NationStates Jolt Archive

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.

Hey, there aint a damn thing wrong with sex and I'll slap anybody who says otherwise.

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.
God said s...

Oh, right. No bible.


Won't somebody please think of the children?

Nothing wrong with sex, just don't forget your rubber.

Because the USA is all screwed up in it's views on sex and sexuality, of course.

God said s...

Oh, right. No bible.


Won't somebody please think of the children?

Aren't children the point of sex?

I do agree though, American is extremely sexually repressed. I think it might be somewhat of a lashback from the growth of sexual expression by the last generation. But that's just a stab in the dark, I have no clue.

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable.

Compare: U.S. birthrates versus France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, all of Europe, etc. Rinse, repeat. ;)

We're not dying off at half their rate. I think we just keep it indoors. :p

Well, let's consider how the "New World" got founded shall we? Some Puritans were being oppressed back in Europe, got on a boat, and essentially populated North America with its current, predominant culture.

Maybe that's why? ;)

if it wasn't for sex none of us would be here
it's a normal bodily function
it's great exercise
it's a wonderful of producing endorphins and making you feel good
it's a clever way of passing on DNA

and all that is bad? who sez? i don't :D

the arugement "because god says so" might not be good enough for u, but it was good enough for the founders of modern America, who where deeply christain (ie puritans) whose values are still present in there society today weather they agree with them or not. As well as the Irish migration during the famine, who are mostly chatholic and as we all know sex is the number one sin for catholics. So america isnt anti sex coz it just feels like it, its anti sex coz of the hokey religions its founders followed.

You have only been taught so. I cant really see the issue here..

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.


I don't think that the US is, in general, more sexally repressed than Europe. It is certainly less repressed for the most part than the UK or the "Catholic" European nations.

The US does have a different range of nudity taboos than many places in europe, but that's mainly the fault of American woman and their narcissism. It doesn't have anything to do with sexuality or repression and the two shouldn't be confused.

Well, let's consider how the "New World" got founded shall we? Some Puritans were being oppressed back in Europe, got on a boat, and essentially populated North America with its current, predominant culture.

Maybe that's why? ;)

Actually the Puritans were fairly sexually free, relative to the time. After a pair of kids had their marriage arranged, they were free to enjoy an activity called *grabs history book* "bundling". This is where the courting couple was allowed to lie in bed together, with their lower bodies wrapped in aprons and seperated by a board. So they were free to do whatever that wanted without involving their lower bodies.

There's a little ballad beneath the bundling description:

She is modest, also chaste
While only bare from neck to waist,
And he of boasted freedom sings,
Of all above her apron strings.

I don't think that the US is, in general, more sexally repressed than Europe. It is certainly less repressed for the most part than the UK or the "Catholic" European nations.

I'm talking about compared to Sweden or Germany.

The US does have a different range of nudity taboos than many places in europe, but that's mainly the fault of American woman and their narcissism. It doesn't have anything to do with sexuality or repression and the two shouldn't be confused.

A different range? Is that some kind of Newspeak?

It isn't.

I'm talking about compared to Sweden or Germany.
Actually, France isn't all that sexually repressed either - having a mistress is not frowned upon there so much as it is here.

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.

Unfortunately, that is the answer you're looking for. However, I won't justify it you by using that methodology.

Instead, America is based on a Christian culture, and as such, they follow the same questionable taboos that the Bible suggests. Whether or not they present an accurate picture of what sex, or anything, for that matter, is to be good or bad, nevertheless, that's just the way our society defines taboos.

It goes back to the fundamental belief that God somehow deemed it bad if pursure in the wrong way... so, nowadays, even if you don't believe in God, the majority of society does, and their views of life, love, sex, whatever, is defined by their fundamental belief in God/Jesus/the Bible.

Unfortunately, that is the answer you're looking for. However, I won't justify it you by using that methodology.

Instead, America is based on a Christian culture, and as such, they follow the same questionable taboos that the Bible suggests. Whether or not they present an accurate picture of what sex, or anything, for that matter, is to be good or bad, nevertheless, that's just the way our society defines taboos.

It goes back to the fundamental belief that God somehow deemed it bad if pursure in the wrong way... so, nowadays, even if you don't believe in God, the majority of society does, and their views of life, love, sex, whatever, is defined by their fundamental belief in God/Jesus/the Bible.

So in other words, no amount of reason-based arguments will get their their BS fields? Does that mean my only solution is moving to a freer country?

Haven't you ever watched a Hip Hop video? I would hardly call those "sexually repressed". I think Americans themselves are fairly liberally minded culturely, they just like to elect extremely conservative governments who fell that the staue of justice should have a gown put on it, and that an exposed nipple could be the downfall of an entire empire. Besides, different cultures are based on different things. In Europe, maybe your culture is based around sex. In Canada, it is based around hockey. In America, it is based around violence. There are many Americans who actually cack their pants when they fire off an automatic weapon. Hell, I'm sure there are many that would rather shoot a gun than have sex. That's just their way their culture is. Deal with it Euroboy.

actually... in the jewish faith.. Sex is considered holy when its with some2 u love.... i know no bible but..still

Compare: U.S. birthrates versus France, Spain, Germany, Ireland, all of Europe, etc. Rinse, repeat. ;)

We're not dying off at half their rate. I think we just keep it indoors. :p

The main reason for the low birthrate in europe 2day is because of the extremely high cost of living here and countries which used to produce large families like italy can no longer afford to have as many children...not because they arent as horny or whatever.

Sex isn't inherently good or bad.

But if there's a negative view of it perhaps the topic of teen pregnancies might lend a clue.

I'm one of the few remaining individuals in this country who still thinks kids having sex at like 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 years old is creepy and depressing.

So in other words, no amount of reason-based arguments will get their their BS fields? Does that mean my only solution is moving to a freer country?
Personally, I really don't care who anybody else has sex with, as long as it's consentual between the two people - besides, read what I said about France.

My personal opinion concerning sex is that it's not necessarily immoral to have it with more one person over your lifetime, but I'm going be wise about who I have sex with (only with people who would really mean something to me, not some random bimbo during a one-night stand)

Why is sex so bad?

Generally because the participants don't know what they're doing...oh, that's not what you were referring to. Ahem.

The moral question...yes. Aha! I have it! Sex is bad because it...ah...it...uh...no that's not bad. Maybe it's because...no, that's actually a good thing. Hmmm...I'm drawing a blank here.

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.

Yes, the US is somewhat sexually repressed, probably because of a puritanical approach to nudity and sex which sill makes many of us feel guilty even when we're felling good ( if you know what I mean ).

However, if you actually read the Bible, nowhere does is indicate that sex is bad, per se, only that sex should be confined to marriage and that marriage should be to one person, one time, for life. Just wanted to set the record straight. :)

I don't think that the US is, in general, more sexally repressed than Europe. It is certainly less repressed for the most part than the UK or the "Catholic" European nations.

The US does have a different range of nudity taboos than many places in europe, but that's mainly the fault of American woman and their narcissism. It doesn't have anything to do with sexuality or repression and the two shouldn't be confused.

i just have to say LMAO to the uk being sexually repressed...obviously u have never spent any length of time here and have seen the problems with british ppl being a bit too liberal u could say...highest teen pregnancy rate in europe and several other lovely titles. Also i know of no other country which has newspapers that strongly resemble pornos such as the daily sport. The laws concerning nudity in the US really need to be looked at...there is more nudity in a shampoo advert in the uk than there is all day on american tv, damn that minority of bitchy women!

But if there's a negative view of it perhaps the topic of teen pregnancies might lend a clue.

I'm one of the few remaining individuals in this country who still thinks kids having sex at like 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 years old is creepy and depressing.

Coughcontraceptioncough

Haven't you ever watched a Hip Hop video? I would hardly call those "sexually repressed".

No and most Americans don't, either.

However, if you actually read the Bible, nowhere does is indicate that sex is bad, per se, only that sex should be confined to marriage and that marriage should be to one person, one time, for life. Just wanted to set the record straight.

Which is just a round about way of condemning sex.

Was I the only person who felt ashamed of the US when everyone panicked in the superbowl halftime thing?

I think it's something to do with sex for any other purpose than procreation being wrong. Some kind of waste not want not mentality? I don't know. I do know that it's not as repressed as you think. A few American movies cause embarrassment when you're sitting in the lounge and the two lead characters just start humping for no other reason than for you to watch. I don't need to see that.

Haven't you ever watched a Hip Hop video? I would hardly call those "sexually repressed". I think Americans themselves are fairly liberally minded culturely, they just like to elect extremely conservative governments who fell that the staue of justice should have a gown put on it, and that an exposed nipple could be the downfall of an entire empire. Besides, different cultures are based on different things. In Europe, maybe your culture is based around sex. In Canada, it is based around hockey. In America, it is based around violence. There are many Americans who actually cack their pants when they fire off an automatic weapon. Hell, I'm sure there are many that would rather shoot a gun than have sex. That's just their way their culture is. Deal with it Euroboy.

1. Most advertising and rock videos ( and yes, hip-hop ) aren't sexy, merely tittilating.

2. American culture isn't "based around violence," it's based around money.

3. I know many, many gun owners, so far as I know none of them would "rather shoot than have sex."

well, considering I'm not allowed to deny that america sees sex as negative? I don't know what else to say. I don't see the issue here, really. I honestly don't know the majority of america to classify sex as unnatural or bad in any way.
Of course it's natural, no one would be here if not for sex, but there are other things in the world that are not sex. It doesn't need to be the subject in absolutley everything and on everyone's mind every second if that's what you mean. I hear about sex plenty every day. I don't know where you are aquiring your information that americans are mostly sex negative.
Also, you definitly can catch diseases that you don't want from sex and it can be kind of dangerous like all things can be, so it's not some miracle way of life that americans haven't discovered yet.
I still don't see the issue.

i just have to say LMAO to the uk being sexually repressed...obviously u have never spent any length of time here and have seen the problems with british ppl being a bit too liberal u could say...highest teen pregnancy rate in europe and several other lovely titles. Also i know of no other country which has newspapers that strongly resemble pornos such as the daily sport. The laws concerning nudity in the US really need to be looked at...there is more nudity in a shampoo advert in the uk than there is all day on american tv, damn that minority of bitchy women!

But now we have the technology to stop pregnancy, so its only a matter of educating people on how to use it.

I'm talking about compared to Sweden or Germany.



Actually, judging by the amount of kid-porn and violent degrading misogynist porn from those two countries it can be reasonably argued that it is they, and not the US, that have problems in expressing their sexuality in a healthy manner. And I'm sure Andrea Dworkin would agree with me. Or maybe you think liking "Bitch Rape Movies" are the sign of a healthy sexuality.


A different range? Is that some kind of Newspeak?

No. Not newspeak. Do you always try to insult people who have a different point of view.

So in other words, no amount of reason-based arguments will get their their BS fields?

Pretty much; I'm a pretty open-minded Christian, myself.

Does that mean my only solution is moving to a freer country?

Pretty much, but keep in mind, Christianity is everwhere.

Was I the only person who felt ashamed of the US when everyone panicked in the superbowl halftime thing?
I honestly think people should take personal responsibility for their awkward feelings toward sex - JUST CHANGE THE DAMN CHANNEL! DONT BE STUPID AND STARE AT IT IF YOU ARE SO DAMN REVOLTED BY IT!

granted, I want my kids to grow up w/o that type of stuff, but as they became preteens I'd gradually break them into reality - I would not keep them in the dark like so many other people do.

Which is just a round about way of condemning sex.

Nonsense. Far from condemning sex, it glorifies sex in the extreme. It says that sex is such a special and powerful act that it should not be done lightly.

Was I the only person who felt ashamed of the US when everyone panicked in the superbowl halftime thing?

No. I was ashamed too. Unfortunately, the FCC has seems to have decided that even healthy forms of sexual expression on television need to be censored.

Which is just a round about way of condemning sex.

Was I the only person who felt ashamed of the US when everyone panicked in the superbowl halftime thing?

I hardly think that suggesting sex be limited to your marriage partner is a "round about way of condemning sex."

I don't know of anyone who "panicked" when Janet flased a boob. What most people I know thought was, "So Janet resorted to sensationalism ... again. Big friggin' deal."

The main reason for the low birthrate in europe 2day is because of the extremely high cost of living here and countries which used to produce large families like italy can no longer afford to have as many children...not because they arent as horny or whatever.

European governments (especially Germany and Russia) are paying huge tax credits for having kids, it's like 4x what you get in the U.S. The disparity isn't that big. Hell, Russia even considered legalizing polygamy.. they have one of the worst birthrate problems.

Aren't children the point of sex?

Not to me they're not! And it damn well better stay that way, too. *Eyes her uterus and hopes it shrivels and DIES.*

If I ran the USA, public nudity would be perfectly okay.

Which is why it is in my nation :p

Sex isn't bad and noone would say it is. However, having a culture that glorifies it and says it's ok in any situation will ultimately have more unwanted pregnencies and higher incidence of STD's.

Also, the United States puts special importance on the people's right to not see nudity or sex. Quite a number of people don't want(or want their kids) to see sex for a variety of reasons, be it religous or otherwise. It's not fair for them if sex and nudity are put all over TV or billboards or on flyers on the street, or naked people on the street. You're taking away their right to not see it.

It's a perfectly fair thing. If someone wants to view sex, they can go on the internet, the video store, or any number of places. People who don't want to can go through their lives and not have it shoved in their face.

Actually, compared to the entire rest of the world, except Saudi and other backward middle east nations, America is quite repressed sexually.
Only in America do you a government agency fining a woman for accidently exposing her breast.
In the rest of the world, breast exposure on tv is quite common.
If certain Americans had their way, sexual repression would be part of international law.
In many cities of America, David and other statues are actually banned. In fact, almost all American cities ban all expressions of nudity in public including those are nothing more than art.
I can see the point of banning hard porn, but when you ban something just because it depicts someone posing nude or partially nude, that is sign that you have serious psychological problems and seriously suffering from sexual repression.
Then again, it might be that most Americans are so twisted on this particular subject that they have no idea what artistic nudity is.

(Knows cause he's done photos of nude women in certain poses, nonsexual ones though, but erotic nevertheless.)

As for what constitutes artistic nudity, it depends on the context and the artist doing the art. Depictions of fallacio or intercourse, is not art but that is just my personal opinion.

But now we have the technology to stop pregnancy, so its only a matter of educating people on how to use it.
You are rather regressive when it comes to technology - is this the exception?

