Why is sex considered worse for children than violence?

[white_wolf]

I'm browsing the forums for a video game that is currently in development, it is an RPG and a poster made a long post asking the developers to not include any sex scenes in this game because her son wants to play it and she doesn't want him to be "corrupted." The company(Bioware) did get involved in a scandal on Fox News for a scene in their game Mass Effect, but nothing was shown it was all implied after a long story arc, of course Fox being Fox didn't even play the game to find out about it and just blew the story out of context.
Ignoring the fact that that OP is clearly a troll, her rant got me wondering about something I've seen a lot. A lot of parents will raise hell at even minor nudity or sexual scenes or implications in games,movies, tv shows etc, but are fine with their kids playing really violent games where you kill 100s of people or watching really violent tv shows, movies, and I don't understand the double standard. I'll be honest, I don't have kids, but when I do I'd much rather find out they've been having sex behind my back, safely, than find out they hurt or killed someone. Though honestly I don't think the media has that much influence on people anyway. Getting back to my question, why is sex considered so much worse than violence?

[LoZoccolo]

1. Because violence is easier to understand.

[villager]

15. Well, in America, sure. It's the thing all your countrymen are doing.

n/t

[Cid_B]

51. Right.. just in America...

What a provincial snooty thing to say...

[villager]

62. how dare I get snooty about who is more violent! While our military/death spending sets the record

...which lends its own corrosive element to the collective psyche, you're right in that we're scarcely the sole practitioners of violence among our species. No wonder they want the kids to be familiar with it!

[Rage for Order]

108. It's like the continents of Europe, Asia, and Africa in the 20th century never existed

None of the major conflicts on those continents, at least in the first 65 years of the 20th century, were initiated by us. America bad, rest of the world all-knowing and peaceful

:eyes:

[TransitJohn]

2. Have you ever watched the documentary 'This Film Is Not Yet Rated'?

It's awesome, and dovetails nicely with the sentiment you're expressing.

[white_wolf]

3. No, I haven't.

I'll have to check it out. Thanks!

[Sonoman]

4. Dude...

"I'll be honest, I don't have kids, but when I do I'd much rather find out they've been having sex behind my back, safely, than find out they hurt or killed someone."

I fucking hope so.

Sonoman

[white_wolf]

7. Yeah, that is my point.

I don't see why sex is considered worse than violence, and yet to some people it is. They'll raise hell over something small related to sex, but will gladly buy their kids an FPS where you kill people with every weapon imaginable. I don't get it.

[Sonoman]

11. I only wish that I had time....

you and I could go on, forever,

Sonoman

[Initech]

5. See: George Carlin's "Seven words you cant say on TV"

"I'd much rather have someone say the word fuck than kill... in all those movie cliches we heard as a kid. All right sheriff... we're gonna fuck you now! But we're gonna fuck ya slow!!"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3_Nrp7cj_tM

:rofl:

[XemaSab]

6. I have asked myself this many a time

People being shot, impaled, beheaded, dismembered= ok on TV.

Tits= XOMGWHTBBQ.

[Initech]

9. I always point this out as my favorite freedom of speech comparison: US vs. France

In this corner - Team America: World Police.

Yes, the Matt Stone and Trey Parker movie that featured way-too-graphic scenes of marionette puppets fucking.

In the US, the movie almost couldn't be shown in theaters, it had to be heavily edited to avoid an NC-17 rating.

Now in France, the movie was touted as a G-rated family film and was a huge box office success.

Really makes you think who's the more sexually repressed country, doesn't it? :evilgrin:

[white_wolf]

12. I'll have to look that up.

Anything by the creators of South Park should be good.

[Initech]

16. Here ya go:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0372588/

[JonLP24]

20. I thought it was awful

The liberal Hollywood actors were part of some sort of union called Film Actors Guild(F.A.G.). They also created "derka, derka" which bigots use to mock the language people speak in Southwest Asia or Middle East.

[TheMadMonk]

45. dooby, dooby, dooby. Chicken ina pot.

Emma come first. then I come. Thena comea two asses. then I ah come again. Then two more asses, and I come again. Then ah pee and pee again and I a come at the end.


We've been taking the piss out of other folks speech patterns for as long as we've had mass entertainment. Provided it's a clear piss take, I generally don't have a problem with it. Since the whole of Team America is a piss take on America, right down to slap after slap at America's deliberate linguistic naievity, "derka derka" means something rather different to me than it appears to mean to you.

[JonLP24]

81. It was so offensive

listening people saying "derka, derka" over and over when referring to Iraqis, TCNs, Kuwaitis, etc. Even my platoon Sergeant thought so. He said you wouldn't go around calling people "N-word"

With that and the fact they had the liberal Hollywood actors union double as a slur just leads me to believe the film was Pro-Iraq War propaganda.

[XemaSab]

18. Similarly

when's the last time you saw a movie with a penis?

I can think of seriously three non-porn films I have seen in my life with a penis. Like, a regular, flaccid johnson. (Those films being Shallow Grave, Atanarjuat, and The Crying Game.)

I can think of an additional three films with a dildo (Amelie, South Park, and Fight Club).

As a side note, it's weird that I can think of as many films with a dildo as I can with, like, a dude with his dick out.

How many films have I seen where someone was shot to death? Dozens, if not hundreds.

[Initech]

24. You haven't seen the Jackass movies, I take it.

The two most recent Jackass films. Jackass 2 featured Bam taking a golden dildo up the ass, not to mention Pontius' infamous puppet show intro, while Jackass 3 had the infamous Helicockter sketch. :rofl:

[seabeyond]

49. taking a golden dildo up the ass. and really, the op asks why parents are concerned with "sex"

in movies

[TheMadMonk]

46. Try "Not Another Teen Movie" for a wiggly wubber willy.

Also the rip start one in one of the Naked Guns.

And numerous Australian movies include waggling wangs, probably trimmed for you lot.

[PassingFair]

47. Room with a View n/t

[Art_from_Ark]

90. I have a DVD called, I think, "European Vacation"

which I got in the bargain bin at Wal-Mart of all places-- and it shows some very revealing scenes at an all-male nude beach. Much more revealing, in fact, than the scenes at an all-female nude beach.

[white_wolf]

112. its called Eurotrip, at least if we are thinking of the same movie.

I, personally thought it was really funny, but it isn't for everyone.

[Art_from_Ark]

121. I took another look at the DVD

It is, indeed, Eurotrip.

[CanSocDem]

53. But...

"Really makes you think who's the more sexually repressed country, doesn't it?"

...there was never any doubt.

.

[Newest Reality]

8. That should really be obvious!

I was watching a movie at a theater, long ago. It was a rather scary, gory film that kids should really not have been taken to. It was called the Serpent and the Rainbow, if I recall correctly.

Behind me was a couple with two kids. They let them watch all the scary stuff, which befuddled me because it was very explicit. Then, there was a very erotic and rather deep sex scene. I heard a commotion behind me. The parents had made the children actually turn around and face the back of their seats.

That is when I asked the very same question as you.

