men. "Most guys don't see it coming," says Tony Miller, founder of the nationwide support network Dads in Distress. "They don't see the signs and when it happens they walk around like stunned mullets.""


http://www.abc.net.au/health/features/stories/2007/03/22/1881895.htm


Soooo...

Your post hardly makes any sense, you've mixed several ideas and notions and you're clearly arguing from a male perspective

Really?

As an interaction of the factors I have just explained, men are equally affected and their lives are shaped to simple low level paths where they pursue being attractive and the fitting archetypes which allow them to be partners to these women (at the cost of pursuing higher level ideals and developing their minds).

So....

I think this comes down to the fact that we need to kill off males, as they are the problem.

and

Your post hardly makes any sense, you've mixed several ideas and notions and you're clearly arguing from a male perspective

For your first post it would be a waste of time addressing every argument because you have made it obvious that you have made no effort to understand the idea I am trying to explain. What has happened is, you have read the post didnt actually understand the logic behind it, but rather sensed a negativity towards woman which has triggered some complex and are now engaged in some imaginary argument against some chauvinistic man.
From this end it looks ridiculous, your not addressing anything to do with the idea, you have projected so much onto me which is simply is not there, all your doing is rambling on and protecting woman from some imagined enemy.


As for the points about society, laws etc. We do not need to be repressed, regulated or controlled for society to be civilised or more advanced.
It is exactly the same as the religous argument you so often hear "If people dont have god people will just go around killing each other and stealing" The fact that this possible scenario sounds bad to people means that people dont want this to happen before they are indoctrinated into religion. This perfectly extends to your propositions of future scenarios without the laws.

In literature around the world women are used as objects to represent ideas, morals and are metaphorical. Females are represented in a way that makes them background characters. This isn't a SIMPLE matter of sexuality, it's much more complicated. Think of all the movies out there, for instance, the majority of movies focus on a male protagonist. If it focuses on a female it's likely a romance or some genre that's other than mainstream. Take into consideration the fact that romance is not mainstream and considered a female area, "chick flicks". The male in a movie almost always has a female love interest. She plays a secondary part that is only there to compliment the man. I think Avatar is a somewhat humorous example. All the females who don't play into stereotypical parts die. They have no place in society. This is constantly re-integrated into every bit of media and society. This is, ultimately, why women are made into sexual objects, it's because women are "Secondary" and objects, abstractions, etc..., they have been for a long time. Few cultures have managed to develop differently and we've eradicated them.

More repression wont fix this. Males and females have natural gender roles, popular storys normally use the shared human archetypes we gained instinctually. There is no conspiracy of men pushing these storys, these are spontaneous works and the most popular normallly have themes and characters most people can feel and relate to. The only shaping of media that can be proven without a doubt is goverment regulation and political correct ideals, all other sources are just conspiracys.

Here are the jumble of topics you actually have:

You have many jumbled unrelated points. You make all kinds of assertions that are clearly uneducated and have no evidence to back them up. You're also a sexist in all your ponderings. You obviously approach this as if Men are the "normal", everyday people. You don't separate men from people or society or think of the fact that men are just as effected by the media as women and that they're not rebelling, but rather imitating the media. You're defending only the males point of view.

Ultimately, you have no idea what you're talking about. Your topic isn't even clear. You don't have any material to back up you assertions.

Its not a big jumble of topics, its one clear idea. Its not sexist, its not against females any more than males. The fact you state its a big jumble confirms my previous statement

How can we debate when you dont even know what my argument or what it is I am trying to say?

Here's a good excercise for anyone reading this thread. Explain the theory I have posted in your own words. Not whats bad or good about it, simply what it is I believe and why.

For any future posts please limit yourself to one or two arguments at a time, if not to make it easier for me to reply then to stop me overlooking anything you said.

 

[LAM]

In any case, sexual attraction is by all means ok (and natural), but our culture prevents people from seeing past the appearance.

@ BigApplePie, I'm 14 (and therefore very inexperienced and immature), but if I were to choose a girl, as long as she isn't hideously ugly, I'm ok. What matters is her personality. I don't want a girl who believes that everything should belong to her, I don't want a girl who asserts her beliefs and stereotypes on me, I don't want a girl who is overly emotional. I want a girl who is original and doesn't go with the flow, a girl who doesn't spend 90% of her time socializing or putting on make-up. Unfortunately, such girls are hard to come across these days.