Sex isn't bad and noone would say it is. However, having a culture that glorifies it and says it's ok in any situation will ultimately have more unwanted pregnencies and higher incidence of STD's.

Also, the United States puts special importance on the people's right to not see nudity or sex. Quite a number of people don't want(or want their kids) to see sex for a variety of reasons, be it religous or otherwise. It's not fair for them if sex and nudity are put all over TV or billboards or on flyers on the street. You're taking away their right to not see it.

It's a perfectly fair thing. If someone wants to view sex, they can go on the internet or to a video store and people who don't want to can go through their lives and not have it shoved in their face.
There is no such right, hence you are making it up.

Sex is not necessarily bad in and of itself. Obviously, it has the essential function of furthering the human race. However, sex can be dangerous, too. This is mostly evidenced by the spread of AIDS and STDs. An atmosphere of sexual promiscuity is the perfect environment for such diseases to form and spread. Everyone is extremely worried about the AIDS epidemic, and the only surefire way to not get AIDS is to not have sex (or wait for marriage, but I'm afraid you'll accuse me of involving religion now that I said that). Having said that, I move on to what is more controversial and subjective. Sexual promiscuity or "freedom" as some would call it, fundamentally erodes the basic family values that are all-important to our society. Whatever people say, families are the basic institutions which teach people how to function in society, and therefore families are where most of us get our sense of "right" and "wrong". Sexual promiscuity and illegitimate children reduce the potency of the family by undermining basic values (marriage, modesty). On the fringe of my argument, irresponsible sex also accounts for millions of abortions - a practice which also undermines the value of human life.
I would like to point out your use of the term "sexual repression", and the fact that this indicates a definite bias. The word "repression" carries a heavy negative connotation. It would be better to simply point out America's differences and let the reader form their own oppinion.
To sum up: no, sex is not wrong per se (without involving religion), but it can be very dangerous to regard sex lightly. Sex carries heavy consequences no matter what, and it is when society regards sex as merely a fun activity that the respect needed for its proper use falls away.

1. Most advertising and rock videos ( and yes, hip-hop ) aren't sexy, merely tittilating.

You've obviously never seen a Tool video.

2. American culture isn't "based around violence," it's based around money.

Money is the fuel that runs the entire planet, and is therefore part of the World's culture. What runs your culture and maeks it different from mine is guns. You have guns everywhere and everytime someone complains that there are too many guns on the streets, what's the answer? Make more and better guns for the "honourable" citizens of America.

3. I know many, many gun owners, so far as I know none of them would "rather shoot than have sex."

They probably wouldn't admit it to you, but I gauran-damn-tee they would.I know of more than a few that would tell me that too but would be lying.

i just have to say LMAO to the uk being sexually repressed...obviously u have never spent any length of time here and have seen the problems with british ppl being a bit too liberal u could say...highest teen pregnancy rate in europe and several other lovely titles. Also i know of no other country which has newspapers that strongly resemble pornos such as the daily sport. The laws concerning nudity in the US really need to be looked at...there is more nudity in a shampoo advert in the uk than there is all day on american tv, damn that minority of bitchy women!

I have spent considerable time in the UK. There is no evidence that its attitude towards sex is more healthy than the US. Possibly the fact that Brits spend so much time examining their own navel about it, and that british women are notorious for for sexual escapism when abroad, indicates exactly the opposite.

Letila,.. the sex is so bad,.. because you are doing it wrong.

Or perhaps your partners are doing it wrong.

Or perhaps your "playthings" are doing it wrong, though I think that would be YOU doing THEM wrong, but I don't know of your habits, so I'm in no position to judge.

OH,.. you meant why is sex in America a bad thing..!?

Oh,.. it's not,.. unless you're doing it wrong.

:D

I hardly think that suggesting sex be limited to your marriage partner is a "round about way of condemning sex."

I don't know of anyone who "panicked" when Janet flased a boob. What most people I know thought was, "So Janet resorted to sensationalism ... again. Big friggin' deal."

That's not the impression I got.

Actually, judging by the amount of kid-porn and violent degrading misogynist porn from those two countries it can be reasonably argued that it is they, and not the US, that have problems in expressing their sexuality in a healthy manner. And I'm sure Andrea Dworkin would agree with me. Or maybe you think liking "Bitch Rape Movies" are the sign of a healthy sexuality.

Actually, that's only because porno in general is less regulated there. I'm sure there are just as many pædophiles in the US as elsewhere, but because lolicon hentai is illegal here, you don't see much evidence of them.

Sex is not necessarily bad in and of itself. Obviously, it has the essential function of furthering the human race. However, sex can be dangerous, too. This is mostly evidenced by the spread of AIDS and STDs. An atmosphere of sexual promiscuity is the perfect environment for such diseases to form and spread. Everyone is extremely worried about the AIDS epidemic, and the only surefire way to not get AIDS is to not have sex (or wait for marriage, but I'm afraid you'll accuse me of involving religion now that I said that). Having said that, I move on to what is more controversial and subjective.

And that is why protective measures exist.

Sexual promiscuity or "freedom" as some would call it, fundamentally erodes the basic family values that are all-important to our society. Whatever people say, families are the basic institutions which teach people how to function in society, and therefore families are where most of us get our sense of "right" and "wrong". Sexual promiscuity and illegitimate children reduce the potency of the family by undermining basic values (marriage, modesty). On the fringe of my argument, irresponsible sex also accounts for millions of abortions - a practice which also undermines the value of human life.

Ah yes, family values like patriarchy and submission to authority. Such important values. The fact is that nothing is forcing you to have sex if you don't want to.

I would like to point out your use of the term "sexual repression", and the fact that this indicates a definite bias. The word "repression" carries a heavy negative connotation. It would be better to simply point out America's differences and let the reader form their own oppinion.

I'm not going to PCify US authoritarianism simply because it bothers you.

To sum up: no, sex is not wrong per se (without involving religion), but it can be very dangerous to regard sex lightly. Sex carries heavy consequences no matter what, and it is when society regards sex as merely a fun activity that the respect needed for its proper use falls away.

So we need reactionaries telling us when we can have sex?

Actually, judging by the amount of kid-porn and violent degrading misogynist porn from those two countries it can be reasonably argued that it is they, and not the US, that have problems in expressing their sexuality in a healthy manner. And I'm sure Andrea Dworkin would agree with me. Or maybe you think liking "Bitch Rape Movies" are the sign of a healthy sexuality.




No. Not newspeak. Do you always try to insult people who have a different point of view.

Nothing wrong with mysogynist porn.
For the sake of argument, it depends on your definition of child porn. Most Americans consider any picture depicting children to be porn. Look at the parents in the eastern part of the US who were arrested just cause they had photos of their own children in the family album.

So in other words, no amount of reason-based arguments will get their their BS fields? Does that mean my only solution is moving to a freer country?

No, just ignore em.

Anyway heres a problem with sex.

STDs, dont need to elabourate beyond that people just arent responsible with sex.

Oh and it can destroy relationships as much as it strengthens them. Im all for free sex, provided people are responsible. Which many arent. People can enter realtionships purely for sex and hurt the other person. As people seem to think its the pinnacle of a relationship. Because they are taught its special, they seem to think it can be used to get more than an orgasm. And sometimes it works.

But sometimes it doesnt. Whats wrong with it, is people dont understand its power, but also its limits.

They focus on it too much and forget more important things. Like just enjoying someone's company.

If you like someone, everything you do with them is more special. therefore sex would be better with someone special. People seem to think sex makes people more special. Anyone can have sex with anyone else. Sometimes it might take tools, but still, its not like, say, love.

Oh and also I know what else is wrong with it. Im not getting any!

Just to clarify. Sex itself isnt a problem IMHO, just people's attitude really.

There is no such right, hence you are making it up.

How naive.

We all have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Liberty:

-The condition of being free from restriction or control.
-The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.



Just about any law is a compromise of any given liberty. We don't have the right to murder because we respect the right to life. We don't have the right to speed in our cars because we have the right to have our lives and property protected when we drive. In America, we don't have the right of public nudity because the country values the right to not see it.

As I said before, you can be naked in your house all you want. If you want to view sex, there's a number of places you can go. I think it's a safe assumption to make that the vast majority of the US is against public nudity.

I don't get why people try to impinge on the liberties of others.

Nothing wrong with mysogynist porn.
For the sake of argument, it depends on your definition of child porn. Most Americans consider any picture depicting children to be porn. Look at the parents in the eastern part of the US who were arrested just cause they had photos of their own children in the family album.

I wouldn't go that far. Americans are repressed, but always that bad. I think what happened there was that the cop was a closet pædophile and saw eroticism where there was none.

Sex isn't bad in American culture. Vulgarity is.

Surely you can see the difference between sexuality and vulgarity ...

Anyway .... bear with me ...


1
1
1
1
1

Why is it that this kind of thread - the kind where people get to bash American culture - always seems to attract one-post wonders?

Nothing wrong with mysogynist porn.

Except that it is symptomatic of a neurosis devolped by an unhealthy view of sex. Therefore mysogynist fantasies are often indicative of repressed sexuality. Therefore, germany and sweden seem to have a lot of sexually repressed males. (And maybe women I don't know who's watching this stuff to be honest.)

For the sake of argument, it depends on your definition of child porn. Most Americans consider any picture depicting children to be porn. Look at the parents in the eastern part of the US who were arrested just cause they had photos of their own children in the family album.

Yes, well I'm talking about the porn where prepubesents are actually forced to have sex with adult males for real. Scandanavia and germany is the source of most of this stuff. It only recently became illeagal in denmark and is still widely available throughout the whole region. I am arguing that the fact that not only is child porn more acceptable there, but also apparently a lot more popular, shows that these countries are considerably more dysfunctional sexually than the US.

As usual, this whole discussion has devolved into an "america is bad" thread where people just automatically get to say US society is sick without any well though out basis. It's telling how no-one is arguing that thailand or the phillipeans are enlightened about sex, even though they are both major players in the world sex industry.

But yeah, maybe those Thai's really have a healthy outlook on sex. I'll remeber that's healthy next time someone suggest selling young girls into prositution is wrong. After all those Thai's with there healthy attitude towards sex think its ok, so it must just be my fucked up repressed nature that is stopping me from seeing it.

How naive.

We all have the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

Liberty:

-The condition of being free from restriction or control.
-The right and power to act, believe, or express oneself in a manner of one's own choosing.



Just about any law is a compromise of any given liberty. We don't have the right to murder because we respect the right to life. We don't have the right to speed in our cars because we have the right to have our lives and property protected when we drive. In America, we don't have the right of public nudity because the country values the right to not see it.

As I said before, you can be naked in your house all you want. If you want to view sex, there's a number of places you can go. I think it's a safe assumption to make that the vast majority of the US is against public nudity.

I don't get why people try to impinge on the liberties of others.

You are not talking about impinging on other people's liberties, you are talking about taking them away for benefit of the tyrants who don't beleive in liberty.
There is no right to not see nudity, just as there is no right to not hear offensive music.
There is merit in public nudity being a legitimate form of expression as much as not having to wear uniforms is.
Our rights are not based on the values of the majority, but rather, they come from nature.

Which is just a round about way of condemning sex.


No it isn't check on the Song of Solomon (http://www.fourmilab.ch/etexts/www/Bible/Song_of_Solomon.html) for another Biblical view of sex. Judaeo-Christianity doesn't condemn sex (except for a few extremist sects), it condemns only that sex which is seen as a threat to societal stability - sex outside wedlock or adultry.

Because the USA is all screwed up in it's views on sex and sexuality, of course.
This and similar comments are a fair point. Sex-laden advertising, the concept that "sex sells" is an American construct. And yet paradoxically, American attitudes towards sex and nudity are far more conservative than those of the Europeans, notably the British, whom the Americans wrongly assume to be prudish. The whole nipple thing for example. It wouldn't even make the headlines in Europe.

We don't have the right to speed in our cars because we have the right to have our lives and property protected when we drive.

This doesn't make sense as a claim - else why would you be allowed to drive at high speed on your own private property?

Why is sex so bad?

Because people generally aren't very good at it.

Solution?

Practice, practice, practice!!!

Except that it is symptomatic of a neurosis devolped by an unhealthy view of sex. Therefore mysogynist fantasies are often indicative of repressed sexuality. Therefore, germany and sweden seem to have a lot of sexually repressed males. (And maybe women I don't know who's watching this stuff to be honest.)

True, but it still speaks for my case. In addition, you have offered no proof that America is relatively free of lolicon and goreans.

Yes, well I'm talking about the porn where prepubesents are actually forced to have sex with adult males for real. Scandanavia and germany is the source of most of this stuff. It only recently became illeagal in denmark and is still widely available throughout the whole region. I am arguing that the fact that not only is child porn more acceptable there, but also apparently a lot more popular, shows that these countries are considerably more dysfunctional sexually than the US.

As usual, this whole discussion has devolved into an "america is bad" thread where people just automatically get to say US society is sick without any well though out basis. It's telling how no-one is arguing that thailand or the phillipeans are enlightened about sex, even though they are both major players in the world sex industry.

But yeah, maybe those Thai's really have a healthy outlook on sex. I'll remeber that's healthy next time someone suggest selling young girls into prositution is wrong. After all those Thai's with there healthy attitude towards sex think its ok, so it must just be my fucked up repressed nature that is stopping me from seeing it.

Strawman attack. I'm not advocating sex slavery, I'm advocating that sex no longer be viewed so negatively.

No it isn't check on the Song of Solomon for another Biblical view of sex. Judaeo-Christianity doesn't condemn sex (except for a few extremist sects), it condemns only that sex which is seen as a threat to societal stability - sex outside wedlock or adultry.

Why do you always disagree with me? Everytime I make a topic, you argue against me.

The whole nipple thing for example. It wouldn't even make the headlines in Europe.

Well, I think it would make the headlines in Europe, but in a very different context - as a piece of titillation, rather than as a piece of outrage. Which just leads to questions about the sexualisation of the secondary female characteristic of the breast, but that is a whole 'nother debate. Maybe in Europe there is enough historical experience to realise that society doesn't crumble at the mere flash of a nipple - in the Uk we even have the much loved legend of Lady Godiva riding naked through the streets of Coventry as a protest against high taxes - mythical, probably, but nonetheless a sign that public nudity, although it may be a way of thumbing the nose at the state, doesn't topple nations.

Why is sex so bad?

Because people generally aren't very good at it.

Solution?

Practice, practice, practice!!!

YES! That's it!

That condom's just getting in the way! GET RID OF IT!