So, in plain sight we see one thing, and the culture inculcates and enforces another. Death and horror and violence are alright. Sex is bad. Confusing, yet it makes sense. By making sex taboo, it induces an adolescent curiosity and revolt. By making violence and horror and death seem commonplace and natural, it leads people to behaviors and outcomes that are still currently profitable for those who lead us via the media that we are induced and encourage to follow and believe in.

This allows birth and death to be far more profitable and manipulable than they would be otherwise, in a natural sense.

[patrice]

10. Violence enforces social order/power. Sex destroys it?

Personally, I cannot understand the freak out going on just generally in my area over the letters f, u, c, and k.

As I enjoy pointing out to people, if I said that I don't like black cars, but we saw one that I liked and I said something to the effect of "Now, there's a black I could go for", you would not insist that I was talking about a Black person, so why do people insist upon making the same sort of mistake about the word fuck, when I use it in anger or pain, and people insist that I'm talking about sexual intercourse. There are many examples of these aural homophones: made vs maid; knead vs need; peer vs pier; see vs sea . . . people don't make a mistake about the meanings of these words, but they insist upon making a mistake about when someone stubbs their toe and exclaims "FUCK!" they are talking about a no-no, OMG!, sex!!!!!

[patrice]

13. Apparently, I think it's ALL about power, either autonomous or projected onto others. nt

[Warren DeMontague]

14. Are you INSANE? You probably think babies should be looking at naked breasts all the time, too..

Sicko.

[defendandprotect]

17. For a first -- think you're wrong about media --

If it wasn't an influence on the thinking of the population the rightwing wouldn't be

trying so hard to control it -- all of it -- from TV to libraries, from books to video,

from publishing houses to magazines --

They've been using our media for more than four decades to try to create a violent society --

they benefit from the chaos of violence. In fact, violence is the only way the rw can rise!

Though honestly I don't think the media has that much influence on people anyway. Getting back to my question, why is sex considered so much worse than violence?


But -- re your question -- agree -- if we're talking about some exposure to a "Victoria Secret's"

catalogue, for instance vs a copy of Hustler -- but it does depend on what you are talking about.

Violence would always be the winner!!

Just the fact that we have these continuing wars -- a lack of peace on this planet -- should be

enough to confuse the thinking of kids. Peace seems us unattainable, we hardly ask for it anymore!

Yet, what does the average kid really know -- or what are they told about the behind the scenes

elite interests in keeping wars going?

Otoh, let's look at the reality of the sexual abuse of children -- something that Freud knew

very well from his female clients -- but we know that young boys are also sexually abused by

friends and family. What did Freud do about that knowledge? He betrayed women -- his patients.

Rather than making clear that it is the hetero family member or friend sexually abusing children

he REVERSED the truth and created the Oedipus Complex where the child is not the subject of

desire by the family member/friend -- but the one who desires.

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Oedipus_complex


OK -- back to the simpler kinds of exposure that kids get exposed to --

A lot of parents will raise hell at even minor nudity or sexual scenes or implications in games,movies, tv shows etc,

In my town, parents took exception to the Victoria Secret window displays which many school

children passed by every day in walking through town. I thought it was really funny at the

time, but had to agree with them after actually seeing some of the displays.

And then there's the internet -- and porn. Seems that kids of very young ages -- males 14 --

are getting into the websites and it's addictive and I'd say quite harmful to them.

But, again, you'd have to be specific about what kind of sexual exposure you're talking about.

IMO, anything a kid can find in the biggest and best library is OK with me.

Anything on a porn site -- no -- because of the overtones of exploitation of females -- and

the themes of domination and the violence of it.

[patrice]

19. Why is it okay to say "Excrement!" but not "Shit!" ?

[patrice]

22. Oh! FEEEEEEEEEE CEEEEEEEEESSSSSS!!! . . . k?

[eridani]

33. Because of the Battle of Hastings in 1066 n/t

[Rex]

21. Because the govt likes it when kids grow up to be violent monsters.

Lets them build prisons, wars and stuff of that nature. Keeps the local news mouthpeice employed and readies them for state sanctioned murder. Sex...not so much, have to make it illegal to buy sex...but if you are in a war FEEL FREE TO KILL EM ALL AND LET GOD SORT THEM OUT! :sarcasm:

[seabeyond]

52. are you saying that kids being fed this shit are effected by what they watch/play.

cause when we talk about porn/media objectification and demeaning women, i am told, doesnt do anything to us.

yet now, your argument with violence is that it turns kids into "violent monsters".

[stevenleser]

103. Simple: Sex is natural and good and violence is undesireable. n/t

[Rage for Order]

110. Violence is also natural, and good in some instances

It's hard to be carnivorous without exercising a little violence

[stevenleser]

113. Violence is natural and always undesireable. I recognize that sometimes it may be necessary n/t

[ZombieHorde]

23. I enjoy a video game franchise called Battlefield. It is a modern day online shooter.

Lots of killing. If you get really close to an opponent, who is controlled by another human, you can stab him with your knife. When you stab an opponent, you get to keep his dog tags as a kill trophy; kind of like a serial killer.

The latest addition to the series, Bad Company 2, added swearing. The human controlled characters sometimes swear when you shoot at them. It's kind of funny.

Some people were pissed off about the swearing because they no longer felt comfortable playing this extremely violent (and fun) game around their kids. They did not care if their children saw violence, but they did care if their children heard curse words. Seems very bizarre to me.

[jberryhill]

25. Huh? Violence won't work. You only get children by having sex.

[patrice]

26. Hey, it's not just violence. It's violence cubed: disembowelings, decapitations,

dismemberments, fried corpses, skinned babies . . . you name it, it's presented as entertainment on your tv right now.

[barbtries]

27. my theory is

it goes back to the original puritans who settled this land. we're still suffering from extreme repression and the notion that sex is dirty.

[white_wolf]

29. That's the theory I heard in Eurotrip.

I'm starting to think that movie was more right than it was ever meant to be.

[Liquorice]

28. It's not right to expose children to either one. But I think we generally

allow them to see violence before sexual scenes because "violence" isn't a foreign concept to children, but sex is. When a child is exposed to sexuality too early, it really can mess them up. I really don't know what seeing violence too early does to them, but I'm sure it's not good either. I doubt most parents have an "anything goes" attitude toward their children being exposed to either violence or sex.

[intaglio]

32. A good thought but ...

In the past a lot of things happened that would not and should not happen now but consider, until very recently it was common for children to be brought up in one room with their parents yet these families continued to have children. We would have good reasons to condemn parents who had sex whilst their children were in the same room now but I do wonder if some of the harm said to happen to children is a cultural artifact not a constant.

[Liquorice]

35. People did a lot of terrible things in the past that were just awful and abusive to children.

It messes with a child's mind to be exposed to parents (or anyone else) having sex in front of them. Having sex in front of a child is child sexual abuse. A couple of serial killers had that happen, and I've also read about molesters who experienced that as a child.