I wager they never were easy to find. And what exactly is so bad about make-up? And most girls are original in their own way. It took me way too long a time to understand this. Even if they seem like they spend most of their time socialising. But this is only from my perspective, because usually basically anybody else seems to me like being like that.

But then I realised I was looking through my "INTP" perspective which means that of course anybody who can talk to a stranger without ending in an awkward silence looks like they are big "socialisers" when they actually aren't from an objective perspective. It is very hard to look at girls I might like from an objective perspective, but relying solely on mine which is usually completely out of proportions is , I believe, a bad idea.

 

[BigApplePi]

1.
That's a very simplistic view of divorce.

To nature, a single man is expendable. Woman, however, must live to carry a child for 9 months, give birth (hopefully live), then care for a completely helpless being. Few creatures are born so helpless. And one male can impregnate several females (even though our chance of pregnancy is only 20%).

But people are social animals, we're ideally in groups and societies, as it greatly assists our ability to live a long time.

Most of the women I know, who are divorced, are divorced because their husbands left them. As a matter of fact, I know no people who've divorced simply because the female had no "respect for his money". That's perhaps the most absurd reason I've heard for divorce. Having him perish in some way would leave her with all the assets and I have seen gold diggers.

Additionally, if it was a matter of money and the man's authority, everyone in my family would be divorced, but the opposite is true. No one in my is divorced and all the women work, often with the men. And I know a "stay at home wife" who's husband simply left her.

Most of the time it would seem the reason for divorce is misplaced expectations. People grow and change, sometimes people grow apart. Other times they get stuck in a rut and feel trapped. The reasons I've seen people get divorced are for a lack of communication and/or connection between the married couple.

2.
First of all, you assume all prostitution is for men. Second, it sounds as if you think their desires are so overpowering and all important that we SHOULD have prostitutes for them. Why can't males provide some kind of substance to interest a female and coax her into sex? Isn't this the whole idea behind clubbing, bars and etc...? It would be a shame to understand men as only disposable sperm banks.

Even animals have mating rituals. If we go upon this "men want sex, therefore they should get it", evolution should do its part and we should see an increase in females. Or there shouldn't be so many males. Then the few who are left will get all the sex they want and for free.

Do you think, without these morals or this sense to protect women, we'd be better off? That drugs and crime wouldn't be a part of it? Of course it would. Women don't want to jump into bed with every stranger who wants some ass. Maybe some would do it, for the quick cash, but others would rather live a normal life and not have to have some sweaty weirdo on and in her every night.

I think this comes down to the fact that we need to kill off males, as they are the problem.

3-4.
Your post hardly makes any sense, you've mixed several ideas and notions and you're clearly arguing from a male perspective. Additionally, you make sweeping accusations. Not everyone is sexually repressed or care what people think of them. What is it to "simply exchange money for sex"? This isn't natural. Like I mentioned, even animals have mating rituals. It is not unnatural or unusual for humans to want to impress each other. Females and males are competitive for mates and that's how nature would have it.

At one point you're arguing the suppression of sexuality has made females into sexual objects. What has made females, not only into sexual objects, but objects is more complex. It isn't one particular thing and the development of it is far beyond our culture and time in history. How is it that cultures can have and respect a goddess and yet women aren't allowed in intellectual arenas? There are many images of "The woman". For instance, the objectification of women is due to the idealized versions, not only in sexuality, but in being unobtainable. A woman can be a "goddess", she can be unobtainable. It created a woman who isn't fathomable.

Consider that, from this point of view, woman are demanding, powerful and confusing, so an alternative little slut a man can pay to have sex with is better. But the idea that women are unfathomable has been created. Women aren't as confusing as the media, in all forms, has made them out to be. Women are people, they want to be treated like people, but they're often treated like objects and dismissed as this unfathomable, unobtainable headache. There are books, movies, games, plays, etc... about how different men and women are and how confusing and weird women are. It comes down to that if you don't like being told you're angry when you're angry, well she doesn't like it either.