Read up on the Doomsday Equation. No matter how much contraceptive we hand out, people are still going to screw, the dumb ones aren't going to use said contraceptives, they're going to reproduce... a lot... and then those people will follow suit because they came from a dumb family.

You are not talking about impinging on other people's liberties, you are talking about taking them away for benefit of the tyrants who don't beleive in liberty.
There is no right to not see nudity, just as there is no right to not hear offensive music.
There is merit in public nudity being a legitimate form of expression as much as not having to wear uniforms is.
Our rights are not based on the values of the majority, but rather, they come from nature.

All your opinion. Rather senseless opinion at that.

The United States is technically a Republic, but is also considered a democracy.


Here's the definition of a republic:

A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.




Here's the definition of a democracy:

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community



Notice that it says "body of citizens" and "Majority Rule" and has says nothing about "nature". Where are you getting the nature BS anyway??? It's clear that you aren't arguing objectivly but instead making stuff up because of your own personal wishes.

Quote:
But if there's a negative view of it perhaps the topic of teen pregnancies might lend a clue.

I'm one of the few remaining individuals in this country who still thinks kids having sex at like 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 years old is creepy and depressing.


Coughcontraceptioncough

Um, no. First off, contraception messes with your fertility cycle and periods, and in children that young it could seriously harm them.

Secondly, children (yes, I said children) under the age of 18 are nowhere near educated enough to understand anything about sex other than "Tab A goes into Slot B." It's not about intelligence or anything else, it's just that they aren't thinking with the heads on their shoulders. Kids, I'm telling you now: Unprotected sex between a man and a woman with most often result in a child. The easiest way to not have kids: Don't have sex. Very simple, yes? I thought so. You don't really don't need or want to support yourself and a kid, and your parents don't want to, either. Trust me on this.

Thirdly, most contraceptive agents are only available to people over the age of 18. Birth control can be perscribed by a doctor, but even it doesn't have a 100% prevention rate. (You'd think people would get a clue...)

Research is your friend. :\



Quote:
Haven't you ever watched a Hip Hop video? I would hardly call those "sexually repressed".


No and most Americans don't, either.

I call it "something I really don't want to watch," actually. If I want porn, I'll download it, burn it to cd, and take it to my boyfriend's to watch. That's much more fun. *smirks*



Quote:
However, if you actually read the Bible, nowhere does is indicate that sex is bad, per se, only that sex should be confined to marriage and that marriage should be to one person, one time, for life. Just wanted to set the record straight.


Which is just a round about way of condemning sex.

It doesn't condemn sex at all, actually. Right at the beginning God says "Be fruitful and multiply." Ever wonder why it's so much fun to boink someone? There ya go.

What the Bible means is that sex should really only be had between two people who love each other enough to bring a child into the world, and have thought about that possibility. Kids cost a lot. It's only reasonable to want them brought up in a good environment. That way, you don't have half-starved, emotionally-abused children running around, getting picked up by Child Protective Services. Of course, if people actually thought about it in those terms, there wouldn't be nearly as much need for CPS, and I would be a happy woman.

But no, kids go around having more kids all because they weren't actually thinking... But I digress.

Think about the children, I say. If everyone did that, the world might be a better place.



Was I the only person who felt ashamed of the US when everyone panicked in the superbowl halftime thing?

I felt ashamed of her, actually. Like I said before, if I wanna watch floppy titties, I'll go watch some porn with my boyfriend. And then I get something pleasureable for it, instead of just this sense of "Why, God, did I decide to watch the Superbowl?" that I got this time.


So no, sex is not bad in context. Out of it, though... well, if you want to take your chances, take them. I'll feel sorry for your kids.

This and similar comments are a fair point. Sex-laden advertising, the concept that "sex sells" is an American construct. And yet paradoxically, American attitudes towards sex and nudity are far more conservative than those of the Europeans, notably the British, whom the Americans wrongly assume to be prudish. The whole nipple thing for example. It wouldn't even make the headlines in Europe.

Oh come on! Half of britian's ruling class can't even decide whether its gay or not. Just look at the elite schools over there.

This is another one of those throwaway givens that get bandied about here all the time on NS to proove that the US is by far the most sick society on earth.

Well its not. The UK is considerably more homophobic than the US to begin with, that's a sign of their confused sexuality. Its also still common for brits to go "crazy" when on vaction abroad, acting in a manner that they would never imagine doing back in the UK. Most americans don't so much, with the exception of college students sometimes. You get women in their mid-thirties doing this from the UK. What else is this if not sexual repression. And if you don't believe me, spend a week in benidorm sometime.

Why do you always disagree with me? Everytime I make a topic, you argue against me.

You make it sound like I am purposefully deciding my opinions to be in opposition to yours, which is not the case, instead I am presenting what I believe - to paint the Bible as condemnatory of all sex is just plain incorrect: certainly it only praises certain kinds and seems to be very much against other kinds, but it isn't a black and white issue. Why else would there be the erotic passage of the Song of Solomon in the Bible if it didn't in some way celebrate sexuality and the actual physical act of intercourse?

Notice that it says "body of citizens" and "Majority Rule" and has says nothing about "nature". Where are you getting the nature BS anyway???

I think it may be something to do with the fact that the Declaration of Independence declares those rights to be inalienable - not something granted or able to be taken away by the state. Whether you beleive they are actually natural rights or not is beside the point: it appears that those who wrote the DoI did believe them to be natural rights.

Except that it is symptomatic of a neurosis devolped by an unhealthy view of sex. Therefore mysogynist fantasies are often indicative of repressed sexuality. Therefore, germany and sweden seem to have a lot of sexually repressed males. (And maybe women I don't know who's watching this stuff to be honest.)



Yes, well I'm talking about the porn where prepubesents are actually forced to have sex with adult males for real. Scandanavia and germany is the source of most of this stuff. It only recently became illeagal in denmark and is still widely available throughout the whole region. I am arguing that the fact that not only is child porn more acceptable there, but also apparently a lot more popular, shows that these countries are considerably more dysfunctional sexually than the US.

As usual, this whole discussion has devolved into an "america is bad" thread where people just automatically get to say US society is sick without any well though out basis. It's telling how no-one is arguing that thailand or the phillipeans are enlightened about sex, even though they are both major players in the world sex industry.

But yeah, maybe those Thai's really have a healthy outlook on sex. I'll remeber that's healthy next time someone suggest selling young girls into prositution is wrong. After all those Thai's with there healthy attitude towards sex think its ok, so it must just be my fucked up repressed nature that is stopping me from seeing it.

1. I have to confess I must check on mysogynist sex. I think it refers to doing it with more than one person at a time. But I could be wrong.

2.a. Well, no one should be sold into sex. But it happens in America as much as it happens in Thailand but you just don't here about it, cause it happens mostly to illegals. The US ought to include fighting human trafficking in its war against terror since human trafficking is definately terrorism. Most child porn stars in russia, asia, eastern europe, and latin america fall under this category.

2b. When any one is forced to commit sex acts, whether child or adult, it is rape and as such is a violation of the right to life.

2c. Now in many societies, the age of consent is lower than in the US. For example, in Korea, the age of Consent is 16. So in Korea, it perfectly fine to do with a 16 year if say you are 45. But in America, if you are 45 and you do it with a 16 year old, you are considered a pedophile.
Note there are a lot of nations out there with even lower ages of consent.

2d. I would say, from looking at the course of human evolution and the natural development of the human body, any intercourse with a person under 12 would be unnatural in any culture or society. Hence, the limit of the age of 12 is would be a universal boundary. And as you actually look at the norms of every single nation and every single culture, you find this to be inherent fact.

2e. Just because a society thinks child porn is acceptable does not make it deviant. It is only so from your point of view which is likely to be based on an
American centric point of in which America is always right and never wrong and American values are the only legitimate ones. Hence, such a view propagates that America is right to forces its values on the rest of the world at gun point. Course, child sex, like all depictions of sex, is not art, in my personal opinion. But depictions of nude children, like depictions of any nude person, would be art (again, depending on the context.)

Kids, I'm telling you now: Unprotected sex between a man and a woman with most often result in a child.

Oh no it won't: you might want to do some research on how long sperm can survive outside the testes and how long in an average woman's menstrual cycle an ova has been released and is available for fertilisation.

Not that I am saying that participating in heterosexual full vaginal penetrative sex with male ejaculation and without contraception is a good idea when you are not prepared for the consequences, but you are simply spreading misinformation here.

I'll quote from Wikipedia here to give some numbers and let you do the maths and see whether your claim holds up or not:

"In most women the menstrual cycle lasts between 24 and 32 days. It starts with a menstrual bleeding. Ovulation takes place at some time between day 12 and day 18. Ova die if not fertilized within 24 hours of ovulation. Spermatozoa are able to fertilize an ovum for a period of about three days after they have been ejaculated, although exceptional cases of fertilization almost one week after intercourse have also been reported."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning

The best and worst thing about sex is that it makes babies.

All your opinion. Rather senseless opinion at that.

The United States is technically a Republic, but is also considered a democracy.


Here's the definition of a republic:

A political order in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.




Here's the definition of a democracy:

Government by the people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives.
A political or social unit that has such a government.
The common people, considered as the primary source of political power.
Majority rule.
The principles of social equality and respect for the individual within a community



Notice that it says "body of citizens" and "Majority Rule" and has says nothing about "nature". Where are you getting the nature BS anyway??? It's clear that you aren't arguing objectivly but instead making stuff up because of your own personal wishes.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created, that they are endowed by NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD with certain unalienable rights.

These are rights that no one can restrict or abolish, not even the majority. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy hence, majority rule does not hold. The rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution and come not from majority political or moral views.

1. I have to confess I must check on mysogynist sex. I think it refers to doing it with more than one person at a time. But I could be wrong.

Nah, misogyny means 'women hating'.

I think it may be something to do with the fact that the Declaration of Independence declares those rights to be inalienable - not something granted or able to be taken away by the state. Whether you beleive they are actually natural rights or not is beside the point: it appears that those who wrote the DoI did believe them to be natural rights.

I think you're giving him too much credit when you say that that is what he meant.

I'm pretty sure that when he said "natural" he meant "whatever suits him" and not "inalienable". Now I'm sounding slanderous, sure, but that's just how he comes off to me.

We hold these truths to be self evident, that all men are created, that they are endowed by NATURE AND NATURE'S GOD with certain unalienable rights.

These are rights that no one can restrict or abolish, not even the majority. The US is a constitutional republic not a democracy hence, majority rule does not hold. The rights of the minority are protected by the Constitution and come not from majority political or moral views.

Ok, the rights of people come from the constitution and laws that are considered constitutional (all laws are, or they wouldn't have been passed.) The law says that public nudity is illegal. Thanks for proving my point.


As an aside, for one to say that law is routinely passed without considering the rights of the majority is ludicrous.

Oh come on! Half of britian's ruling class can't even decide whether its gay or not. Just look at the elite schools over there.

This is another one of those throwaway givens that get bandied about here all the time on NS to proove that the US is by far the most sick society on earth.

Well its not. The UK is considerably more homophobic than the US to begin with, that's a sign of their confused sexuality. Its also still common for brits to go "crazy" when on vaction abroad, acting in a manner that they would never imagine doing back in the UK. Most americans don't so much, with the exception of college students sometimes. You get women in their mid-thirties doing this from the UK. What else is this if not sexual repression. And if you don't believe me, spend a week in benidorm sometime.

Or maybe its the "lad culture", people take pride in the amount of sex they can get. This is the problem. Sex is overstated in the UK. Counting of notches in the bedpost and all that. Its a kind of cultural thing, its not caused by repression, its caused by people seeing sex as something that can be measured, and so they compete. Causing those who dont act like animals to feel insignificant and dysfunctional as they are in the minority.

Anyway as an awnser to someone else.

Kiddie porn is deviant if you ask me. If it doesnt look like a womam/man to your eyes, then you really shoudnt be having sex with them/finding them attractive. Its wrong because they may be capable of sex, but not fully able to deal with it. If they look like children with adult parts, thats what they are. they arent ready. Child sex is perhaps not totally unnatural, but its at least partly unethical becuase they arent fully developed to cope with it and the consequences. Mentally or physically.

I think you're giving him too much credit when you say that that is what he meant.

I'm pretty sure that when he said "natural" he meant "whatever suits him" and not "inalienable". Now I'm sounding slanderous, sure, but that's just how he comes off to me.

Well...
http://forums2.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=7226486&postcount=70

Or maybe its the "lad culture", people take pride in the amount of sex they can get. This is the problem. Sex is overstated in the UK. Counting of notches in the bedpost and all that. Its a kind of cultural thing, its not caused by repression, its caused by people seeing sex as something that can be measured, and so they compete. Causing those who dont act like animals to feel insignificant and dysfunctional as they are in the minority.


And that's healthy eh ?

If the brits, godbless them, didn't think sex was "dirty" then they'd never have world two of Britian's greatest artistic acheivements. Carry on films, and Are You Being Served.

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.

Beyond what moralists believe, sexual issues are restricted by the need to protect children.

If the brits, godbless them, didn't think sex was "dirty" then they'd never have world two of Britian's greatest artistic acheivements. Carry on films, and Are You Being Served.

"Is sex dirty? Only if it's done right." - Woody Allen

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.

Well, no technically it isn't the Bible/Jesus/God who said so. It was a man by the name of Augustine.

Augustine, at least before he was a saint, had a problem with women: you might say that he loved them a little too much. As such, he was quite a bit like most other young men of any era, in that he was quite the playboy, and quite adept at bedding women. The problem was, this didn't sit so well with people like his fiancee or his parents, who were usually hurt and humiliated by his behavior. So one day, Augustine sat down to think about why he did the things he did, and came to a revolutionary conclusion: he couldn't help himself. Yes, instead of simply saying he didn't have enough self-control to lay off the adultery, he came to the conclusion that the natural state of mankind is sinfulness, particularly of the lustful variety, and that he could do nothing but sin. How did he come to this sinful nature, he then asked himself? Well, because he was born with it. Specifically, it was transmitted through the inherently sinful act of conception itself. Thus was born the doctrine of Original Sin.

Now of course, this view was absolutely lambasted by a great many philosophers and theologians of the day, on the same grounds that many people attack self-help gurus today: by saying that someone cannot possibly avoid sin, Augustine skirts dangerously close to saying there is no free will. Additionally, this is really just a way of laying the blame on someone else instead of taking responsibility for your own failings and trying to improve yourself. But, the Catholic Church of the day decided to accept the Original Sin doctrine as Law, and so it was that a couple of floozies in the wrong place at the wrong time caused great angst and suffering afterwards.