[elias49]

39. Wow! I can't agree! The human body isn't a foreign concept!

What's wrong with children seeing -GASP- a naked breast? I don't think the OP was talking about perverse things like scenes of rape or sadomasochism.
And why do you say violence isn't a foreign concept to children?
My daughter has a friend (this is high school age) who would be absolutely forbidden to watch the movie "Leap Year" because the two main characters are shown in bed together UNDER THE COVERS, but it seems like she sits down with her Dad and watches "Braveheart" at least once a month!
Oh yeah, cursing is also verboten!
Strange.

[seabeyond]

44. the parent has to ask....

" I don't think the OP was talking about perverse things like scenes of rape or sadomasochism."

there is a lot of sex out in media games that is not healthy for children, that squarely belong in the adult world. so the parent has to ask. when the parent asks what sex and nudity is in the game or movie.... you have a poster create an op and many posters go after the parent, that dares asks.... what is in the game.

would we really be more comfortable is a parent just didnt care?

[JonLP24]

99. Read the label

If a game has nudity (which is very rare in video games) it will rated 'M' for Mature with a description of the content.

[Liquorice]

80. That's not what I wrote. A little reading comprehension would go a long way here. nt

[Occulus]

98. Maybe you should apply it to the posts you've responded to.

You're reading way more into some of the posts on this thread than was ever actually there. You even as much as accused another poster of being a pedophile.

NOT cool. You need to check yourself, pull your head out of your ass, stop being so goddamned naive, and grow the fuck up.

And stop fucking projecting your own prudishness on everyone else. This is 2011, not 1953.

[stevenleser]

107. People forget that human families used to live in one room houses and apartments all the time...

and in some tribes and situations, still do. Sex is completely natural. If kids got messed up by parents having sex in the same room, the entire human race would have been messed up at many points in our history.

[Chris_Texas]

54. Why?

And sorry, but I challenge the assertion that exposure to sex and/or violence "messes them up." This seems to fly in the face of evolution, and more it makes absolutely no sense in any kind of rational way. It presupposes that Judeo-Christian moral taboos (and western affluence) are some kind of natural law. To accept your assertion one would have to believe, for example, that at ages one, two, three, four, and perhaps five, exposure to a female breast causes no psychological damage to males, followed by a brief period of sanity-shredding horror, which then transitions in another half dozen years into a healthy interest which must be crushed until some statutory limit is reached. If this sounds ridiculous, welcome to the club.

Is it not more likely that it is not this exposure which messes them up, but rather a societal phobia against a natural and wonderful part of life?

Further, unless you are very unusual, YOU were exposed to sexuality as a child. You knew about it, and at an early age you experimented with it -- you explored yourself and at some point discovered that it was pleasurable, you played with other kids, you might have even gone so far as to experiment with your own gender. You talked about it, and sex-ed or not, LONG before you were engaging in it you knew a great deal about it. In fact, you likely knew more about sex at age ten than you know about the "messing them up" you mentioned in your post.

Discovering that humans have sex is no more traumatizing that discovering that humans EAT and SHIT. Discovering that fucking leads to pregnancy it is no more damaging than discovering that overeating makes you fat. It is not the act which causes the trauma, it is the fear you have been programed with.

And kids today know even more. One thing kids have always been fantastic at is playing the angelic innocent. It's what their parents train them to do with both possitive and negative reinforcement. They play that crap with everything. The sweet little "What's that mommy?" girl you see in your kitchen is surfing 4chan in her room and at her friend's house. She has seen and laughed at and been horrified by shit that would make your hair turn white.

[hifiguy]

64. Word

:thumbsup:

[Withywindle]

65. Great post!

I don't actually believe that exposure to sexual concepts necessarily messes kids up either. Not one bit. Sure, prepubescent children don't understand sex the same way an adult or even a teenager does, and their reaction to learning "the facts of life" might be EEEEWW! But does seeing a couple making love on TV traumatize them for life? Hell no--not unless the adults around them freak out and act as if something TERRIBLE has happened. Most kids would just look at it, go, "huh, weird," and ask to change to the channel to a show they like.

There's a weird fetishization of childhood "innocence" that doesn't seem to have much to do with the reality of actual children. I mean, honestly, I got called out by my second-grade teacher for walking around at recess with my hands in my pants all the time. Guilty. :blush: No, I wasn't molested, no I wasn't "corrupted," and there was absolutely nothing traumatic about discovering that touching myself there felt good and having certain kinds of fantasies while I did it felt even better. Happens to every kid, I should hope!

Anyway, I've always found the taboo the OP talks about really bizarre, if just because sex is a normal and pleasurable part of life, and most people will do it a lot throughout their lives and most will enjoy it. Violence...well, if I had children, I would certainly hope that they had a happy and fulfilling sex life when they were ready for it. I would hope even more desperately that they would NEVER EVER EVER be involved in violence in any way, either as a perpetrator or a victim. So when consuming media, why on earth do people act as though violence is a no-biggie norm and sex is what's traumatic?

[seabeyond]

67. what i have found with young kids, they dont want to be a part of the adult sex world

they dont want it.

so why make them be a part for our reasons?

[Chris_Texas]

75. You probably want to elaborate here

First, define young kids. That's probably the biggest question your post raises.

In any case, no one has suggested that children should be exposed to sexual knowledge beyond their interest level. That is, in fact, the exact opposite of what we have proposed. Rather, we are saying that all moral weight and value judgements should be (and will eventually be) removed from the subject all together. Sexuality is a very important, wonderful, and necessary part of human existence. A persons sexual choices are as individual as their DNA and as necessary to their own happyness as breathing is to live. Any sexual choices an individual makes that do not harm someone else should be respected.

In an idea world, and we will get their one day, a parent would view a child's interest in sex the way they view an interest in sports -- as a sign of growing independence and maturity met with love and perhaps a little sadness. Sex is huge part of the entire life of every fully functioning human who has ever lived. Every single one, no exceptions. Some might have more interest, some less, but how many days on average do you go without engaging in some form of "sexual" behavior -- be it only looking at a member of the opposite sex and noticing that they are atractive?

Sex, or perhaps physical pleasure, plays a monsterous part in our lives from cradle to grave, beginning long before we even know what sex is. Humans are alive, we are physical creatures with bodies that experience pleasure, and we learn this probably before we learn to say our first words. It is LONG past time that we abandon the first century human-sacrifice school of morality. We no longer feed virgins into volcanos to appease the sky monsters, and we need no longer pretend that the most marvelous aspect of human existence is shameful.