In literature around the world women are used as objects to represent ideas, morals and are metaphorical. Females are represented in a way that makes them background characters. This isn't a SIMPLE matter of sexuality, it's much more complicated. Think of all the movies out there, for instance, the majority of movies focus on a male protagonist. If it focuses on a female it's likely a romance or some genre that's other than mainstream. Take into consideration the fact that romance is not mainstream and considered a female area, "chick flicks". The male in a movie almost always has a female love interest. She plays a secondary part that is only there to compliment the man. I think Avatar is a somewhat humorous example. All the females who don't play into stereotypical parts die. They have no place in society. This is constantly re-integrated into every bit of media and society. This is, ultimately, why women are made into sexual objects, it's because women are "Secondary" and objects, abstractions, etc..., they have been for a long time. Few cultures have managed to develop differently and we've eradicated them.

This is information anyone who has studies gender would know. Sexual oppression has it's own effects, some of which may be linked to the bigger picture. However, any oppression typically results in people rebelling against it. And we've had that many times with sexual revolutions. Sex is not a hidden thing. So we don't think it's appropriate for prostitution to be legalized, perhaps it isn't. Somehow there are thousands upon thousands of men who can find sex for free. They have affairs, they have girlfriends, they have wives, they have one night stands, they have multiple wives...etc.

"Men want sex" isn't a good reason for prostitution. Men should WORK FOR IT, like every other species on the planet. Our censorship is also a silly reason to think woman are objectified. To think it could be that simple. It's hilarious.

5.
It seems to me you haven't study gender very much.

Etc.
Your post is confusing at best. If you're proposing some kind of government, media evil due to censorship you should find a way to focus your topic. It seems you're blaming censorship for making women into sexual objects, but the whole process of gender in society is much more complex. Censorship is a grain of sand into the complexity of the issue.

If you're tying to say oppression leads people to rebel and act in the opposite manner, then yes, that's often the case. Perhaps feminists did go too far and there was an opposite reaction. That is one topic and it's jumbled in there with sexual oppression and the opposite effect. There are many reasons that women might reject a "feminist" appearance, it may be that women have different personalities, like men. It could be that women are trying to gain an appealing appearance to men, because media has warped the ideal female to something impossible and rather the sexuality portrayed in the media is causing the problem.

However, there's much more the objectification to women.

If you're trying to defend sexuality, then you need to focus on that and not bring gender into it, because that's getting into complicated stuff.

If you're simply defending sexuality in our society, then that's easy enough to talk about and pretty simple. We've come a long way and very liberal compared to many other countries. The main reason for sexual oppression has been religion and as a matter of fact could easily make this a discussion about religion and not gender. Religion has long been used to control people and it's easy to use sexuality as a tool.

The US is slowly losing connection with its roots and many people are not religious or as strongly religious and are more liberal in their sexual actions. But we, as a society, have to consider what is best for everyone and the reason for censorship is usually for children. That is created "artificially" by a society. By 12 a female can potentially become pregnant. In some societies females marry at 14. In our past people married younger, even during a time when there was probably more censorship. The standards today are a part of the evolution of our society. People don't get married at 14, they're not even considered adults until 18 and that's still very young to marry for most. But the reason this happens is because our society is advanced. We train people, we go through school and find a place and settle down before we start families. It's a matter of stability and people want a certain amount of censorship for that feeling of safety and stability.

We're hardly censored compared to some countries. Wasn't Korea that couldn't have World Of Warcraft, because of how much bone/corpses and "offensive" material was in the game?

Zero you've said quite a lot there -- too much for lazy me to study in depth but I quote this:
"What is it to "simply exchange money for sex"? This isn't natural."
Not all men and women can behave "naturally" expressing their full selves -- whatever that is. What about accepting the "unnatural"? Some people are challenged/ limited in their ability to have optimum full relationships. Would you be anti-masturbation? By extension would you be anti medical treatment for illnesses in need of "unnatural" therapy?