Now, as for why specifically does America have a much more repressed view of sex? Well, there are two reasons, really, and they tend to dovetail with the generational split that occured in the '60's. On the one hand, you had the people who never accepted the cultural revolutions taking place, and these people tended to uphold Augustinian notions of sexuality all along. On the other hand, you had the people who embraced new sexual norms. These people had a massive reconciling in the 1980's, when the boomers 1) became parents of their own, which tends to radically reconfigure your notions of proper behavior, and 2) people first became aware of the AIDS epidemic. The importance of the two in culture cannot be underestimated: at the same time boomers were raising their first toddlers, they were also hearing reports about how an as-yet undetermined agent could kill through sexual contact (which is a huge difference from previous illnesses, which like gonnorhea, can usually be treated with antibiotics, or herpes, which causes a nasty-looking set of blisters but otherwise doesn't do much). As such, boomers for good or ill took it either as a) a sign that they were right all along, or b) that they needed a radical perspective shift in how they viewed sex. It was never a moral decision so much as a maternal desire to protect their children on a wide scale.

As for a moral reason not to engage in casual sex, I thought it would be obvious: you're using a person for your own ends (namely pleasure), and not treating them as an end in themselves. In the instance where you are treating them as an end in themselves, then sex is a perfectly legitemate undertaking.

As for a moral reason not to engage in casual sex, I thought it would be obvious: you're using a person for your own ends (namely pleasure), and not treating them as an end in themselves. In the instance where you are treating them as an end in themselves, then sex is a perfectly legitemate undertaking.

This breaks down if both parties are mature and responsible enough to recognise and communciate to each other that they want to engage in casual sex: in this case where the partner want's nothing more than a good time in the sack (or wherever), then they are being treated as an end in themself as well - it is a co-operative mutual activity of resolving each other's desires/sexual needs. This is in essence what you are saying in your last line, but it seemed somewhat overshadowed by the presentation at the start of the paragraph which suggested that all casual sex was by definition immoral, yes?

In that case, I found a new person to hate. Not Rand, not Nietzsche, not even Stalin, but Augustine.

And that's healthy eh ?

If the brits, godbless them, didn't think sex was "dirty" then they'd never have world two of Britian's greatest artistic acheivements. Carry on films, and Are You Being Served.

Its extremely unhealthy. Im a Brit, and there are things about my/our little island that make me proud. And parts that disgust me.

I make double entendres and find certain things amusing that you think I shouldnt. But yet I dont find sex revolting or dirty. Not at all. I think you will find much of Britain find this.

That said I do find promiscuity a bit dirty. But then in terms of germ spreading it is. And in terms of not having anything better to do, its pretty depressing too.

Some Brits are very repressed and backwards, they are the ones generally that have the most sex funnily enough. Theres a lot more of us though that find the homophobes and prudes amusing. Very much so. I can see you pulling a clever arguement (thats not sarcasm, you seem intellegent, if a little cynical and moderately patronising) out on me at this point, but Im very tired, being British and all. So I wont respond as Im going to sleep.

2b. When any one is forced to commit sex acts, whether child or adult, it is rape and as such is a violation of the right to life.


2e. Just because a society thinks child porn is acceptable does not make it deviant. It is only so from your point of view which is likely to be based on an
American centric point of in which America is always right and never wrong and American values are the only legitimate ones. Hence, such a view propagates that America is right to forces its values on the rest of the world at gun point. Course, child sex, like all depictions of sex, is not art, in my personal opinion. But depictions of nude children, like depictions of any nude person, would be art (again, depending on the context.)

1. depictions of nude children are not illegal in the US. It depends on context.

2. You cannot reconcile 2b and 2e. And anyway, I refuse to feel bad about being from a nation that condemns child porn, no matter what moral relativists think. I suppose if it's traditional to a culture you would say human sacrifice was okay too, if everyone were willing participants.

Anyway the point I have been trying to make throughout is that the US, is not necessarily the most "repressed" nation in the western world. In fact probably quite the opposite. Did you know for example, that the US constitutionally prohibits the goverment from regulating sex between consenting adults. Many european nations cannot make that claim. So there.

So is sex bad? Obviously to most americans, no. Judging by their behavior the rest of the world may be arrested adolesents though.

In that case, I found a new person to hate. Not Rand, not Nietzsche, not even Stalin, but Augustine.

Ah? Why all the hate?

He does sound like a pathetic creature. But most people who bend religoen for their own ends are.

(okay I didnt go to bed, my computer is downloading something and it looks like its going to be a while)

In that case, I found a new person to hate. Not Rand, not Nietzsche, not even Stalin, but Augustine.

Henry Miller = good.
Saint Augustine = bad.

Both pretty much say that human beings are just sacks of shit, but one of them embraces them and loves them for it, while the other rejects them for it.

ah do you live in the USA or is it by some freakish internet posting that you somehow know how sex in the USA is......if you don't live here how can you ASSUME (ASSofUandME) what the hell's going on here? all you have to do is look around the USA and see we are not so repressed as everyone in the world seems to think.......and of all the sex i've had i've never had any that was bad

The idea of natural rights was popularized (I don't know whether it originated with) John Locke and was further explored by Thomas Paine. Since Paine contributed in so many ways to the American Revolution, his ideas found their way into the Declaration of Independence and American political thought.

Ok, the rights of people come from the constitution and laws that are considered constitutional (all laws are, or they wouldn't have been passed.) The law says that public nudity is illegal. Thanks for proving my point.

As an aside, for one to say that law is routinely passed without considering the rights of the majority is ludicrous.

A) Congress sometimes passes laws which are declared constitutional. It's judicial system's job to interpret the constitution and decide whether a law is constitutional (if it's challenged at all).

B) I think some people would say that many laws are passed without respect for the rights of the majority; legislators consider those rights and supress them to empower a minority.

I don't really agree with that, but the idea is hardly ludicrous.


My problem with all this talk about "America" is that it's a very, very large country with some very, very different laws, customs, and views. (Not that other countries don't have a variety of subcultures; maybe this is a problem in looking at world affairs in general). Yes, there are many people in this country who would love to see pornography banned, the Ten Commandments hung in every government building and sodomy illegal.

But while Texas, a populous state, had laws banning sodomy up to a few years ago, such a law would never pass in California, another huge state. Utah effectively legalized polygamy, because police report that they would have to arrest tens of thousands to enforce the law. Oh, and prostitution is legal in Nevada.

Pennsylvania has been called "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh," two large, more liberal cities, "with Alabama in between."

So it's very difficult to pin down American views as specifically as "All Americans fear sex."

Its extremely unhealthy. Im a Brit, and there are things about my/our little island that make me proud. And parts that disgust me.

I make double entendres and find certain things amusing that you think I shouldnt. But yet I dont find sex revolting or dirty. Not at all. I think you will find much of Britain find this.

That said I do find promiscuity a bit dirty. But then in terms of germ spreading it is. And in terms of not having anything better to do, its pretty depressing too.

Some Brits are very repressed and backwards, they are the ones generally that have the most sex funnily enough. Theres a lot more of us though that find the homophobes and prudes amusing. Very much so. I can see you pulling a clever arguement (thats not sarcasm, you seem intellegent, if a little cynical and moderately patronising) out on me at this point, but Im very tired, being British and all. So I wont respond as Im going to sleep.


No arguement at all. It just goes to what I was saying before, there is absolutely no evidence that the US is any more prudish that the UK, if anything possibly the opposite.

Its extremely unhealthy. Im a Brit, and there are things about my/our little island that make me proud. And parts that disgust me.

Should we get all Foucault here and point out that the tendency in popular culture to produce the dirty, the sexually confessional, the smutty, and the like is usually tied to an actual distaste for for your honest-to-goodness actual sexual activity? Thus the dirty-postcard or the Fanny Hill, or even the Benny Hill, for that matter, are not to be seen as encouragements of sexual activity, but instead cultural sublimations of it?

Well, let's consider how the "New World" got founded shall we? Some Puritans were being oppressed back in Europe, got on a boat, and essentially populated North America with its current, predominant culture.

Maybe that's why? ;)

And I'll agree on this... I think this is the reason for America's "negative view of sex"

And I'll agree on this... I think this is the reason for America's "negative view of sex"

However, said Puritans were also very much for a simple life free of ostentation and conspicious consumption - the way to salvation was through sitting on cold hard wooden benches in drafty churches, not by surrounding yourself with the gilded idols of Catholicism: this urge for a simple life free from animal luxuries and what we would now label 'consumerism' seems to have got lost somewhere along the way in the American psyche. If you trace US sexual repression back to the Puritannical heritage of its founding father's you then have to explain why this thread of their ideology has survived, but other aspects have become lost to history.

Nothing wrong with sex, just don't forget your rubber.

You don't need birth control because sex is only inside of marriage and the main idea is for procreation... Besides, if it's your wife/husband you're wife, what does it matter if you're using a condom or not? If they don't want kids, have the woman use the pill, condoms make sex less enjoyable.

You don't need birth control because sex is only inside of marriage and the main idea is for procreation... Besides, if it's your wife/husband you're wife, what does it matter if you're using a condom or not? If they don't want kids, have the woman use the pill, condoms make sex less enjoyable.

And what about, for example, if the woman was a carrier of a vaginally sexually transmitted disease?

The only sexually "repressed" are the old white guys. Get over it. There's already lots of sex in our culture. It's only a matter of time..

The idea of natural rights was popularized (I don't know whether it originated with) John Locke and was further explored by Thomas Paine. Since Paine contributed in so many ways to the American Revolution, his ideas found their way into the Declaration of Independence and American political thought.



A) Congress sometimes passes laws which are declared constitutional. It's judicial system's job to interpret the constitution and decide whether a law is constitutional (if it's challenged at all).

B) I think some people would say that many laws are passed without respect for the rights of the majority; legislators consider those rights and supress them to empower a minority.

I don't really agree with that, but the idea is hardly ludicrous.


My problem with all this talk about "America" is that it's a very, very large country with some very, very different laws, customs, and views. (Not that other countries don't have a variety of subcultures; maybe this is a problem in looking at world affairs in general). Yes, there are many people in this country who would love to see pornography banned, the Ten Commandments hung in every government building and sodomy illegal.

But while Texas, a populous state, had laws banning sodomy up to a few years ago, such a law would never pass in California, another huge state. Utah effectively legalized polygamy, because police report that they would have to arrest tens of thousands to enforce the law. Oh, and prostitution is legal in Nevada.

Pennsylvania has been called "Philadelphia and Pittsburgh," two large, more liberal cities, "with Alabama in between."

So it's very difficult to pin down American views as specifically as "All Americans fear sex."

I think we're getting pretty far off of the original topic here.

As far as lawmaking goes, when lawmakers make laws that go against the will of the majority very often, they get voted out. That's how the Unites States system of government works, our lawmakers aren't selected at random but chosen by the majority.

What I said is that it was ludicrous to not think that the vast majority of the laws made are not with the majority in mind. The vast majority are(by virtue of our lawmakers being voted in) and it's silly to think otherwise. I'm not saying that they all are.

As far as what you said about the US being big, well, that doesn't mean that there can't be an overwhelming consensus on any given issue. Other than that, we allow states to have their own laws on a lot of issues to make up for the big difference between the varying regions of the US.

I agree with you that the US is not anti-sex. However, they are, for the most part (for the most part!), against the public portrayal of detailed sex and nudity. There is a huge difference between being anti-sex and being against showing it in public. Huge.

ah yes the puritains hmmm correct me if i'm wrong but pretty much all of europe shunned them at the time thats why they sailed to the new world in the first place ...sitting on cold drafty benches in church in the 1700's was lemme guess A COMMON OCCURRANCE, the industrial revolution pretty much smashed the idea of a simple life void of animal luxuries and so on and soforth....get a grip to say that the US was molded by the puritains is like saying hitler was kind to the jews.....this country was and is continually being remade by all the people coming to the US and becoming citizens, not illagal aliens.......

This breaks down if both parties are mature and responsible enough to recognise and communciate to each other that they want to engage in casual sex: in this case where the partner want's nothing more than a good time in the sack (or wherever), then they are being treated as an end in themself as well - it is a co-operative mutual activity of resolving each other's desires/sexual needs. This is in essence what you are saying in your last line, but it seemed somewhat overshadowed by the presentation at the start of the paragraph which suggested that all casual sex was by definition immoral, yes?

Eh. . .it's kind of borderline for me, so I personally stay away from it. I don't think "mutually-assured pleasure" is enough to establish any kind of categorical imperative. Additionally, I think that such a situation is more about advantage (If I scratch her back, she'll scratch mine), which is an egoist, and therefore immoral line of thinking. That being said, if you are in a loving relationship, by all means, hump like rabbits.

In that case, I found a new person to hate. Not Rand, not Nietzsche, not even Stalin, but Augustine.

Well, I don't know what your beef with Nietzsche is, but yes, Augustine's poor logic is the thing that's made my sexual repression possible, so yeah, I think it's valid, if not to hate him, then at least to categorically reject his assumptions. Personally, I take a far more Platonic take on sin: I don't do it because it was passed to me through my father's semen; I do it because I haven't evaluated the situation rationally and thoroughly.

And what about, for example, if the woman was a carrier of a vaginally sexually transmitted disease?


Don't marry a whore who has STDs.

Don't marry a whore who has STDs.
You don't have to be a whore to get AIDS.

I see nothing wrong with sex and/or nudity. I do however have a problem with sex education programs who only preach absintance and half truths. Sex education should have no half truths what-so-ever or biased views and should teach all the effects of early sex, and should preach abstinance and the use of contraseptives for those who don't listen, because you know not everyone is going to listen. =/

the arugement "because god says so" might not be good enough for u, but it was good enough for the founders of modern America, who where deeply christain (ie puritans) whose values are still present in there society today weather they agree with them or not. As well as the Irish migration during the famine, who are mostly chatholic and as we all know sex is the number one sin for catholics. So america isnt anti sex coz it just feels like it, its anti sex coz of the hokey religions its founders followed.

Yep. People tend to forget that America was founded by Christian fundamentalists fleeing persecution by the Anglican and Catholic churches. They were persecuted because their views were so conservative and heretical that they were undermining the social orders that existed in Europe up to that point. In an era where modern courts were beginning to be established and the Rule of Law was beginning to trump the Rule of God across Europe, these people were stoning homosexuals, burning suspected witches, and attacking the leadership of their countries for not living their lives according to the Bible.