[seabeyond]

78. and what you ignore is that what we feed in the movies and the games is far from being

what you describe in this post. sex can also be used as a weapon, to manipulate, to control and to use. generally most would consider that type of entertainment to belong in the adult world allowing adults to make their own choices in preference. to feed the less than healthy to children is to help create an adult that views sex in a less than healthy manner.

the goal in my house, with my children is to allow them to walk it in the natural exploration of their age appropriate journey and not to feed the adult world into their realm, but allow them to naturally arrive at there preferences.

i grew up in calif, in a very liberal environment, in the 70's when there was more sexual freedom, without the adult world interfering and without the aids and diseases and without the obsessiveness of porn creating all girls as males personal entertainer.

i grew up on a farm in my young ages, with parents that had absolutely no shame in naked and there was no sexuality in that nakedness. if we saw dad walking thru house naked it was no more a big deal than when clothed.

i am a parent that is open to ALL discussion in my house with my boys, with no embarrassment.

but when talking about these subjects, we get people that pretend there is not a whole other world out there and it is only about

it is nature.

i have watched my brother and his group of friends put whatever movie on as a family movie regardless how inappropriate for their young kids then lecture me on how "natural" sex is when really they wanted to watch the movie and the kids came in second. it was lazy parenting. adult trumped kid.

he put porn calendars on the kitchen wall in a way to manipulate, control, humiliate his wife with kids running thru the house and then he lectured me that the "womans body is beautiful" and her spread legs were not offensive or unhealthy for the children to see.

you want to know why parents ask? they want to make sure their boys are not being "entertained" watching girls be raped or able to make a choice raping.... in these games. the people that make the games like to keep it on the raps and parents cannot know what is in the games until they come out. the makers do it on purpose

you are making the assumption that if a parent shows any concer, they must be repressed. you are being as closed minded as you are suggesting of others

[Chris_Texas]

118. Good post. You sound like a fine parent.

Your brother's behavior (as you described it) is not enlightened or liberated, nor is it a celebration of choice or life or women, it is as it he intended to be, an assault on other people's dignity and self-respect using the power of repressed sexuality as an added weapon. A sexually progressive society would still see such conduct in this way, not because the display of female nudity violates some taboos or destroys the minds of those exposed to it, but because he is doing it to be insulting and offensive -- he is trying to be a jerk, and apparently succeeding.

The point that I and others have made is NOT that the sexualization of children and society should be encouraged, but that it should be greeted with a shrug and a so-what, the same way we are beginning to view homosexuality, the same way no one today even notices a couple holding hands or kissing in public. We need to kill the sexual boogeyman. We do that by opening the freaking closet and letting in the light. No one has suggested that we leave the door closed and shove little kids inside.

[seabeyond]

120. you place the blame on sexual repression. i put it squarely on patriarchal dominance

i see women become equal in too many ways and man is lost and this is their one way to be dominant with women. i dont know about all european countries, but i did see in italy an half hour of put together clips of young naked women displayed and made fools of time and again, treated as animals, denigrated at all cost by middle aged ugly men giggling pathetically.

the women in that country is not "ok" with what is happening.

i gave you one instance of porn being used as a weapon. i have seen it used as a weapon against the mate two other times and am now watching it take out a marriage with an obsessiveness in use. he cries to me how much he loves his wife, just. cant. seem. to walk away from his obsession with porn

you keep coming back to the scorn and snark about all the repressed. you refuse to acknowledge any harm or power, control. that is why i said from beginning one, i was not going to try to have a conversation.

in universities in commons, girls are complaining the boys are viewing their porn, harsh porn, making unwelcoming comments and a hostile environment for them. the guys know exactly what they are doing.

the boys in middle school that started talking to my young well developed niece about hooters knew exactly what they were doing in making her uncomfortable

i could go on and on and on.... about how it is not just a shrug of shoulder and it is male using it to have a control and dominance of women.

maybe the women in the u.s. expect and demand more, than those in other countries and dont settle for patriarchal dominance.

japan 43% of men 18-34 thinks sex is ikky and 58% of women. tehy are even more messed up with their porn than we are.

when viewing the real retarding of our youths sexuality and having a desire for our children to have a healthy sexual perspective, you and others label parents as "repressed"

but what you do is ignore all the wrong in this sexually obsessed environment

[Withywindle]

83. It's not a matter of making them be a part of the adult sex world

It's about not freaking out so much if they happen to catch a glimpse of it. Sex is a normal part of life for most adults, so it's weird to treat it as this ooky, scary, dangerous thing in media. I think our culture tends to put way too much emphasis on sex in a lot of media, and at the same time be really superstitious about "protecting the children."

I'd like to see it handled in a part-of-life, no-big-deal, you'll-understand-when-you're-older fashion. That seems unlikely, though.

[stevenleser]

115. What you describe is the way sex is treated in most other developed/western countries. n/t

And it is exactly the way sex should be handled.

[Chris_Texas]

71. Very well said!

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

79. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[MicaelS]

85. "they should not be watching people having sex"

Just pray tell what do think happens to children in the Third World who live in a one room shack? You think their parents make them wait outside at night while the parents are having sex? You are definitely a product of American culture.

Americans, including American women, are immature, prudish, and just plain seriously fucked up in the head when it comes to nudity and sex.

You go to a beach in Europe, South America or Pacific nations, and you see women bare breasted. And children are looking right at those bare breasts, and no one there freaks out like here in the US. There are nude beaches for adults. And people in those countries seem a lot healthier emotional than Americans. Women don't have to worry about being arrested for exposing their nipples, like they would here in the US. But then, frankly I think a lot of American women, even feminist women, are too prudish to show their bare breasts even if they could.

Americans, are simultaneously a bunch of prudes and seriously obsessed with nudity and sex. It is no coincidence Hugh Hefner built an empire, and started a market based on showing women's naked bodies. It is no coincidence Americans are the largest producers and consumers of pornography in the world. It is no coincidence strip clubs are big business in America. It's no coincidence our culture is hyper sexualized, and focuses so much on using titillation (pun intended) to sell everything. In other words, it's an adolescent tee-hee, giggle-giggle, smirking attitude toward the human body and sex. It's about wearing clothing that ALMOST exposes the human body. In other words, you can leer all you want, but don't touch, and especially don't actually do anything.

And I don't think there is anything wrong with the other post.

[seabeyond]

87. say the word boob on du and listen to the men jumping up and down yelling... boobie boobie

i like boobie

ya, tell me about immature.

saying to a female that walks by... i can hit that. a mother, MILF.

maybe if nudity was not treated as mens porn, just simple nakedness, there would not be such an issue.

[jp11]

94. If our society wasn't so repressed I imagine that

the immaturity regarding sex/women's bodies/etc would not be as prevalent. I'd also add that while SOME men will act as your describe it is not ALL of us and that this is the internet long held sanctuary of look at me trying to be cool/funny.

Nudity isn't just treated as men's porn it is also treated as the 'bad/shameful' state we must never allow ourselves to be seen except maybe with partners we are very close with, which as you say is a large part of why those things are such an issue. Nudity is also held as the taboo because it suggests sex, doing nothing but not having clothing suggests sex, because of our attitudes about our own bodies. If we had a better attitude towards our own bodies and sexuality then nakedness wouldn't so often be porn or shameful.