 

[Lithorn]

For your first post it would be a waste of time addressing every argument because you have made it obvious that you have made no effort to understand the idea I am trying to explain. What has happened is, you have read the post didnt actually understand the logic behind it,

Its not a big jumble of topics, its one clear idea. Its not sexist, its not against females any more than males. The fact you state its a big jumble confirms my previous statement

How can we debate when you dont even know what my argument or what it is I am trying to say?

Here's a good excercise for anyone reading this thread. Explain the theory I have posted in your own words. Not whats bad or good about it, simply what it is I believe and why.

Several posters have expressed confusion over what it is you're actually trying to say. Having just read through this thread, your arguments strike me as rather disjointed and unsupported by proper evidence, and saying that others just don't understand them is in no way an adequate response.
We're all capable of understanding a clear, logical argument. You have failed to make one. You say "how can we debate when you don't even know what my argument is?", while in the meantime you've made little to no effort to synthesize, clarify, or refine that argument, opting instead to casually dismiss our critiques as not worth your time.
If you wish to be understood, it is up to you to make yourself understood, not just sit back and refuse to engage with those who don't understand you. When this many people are not picking up on the point you apparently wish to make, you have to consider that the problem lies in your communication, not in their intelligence or the amount of effort they exerted trying to understand.
And to be frank, I find your suggestion that we "explain your theory in our own words" to be heinously condescending. This is not a classroom, and we are not your students.

 

[Ran]

This thread really interests me since I'm taking a "Gender and Psychology Across Cultures" and a "Psychological Anthropology" class at the same time. Gender and sex are discussed in both classes and this thread can help me think about the course material from a different perspective.
I wish I could contribute!! ...But I really didn't learn enough yet to say anything of significance (or hasn't already been said).

I wager they never were easy to find. And what exactly is so bad about make-up? And most girls are original in their own way. It took me way too long a time to understand this. Even if they seem like they spend most of their time socialising.

This really reminded me of an exchange from Elegy: (which I recommend to anyone who's interested)

George O'Hearn: Beautiful women are invisible.
David Kepesh: Invisible? What the hell does that mean? Invisible? They jump out at you. A beautiful woman, she stands out. She stands apart. You can't miss her.
George O'Hearn: But we never actually see the person. We see the beautiful shell. We're blocked by the beauty barrier. Yeah, we're so dazzled by the outside that we never make it inside.

Why must beauty and intelligence be mutually exclusive?

Anyway just wanted to pop up and say hi. I'll go hide in the crowd now...

 

[wadlez]

Several posters have expressed confusion over what it is you're actually trying to say. Having just read through this thread, your arguments strike me as rather disjointed and unsupported by proper evidence, and saying that others just don't understand them is in no way an adequate response.

It is an adequate response when someone poses an argument thats not relevant to your post. Its like someone explaining that the moon landing was a hoax and then having someone start arguing with them that russia is great country, you would tell them that there not really understanding what your trying to say. I then explained to posters where they were making the mistake (eg thinking this is overly critical of feminism). In no case did I not respond to any argument and just tell them to try harder to understand.

We're all capable of understanding a clear, logical argument. You have failed to make one. You say "how can we debate when you don't even know what my argument is?", while in the meantime you've made little to no effort to synthesize, clarify, or refine that argument, opting instead to casually dismiss our critiques as not worth your time.
If you wish to be understood, it is up to you to make yourself understood, not just sit back and refuse to engage with those who don't understand you. When this many people are not picking up on the point you apparently wish to make, you have to consider that the problem lies in your communication, not in their intelligence or the amount of effort they exerted trying to understand.

Not worth my time? Look at the amount of effort I have had to put into replying to all these responses, I have engaged every person on here and obviously would really like for people to understand. I have been explaining where people have misunderstood and given feedback for every argument. Even though Im being constantly attacked for this post I am taking the higher path and just calmly responding.

And to be frank, I find your suggestion that we "explain your theory in our own words" to be heinously condescending. This is not a classroom, and we are not your students.

This is a method that I have tried with other people when debating or discussing an issue and its been really successful. I have also been on the receiving end of this, it really lets you see how the argument has been processed and interpreted by the other party. Another one I do (which you would flip out over) is swap sides with the person completely, so they argue my point of view and I argue theres, that gets really interesting results.