Those fundies came here, killed the Indians, and created their own fundie nation. The U.S. is a lot more diverse today and for the most part has left Christian fundamentalism behind, but many deeply ingrained societal taboos and traditions take generations to change. Remember, it's only been 40-50 years since churches lost thier positions as the centers of their communities, and even less in many areas. I grew up in a 95% Catholic town, and I remember being in elementary school in 1980 when every Tuesday the entire PUBLIC school would walk next door to Catechism for three hours of religious classes. And that was in "liberal" California! And what about the muslim, atheist, or protestant kids? They were required to go too, but were allowed to sit in the back and not participate. They got to sit in the back of a classroom for three hours a week and listen to the nuns explain why the good Catholics were going to heaven, and everyone else was going to hell. I remember one of the black muslim kids asking a nun one day if HE was going to hell, and the nun looked at him and said "You worship a demon, and your soul belongs to satan, so yes, you're going to hell."

That type of thing thankfully doesn't exist here anymore, but the people who grew up in that era still dominate this country (hey, I'm only 30) and control everything from media outlets to politics. Even those who style themselves "liberal" are often more conservative than their European counterparts because they grew up in a world surrounded by these taboos.

Sex is a bad thing according to those taboos because the Bible demands that women be demure and virginal. Sex should only happen between a man and wife, and premarital sex will buy you a one way ticket to hell.

Our grandkids may possibly grow up in an America without those beliefs, but we and our children will be stuck with them for the rest of our lives (well, I may see the end of them, but by that time I'll be so old that I won't even remember what sex is anymore ;)

Don't marry a whore who has STDs.

And if your wife becomes infected through non-sexual methods?

I'm just tired of the reactionary culture of the US.

And if your wife becomes infected through non-sexual methods?


Well many STDs can be treated.

I'm against censorship. I would make nuditiy compulsive in the US if I could.

I'm just tired of the reactionary culture of the US.

Then ignore it, I'm sure it's tired of you too.

Well many STDs can be treated.

Yes, but not all are curable - so imagine your wife contracted HIV, for example, due to an accident in a hospital or some similar situation: then what is your position on prophylactics?

I'm just tired of the reactionary culture of the US.


Then move. America, love it or leave it.

And if you think this land is reactionary? How the hell so, the left-wing politically correct dogma against white christian values is trumped in all the public education and institutions of higher learning. "Whitey" is on the run, how can this be reactionary? What sort of dream land are you living in? Or is reactionary any land where whites aren't being blasted into extinction as they are in Zimbabwe, Namibia, and South Africa?

Yes, but not all are curable - so imagine your wife contracted HIV, for example, due to an accident in a hospital or some similar situation: then what is your position on prophylactics?

Birth control is wrong, period.

Ok, the rights of people come from the constitution and laws that are considered constitutional (all laws are, or they wouldn't have been passed.) The law says that public nudity is illegal. Thanks for proving my point.


As an aside, for one to say that law is routinely passed without considering the rights of the majority is ludicrous.
Nay, but in America, the courts are often overturning laws for being unconstitutional. Just because a law is passed does not mean it automatically passes constitutional muster just cause it was passed.
Almost every law banning pornography was overturned by the courts in this manner.

Birth control is wrong, period.

Is it better than Abortion?

Birth control is wrong, period.

Right. So those of us who need it for actual health reasons having to do with hormones being severely out of whack and such can just suck it up and pretty much die, I suppose.

Honestly, we really don't need any more kids on the planet right now. We are in no danger of dying out as a species, except through famine and pollution from overpopulation.

Sex for recreation! And damn the fundamentalists *coughbushadministrationcough* who think it's bad!

Birth control is wrong, period.

You don't need birth control because sex is only inside of marriage and the main idea is for procreation... Besides, if it's your wife/husband you're wife, what does it matter if you're using a condom or not? If they don't want kids, have the woman use the pill, condoms make sex less enjoyable.

So, by your definition does the pill fall into the category of 'birth control' or not?

I think Americans themselves are fairly liberally minded culturely, they just like to elect extremely conservative governments who fell that the staue of justice should have a gown put on it, and that an exposed nipple could be the downfall of an entire empire.

That has nothing to do with religion. If you had John Ashcroft's track record you'd be embarrassed to stand in front of a statue of justice and wisdom too. :D

To exclude the argument of religion from this discussion is an exercise in folly, because it directly influences the answer.

Most Americans are less permissive about sex than certain continental european nations because America has a very strong Christian tradition that has continued relatively unchallenged until recent years (from the late fifties onward).

Europe had a strong Christian tradition for a long time, until it was challenged first by the Reformation, then the Rennaissance, then the Enlightenment. More liberal and permissive schools of thought gained popularity, particularly following the World Wars, which left people disillusioned with the leadership that had led them thus far. The Cold War only exacerbated the situation, and it ultimately led to a relatively broad rejection of the more fundamentalist Christian values, including those regarding sexual activity.

America, however, begun its Christian tradition from the outset, and has been around for less than 300 years. The puritans, although by no means a perfectly chaste people, did have a fairly strong belief about sexual morality and purity. This spread through America, and has remained in effect for the majority of the people because that religion is the heritage of our country. When the vast majority of a people are Christian, and pass that legacy onto their children, those ideals will remain in effect for a long time. We haven't seen the kind of devastation that Europe has, even during our Civil War. Therefore, we haven't had the cause to lash against the largest established faith in our culture like Europe has. It took the turmoil of the sixties to prompt that backlash, and the effects are just starting to show as the ideologies face eachother down in the courts and other places.

Note: I make no statement on whether Europe's comparative liberalness or America's comparative conservatism are desirable. This is merely a simplified explanation of the governing principle behind the matter at hand.

birth control may be wrong, but then again, so is masturbation, pork, shrimp, people of other religions, disrespecting a parent, desiring of anything at all, and for the most part, emotion. Which is why Deism rules. Deism says that God created whatever it was that was to become the Big Bang, and left us to our own destinies. So therefore we have to make our own fates. Back on the original topic, America is sexually repressed because people think that their beliefs are much more important than the freedoms of others. So what if you think a half-second glimpse of breast during the super-bowl is offensive, if you had blinked, you would've missed it. But then there were the women's groups that said "somebody might be offended, like i'm trying to be, even though i know what breasts are and so does everybody else, and we're the same groups trying to legalize breast-feeding for mothers anywhere at all" That's basically it, people try to get offended so they can sue.

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.

Wait till you go to college...

Where should I move to, then, to escape US reactionism?

Wait till you go to college...

Is it even worse?

Antarctica.

Birth control is wrong, period.


Umm....errr....blood is coming out of nose right now....

Nay, but in America, the courts are often overturning laws for being unconstitutional. Just because a law is passed does not mean it automatically passes constitutional muster just cause it was passed.
Almost every law banning pornography was overturned by the courts in this manner.

And yet public nudity and displays of public sex remains illegal.

Birth control is wrong, period.

What about abstention?

1. depictions of nude children are not illegal in the US. It depends on context.

2. You cannot reconcile 2b and 2e. And anyway, I refuse to feel bad about being from a nation that condemns child porn, no matter what moral relativists think. I suppose if it's traditional to a culture you would say human sacrifice was okay too, if everyone were willing participants.

Anyway the point I have been trying to make throughout is that the US, is not necessarily the most "repressed" nation in the western world. In fact probably quite the opposite. Did you know for example, that the US constitutionally prohibits the goverment from regulating sex between consenting adults. Many european nations cannot make that claim. So there.

So is sex bad? Obviously to most americans, no. Judging by their behavior the rest of the world may be arrested adolesents though.

1. In most areas of the US, depictions of nude children is illegal. This is due to the modern era's own version of the Salem witch hunts.

2b and 2e are different so you cannot compare them.

I would suppose that the reason Europe can make no such claim is that perhaps they don't regulate it at all. Unlike America. Yes there are places in America where it is regulated.
I highly doubt that people would volunteer to be human sacrifices and if they are dead already, I doubt it would really matter.
America is not as liberated on this matter as Americans like to think. They have much to learn from the rest of the world.
Most Americans do think sex is bad, unless they are the ones doing it.
Finally, the definition of consenting adult is entirely subjective.

Wait till you go to college...

Actually, I think it depends on the college, and the student for that matter. I've been at college for years, and seen nary a sign of the "peril" (to use Python-esque terminology) you mention.

Ah, confound my fate! Four years of tirelessly slogging through mounds of homework, all in the hopes of reaching the Eden (or at least, Gamorrah) that is college, only to find a grim harvest. Why, I ask you, why?!

Birth control is wrong, period.
yes, that is the answer to "Why is teen pregnancy sky rocketing?"

And yet public nudity and displays of public sex remains illegal.
They have never been challenged.
However, again you are comparing apples and oranges.
Public Nudity would likely be upheld as constitutionally protected whereas whereas public sex would not.

Birth control is wrong, period.
so, to repeat a previous question, if your wife contracted HIV (through no fault of her own, like through a contaminated transfusion or something) you would just continue to have sex with her using no protection? or would you give up sex for the remainder of your life? or would you cheat on her, or divorce her?

1. In most areas of the US, depictions of nude children is illegal. This is due to the modern era's own version of the Salem witch hunts.

It is? I haven't noticed people being executed for owning copies of Cream Lemon (which I'm told is legal, surprisingly enough). I don't mean to defend the US, but terrorism is what seems to hold that spot right now.

And yet public nudity and displays of public sex remains illegal.
actually, in my home city (yes, it's an American city) it is technically legal for women to walk about topless in public parks if they so desire. this is the result of a legal battle about 6 years ago, because a woman pointed out that men are allowed to go topless in the parks even if they have very large man-boobs, and to prohibit women from exercising the same right is unjustified. she won. not many women choose to exercise this right, but it is technically legal for them to do so if they wish.

Because you aren't doing it right. ;)


No, but seriously folks, it's because it IS so serious. Sex has serious consequences....physically, emotionally, financially, morally, medically, interpersonally, etc etc.

We all WISH it didnt have those consequences. We would rather it be all fun and games, with conception the only consequence, and only when you both wanted it. But that's just not the way it is.

America's puritanical view comes from the ...um... Puritans :)... that settled here who believed that man's goodness came from their ability to deny their animal nature. This philosophy carries on today with the people in the Bible Belt, which is basically the poorest, least educated part of the country.

Well, in my opinion it isn't bad as long as you don't sleep around unprotected all the time when you aren't even in a relationship. Other than that, it really is the person's choice. Personally, I wouldn't have sex until I was married, but I'm 13 and I still kind of think of sex as "yucky".

It is? I haven't noticed people being executed for owning copies of Cream Lemon (which I'm told is legal, surprisingly enough). I don't mean to defend the US, but terrorism is what seems to hold that spot right now.
I am referring to the fact, that in America, just being accused of child porn is enough to get you automatically locked away with out benefit of a fair trial.
The whole thing with MJ is an example. A classic example of a modern witch hunt.
What the heck is Cream Lemon?

Oh no it won't: you might want to do some research on how long sperm can survive outside the testes and how long in an average woman's menstrual cycle an ova has been released and is available for fertilisation.

Not that I am saying that participating in heterosexual full vaginal penetrative sex with male ejaculation and without contraception is a good idea when you are not prepared for the consequences, but you are simply spreading misinformation here.

I'll quote from Wikipedia here to give some numbers and let you do the maths and see whether your claim holds up or not:

"In most women the menstrual cycle lasts between 24 and 32 days. It starts with a menstrual bleeding. Ovulation takes place at some time between day 12 and day 18. Ova die if not fertilized within 24 hours of ovulation. Spermatozoa are able to fertilize an ovum for a period of about three days after they have been ejaculated, although exceptional cases of fertilization almost one week after intercourse have also been reported."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_family_planning


There are at least seven days a month when women can become pregnant from vaginal intercourse.
Sperm live from three to six days in the fallopian tubes. So vaginal intercourse can cause pregnancy up to six days before ovulation.

The egg lives a day after ovulation. So women are able to get pregnant up to a day, and perhaps even longer, during and after ovulation.

In total, a woman may become pregnant during a minimum of seven days of her cycle. The most likely time is during the six days before ovulation.

Sperm can stay alive inside the body for at least 3 days, and up to 7 in laboratory settings. So, if you boink your girl 10 days before she ovulates, she can still wind up pregnant.

Misinformation? I think not.

America's puritanical view comes from the ...um... Puritans :)... that settled here who believed that man's goodness came from their ability to deny their animal nature. This philosophy carries on today with the people in the Bible Belt, which is basically the poorest, least educated part of the country.

As I pointed out before this answer doesn't work, or is at best incomplete, because sexual repression was only one element of the Puritan tradition: how do we explain the love of material goods and conspicuous consumption which flies in the face of the Puritan tradition? Why did their rejection of material luxury die out, but their distaste for sex live on?

What the heck is Cream Lemon?

A hentai series centered around schoolgirls.

actually, in my home city (yes, it's an American city) it is technically legal for women to walk about topless in public parks if they so desire. this is the result of a legal battle about 6 years ago, because a woman pointed out that men are allowed to go topless in the parks even if they have very large man-boobs, and to prohibit women from exercising the same right is unjustified. she won. not many women choose to exercise this right, but it is technically legal for them to do so if they wish.
chicago if I am correct?

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.

My friend likes to say, "People who say sex is bad have obviously never had it!"

A hentai series centered around schoolgirls.
but you are talking animation. besides, it is legal to possess any porn in the privacy of your own home. Just can't show it or watch it in public.

chicago if I am correct?
Minneapolis, actually, though now that you mention it i do seem to remember such a battle going on in Chicago some years back. i don't know how it turned out.

actually, in my home city (yes, it's an American city) it is technically legal for women to walk about topless in public parks if they so desire. this is the result of a legal battle about 6 years ago, because a woman pointed out that men are allowed to go topless in the parks even if they have very large man-boobs, and to prohibit women from exercising the same right is unjustified. she won. not many women choose to exercise this right, but it is technically legal for them to do so if they wish.

Cool, I wanna move there! :p

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.
I debate the God thing anyway and I believe in God.
He made us this way.
Americans are far more accepting of violence on Television then sex.
I must include myself in this.
I have many times found myself making my kids leave the room for a particularly HOT scene and then allow them to come back in for the shootout/fist fight/duel/whatever.
I catch myself and think "Wow, I dont want you to see what you will be doing sooner then I want, here see something I never want you to do or see in reality ever, great job Dad."
I think where the rest of the world has embraced sexuality, we have embraced violence(I include myself in that 'We').
Just my opinion.

My friend likes to say, "People who say sex is bad have obviously never had it!"
my friend likes to say, "Is sex dirty? Sure, if you do it right!"