[seabeyond]

97. bull....

the excessiveness and availibility of boobs today, should create the opposite effect per your theory, but with all that it has escalated and become the norm. the guys talk to the girls in this manner. the girls think it is a norm to be talked to in this manner. and there are not a whole lot of repressing going on in this nation. the loudest voices of the smallest group.

as far as being comfortable in nakedness.... in the 70's and 80's we spent our time skinny dipping in friends pools, and the hot springs in the deserts of calif. the guys stripped. the girls stripped. and it was simply naked.

i was on a swimteam for decade and half. guys wore barely there speedos and our swimsuit where much more modest. and it was simply naked.

breast feeding was a norm when i was a kid. we often came upon women breast feeding, without sheets and blankets hiding everything and no one batted an eye.

[stevenleser]

109. Exactly. Nudity is not shameful in many parts of Europe. The reactions of some in this thread is

laughable. "Oh my god, nudity, sex! If our children see with either, they will be damaged!" or the equally laughable, "If men see women naked and enjoy it, that's bad!!!"

On the first point, it is the shame and repression that damages the children, not the nudity. On the second, we have gone so far down the road of being/having a sex negative culture that it has pervades a large segment of the feminism movement. Fortunately, there is a segment of feminism that is shedding that. I'm hoping the third wavers help fix this part of American culture.

[Liquorice]

89. There is a serious problem when you don't see the difference between

children seeing people having intercourse and adults seeing each other on a nude beach. Oh and even adults on a nude beach don't have sex with each other in public and if they did they would be arrested, even in Europe.

And just because something happens in a third world country doesn't make it right. Women are getting raped almost constantly in the Congo. Does that mean it's acceptable because it happens all the time?

There is something super creepy about an adult saying that little girls are just pretending to be innocent about sex to fool their parents. If you can't see that, you have issues far beyond what anyone can address on a message board.

[Chris_Texas]

95. And I think your reaction says more about you than it does about me

Which brings us back to the issue at hand.

No one, not one person here, has advocated sexualizing children let alone molesting them. No one has suggested it. No one has hinted at it. That's not even what this thread is about. I come to DU with the expectation of mature discussion, if this topic is not one you are capable of participating in without issueing backhanded accusations of perversion and deviancy, then the problem here is YOU.

And on the off chance that you believe that only dangerous perverts have reached the same conclusions I have, I will direct you to a woman you should be familiar with and one certainly deserving of every respect:

Dr. Joycelyn Elders

Clinton appointee, the first African-American Surgeon General of the United States, Pediatrician, Professor of Pediatrics, War Veteran, and one of the most COURAGEOUS political leaders of the last half century, and apparently in your mind a dangerous pervert.

Nuff said.

[Liquorice]

96. Bullshit. You said that little girls are lying about their innocence.

That is beyond disturbing. And the way you told me that as a small child I was touching myself and others? YUCK. Children explore, but they are not sexual beings and they are innocent of sex. Small children have no idea what intercourse is, and they do not need to be exposed to adults having sex. And you can argue all day that children are not innocent and are already sexual. No NORMAL adult will ever agree with you.

I made a simple argument that children should not see people having sex and you went on a whirlwind of creepiness about "shitting" and "fucking" and telling me that little girls are lying and aren't really innocent. You also went into fantasy about a small child lying to her mother about her innocence and then going to look at hardcore porn. When I said your post is the most disturbing post I have ever read on the DU, I was not exaggerating.

[Occulus]

But... kids DO lie about what they've seen and where.

I did. Hundreds of times.

Mostly, it was because my parents were exactly as you come across to be, and would have yelled at me and interrogated me to hell and back if I seemed to know more than I should have for my age.

Children of the age of ten or thereabouts are nowhere near the innocent little angels you seem to think they are. I sincerely hope, being as naive as you appear to be, that you aren't a parent yet. You definitely have some growing up to do, yourself.

[Liquorice]

105. I didn't say kids don't lie. But kids are innocent about sex. They should

not be exposed to adults having sex. If you think they should be exposed to adults having sex, you have some counseling sessions to attend.

Look, I'm sorry you have terrible parents, but don't put that on me. Work that out on your own time. As for the matter of children being innocent, they are innocent of adult sexuality. They are children. I never specified an age of innocence, but 10 years old is not a young child, as I was referring to in my post. A 10 year old, however, is still innocent and should have never experienced sex or had adults perform sex in front of them. They probably know some things about sex, but 10 years old is still latency, and they are not surging with hormones yet. I was once a ten year old, and I didn't know or care overly much about adults having intercourse at that age. Maybe you did. Who knows. I only have myself and my friends to go by and no one I've asked said they had a big interest in sex at 10. Some curiosity yes, but I wasn't searching out porn or anything like that at ten years old. I didn't have to lie to my parents about it either. I was raised with progressive parents whom I could talk with about anything. They would answer any question I had about sex in an age appropriate way.

All children should be considered innocent of sex and not "sexual" at least as far as adults go. There should be no argument there. And that was my only argument. It's unbelievable that it's been turned into something totally unrecognizable to my original statement that young children are innocent of sex and adults should not have sex in front of them. Do you think adults should have sex in front of children??? I can't imagine any normal adult believing that, so I don't get why you are so outraged by my post.

[Occulus]

117. I won't even bother to read your pathetic fucking claptrap any more

"I didn't say kids don't lie."

Oh, yes, you fucking well did:

"You also went into fantasy about a small child lying"

The rest of your post is ignored. I didn't read any further than that phrase, and I won't in the future. The rest of your post- whatever it said- just isn't worth addressing. You lost me when you lied about what you wrote upthread.

Jesus Christ. You DO know that we can scroll back and read what you wrote earlier, right?

Welcome to my ignore list.

edit: changed "claptrap" to "pathetic FUCKING claptrap" because I now know profanity annoys you, and those who are prudishly annoyed by profanity from a factory worker can sit and fucking SPIN.

[Liquorice]

119. Where did I write that kids don't lie? You cut off the rest of my sentence,

which is very disingenuous. At least when someone replies to me I actually read their post and don't make up lies about what they wrote. Jesus. It's the least you can do.

I said that the other poster wrote a reply to me (which has since been removed) in which he tells a story about a little girl who lies to her mother about being innocent about sex and then runs off to watch hardcore porn. Young children do not watch porn by the way and the story was strange. I don't know whether you actually read that post or not, but man was it weird and had a bunch of messed up things in it, including comments about my own childhood and creepy stuff about touching. It was incredibly disturbing, and I said so. I didn't attack you, and I wasn't even posting to you. You just chimed right in and started attacking me and mis-characterizing what I wrote for no apparent reason.

Who would have ever predicted that someone saying that young children are innocent and not sexual and shouldn't be exposed to adults having sex would ultimately result in that person being told to go sit and fucking spin? The whole thing is just bizarre. Shouldn't the person saying children aren't sexually innocent and are just lying about their sexual innocence be the one sitting and fucking spinning?

In the world I live in, little children ARE sexually innocent and are not sexual beings who are only faking innocence. I have no idea why that simple observation would cause all this bullshit. It's ridiculous.

And I don't mind profanity at all. I cuss a blue streak all the time. I was creeped out about the other poster's reply to me which had nasty descriptions of children. I can't even repeat some of what was in that post. It was quite foul, and I'm glad I spoke up about it. As I said, it was the most disturbing post I have ever read on the DU, and I'm not easily shocked.