I am yet to provide proper evidence, apart from observations we can agree on (eg 1920's repression) and the small amount for the divorce issue. I can write proper scientific essays to APA standard, at uni we cant say anything without research to back it up. Im not writting a paper here though, I'm explaining an idea for people to debate and expand on (this is a forum). If this was in a latter stage with the amount of investment you are demanding I wouldnt be posting it here

 

[BigApplePi]

Can we get back on track here? Either re-present the general issue (whoops sexuality is one of the most complicated human issues there is) or pick out one specific issue where we can continue ......

 

[wadlez]

Here is the idea again broken up into points which data can be gathered to disprove or prove the theory.

The goverments censors the media of sexual content (including advertising)

The goverment pushes politically correct ideals through the media (via censorship etc)

Prostitution is illegal

Effect of this ------------------------------------------->

Limited outlets and less opportunitys for sex (compared to if above not = true)

Value of sex artificially inflated (due to limited outlets)

Effects of this ------------------------------------------>

Woman developing there sexuality over higher pursuits due to this inflation and immediate higher rewards for this path.

Men having to develop and group and into more basic instinctual groups and roles to be attractive, appeal to these woman and fit into the roles where sex is morally allowed

Effects of this ------------------------------------------>

Woman molding into an overly sexualised, objectified female archetype

Men molding into an overly sexualised, simple male archetype

Society developing more on a sexualised basic instinctual path

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- end

The natural order of things will already have its effects, things will not be neutral, this is not responsible for females being selective of who they are with etc
I am explaining an Imbalance (not the entire system), a unnatural tilt to one side. This is due to the initial factors being put in place, which were installed with the exact opposite goal in mind.

 

[BigApplePi]

The goverments censors the media of sexual content (including advertising)

Good refresh of topics. I'll just take the 1st one.

Think of what would happen if there were NO advertising censorship. What would be a bigger draw to the advertiser's product than porn (soft) or at first something close to it? You don't think that would happen? My guess is it would. Now since it's advertising, it would be open to all. Porn = sex is not like advertising food or autos or beer. It appeals to the senses immediately (unless one is used to it). So it's going to be very distracting. (Read distracting as annoying.)

Another factor I don't understand is advertisers are very sensitive to criticism. Instead of reacting to the average they react to extremes. I don't know why that is. Anyone know? So if the American Society for the Advancement of Prudes (ASAP) wishes to phone in their objections, their wishes will be honored.

Notice wadlez how I speled this sentence: "their wishes will be followed." "their" is the possessive form. Wishes belong to them. It's not that I want to pick at this. It's just that when I see a word I'm not too familiar with, it helps to get the word right to remember it. If I remember a new word incorrectly and try to use it, I'm making things worse, lol. My wife is an English major. Questions? Comments? Criticisms?

 

[Agent Intellect]

Sexuality is a big one, but I think it expands even beyond that topic. Society as a whole is constantly seeking to identify a code of ethics that will "be good for everyone", which usually means caving to the squeaky wheel. Sexual repression is because people find it personally offensive or disgusting. This I find curious as natural is often synonymous with good (organic foods, anti-GM crop groups - or really the aversion to any genetic modification).

I guess for me what I would be curious about is where our aversion to sexuality even originates. I'm sure a lot of anti-theist people will blame religion, but I would say the religious sentiment of sexual repression is simply a projection of the underlying values of it's individual adherents (God hates sex because the people that believe in God hate sex).

Is it evolutionary? Did the people that felt sex was disgusting or something to be repressed get fewer STD's and therefore have more offspring with the same propensity for those values?

Is it a product of social cohesion? Because we are monogamous, is the idea of promiscuity reprehensible because it signifies a more shallow, less emotional connection (basically, it takes away from the act of sex, which because of our monogamy, increased intelligence, and symbolic way of thinking, has become the epitome of 'decent human nature')?

Is it social constructivism? For reasons unknown, simply because a certain group of people(s) started the meme that sexuality was a negative thing, the idea won out on a memetic natural selection scale? This seems unlikely, as some people are simply appalled, even to the point of physical illness, but the idea of any sort of public sexuality or promiscuity.