Minneapolis, actually, though now that you mention it i do seem to remember such a battle going on in Chicago some years back. i don't know how it turned out.

You live in Minneapolis, too?

Sperm can stay alive inside the body for at least 3 days, and up to 7 in laboratory settings. So, if you boink your girl 10 days before she ovulates, she can still wind up pregnant.

Misinformation? I think not.

Ignoring the fact that the female reproductive system is not equivalent to 'laboratory' conditions, - you are now giving a total of 10 days (possibly 11) during a standard 24-32 day menstrual cycle when pregnancy can occur and maintaining your claim that:

Unprotected sex between a man and a woman with most often result in a child.

Using the shortest figure for a standard menstrual cycle:

11/24 = 'most often'?


I also fail to see where you are getting a figure of ten days from, as the source indicates that inside the female body the sperm can only survive for 3 days, but regardless...

Cool, I wanna move there! :p
keep in mind, however, that this law was successful because of the population of overweight men whose breasts provided the precident for bared female bosoms. you have to take the bad with the good, and sometimes the bad has back hair.

With today's teenage generations, I think it could very rapidely change for America to be very open to sex. Girls these days wear the most skimpy outfits as it is. Teens are very open to sex as parents are not. Mothers from the 60's and 70's wore pretty covoring clothing, which probably prevented a lot of tempted and behavior. These people in their 40, 50, and 60 are the people running the country now. In about 30 years, I have a feeling a lot will change.

Originally Posted by Lacadaemon
Did you know for example, that the US constitutionally prohibits the goverment from regulating sex between consenting adults.

I don't know which Constitution you are reading, but nowhere in the American Constitution does it reserve the right to have sex with another consenting adult.

This is a matter left to the States. There are several states with laws on the books prohibiting certain types of sex. In Florida, it is technically illegal to have sex with anyone you aren't married to. They don't arrest people for it, that i know, but it is used in divorce cases where the spouse has been unfaithful.

keep in mind, however, that this law was successful because of the population of overweight men whose breasts provided the precident for bared female bosoms. you have to take the bad with the good, and sometimes the bad has back hair.

Wow, I've lived in Minneapolis all these years, and I never knew it was legal for women to walk around topless...

the arugement "because god says so" might not be good enough for u, but it was good enough for the founders of modern America, who where deeply christain (ie puritans) whose values are still present in there society today weather they agree with them or not. As well as the Irish migration during the famine, who are mostly chatholic and as we all know sex is the number one sin for catholics. So america isnt anti sex coz it just feels like it, its anti sex coz of the hokey religions its founders followed.

US was founded on the Enlightenment, and those ideas. Western, sure, but it is wrong to say christian.

You live in Minneapolis, too?
used to, back in the day. grew up in Northeast (yipe) but we managed to move out to the 'burbs when i was older. haven't lived there in about 6 years. still visit on holidays, though.

i'm always shocked at the number of people who think it's some kind of podunk town, too...i came out to the East Coast for school and everybody was asking me if they have traffic lights in Minneapolis or if i had a pet cow when i was little. when i pointed out that our women can go topless, and we are ranked as the number one most literate city in the United States, that usually shut them up. though it was probably the topless thing that impressed most of them, rather than the literacy. :P

keep in mind, however, that this law was successful because of the population of overweight men whose breasts provided the precident for bared female bosoms. you have to take the bad with the good, and sometimes the bad has back hair.

Obviously, however, you definition of the 'good' and the 'bad' depends heavily on your own particular sexual orientation and proclivities. I believe the term 'bear' is of relevance in this particular instance...

Wow, I've lived in Minneapolis all these years, and I never knew it was legal for women to walk around topless...
just don't try using it as a pick-up line. i can't tell you how many times i got a drink thrown in my face for saying, "hey baby, you realize it would be totally legal for you to take your shirt off?"

Obviously, however, you definition of the 'good' and the 'bad' depends heavily on your own particular sexual orientation and proclivities. I believe the term 'bear' is of relevance in this particular instance...
look, to each his own and all, but there is just something wrong when you see a lovely pair of C-cups that are covered in matted chest hair and dangling off the torso of a 55 year old man. and people say being GAY is unnatural...shudder.

just don't try using it as a pick-up line. i can't tell you how many times i got a drink thrown in my face for saying, "hey baby, you realize it would be totally legal for you to take your shirt off?"

Lol

My girlfriend doesn't live in Minneapolis, anyway. Or in this country, for that matter. :(

I don't know which Constitution you are reading, but nowhere in the American Constitution does it reserve the right to have sex with another consenting adult.

This is a matter left to the States. There are several states with laws on the books prohibiting certain types of sex. In Florida, it is technically illegal to have sex with anyone you aren't married to. They don't arrest people for it, that i know, but it is used in divorce cases where the spouse has been unfaithful.

This, as a general rule, should counsel against attempts by the State, or a court, to define the meaning of the relationship or to set its boundaries absent injury to a person or abuse of an institution the law protects. It suffices for us to acknowledge that adults may choose to enter upon this relationship in the confines of their homes and their own private lives and still retain their dignity as free persons. When sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring. The liberty protected by the Constitution allows homosexual persons the right to make this choice.

Lawrence v. Texas

Apparently I'm using the same one as the Supreme Court.

used to, back in the day. grew up in Northeast (yipe) but we managed to move out to the 'burbs when i was older. haven't lived there in about 6 years. still visit on holidays, though.

i'm always shocked at the number of people who think it's some kind of podunk town, too...i came out to the East Coast for school and everybody was asking me if they have traffic lights in Minneapolis or if i had a pet cow when i was little. when i pointed out that our women can go topless, and we are ranked as the number one most literate city in the United States, that usually shut them up. though it was probably the topless thing that impressed most of them, rather than the literacy. :P

We're the most literate city? :eek: Christ, I can't even imagine how dumb the rest of the country must be...

We're the most literature city? :eek: Christ, I can't even imagine how dumb the rest of the country must be...
fun fact:

A recently released study used data from such sources as the yellow pages and the U.S. Census Bureau to rank American cities with 200,000 or more residents in terms of literacy rates. Of the 79 total cities that meet that population mark, 10 are in the state of Texas, but not a single Texan city made it into the top 20 for literacy. Austin came in 22nd, but you don't see another Texan city on the list until 54 (Dallas). Of the 10 least literate cities in America, 5 are in Texas.

Yet Texas (and more specifically, Houston) was used as the posterchild for No Child Left Behind. Interesting.

Minneapolis came in first, and St. Paul (the other of the Twin Cities) came in 16th.

So, by your definition does the pill fall into the category of 'birth control' or not?


Birth control is wrong, I'm just offering options for those who can't go without some form... Condoms are wrong because the seed is wasted, and the bible says that is wrong to waste seed. (although don't go saying masturbation and nocturnal emissions are wrong... Nocturnal emissions are natural and masturbation is just a form of controlling emissions so you don't wake up with ruined pants, nobody likes that)

You don't need birth control because sex is only inside of marriage and the main idea is for procreation... Besides, if it's your wife/husband you're wife, what does it matter if you're using a condom or not? If they don't want kids, have the woman use the pill, condoms make sex less enjoyable.
First, the 'Pill' is BIrth control.
Because it is actually called the BIRTH CONTROL PILL.
Second, on sex being primarily for procreation:
"But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion."
That one seems pretty clear.

"[I]May your fountain be blessed, and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth. A loving doe, a graceful deer - may her breasts satisfy you always, may you ever be captivated by her love. Why be captivated, my son by an adulteress? Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?" [Proverbs 5:18-20]
Yup pretty clear.
"The husband should fulfill his marital duty to his wife, and likewise the wife to her husband. The wife's body does not belong to her alone but also to her husband. In the same way, the husband's body does not belong to him alone but also to his wife. Do not deprive each other except by mutual consent and for a time, so that you may devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again so that Satan will not tempt you because of your lack of self-control." [I Corinthians 7:3-5]
Have sex, be cool for a little bit, say a prayer thank God, then have some more sex so that you will not suffer temptation.
I am seening a whole lot of orders to be satisfied and to satisfy, but still looking for the whole "Primarily Procreation" thing you spoke of.
Dont use my God to defend sexual repression.

It does warn against prostitutes , and adultery.
and I agree with that.
Get married, that is a good thing.
The bible however doesnt say get married to breed, it says get married so that you are not out trying to bed everyone under the sun, which as we know today would be very unhealthy.
Again though, Just my opinion.

What about abstention?


That is okay.

keep in mind, however, that this law was successful because of the population of overweight men whose breasts provided the precident for bared female bosoms. you have to take the bad with the good, and sometimes the bad has back hair.

ICK!

Birth control is wrong, I'm just offering options for those who can't go without some form... Condoms are wrong because the seed is wasted, and the bible says that is wrong to waste seed. (although don't go saying masturbation and nocturnal emissions are wrong... Nocturnal emissions are natural and masturbation is just a form of controlling emissions so you don't wake up with ruined pants, nobody likes that)
wait, so it is okay for BOYS to waste seed, but not girls? because that's what you are saying if you say the pill is wrong; a boy can waste his gametes through masturbation, but a girl can't waste her eggs by allowing the pill to prevent fertilization? and what about couples that masturbate together? are they okay, because masturbation doesn't count? or should they have to save the sperm and use a turkey baster or something to make sure it doesn't go to waste?!

you aren't really serious, right? you are just a parody, you have to be...

Birth control is wrong, I'm just offering options for those who can't go without some form... Condoms are wrong because the seed is wasted, and the bible says that is wrong to waste seed. (although don't go saying masturbation and nocturnal emissions are wrong... Nocturnal emissions are natural and masturbation is just a form of controlling emissions so you don't wake up with ruined pants, nobody likes that)
Where?

so, to repeat a previous question, if your wife contracted HIV (through no fault of her own, like through a contaminated transfusion or something) you would just continue to have sex with her using no protection? or would you give up sex for the remainder of your life? or would you cheat on her, or divorce her?


Use a condom and pray for God to heal her so that eventually the condom wouldn't be necessary.

Ignoring the fact that the female reproductive system is not equivalent to 'laboratory' conditions, - you are now giving a total of 10 days (possibly 11) during a standard 24-32 day menstrual cycle when pregnancy can occur and maintaining your claim that:



Using the shortest figure for a standard menstrual cycle:

11/24 = 'most often'?


I also fail to see where you are getting a figure of ten days from, as the source indicates that inside the female body the sperm can only survive for 3 days, but regardless...

I'm accounting for overlap, as well. How long the sperm stays alive inside the body until it reaches the egg. Also, a woman is still fertile while on her period, so that adds another 4-7 days to the fertile period.

You also have to realise that most women don't chart their cycles that well, if at all, and tend to get rather horny right before they ovulate. So, even if they're not OTR, they're not sure when they are fertile, and they're going to at least want to jump their SOs when they're most fertile.

Nothing ever depends on just one factor. There's always multiple reasons for everything.

Edited:Question already asked.

Condoms are wrong because the seed is wasted, and the bible says that is wrong to waste seed.

Not in any Bible I've ever read. Where is that??

i dont see where you get the idea that in america sex is considered bad.
seems to me that plenty of people are having plenty of sex
all those couples who CHOOSE to have sex are having sex

we DO have a problem with children and sex. we dont like our children being exposed to nudity or explicit sex so we ban nipples from the airwaves, limit how explicit sexual situations on broadcast tv can be and keep the cartoon channel from showing certain anime shows.

you might notice however that the pay tv channels are full of sex and nudity. a majority of US households have a "movie channel" on their tv. that ( i suppose) means that its OK with us if parents CHOOSE to expose their kids to that kind of thing.

but we dont like nipples popping up in sporting events. *shrug*

we are not in favor of people under age 18 having sex. it is the US society's general opinon that people under 18 are not mature enough to handle the physical and psychological consequences of sexual relationships. the closer you are to 18 the more that is not true. the younger you are, the more it IS true.

sex is not just fun and games. it often results in babies. it can result in STDS. it can ruin your self esteem. it can keep you in relationships you should be getting out of. it is complicated.

but youll notice no lack of teens having sex. it happens all the time. repressed socieity or not, i doubt there is less teen sex here than in europe.

you (letila) seem to be asking "if i were in another country would i be getting laid?" the answer is NO. you are you no matter what country you are in. or maybe you wonder "why can't *I* have easy fun sex with girls i hardly know?"
the answer is "because you arent that kind of boy"

maybe its just "why cant i watch my naughty anime show on the cartoon channel?" and you know the answer to that. and its not worth emigrating just to see somethign you can get for free off the net.

sex is seldom just fun and games for teenaged GIRLS. nor should it be so. girls pay a much higher price than boys do for unwise sex. girls who do not take that price into consideration are too much of a risk for a wise teenaged BOY to have sex with.

if you want sex, start dating. (or start saving your allowance until you can afford a professional) sex is not a commodity that is handed out to you. you have to have an actual relationship with a real person.

Use a condom and pray for God to heal her so that eventually the condom wouldn't be necessary.
but i thought you said that ALL BIRTH CONTROL IS WRONG?

Where should I move to, then, to escape US reactionism?



Is it even worse?



The moon.

but i thought you said that ALL BIRTH CONTROL IS WRONG?
He did, then he said use the pill,lol.

the bible says that is wrong to waste seed.

Then maybe you'd be interested in hearing this:

"But by an equality, that now at this time your abundance may be a supply for their want, that their abundance also may be a supply for your want: that there may be equality." (Golden Text: 2 Corinthians 8:14)

"Now the company of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things which he possessed was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all.

There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles' feet; and distribution was made to each as any had need." Acts 4.32-35

Why aren't you condemning people for not sharing?

Where?


The part where the old man's seed hit the ground and God smote him down dead for wasting it.

Use a condom and pray for God to heal her so that eventually the condom wouldn't be necessary.
i laugh at you

Edited:Question already asked.
according to the Catholic Church, the answer to your already-asked question is that yes, it would be wrong for a married couple to use a condom to protect one partner if the other had AIDS. the Vatican has specifically directed nuns and missionaries and other chuch officials to inform their flocks of this fact, and a recent BBC program actually had footage of a nun telling a choir director that it was wrong for him to use a condom with his wife to protect against HIV because "the virus will pass through" (even though this is a medically disproven claim).

Use a condom and pray for God to heal her so that eventually the condom wouldn't be necessary.

BUT THAT IS BIRTH CONTROL AND ALL BIRTH CONTROL IS WRONG!!!!!!!!SHIFT11111111111

but i thought you said that ALL BIRTH CONTROL IS WRONG?