[Chris_Texas]

100. Okay...

Enough angry words. We are both liberals, we both care about many of the same causes and share the same opinions on the solutions. We are on the same team. I am willing to bet that you are probably a very nice person and that if we were sitting over coffee rather that firing words at each other over the internet, this misunderstanding would likely never have happened. So let's leave it there.

Peace.

[Occulus]

102. Based on what I've seen from that poster, what you just said will fall upon VERY deaf ears.

I happen to agree with most of what you said that set that one off. It's quite clear that the poster you're responding to is the one with the problem- look at how much s/he read into what you said. S/he put words in your mouth, intentionally misinterpreted what you DID say, and as much as called you a pedophile in public. I certainly wouldn't let that lie.

I think the poster you're replying to might have been him/herself molested, and that's why the severe overreaction to what you said. Given that that poster (and one I have on ignore, but who cares what Ignored has to say in the first place) was the only one to take exception to your statements, I think it's pretty clear that that poster is the one with the problem, and not you.

I thought you were eminently reasonable, and then here trots someone who only proves your point for you. If that person wasn't molested as a child, then they're deeply disturbed and sexually dysfunctional as the young adult they are today.

[Chris_Texas]

106. Peace my friend :)

[NC_Nurse]

30. religion.

[Sirveri]

31. Considering the story arc for Mass Effect, the sex is the least of the worries.

Especially since the game is basically about a bunch of robots who like to engage in ethnic cleansing.

[white_wolf]

58. Yeah I know.

I really don't know why they choose to focus on the implied sex instead of the violence and robotic genocide. Hell, you have to leave one of your friends behind to die, I think that might be worse than the sex.

[Sirveri]

88. I think destroying a star system in the new DLC for Mass Effect 2 might be worse.

At least ethically, having to leave a soldier you're attached to on the battlefield to die is pretty bad, but I'm pretty sure killing a few hundred thousand innocent civilians might be worse.

[Chris_Texas]

34. Two reasons come to mind

1. Violence is biblically acceptable, and in America it is culturally accepted

2. Sexual choice presupposes freedom. When we, as adults, claim authority over our children's sexuality we claim ownership of them as human beings in a way that transends almost everything else we do to them. A classic example might been the preteen or teen girl who takes pictures of herself to give away (genders can be reversed here of course). She is saying that SHE owns her own body. Not her parents, not Jesus, not society, it is HER life her body her choice. The same applies, obviously, to sex.

Society's response has been to punish her. Shame alone is often enough.

Ironically, even the woman's rights movement is guilty here. The choice they offer woman is the choice to decline. The power they offer is the power to say no. They don't offer the choice or power to say YES.

Sadly, if anything we have gone backwards. Today's adults are MORE sexually repressed rather than less.

[left coaster]

37. BINGO! You nailed it on all counts. nt

[elias49]

40. Yes! Thank you!

Nail on head.

[seabeyond]

50. from a parents view, her taking that picture, sending out on net, create issues...

that you conveniently ignore.

stops her from getting a job, entry into college. creates an uncomfortable environment in school. leads to suicide.

isn't it a parents responsibility to educate a child about the repercussions of actions even in her/his desire for body ownership? wouldn't a parent be neglectful if they did not have a discussion with there young kids about sending naked pictures to a boy/girl.

or should we all allow our children to be naive and uninformed and paint it up in rainbows and unicorns like you do?

and to suggest, with the obsessiveness towards porn and more extreme porn, and constant focus of sex in every media outlook as being more repressed today, is truly mind blowing.

[Chris_Texas]

56. The same might be said for a Mormon teen who drinks coffee

This taboo could easily prevent their entrance to BYU for example, and might well also lead to social isolation. Or, perhaps, to the young Muslim girl who wears blue jeans and like Lady GAGA, or perhaps prefers to not have her genitals mutilated, or Allah forbid feels an attraction towards men (or worse, non-muslim men).

Is it not then the parent's responsibility to "educate" the child that this behavior is an affront to god and society, and perhaps to even physically restrain the youngster and compell compliance? Should these children be allowed to remain naive and uninformed that their horrible coffee habits or preference for intact genitals might well lead to severe consequences -- including not getting a job or college, creating an uncomfortable environment, suicide or (in the case of some religions) murder?

The problem in ALL of these examples is that the taboos and consequences are arbitrary and societal. You are claiming that these things just "ARE the way they are" and must not be questioned. I am questioning them.

Not so very long ago "fags" were expected to hide their identity. ALL right thinking people KNEW that being gay was not only a sin, but a crime against society. It was something to be ridiculed and villified. People were locked away in prison for the crime of being gay. Gay's killed themselves -- some still do.

Not so very long ago "niggers" knew their place, and that place was well away from white-folk, and they best not get upity, they best know their place, they best drink from the dirty man's fountain and crap in the dorty man's toilet and sit their ass in the back of the buss. And lord-have-mercy they damn well better not get caught looking at a White Woman, or getting in a White Man's way or they might find themselves hanging from a tree. They were murdered because they had dark skin and that offended some people.

And everyone KNEW it. That's just the way things were. That's how society works. You don't question it. But some did, and some today are questioning the equally insane nonsense we are discussing in this thread.

The world does not end when a young boy masterbates, nor does he go blind, and when a girl takes a picture of herself naked god does not smite her. The only consequences are the condemnation of all "right thinking" members of society, those who know what's best for everyone, and the natural confusion and misery this causes in those who are forced to conceal who they really are. Gays did not kill themselves because they were gay, they killed themselves because they are condemned for being gay.

Big and important difference.

[seabeyond]

57. i have read enough of your posts to know i am not going to discuss this with you.

why take it to religion? that is not what my post discussed.

what it does do is feed a conditioning where it is all about the boy masterbating and the girl strippin down for him to masterbate, per your thread.

there are so many agruable points to your post, would take a lot of, lot of time. i do think you put the time in for discussion, so thumbs up to that

[Chris_Texas]

68. You ask a lot of questions. I will answer as best I can

Questions in bold:

why take it to religion? that is not what my post discussed.

Why not? You were discussing societal backlash from sexual activity. Religions provide not only the basis for those societal prejudices we are discussing here, but numerous examples of various other taboos as well. Are we to pretend that a religious based insistence of sexual ignorance (and condemnation of sexual activity), as we are discussion here, is somehow different than these other examples I offered? To do so we must first either establish a rational foundation for such a taboo, and as none exists socially, biologically, psychologically, physiologically, or historically, that's a hard case to make.

Nor have you even tried to do so.

So far the only defense you have offered ( or, rather, implied) is that it is the way it is because it is the way it is and all right thinking people know it. This is the defense of all who use societal conventions to oppress others. The parents of a muslim girl, about to inflict a lifetime of deprivation and horror genital mutilation and female castration causes, would (and do) defend their actions the same way. It's moral! It's the will of God! That's what we do!

what it does do is feed a conditioning where it is all about the boy masturbating and the girl strippin down for him to masterbate, per your thread.

No. I have no clue how you could arrive at that from anything I said.

What I wrote is a challenge to the convention that you have a moral responsibility and right to attack or even question the voluntary sexual choices of anyone. You are taking the position in your posts here (in this thread) that you are morally empowered to protect, apparently girls, from the nasty sexual predations of males, and that the most effective weapon in your arsenal of purity is to attach moral value judgments to sexual knowledge and conduct -- thus bringing about YOURSELF the many horrors you claim you wish to protect the child from.

It is, in every way, like the parent of a gay boy sitting down with him to pray the gay away, sending him off to anti-gay bible camp, loading him down with a mountain of self hate... and when the kid kills himself those same parents crying out that they did their best, they told him every day how bad being gay was, but the gay killed him!

But being gay didn't kill him, his society's condemnation did.

there are so many arguable points to your post, would take a lot of, lot of time.

Yes.

Morality is nothing more than a voluntarily accepted guide for living. Our rational mind processes information based upon this set of rules, this foundation, judging what it should or should not do. The mind will always attempt to follow this guide, even when doing so is self destructive or evil or insane. The brain just says, "Okay" and does it's best.

But we have a choice about what we accept as this moral foundation. People can, and do, change it frequently over the course of their lives. Not long ago it was MORAL to condemn and persecute gays and blacks. Not long ago, MORAL women would not dream of questioning their husband, or voting, or working, or owning property or money. Not long ago it was MORAL to beat the shit out of your woman, it was even encouraged by members of both sexes. Not long ago beating your kids was no one else's business, and was even a celebrated part of parenthood.

Not long ago you defied ANY of these societal norms at your peril. Civilization depends upon wife and child beating and the subjugation of women and blacks, just as many today believe that the "gays" are destroying society with their fabulous gayness, and it is the proper role of a parent to instill and insist upon sexual ignorance and shame. It doesn't have to make sense, and it doesn't.

But we do not have to accept it and I do not. I base my moral code on the best reason I am capable of. My foundation is life and human rights and the betterment of society, and it is against this moral foundation that I attempt to base my conclusions.

[Zorra]

76. Great response!

:thumbsup:

[jp11]

60. Very well said.

[craigmatic]

36. Because sex hasn't been shown in the media for as long as violence has.

Still personally I'd rather watch porn than torture but that's just me.

[treestar]

42. That's a good point

In the Victorian era, Dickens could write about a murder and titillate people with that. Sex was out of the question.

But people were used to violence first.

[Keith Bee]

38. We're all violent Puritans!

:patriot:

[marmar]

41. Because this is a very confused country.

nt

[seabeyond]

43. so much of the sex and nudity in the games and movies for men is prostitutes and strippers

presenting the sex and nudity in the most demeaning way towards women. i want my boys to have a healthy view of sex and a healthy, respectful view of women so they have the most chance for healthy and successful relationships.

violence is an easy one to say no.... it is wrong, it is not ok, it is just play but not a reality. there is no confusion that violence is not allowed, in my boys life anyway.

sex does not have that clear line. sex is part of life, human nature. gonna happen. and for media and games to continually use it to condition our young boys that women sole role is to entertain men.

but then we did not allow violence, stupid or sexism when the kids were young. i was particular what they watched. and today at 13 and 16 there are still movies that are too graphic and violent the kids dont watch. there is still some types of presentation of sex that kids dont watch. some tht is not an issue.

the parent pretty much knows the type of violence they are allwoing for the kid. they are clueless what sex gamers are going to put in. is it not a big deal mass effect type thing? or is it raping, slutting, ect... the most offensive demeaning manner.

it is parenting for a parent to ask, what is in the games

[Arkansas Granny]

48. I'm with you on this one. I've had several conversations with other parents

when my kids were growing up and I never understood why they believed that watching two people having sex would be more disturbing for their children than watching someone being beaten or shot, with all the accompanying blood and gore.

[lumberjack_jeff]

55. A prudent person wouldn't take this bait

Recognizing this doesn't diminish it's catnip quality to me.

Video games are flights of fancy. The worst criticism of a video game is that it's unimaginative and mundane.

We are all going to engage in sex. We are not all going to be violent.

Violence in books, TV, and video games may, arguably, make us desensitized to violence. "Oh, right like I haven't seen the bad guy blow up a planet before!" but it doesn't make us more likely to BE violent because for the most part we are not inherently violent.

Sex on the other hand... you bet. We're going to seek as much of it as we reasonably can. Here's the argument as I see it; sex (unlike violence) is a basic human need. In the same way that The Food Channel makes us hungry for the latest ambrosia glazed ham, Grand Theft Auto makes us hungry for coke-addicted hookers.

[jp11]

59. Main thing is that even adults have taboos about discussing sex in public with

other adults, it could be somewhat understandable from a point of view of what the adult does with their partner is private to the extreme of not even acknowledging that woman and men have different 'bits' in public much like a child in the presence of an adult feigning ignorance of something they acutely know.

Violence is socially 'acceptable' in that we don't try to cover it up, except extreme or gory details, at least in the news/print media.

I'd add I'm sure there is an aspect of sex 'removing the innocence' of a child, whereas violence just isn't seen that way. That works in with parents having their own idea of when/what/how their child gets to learn about sex and in what context, letting others expose them violates the 'rights' of a parent to control that message to whatever they want. Why not the same view on violence, maybe because it isn't expected that our kids will have to kill other people or that they will do so using knowledge gleaned from the media or lessons from mommy and daddy. I would think parents wouldn't want to ponder such things, that their kid could even be a killer or violent monster/thug, but to be sexually active before the parents or kids are 'ready' that they probably think about.

Anyway, I'm not a parent, I can't say why people feel the way they do or what they are thinking about etc.

[seabeyond]

66. the village.... i think it is a great movie and told kids, gotta watch

my husband is like what? youngest cant watch that. has been a couple years since i have seen it. kids are 13 and 16. 13 more sensitive. they were not raised and conditioned in gore and violence. they were older before they started to even want to watch scary movies. it was theirs to decide, not mine to tell them to suck it up and not be afraid.

back to the village. the other night hubby put on for he and i to watch. two scenes i had forgotten about that might bother son. one was more violent and graphic, the other was knife into stomach. and then stabbing.

so now i think about whether or not those scenes are short enough, if movie is good enough, if it is something my youngest should watch

v for vendetta. the message so powerful, and my oldest so mature i wanted him to watch. i had forgotten the violence. it was over the top and my bad. he wasn't ready for it.

people who are not parents and walking the walk may not realize all that goes into the thinking process. what society is putting out there, the amount, the individual child, and children as a whole.

not to mention what you suggest and parental desire to control what the kids are fed.

it doesnt always have to be about parents are fundies or puritans or ect....

[backscatter712]

61. Because religious nuts want to maintain that sex-negative environment.

The memetic god virus thrives in a sex-negative environment, where people are always made to feel guilty.

Therefore, the religious will always be pushing to keep sex a dirty, disgusting thing, surrounded by negativity, judgment and guilt.

You might want to read The God Virus by Darrell Ray

http://www.amazon.com/God-Virus-religion-infects-culture/dp/0970950519

Or for a quick primer on this book:

http://www.atheismresource.com/psychology-of-religion

[hifiguy]

63. That question has existentially baffled me for years

Presumably sex will be part of nearly everyone's life (some of us Asperger mutants find the whole mating dance and "relationship" concept rather illogical, inexplicable and not worth bothering with :)) whereas blowing someone's brains out with a .45 will not be.

It is simply one of those things I have never understood. I wouldn't expose a kid to media depictions of either on a regular basis, but still.

Religulous goofiness and the grand tradition of stoopid 'murkan Puritanism seem to be as good an explanation as any, I guess.

[Dr Fate]

69. B/c the nasty sex is "liberal" and good old American violence is "centrist." n/t

n/t

[Dr Fate]

70. Jack Nicholson noted that you can put a bullet or a knife into a woman's breast...

...but you cant show someone putting their mouth on them.

Kind of forward, but an interesting way to think about it...

We can show someone shooting or stabbing a woman in the chest, but we cant show someone doing something harmless.

[Chris_Texas]

72. It is not "harmless" to those who claim the power to dictate morality

To them, it is the equivalent of handing out "slave revolution" pamphlets on a nineteenth century southern plantation, or suffragette's handing out women's rights handbills.

Slight sidenote here, but their goal is not to squash this, they make no money and gain no power from that -- the goal is GUILT. Like a government passing laws they know will eventually make everyone a fellon, the moral authorities derive their power from imposing moral "laws" which cannot be followed either because they are inherently self-destructive or because they violate human instinct or normal human behavior.

This is, in fact, the foundation of Judeo-Christianity. It is the POWER which drives most religion, not self improvement but voluntary self destruction.

[Dr Fate]

73. No, Second base is indeed quite harmless, or I'd have died by 10th grade. n/t

n/t

[Zorra]

74. IMO, it is because modern western cultures are based on

the Judeo-Christian tradition. Warped, selective interpretations of spiritual doctrines became dogmatic RW fundamentalist religions, which became widespread through the conquest of other peoples and cultures, and these warped religions were literally, both passively and aggressively, forced upon the people living in Euro-American cultures for much of the past 1900 years. Early on, these religions became the basis of Euro-American culture - the Judeo-Christian tradition.

Here is a thoughtful manifesto that explores this subject:

Manifesto for an Inter-American convention on sexual rights and reproductive rights: Times of counter-cultural struggle: our bodies, our lives.
----
The proposal for an Inter-American Convention on Sexual Rights and Reproductive Rights was born of an alliance among feminist organizations, networks and campaigns in Latin America and the Caribbean. It is thus marked by our collective and personal histories in relation to sexuality and reproduction. This history begins with a wide variety of civilizations in which the status of women, the number and forms of genders, and the accepted as well as condemned sexual practices were as diverse as their languages, social systems and modes of worship. It continues with the violence of the Conquest that established the JudeoChristian order by blood, fire and the Bible. Our history also includes the genocide of slaves; a multitude of languages, of gender identities, of varieties of desire and of ways of giving or avoiding birth, which were banished forever into the dark recesses of the poroes. (1) It is violence that founded our States at the point of a sword and our mestizaje through rape while guardianship was imposed on races, sexes, ages, desires and "lesser" beings through the use of the law, the military baton and the cross. Our history is one of violence and guardianship, but it is also a history of resistance.

One counter-cultural dimension that uses new signifiers to nurture the counter-power is the articulation of personal change with the processes of social transformation, thus creating "alternate subjectivities" that are manifested not only at the conscious level but also have an impact on subjective, personal and social imagery. Feminisms contribute analytical categories with high social and political content that are deeply personal: the body is one such example of "impertinent knowledge" that broadens the reference frameworks of transformation. (5) It is this notion that restores the diverse forms of existence of women (and of all human beings) and enables the articulation of dimensions of race, class, gender, sexual orientation, identity and expression, age and physical ability as part of the same system of domination. Therefore, a new reconceptualization of the body in its political dimension is imperative to restore its emancipatory framework to analyze how it is affected by the exclusionary forces of the neoliberal economy, militarism and fundamentalisms.

There is nothing more personal than the body and nothing more political either. The political body is not only tied to the individual being or the private realm but is also integrally linked to place--to the local, social and public space. The forces of the State, community, family, religion, market and fundamentalism act upon the body. "It is through the use of a large number of patriarchal controls that these forces and institutions transform the body of women into expressions of power relations. Thus, the bodies of women and sexual diversity are the focus of authoritarian or democratic projects." (6) Often, the dividing line between "democratic" and "authoritarian" becomes blurred when it comes to the body.

http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Manifesto+for+an+Inter-American+convention+on+sexual+rights+and+...-a0179570820

Here's another interesting, and different, take on this subject:

Naturalism and Body Pleasure

http://www.violence.de/etff/etff.html

[Incitatus]

82. This reminds me of a scene from The People vs Larry Flynt

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OlvxbuHNmzY

[felix_numinous]

84. Margaret Mead

studied societies that were more openly sexual and they were much less violent. I wonder what happened to all of these old studies, they seem to be going down the memory hole too.

[MicaelS]

86. I asked some religious Conservatives this very question,

And got the following answer:

Nudity, or explicit sex in films, video or on TV is real. Most violence is not real. Even when it is real, seldom are people actually shown being killed. God gave man the gift of sexuality and the physical and emotional pleasure that goes with sex. But treating sex simply as itch to be scratched, or consumed like junk food devalues God's gift.

[mountainlion55]

91. IMO

Its state church indoctrination. It starts in elementary schools and continues right through H.S. The state needs fodder for their wars so we celebrate violence. The church wants good little repressed christians that do not ask alot of questions.The oligarchs that pay off the politicians want good little wage slaves to carry a life time of debt that the rich control. Its a formula as old as the Pharaohs!
What they do not want are well educated children that question authority. They do not want healthy well adjusted children they want little sociopaths. They want children who believe the lie!:smoke:

[LetTimmySmoke]

92. Becuae the propagandists that she listens to want a violent society.

They want a society that is violent, vengeful, ready for war, and accepting of torture. Peaceful sexuality takes away from that.

[ecstatic]

93. People assume their kid would never kill anyone; but

they probably aren't as confident about their teens waiting until marriage (or at least 18) to have sex!

[deaniac21]

101. It's because most kids aren't any good at sex.

[robcon]

104. Total strawman thread.

n/t

[stevenleser]

111. Really? Whose argument are they creating a strawman from? n/t

[white_wolf]

114. Care to explain your baseless accusation?

I'd love to hear it.

[stevenleser]

116. First problem is that the poster does not know what a strawman is. They know they disagree with you

and they have heard the term and erroneously apply it to your OP.

[XanaDUer]

122. B/c America is a violent, puritanical country?

nt.