Is it more of a top down approach? Does advertising, and government regulation (censorship) or religious morals more or less indoctrinate us from an early age to believe that sexuality is a bad thing?

In the end, the current state of affairs when it comes to the "balance of power" in the realm of sexuality is almost certainly a biological thing. The 'supply and demand' of sexual gratification is in women's favor, as the demand for sex is always high in men, therefore women have the "supply". This is not always true on an individual basis, but the trend of the sexually repressed western civilizations would almost certainly lean this way (just the fact that commercials with attractive women are more popular than with men; that the vast majority of pornography is geared towards men etc) and the fact that we are so repressed only adds to this demand - especially when the double standard makes sexuality in women even more frowned upon.

 

[BigApplePi]

Society as a whole is constantly seeking to identify a code of ethics that will "be good for everyone"

I guess for me what I would be curious about is where our aversion to sexuality even originates.

Is it evolutionary? Did the people that felt sex was disgusting or something to be repressed

Is it more of a top down approach?

I'm going to take a wild shot at explaining this sexuality thing with a top/ down overview.

Here are some very strong sensual or bodily desires we have: Breathing, eating, sex, evacuating. I'll take them one by one and see if there is a comparison. If I missed any, let this thread know.

1. Breathing. No moraility here unless you fall overboard and can't swim. Everyone is allowed to breath anywhere.

2. Eating. Well most everyone favors eating. It is cooperative and requires food preparation, hunting, storing. So it is highly social. We do that eating out in the open and get to compare quality and measure quantity. So doing this in public is much approved unless one is gorging themselves in front of a starving populace.

4. Evacuation. This is necessary as long as we input more than we can use. The output is not usable by others and no one seems to want it unless crops have a shortage of fertilizer or we are on a space mission and need to recycle water. So, unless you can think of any other reason, this is not executed sociially. Because of its necesstiy society sets up special rooms where this can be done privately without reminding others what is going on. I'm not sure I understand this any more than you do but there you have it.

3. Sex. As this is our main subject you can see I almost forgot it. Glad I didn't. Seems to be somewhere in between breathing, eating and evacuation. Disclaimer. Free free to check out the following computations from yer biology texts and Bible.

Evolution has set this up to be executed for more than one and less than three people. My computation from those figures comes out to two exactly. Now like breathing, eating, and evacuation, INTPs know about this. But knowing doesn't change the social aspect. Two is the number. That could be why public displays greater than two are frowned on. There. I've given this idea a start. Maybe someone else can work on zero, one and three or greater.

 

[Vatroslav]

Can we be sure of true human nature at all? Okay- let's assume that human beings are pure primitive biology clothed in evil civilized cloak which who knows how those same human beasts created... I would say that only true, purely biological purpose of sex would be- reproduction.

Yes, I can already hear and see the arguments about animals who have sex for pleasure as well...

Or could that be something what those same human beasts only perceive as sex for pleasure? Crazed with liberal ideology of nowadays? I suppose animals have orgies too...and BDSM parties as well... and animal prostitutes amongst the animals are extremely popular in forests and deserts nowadays...

I especially love those arguments about animal "homosexuality"... without any pure evidence, without trying to see how those same animals grew up, under what conditions did it happen etc. (Lock 15 male penguins in the same room, and you'll see a lot of animal homosexuality, high resolution and extremely good audio quality guaranteed)

No, I don't want to say that sex can't be for pleasure... nor that Victorian mental set is the right one... only that not everything watched from human bestial point of view is surely and entirely true...

And that the genuine thinker must not be chained by ANY point of view. No matter whether you are amongst the liberals or conservatives- those are still points of view of society, and you are still in its box.

Any genuine scientist will be honest- we do not know anything.

And my point of view? I think that mathematics is very interesting science... and infinity its most interesting part. (Oh no, a human beast can know for infinity...)

Oh...about the society and its problems?

What you sow, so shall you reap... that's all.

 

[Vatroslav]

About women... I think that division to male and female is perfectly artificial... There is Human being and Human being... a rational and whole human being does not need any law- it's all completely clear to him/her... such person is able to see what is good and what is bad for him/her...in deepest and perfect tones...

so, I find it kind of pointless to discuss about all that actually...