It is wrong, but in this culture, people cannot follow the strictest of guidelines... So unfortunately until the Christian revolution (it will be a Christian version of Iran) occurs, we must make allowances for the unbelievers and those who believe but don't practice that which they preach.

I don't get it. All my friends love sex and the thought of it. All their dads apparently looked at porn at some point in life, and obviously HAD sex.

Letila, it's a matter of knowing your facts.

The part where the old man's seed hit the ground and God smote him down dead for wasting it.
Onan, you mean? you realize that the passage you are talking about had NOTHING TO DO WITH WASTING SEED, right? Onan was punished because he wouldn't impregnate his brother's wife, and thereby was allowing his brother's line to die out. it had nothing to do with seed-spilling in general.

that passage teaches us that if your brother dies you must get his wife knocked up. it doesn't say a damn thing about contraception.

Birth control is wrong, I'm just offering options for those who can't go without some form... Condoms are wrong because the seed is wasted, and the bible says that is wrong to waste seed. (although don't go saying masturbation and nocturnal emissions are wrong... Nocturnal emissions are natural and masturbation is just a form of controlling emissions so you don't wake up with ruined pants, nobody likes that)

Oh come on, the whole "don't spill your seed" includes masturbaation if it includes condoms.

But be that as it may, that particular verse refers to a man who was ordered by god to get a particular woman pregnant and refused. It was not a general rule

Onan, you mean? you realize that the passage you are talking about had NOTHING TO DO WITH WASTING SEED, right? Onan was punished because he wouldn't impregnate his brother's wife, and thereby was allowing his brother's line to die out. it had nothing to do with seed-spilling in general.

that passage teaches us that if your brother dies you must get his wife knocked up. it doesn't say a damn thing about contraception.
So wait...incest is encouraged now?

The part where the old man's seed hit the ground and God smote him down dead for wasting it.

Said passage also indicates that the correct thing to have done would have been for Onan to sleep with and inseminate his brother's wife, yes?

It is wrong, but in this culture, people cannot follow the strictest of guidelines... So unfortunately until the Christian revolution (it will be a Christian version of Iran) occurs, we must make allowances for the unbelievers and those who believe but don't practice that which they preach.
erm, like YOU?! you are the one saying birth control is wrong, but then you say you would use it yourself in order to avoid getting HIV from your wife. shouldn't you just skip the condom and pray that God keeps you safe from the HIV?

Onan, you mean? you realize that the passage you are talking about had NOTHING TO DO WITH WASTING SEED, right? Onan was punished because he wouldn't impregnate his brother's wife, and thereby was allowing his brother's line to die out. it had nothing to do with seed-spilling in general.

that passage teaches us that if your brother dies you must get his wife knocked up. it doesn't say a damn thing about contraception.


Well he should have obeyed the lord and gotten to it with his brother's wife, he was dead, so he should stepped forward to do the duty...

So wait...incest is encouraged now?

Not technically incest - there is no consanguinary link between Onan and his brothers (nameless?) wife.

The part where the old man's seed hit the ground and God smote him down dead for wasting it.

Ah! The sin of Onan! That scripture is widely misunderstood. The reason Onan was "smitten" is because God wanted childen from Onan's lineage. He was suppose to marry his deceased brother's wife so the line of his brother could continue. Instead, he indulged in coitus interruptus and "spilled his seed on the ground." God didn't smite him for the act itself, but rather for his refusal to have children by his brother's wife so his brother's line could continue.

Yeah, I know. Strange. But true.

So wait...incest is encouraged now?
no, that passage encourages sleeping with your brother's WIFE, not your sibling. however, the Bible does encourage incest, as in the case of Lot's daughters...Lot's family is supposedly an example of a family so virtuous that God saved them from the horror of the S&G massacre, but then Lot promptly gets wasted and nails his daughters.

Well he should have obeyed the lord and gotten to it with his brother's wife, he was dead, so he should stepped forward to do the duty...
i'm not arguing that point with you, i'm simply pointing out that the passage you refer to has NOTHING to do with contraception being wrong.

i'm not arguing that point with you, i'm simply pointing out that the passage you refer to has NOTHING to do with contraception being wrong.

Wait! We agree on something??? Amazing!

A bunch of us americans running around naked???? EWWWWWWWWW, have you seen us? jeeze that could lead to mass blindness.

and really if you want nudity on TV just get cable, we just don't like it over the braodcast television. and if you don't like it ....tough, you don't live here anyway. but calling the US sexualy repressed for not having sex and nudity on broadcast TV or running around the streets is just plain stupid, goto any corner store and buy a nudie mag or porno movie, it is everyplace.

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.

Hell, it's not just the US that's repressed. Look at the way the Dutch view sex, or the British, or almost any other western nation. It's different polarities, but it's the same thing. One faction with an unhealthy leaning toward avoidance and frigidity, the other leaning toward the "look how dirty we can be". Both are the same thing, both view sex as dirty and sordid, just they react to it in different ways. Personally, I see sex as something that should always be done with love, and doing it any other way cheapens it. This is not to say that there's anything wrong with good friends sharing it, or doing it when you're not married, but when you get into exploiting it and making it a vehicle for objectification, then it's being done with no feeling at all. There SHOULD be something reverent in the way we look at sex.

no, that passage encourages sleeping with your brother's WIFE, not your sibling. however, the Bible does encourage incest, as in the case of Lot's daughters...Lot's family is supposedly an example of a family so virtuous that God saved them from the horror of the S&G massacre, but then Lot promptly gets wasted and nails his daughters.


They got him drunk and slept with him, they thought they were the only ones left in the world and they wanted to get pregnant to continue the species, so they drunked him up good.

I don't get it. All my friends love sex and the thought of it. All their dads apparently looked at porn at some point in life, and obviously HAD sex.

Letila, it's a matter of knowing your facts.

We're talking about a country that gets outraged by an incident in a superbowl halftime thingamabob. What more evidence do you need?

Wait! We agree on something??? Amazing!
hard to disagree about concrete facts. how people interpret Biblical passages can usually be debated, but in this case there's no way to correctly interpret that passage to mean that contraception in general is wrong.

personally, i think it's a really weird lesson. if i had a sister who died and left behind a husband, i would consider it a betrayal of my sister's memory to sleep with her husband, and i would think he was a total jerk if he came on to me...i'm sure God had his reasons, but it seems like that Bible passage could really get a lot of people into trouble if they followed it as literal instruction on behavior.

well considering that I'm extremely lazy and short on time I didn't read any of the posts except for a few on the first page.

Just wanted to say that the direction that America is headed at the moment goes towards the sexual acceptance in society such as most of Europe has. If you look at our history, many of the immigrants that came to this land came here for religious freedom, such as the Puritans and Quakers. The Quakers believe strictly in abstinence, and a few other religions stray away from sex except strictly for making children while married. As our country is still relatively new compared to others, the acceptance of sex in society has slowly been emerging as the decades, scores, and centuries go on. I believe that once the baby boomer generation dies off (no offense to those who are a baby boomer, I'm just stating what happens when ya get old....) then I think that this country (the USA) will undergo a big sexual acceptance due to the fact that the baby boomer population are the last real ones to not really accept sex in society as a whole.

We're talking about a country that gets outraged by an incident in a superbowl halftime thingamabob. What more evidence do you need?

because we don't want to see janets boob during a football game, our wives get all pissed at us when that happens.

They got him drunk and slept with him, they thought they were the only ones left in the world and they wanted to get pregnant to continue the species, so they drunked him up good.
oh, well in that case i guess it's okay. so, according to you, using the Pill is WRONG, but getting your father drunk and having sex with him is GOOD, because that is what God supposedly tells us to do?

They got him drunk and slept with him, they thought they were the only ones left in the world and they wanted to get pregnant to continue the species, so they drunked him up good.

You say it as if you still want to believe that Lot was a righteous man, and his daughters were ladies, if misled ones. Earlier on in the story of Lot, when the men of Sodom wanted to rape the visitors, Lot offered his daughters instead, saying that they were a good deal, because they were virgins. The only thing in the story that I can see that was righteous was pulling the "visitors" out of the square so that they didn't get raped. Beyond that, if Lot was the best Sodom could offer, then yes, it had gone to hell in a handbasket.

because we don't want to see janets boob during a football game, our wives get all pissed at us when that happens.
if your wife gets pissed at you when Janet shows her boob then i think you need to get a divorce, ASAP.

oh and had it been a regular football game, the wives wouldn't have been watching and nothing would have happened.

if your wife gets pissed at you when Janet shows her boob then i think you need to get a divorce, ASAP.

nah, my wife has a really nice ass, and I'll take that over seeing janets boob ANYDAY

I think its a tug-of-war between the religious right and the socially progressive. I also believe it is a great way to manipulate the American public. The mainstream media (books, games, magazines, tabloids, movies, television, commercials, etc.) is in the business of selling you a product, and sex is just another commodity. And whether or not this has been done on purpose I think it is very interesting that the industry has taken advantage of our sexually repressed culture to the point where they tease and taunt us to death until we dish out some money for "Girls Gone Wild" Vol. 28.

I mean, we aren't only sexually repressed, we also fail at love and social interaction. And the industry has been doing the same thing to women for years by telling them they're ugly, therefore they must buy a certain product or mutilate their bodies in some way in order to fit in or get noticed. This hurts men, too. Because women start becoming jealous and competitive in the most annoying ways.

Further more, the industry will sell the Heavenly myth of love to women, as well. Like love can somehow magically solve every problem in the universe. But it continues to be sold that way.

Anyways, everything in America is about making money, and if you can make a commodity out of human emotions and natural desire -- so be it.

Of course, there is the matter of religion and children being a major excuse. I mean, even though you're agnostic it doesn't change the fact that others are still obsessed with repressing society because of their own personal beliefs. It has nothing to do with you. There are weird, bible-thumping men out there who want to cover every woman on the planet and censor everything because of their stupid religions. While women will repress sex, not only because of what they believe in religiously, but because of their own personal prudishness (many women, in the 21st century, will not even touch their vaginas to wash them).

Then there are the children. The ones who we must sheild from reality ("think of the children" is the mantra). Yeah, I agree -- "think of the children" -- tell them the truth.

So its greed, religion and prudish mothers.

Sex is bad now? Huh?

Just because the government censors it on TV doesn't mean it doesn't happen in America Letila.

I mean, for Christs sake, I know 13 year old girls in my school who do things not suitable for open discussion on this board.

listen sex is alright as long as u love that one person and if u go around and have sex with a bunch of ppl thats just wrong and i say only have sex with the one u are married or about to be married to. i have done a lot of things in my life but i am not sayin i never had sex with more than person but thats just one of the things i did in my life i regret bc it realy done sum damage but still if u are gonna have sex with sumone make sure it wont cause truble in ur life. and america realy tells us not to have sex but it contridics itself by puttin sex related pics posters and ads all over america needs a good hard slap in the face and told NO! make up ur mind!!! God Bless America

personally, i think it's a really weird lesson. if i had a sister who died and left behind a husband, i would consider it a betrayal of my sister's memory to sleep with her husband, and i would think he was a total jerk if he came on to me...i'm sure God had his reasons, but it seems like that Bible passage could really get a lot of people into trouble if they followed it as literal instruction on behavior.

I assume that it is a case of the children being the ones who support their parents in their later years - if Onan had married the (nameless) woman and they had conceived and raised children, then the woman would no longer be facing being without a means of support in her twilight years.

because we don't want to see janets boob during a football game, our wives get all pissed at us when that happens.

Hah. This is my pet peeve. Our society thinks it's fine to watch how many hideous murders a day on primetime or daytime broadcast TV, yet we see a nipple for half a second, and people write in their outrage to the network. Just another example of how fucked up our priorities are.

I mean, it's not as if the kiddies hadn't ever seen a nipple. Who knows? Maybe soon we'll outdo the victorians and ban breast-feeding, just in case it damages the children to see breasts bared at them.

I assume that it is a case of the children being the ones who support their parents in their later years - if Onan had married the (nameless) woman and they had conceived and raised children, then the woman would no longer be facing being without a means of support in her twilight years.
i guess. i think it's yet another example of a lesson from the Bible that really shouldn't be followed by anybody these days.

if your wife gets pissed at you when Janet shows her boob then i think you need to get a divorce, ASAP.

oh, also that would be a REALLY STUPID reason for a divorce

I just wanted to tell you all how much I'm enjoying this debate. It's nice to talk with a bunch of people who aren't going to bite your head off for what you're saying. Thanks for your tolerance. :D

Hah. This is my pet peeve. Our society thinks it's fine to watch how many hideous murders a day on primetime or daytime broadcast TV, yet we see a nipple for half a second, and people write in their outrage to the network. Just another example of how fucked up our priorities are.

I mean, it's not as if the kiddies hadn't ever seen a nipple. Who knows? Maybe soon we'll outdo the victorians and ban breast-feeding, just in case it damages the children to see breasts bared at them.

oh i agree, but it's the womnen that rule so what are us men gonna do, I mean if we want to get some nookie from our wives

I have noticed that American culture is strongly sex negative. Of course they won't say it outright, but it is undeniable. If you think American commercials are heavily sexual, you obviously haven't heard about European views on nudity and sex. In fact, the US is probably one of the most sexually repressed first world nations.

Now I know you will deny it by saying "We only disapprove of sex outside of a specific cultural construct," or "But look at all the attractive women not dressed in baggy clothing you see on TV," or "It's not like we shoot people o on the spot for possessing hentai," but the fact remains that America is sexually repressed. Why is sex so bad?

Note: "Because God/Jesus/the Bible said so" is not a good enough answer for me. I am agnostic and it doesn't answer anything for me.

Sex is addictive and distracting, it can be used to exploit and cheat people and can desanctify the concept of human relationships. Sex should in humans be something shared only with a life-partner, this has been proven in science to be the natural way of human functioning, stemming from a basic pack hunting society: we are not like our polygamic ancestors who lived in hierarchical societies where sexual promiscuity was fine as long as only the dominant male got rights to reproduce. In fact, our basic social structure is best compared to that of wolves, although in modern society this is largely masked.

Sex as a primary pursuit blinds judgement and efficiacy, acellerates the spread of disease, breeds hatred and strong dislike of other humans (especially those who reject,) prolongs drug dependancies, develops addiction to sex itselfs, and breeds false association of certain traits to the concept of being loved. It also can cause psychological disorders (especially if the sex is obtained via prostitution,) and can cause people to go to extreme ends to get at it, including rape (women, look into vaginal weapons, yes, they exist,) theft, and murder. Sexual urges need to be controlled willingly, and that takes a culture that educates people not to venture unwisely into sex.