 

[BigApplePi]

About women... I think that division to male and female is perfectly artificial... There is Human being and Human being... a rational and whole human being does not need any law- it's all completely clear to him/her... such person is able to see what is good and what is bad for him/her...in deepest and perfect tones...

so, I find it kind of pointless to discuss about all that actually...

Vatroslav. The problem is though you are an individual you are confronted by huge intangible forces all around you converging on you to resist your freedom of "reasoning." It's like swimming in molasses.

 

[Vatroslav]

It depends purely on me and my ability to confront myself... the pure human being is one who is built from the inside... to start building from the inside one has first to destroy everything what is not "him". Free thought is not the "liberal" nor "conservative" thought.

(It has some abstract relation to topic...)

 

[BigApplePi]

No organism can survive for long without input. Without input one is doomed.

 

[Vatroslav]

True. But we need a filtering system... you can't just take any junk from the outside and apply it to the inside... we shall not feel what the society tells us to feel, nor think, nor will...

 

[BigApplePi]

True. But we need a filtering system... you can't just take any junk from the outside and apply it to the inside... we shall not feel what the society tells us to feel, nor think, nor will...

"We need a filtering system." Now that's a good one! Hand me the filter!

 

[Vatroslav]

Mine filter?

Make one yourself... you are a filter...

 

[BigApplePi]

Mine filter?

Make one yourself... you are a filter...

I use a funnel.

 

[Vatroslav]

is it efficient?

 

[Polaris]

What seems to be missing is a thread on sexuality posted by a female.

If one hasn't been subject to constant objectification, verbal and physical sexual abuse by family and outsiders, sexual discrimination throughout school and the workplace, and the constant bombardment by the media with images of how women should look and behave, films that usually depict violence and degradation of women, the systematic repression of the female powers throughout political and religious history.............

If one hasn't been subject to this since one could remember.....

it would be hard to understand the female perspective at all.

 

[Vatroslav]

And- imagine! They fight for rights of animals, now they think women have their rights, and nothing changed at all since the glorious sexual revolution! Yay! Liberty!

Liberty, and women are still degraded...though, now you can vote, you can have careers, you can even stand up and say something about your rights...

...but everything remains the same...

(don't get me wrong, I'm not a crazy conservatist...) I just want to point out how shallow is all that.

 

[Polaris]

Yes you are right.

It is shallow.

I am certainly no idealist or feminist. I am human, and understand human suffering. I wish things could be balanced, and perhaps it is easier than we think. But we are not always using our brains for those purposes.

I just try to understand and listen.

Sometimes that gives me great sorrow.

Today is not a good day, think I will go into hibernation for a while.

 

[BigApplePi]

What seems to be missing is a thread on sexuality posted by a female.

If one hasn't been subject to constant objectification, verbal and physical sexual abuse by family and outsiders, sexual discrimination throughout school and the workplace, and the constant bombardment by the media with images of how women should look and behave, films that usually depict violence and degradation of women, the systematic repression of the female powers throughout political and religious history.............

If one hasn't been subject to this since one could remember.....

it would be hard to understand the female perspective at all.

Absolutely. If the topic is sexuality shouldn't there be representative views? Of course I've encountered both sexes in spite of my introversion. Even though I am male, stepping back, my opinion is -- ready?

Males are bigger.
Females are nicer.

 

[Agent Intellect]

Males are bigger.
Females are nicer.

I don't know, I've met some really big women, and on occasion, even a nice guy.

 

[BigApplePi]

Yes you are right.

It is shallow.

I am certainly no idealist or feminist. I am human, and understand human suffering. I wish things could be balanced, and perhaps it is easier than we think. But we are not always using our brains for those purposes.

I just try to understand and listen.

Sometimes that gives me great sorrow.

Today is not a good day, think I will go into hibernation for a while.

How's this for shallow?

Given equal ages, men get there first. They get their way because they are bigger. And they compete with each other bringing not so nice things into the picture as well as nice things. So woman are nicer -- to men -- but don't have control. How fortunate they are around to keep men in check because men need niceness. Women need men so not so nice things don't happen to them. If women were in control we might have a nicer world.