Sex as a venture taken for granted yields greater dependancies on sex and impairs the ability of the sufferer to properly mature mentally and lead normal lives. It will also cause them to value permanent relations less as they will most likely only wish for their first (or at the very least one of their earlier) partners, and will suffer withdrawal symptoms as well, which for obvious reasons are not overly desirable since hunting and obtaining sexual gratification without a permanent partner will in the worst case interefere with career or education concerns.

The most annoying thing about sex addictions is that just like any other addict, those that suffer deny this and encourage others to join them... fortunately some times its possible to see all the worst outcomes before falling prey to them yourself.

oh, also that would be a REALLY STUPID reason for a divorce
i dunno. if your wife is blaming you for other people's actions (on the tele, no less) then she's probably not a very healthy person to be having a relationship with.

but, on the other hand, you said she has a nice ass. and i think that's pretty much all you need to form the foundation of a solid marriage.

What people have failed to realize thusfar is that nudity is less sensual and sexual in nature than clothes designed to accentuate it.

You all should read "Brave New World" Its a book just about a society based around sex. Where in the society its wrong not to have sex and its bad to stay with one person. Its really interesting

Who knows? Maybe soon we'll outdo the victorians and ban breast-feeding, just in case it damages the children to see breasts bared at them.

Whilst simultaneously relegating a not inconsiderable percentage of working class women to work as prostitutes, just like the Victorians.

What people have failed to realize thusfar is that nudity is less sensual and sexual in nature than clothes designed to accentuate it.
people fail to "realize" that because it is purely a matter of opinion. i happen to disagree with you, for instance, so i don't "realize" that at all.

hard to disagree about concrete facts. how people interpret Biblical passages can usually be debated, but in this case there's no way to correctly interpret that passage to mean that contraception in general is wrong.

personally, i think it's a really weird lesson. if i had a sister who died and left behind a husband, i would consider it a betrayal of my sister's memory to sleep with her husband, and i would think he was a total jerk if he came on to me...i'm sure God had his reasons, but it seems like that Bible passage could really get a lot of people into trouble if they followed it as literal instruction on behavior.

LOL! I agree ... again! BTW ... if you could see my brother's sister you would know why I don't think this is a very good idea at ALL! LOL!

What people have failed to realize thusfar is that nudity is less sensual and sexual in nature than clothes designed to accentuate it.

Well, you see, there is the irony - the further sexual activity becomes removed from the conventional societal norm of one naked male and one naked female in bed, the dirtier it is perceived. If we follow this trend out to a ludicrous extent, those activities which are in no way related to sex in any manner or form should be perceived as the most dirty and perverted actions in the world.


****
But I disagree with your bracketting sensual and sexual together here - a naked body is sensual, while a clad one is not, although it may be perceived as sexual.

i dunno. if your wife is blaming you for other people's actions (on the tele, no less) then she's probably not a very healthy person to be having a relationship with.

but, on the other hand, you said she has a nice ass. and i think that's pretty much all you need to form the foundation of a solid marriage.

You're being factious, of course?

The Bible does NOT say that sex is a bad thing or to be ashamed of, but outside of the Holy Union between man and wife it is.
America is very much for pushing sex in my findings.

What people have failed to realize thusfar is that nudity is less sensual and sexual in nature than clothes designed to accentuate it.

Oh, I totally agree. We buy clothes and design them to draw attention to our boobs, or our ass, or our cameltoe...;)

The truth is, it's the difference between something being just what it is, and painting it green to attract attention to it. Nudity is nothing special. Of course, it leaves you with no secrets. Clothing is there to draw attention AWAY from things as much as it is to draw it to them, sometimes. I submit as an example, the ass-sweater. Women wearing sweaters tied around their waists. It's not to draw attention to the covered bit, believe me, nor is it to keep it warm.

You're being factious, of course?

nah, we all know that bottle believes what he(she?) believes and everybody else is wrong

people fail to "realize" that because it is purely a matter of opinion. i happen to disagree with you, for instance, so i don't "realize" that at all.

Have you ever been in a nudist environment?

Nothing wrong with sex, just don't forget your rubber. what if the rubber breaks and you get your girl, or you as a girl gets pregnat? then what are you going to do? im not saying that sex is bad but im saying that people are stupid these days, thinking that u know when u have one solution u think its all fine, its not. People need to think that they should have many options because if ur condom breaks an u end up having a baby, will you really think that its okay? and if u keep the kid would u let them have sex?

Well, many Americans feel that sex is a huge commitment whether you're religious or not. Thusly, we censor a lot of sex because we don't want foolish people or ignorant people to see that kind of behavior and think that it's something to take lightly. (For example, if a teenager goes to see a movie and the girl and guy have sex on the first date, they'll think "Ok, that's an accepted way to act. I can do that, no big deal.") It's all about morals. On the other hand, some Americans don't feel that way at all and hate censorship.

what if the rubber breaks and you get your girl, or you as a girl gets pregnat? then what are you going to do? im not saying that sex is bad but im saying that people are stupid these days, thinking that u know when u have one solution u think its all fine, its not. People need to think that they should have many options because if ur condom breaks an u end up having a baby, will you really think that its okay? and if u keep the kid would u let them have sex?

This actually happened with one of my children. :(

what if the rubber breaks and you get your girl, or you as a girl gets pregnat?

The morning after pill is the usual method if a condom fails: which should (~80% of the time) prevent the first situation leading to the second or at least resolve it at an early stage.

Well, many Americans feel that sex is a huge commitment whether you're religious or not. Thusly, we censor a lot of sex because we don't want foolish people or ignorant people to see that kind of behavior and think that it's something to take lightly. (For example, if a teenager goes to see a movie and the girl and guy have sex on the first date, they'll think "Ok, that's an accepted way to act. I can do that, no big deal.") It's all about morals. On the other hand, some Americans don't feel that way at all and hate censorship.

There is an emotional side to sex that many people don't ( or won't ) see.

This actually happened with one of my children. :(


Well how old was the child?

Sex is addictive and distracting, it can be used to exploit and cheat people and can desanctify the concept of human relationships. Sex should in humans be something shared only with a life-partner, this has been proven in science to be the natural way of human functioning, stemming from a basic pack hunting society: we are not like our polygamic ancestors who lived in hierarchical societies where sexual promiscuity was fine as long as only the dominant male got rights to reproduce. In fact, our basic social structure is best compared to that of wolves, although in modern society this is largely masked.

I'm not arguing for po

Sex as a primary pursuit blinds judgement and efficiacy, acellerates the spread of disease, breeds hatred and strong dislike of other humans (especially those who reject,) prolongs drug dependancies, develops addiction to sex itselfs, and breeds false association of certain traits to the concept of being loved. It also can cause psychological disorders (especially if the sex is obtained via prostitution,) and can cause people to go to extreme ends to get at it, including rape (women, look into vaginal weapons, yes, they exist,) theft, and murder. Sexual urges need to be controlled willingly, and that takes a culture that educates people not to venture unwisely into sex.

Sex as a venture taken for granted yields greater dependancies on sex and impairs the ability of the sufferer to properly mature mentally and lead normal lives. It will also cause them to value permanent relations less as they will most likely only wish for their first (or at the very least one of their earlier) partners, and will suffer withdrawal symptoms as well, which for obvious reasons are not overly desirable since hunting and obtaining sexual gratification without a permanent partner will in the worst case interefere with career or education concerns.

You like taking the fun out of things, don't you.

Not to mention, our porno is way more hardcore than that European pansy crap.

Anyways, if you think America is sexually repressed, well, that's you. However, I would definitely say you havent been to one of our southern bonfire parties. Good lord, you never seen so much p***y 9in one place.

i don't think its sex directly i just think its the way we look at nudity. here in the us from age one we are tought to keep out clothes on. but i think that in order to get a closer bond to god/ creator. its the natural thing to do

Not to mention, our porno is way more hardcore than that European pansy crap.

Ha. Ha.

Sex is the best thing that has ever happened to me, whether it is oral, intercourse or anal, i love it and it is also a good way to release tension :fluffle:

I'm not arguing for po

Are you arguing against po, or are you neutral on the issue of po?

Not to mention, our porno is way more hardcore than that European pansy crap.

Anyways, if you think America is sexually repressed, well, that's you. However, I would definitely say you havent been to one of our southern bonfire parties. Good lord, you never seen so much p***y 9in one place.

You're not just misled, you're talking out of your ass. You can't have seen much European porn, kiddo. The point is, porn is just another expression of repression, as are orgies, etc. It's people thinking it's dirty, and wallowing in the percieved dirtiness. No healthier than the "sex is bad, let's not see evidence of it or do it" crowd, IMHO.

Well, you see, there is the irony - the further sexual activity becomes removed from the conventional societal norm of one naked male and one naked female in bed, the dirtier it is perceived. If we follow this trend out to a ludicrous extent, those activities which are in no way related to sex in any manner or form should be perceived as the most dirty and perverted actions in the world.


****
But I disagree with your bracketting sensual and sexual together here - a naked body is sensual, while a clad one is not, although it may be perceived as sexual.
:headbang:

********************************
i think that its funny that sex used to be a symbol of love and stuff like that but now days, i know in american culture all it is now is pleasure and shit like.. people take PRIDE :mad: in having sex with many people...to me its DISGUSTING how people waste something so precious, at least for females but males as well (but mostly females), because we females only have one time that we know that we were "pure" once but what about men? theres no way to See if he is virgin or not... at least with a women you know if your girl is faithful or a dirty litte SLUT .... i really do hate people that sleep around i think its just dirty... sex should be sacrad for the one you love instead of a wasteful thing...

This actually happened with one of my children. :(
isn't it the worst?

at least with a women you know if your girl is faithful or a dirty litte SLUT ....

Ooooh: nice dichotomy - one is either faithful or one is "a dirty little SLUT", with nothing in between?

I am for sex, even know I also agree that it can be very addictable and can be used as excuse to ignore the real properties that love shows. For example, a couple may have sex just to forget that they love eachother and therefore sex can lead to a couple breaking up in the long run :p

You're not just misled, you're talking out of your ass. You can't have seen much European porn, kiddo. The point is, porn is just another expression of repression, as are orgies, etc. It's people thinking it's dirty, and wallowing in the percieved dirtiness. No healthier than the "sex is bad, let's not see evidence of it or do it" crowd, IMHO.
Or maybe we screw even more just because we percieve it as being a little bit on the bad side. Guess what? Everyone does it. I don't know hardly anyone who is still a virgin by the age of 16. Say we are repressed if you want, but we get it on like nobody's business. Just because we don't flaunt it like you Europeans, as if talking about getting laid last night is really that cool, you say we are repressed. Guess what? I think you hardly ever get any, and therefore when you do you feel like you have to brag endlessly, put it on TV, shout it out over the radio, and make sure the whole damn world knows. Maybe Americans just know how to keep their damn mouths shut.

Here is the clearest proof that America is slowly changing. Read the last part of the link. LOL

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2004/10/11/couple_allegedly_have_sex_at_the_alamo/

I haven't had sex yet. There's too many risks including irrepairable damage to my reputation, STD's such as syphilis and etc.

I also wonder why when some people have lovers, they keep on advertising themselves to others with sexy clothing and etc.

Are you arguing against po, or are you neutral on the issue of po?

I was going to type polygamy but forgot to finish.

I was going to type polygamy but forgot to finish.

Ah, that makes sense now.

theres no way to See if he is virgin or not... at least with a women you know if your girl is faithful or a dirty litte SLUT .... i really do hate people that sleep around i think its just dirty... sex should be sacrad for the one you love instead of a wasteful thing...
you know, that makes no sense
the only way you can KNOW that your girl isn't sexually active is to not have sex with her yet keep "checking" her to make sure she hasnt lost her viriginity to someone else. once she is no longer a virgin you have no way of knowing if she is faithful to you or is a dirtly little slut unless you find some way of locking her up so she has no access to other men.

Sex is addictive and distracting, it can be used to exploit and cheat people and can desanctify the concept of human relationships. Sex should in humans be something shared only with a life-partner, this has been proven in science to be the natural way of human functioning, stemming from a basic pack hunting society: we are not like our polygamic ancestors who lived in hierarchical societies where sexual promiscuity was fine as long as only the dominant male got rights to reproduce. In fact, our basic social structure is best compared to that of wolves, although in modern society this is largely masked.

Monogamy is *not* the primary system for humans, or at least it certainly has not been for a significant portion of our genetic history. In species where monogamy is practiced, sexual dimorphism, or distinctions between the sexes in terms of size fade away, and both males and females tend to be of the same size. In species that practice polygamy to an extent have a greater-or-lesser dimorphism, with males being bigger on average than females. This is because males need to compete for females, and bigger males perform better, thus selecting them for expression in the next generation, making males bigger than females. This all comes from a book called 'The Moral Animal', but sadly I forget the author. Check it out, it examines whether or not monogamy is biologically imperative in humans, and exactly where we get our sense of morality from on a biological level. It's a good read.

you know, that makes no sense
the only way you can KNOW that your girl isn't sexually active is to not have sex with her yet keep "checking" her to make sure she hasnt lost her viriginity to someone else.

And in modern cultures where virginity is highly prized there is usually some kind of availability of hymen replacement surgery - either to replace a hymen damaged in non-sexual activity, or to cover up a previous sexual activity, or even in some cases to create an indication of virginity in those few women who are born without a hymen. Thus there is no reliable way to check for virginity.

You all should read "Brave New World" Its a book just about a society based around sex. Where in the society its wrong not to have sex and its bad to stay with one person. Its really interesting

Yes it is. I recommend you read "Brave New World" first and then "1984." The first is a society based on unlimited pursuit of pleasure and the second is a society based on total control by the state, including control over sex and reproduction.

Yes it is. I recommend you read "Brave New World" first and then "1984."

And then once you are done with those go and read 'We' by Yvegeny Zamyatyin (published 1924), which is the ur-text from which such twentieth century distopian novels take their form (ignoring the fact that they are all based on the story of Adam & Eve in Genesis to some extent or another for the moment).

Well, let's consider how the "New World" got founded shall we? Some Puritans were being oppressed back in Europe, got on a boat, and essentially populated North America with Maybe that's why? ;)its current, predominant culture.

You do realize that the United States was not founded by Puritans in New England, rather by people looking for gold in Virginia, so somehow I doubt that that is the cause of our sexual repression. Maybe you should atleast know some basic history before posting things.
:headbang: