Recently I posted an article in Casual Converstation about Global Orgasm Day, today Friday the 22nd. A day in which people are encouraged to think about peace during the moment of sexual orgasm, in order to promote an energetic planetary upsurge towards world peace.
I provided the link to the website and a link which has an entertaining video of the basics of the experiment and Princeton Universities study of planetary energies around the world , with a link to the science within the video. All clean and certainly not pornographic, and not spam. It is overall scientific, healthy, as well as light hearted interest.

The post was shut down upon the reasons of:
The concern of younger viewers. That is not trying to be disingenuous but not to repeat mods pm's verbatim. The gist was that the topic would generate inapproriate response.

Hmmnn....

My reply:



Also:


I awaited a response but received none.
I realize that no board is democratic and every board has a right to self regulate , so that is not my issue here. Thread closed, why not? Subversive to say the least.

The political situation that came up from it was: How and Why can it be perfectly normal and natural for youth to be assaulted by violence everyday in American culture, yet when it comes to sex, be so sheltered by an idea that 'this in particular' is inappropriate or 'dirty' for them to hear?

On this board, we debate and have known, read, heard and written a lot of nasty things, about other races, cultures, war, women, gays, drugs, crime, rape, prostitution, abortion, all seemingly pertinent for our younger viewers, but the possible postings about a current event regarding several issues: Healthy sex, a peace agenda, a scientific study, was censored, for youth?

Wouldnt healthy attitudes towards sex be a positive for our youth, or is sex just 'dirty' all the time? But certainly the 'dirty part' shows up in all debate here, and the moderating team seemed to think You as readers and writers had horrible dirty minds and would write things that would be detrimental to our youth, although, I could not imagine what that could be, but 'of sexual nature, to be sure'.

This idea happens across the board in American culture. Violence is ok, sex is absolutely forbidden, especially if its 'fun'.

My questions for debate:
Why do you think, in American culture, that Violence, in its varying forms is acceptable to be shown to 'youth' of practically all ages, yet Sexuality is strictly forbidden to be seen or discussed, in most, if not all forms, including sex education and healthy, loving sex?.

Do you think 'youth' warrent this 'cloak' of mystery surrounding human sexuality?
to protect them?
to make them less inclined?
to prevent them from sin?
to prevent them from having a healthy attitude towards?
to give them the same view that sex is 'dirty' that many of us were impressed upon and would like to impress upon them as well?
other?

I, for one, would have numerous inappropriate responses that would have drawn the ire of moderators and my HR Director wife!

You have many bolded questions but they all boil down to:

What's the excuse for keeping youths away from sex and sexuality?

I heard and read some interesting thing recently regarding teens, sex and suicide. It seems that teens who engage in sex are much more likely to attempt suicide. Because sourcing is a rather constant battle here I'm just linking to the USAToday article because it seems to be the most innocuous.

The extrapolation of this is that teens are ill prepared to handle the emotional consequences of sex. Perhaps this is due to America's Puritanical ideals regarding sex. However, maybe those ideals are in place for the teen's inability to deal with sex. Sort of like when you realize and Old Wife's Tale is actually correct.

America has a lot of teens & twenty somethings we do not have an AIDS epidemic like other countries do. While cleanliness, education and wealth are major factors in this, let us not discount our Puritanical ideals regarding sex. Not having sex is the best way to not get pregnant or STD'ed. Not having sex or doing intravenous drugs is a great way not to get AIDS (of course you still could - see also Libya). While I realize "Just Say No" and abstinence are dismissed as "quaint" you can't argue with the science. To some extent you can't argue with the results.

So the answer is: You keep youths from sex and sexuality because it is in their best interest.

PS - I am pro-HavingSex

I read the thread about World Orgasm Day and followed both the links to the website and the video. There is nothing inappropriate or in the least bit salacious or suggestive about it. You can find more distasteful imagery in a music video.

The only problem I noticed was there was no actual question posed for debate. Unless someone is opposed to a good, healthy orgasm I don't know what the point of contention could possibly be.

As regards the questions posed here, first off, I believe any young person that has found their way to probably has slogged through some Internet pornography long before they got here. You don't have to be on the world wide web longer than a half-hour or so to find out there's a lot of nasty stuff out there.

People are fascinated by sex and violence. Violence is just a lot easier to get into network television. On Christmas Day among all the other holiday movies, Black Christmas will be available in the malls for all those who like to see young women attacked, stabbed and mutilated to death. I don't mind if someone enjoys "dead teenagers on a stick" flicks. That's their business. Same goes for folks who enjoy porn videos.

But somewhere in between are adults who enjoy consensual acts of physical intimacy and there are teens who are well-adjusted and mature enough to handle it.

There is a need for open and honest discussions about sexuality. It can be done. It would be a nice change from our usual daily diet of death, dismay and destruction.

Why do you think, in American culture, that Violence, in its varying forms is acceptable to be shown to 'youth' of practically all ages, yet Sexuality is strictly forbidden to be seen or discussed, in most, if not all forms, including sex education and healthy, loving sex?.

Starting with the shame and prohibition of sexuality, I think it has to do with this country’s religious and puritanical history. From the time of the colonies, an obsession with sin made sex shameful. It was acceptable to torture and kill young women for supposed “witchcraft” since women were supposedly “naturally lustful” and more susceptible to the devil (some deep-down insecurity and repressed sexual tension involved there on the part of the men, methinks). I believe repressed sexuality and religious intolerance is responsible for a lot of the sex-based problems we are plagued with; child sexual abuse, abuse of women, pornography, etc.

Yet, it has always been acceptable to employ violent means to achieve whatever ends could be justified by “God’s will”. From killing Native Americans for their land or killing Iraqis for their oil, it matters not. We are a violent culture. Violence is more acceptable than sex. We have turned reverence for life on its head. The alternate obsession with sex and the fear and shame of healthy sexuality makes Americans a very confused lot.

It never ceases to amaze me that showing guts, gore and flying body parts (see any Mel Gibson movie) is completely acceptable (whether it is movie special effects, or the horrors of war on the 6 o’clock news), but showing a bare breast is cause for a national uproar. I’ve given up trying to understand it.

Do you think 'youth' warrent this 'cloak' of mystery surrounding human sexuality?
to protect them?
to make them less inclined?
to prevent them from sin?
to prevent them from having a healthy attitude towards?
to give them the same view that sex is 'dirty' that many of us were impressed upon and would like to impress upon them as well?
other?
Children should be raised to believe that sex is normal, natural and healthy, and that sexuality is nothing to be ashamed of. I think the cycle of “thou shalt not have sex” because it’s a “sin” is unhealthy and only propagates the cycle of repression and violence.

Humans will have sex. That is a fact. Raising a child to accept their sexuality as healthy if far better than condemning them to a life of shame and sexual repression.

Gads, I just read about this. The abhorrent "Left Behind" folks have now given us an evangelical-approved violent video game. Wow.

Great question, I found myself wondering the same thing after the Janet Jackson Superbowl exhibition from a few years ago.

I think that most Americans try on some level to abide by the golden rule (treat others how you want to be treated). It makes more intuitive sense for someone operating under the golden rule to not be violent, because generally nobody wants to feel pain. Not being violent as a moral/ethical principle pretty much sells itself. Sex on the other hand is very counterintuitive to the golden rule. The reasons for not over indulging in sex tend to apply on less universal and fundamental moral principles and more on religious ones.

So, to answer your question, I think that American culture (largely based on Puritan values) generally doesn't want people being either violent or too sexual. Given the natures of sex and violence- one causing pleasure and the causing pain- people largely resort to restricting exposure to sex as a way to curb sexual apettites, because not being sexual is a hard sell to make i.e. it feels good.

When you say "this cloak of mystery around human sexuality" I'm not sure what you mean. In general, I think that there should be some disconnect between the sexual themes and imagery we allow the youth to be exposed to and what is available to adults at large. My reasoning behind that is to protect them by making them less inclined to it. I feel that being children, by definition they aren't responsible enough to handle it or it's effects. I just don't think that "this cloak", the current American culture's approach, is necessarily the best way to do it. "This cloak" often lacks reasoning and consistency and if anything encourages irresponsible sexuality. Of course this is my personal opinion of child rearing and I concede that that is a decision best left up to parents. But that also means that the level of ambient sexuality in society should be kept at such a controlled level that exposure to sexuality truly is left up to the parents.

Why do you think, in American culture, that Violence, in its varying forms is acceptable to be shown to 'youth' of practically all ages, yet Sexuality is strictly forbidden to be seen or discussed, in most, if not all forms, including sex education and healthy, loving sex?.

I think this is a big part of the decay of the American civilization, if, in fact, we were ever civilized - we REVEL in violence in this society- it is stark, overwhelming and daily, compared to the values of other western cultures. There is nothing wrong with sexuality of humans- only the Christo-Judeo-Islmo religion has twisted a natural, fun thing to do into something evil and nasty- it has to do with control, and as, basically, the only hard core-christian society with power on this planet- it permeates every part of our society, and is why we have such problems.

I have a 6 year old daughter, and a 3 year old son, and, of course, this entire ordeal of violence vs sexuality and how I will teach my children about it some day is a very difficult dilema for me. I just hope I can approach it in a common sense and non-dysfunctional way when it comes time.


Do you think 'youth' warrent this 'cloak' of mystery surrounding human sexuality?
to protect them?
to make them less inclined?
to prevent them from sin?
to prevent them from having a healthy attitude towards?
to give them the same view that sex is 'dirty' that many of us were impressed upon and would like to impress upon them as well?
other?

Kids don't naturally understand sexuality at all until puberty- I mean, they know there are differences between sexes, but, unless they have been abused, they have no real concept of it. So it is naturally mysterious to children until they have those "urges"- and, because it is so vitally important for the Right wingers to maintain control over thier hyper religious flock- and you must maintain control down to what they eat and who they wish to have sex with- this has ALWAYS been the reason for the church, and by extension, US civilization, to be so, well, crazy, about sex.

"Why do you think, in American culture, that Violence, in its varying forms is acceptable to be shown to 'youth' of practically all ages, yet Sexuality is strictly forbidden to be seen or discussed, in most, if not all forms, including sex education and healthy, loving sex?."

Your premise is skewed. While our youth are exposed to much gratuitous violence it is inaccurate to suggest that it is acceptable in its varying forms. As a parent I seek to control as much violence as I can and so do many of my contemporaries. Moreover, to suggest that sexuality is strictly forbidden to be seen or discussed makes me think you are on another planet. Where can I go as a parent where expressions of sexuality in its varying forms are absent?

To answer what I think should have been your question, due primarily to the pornographic aspect of sexuality seen everywhere, many in the public are understandably reticent to open a discussion of any kind having anything to do with it. I see your point about "loosening up" though you must concede how pornographically-charged any discussion about sexuality has or can become (especially among our youth). I support much of your forward thinking attitude though I marvel at your inability to consider its potential ramifications on those who are less "matured".

I have no problem with AD censuring your earlier post. Artemis, everyone has a "line" somewhere to be drawn. I hope your are not under the impression that your more sophisticated approach to sexuality is the preeminent place to draw that line? Additionally, anyone's "line" can be put under scrutiny and exposed for the arbitrary nature that it is - your's included.

IMO, a better question would be to discuss how society's (as seen throughout the media) characterization of sexuality has contributed to the current state of depravity we now find ourselves in.

Why do you think, in American culture, that Violence, in its varying forms is acceptable to be shown to 'youth' of practically all ages, yet Sexuality is strictly forbidden to be seen or discussed, in most, if not all forms, including sex education and healthy, loving sex?.

I really wouldn't pretend to know, but like others have said, maybe it has something do with religion still playing a large role in the US (puritan values). I think everybody in Europe had a big laugh at America's expense, when there was a large uproar over the Janet Jackson Superbowl incident. I am sure many Americans found it silly too, but I'm guessing they are not in the majority, since you still have the FCC (censorship organ in the land of free, what gives?).

Do you think 'youth' warrent this 'cloak' of mystery surrounding human sexuality?
to protect them?
to make them less inclined?
to prevent them from sin?
to prevent them from having a healthy attitude towards?
to give them the same view that sex is 'dirty' that many of us were impressed upon and would like to impress upon them as well?
other?
Absolutely and definitely not. Society can not be conformed as to be judged "acceptable" for certain groups - the subject matter is totally irrelevant.

Oh, this is bad and should be suppressed because it's offensive to/bad for:
children
teenagers
muslims
christians
scientologists
jews
conservatives
liberals
flat earth society members
etc....

I mean, where does that leave us? Not at a place I want to be at.

It's not the job of the media, the government, businesses and people in general to bar themselves from exercising their legal freedom of speech rights to "protect" the children or any other special group for that matter, if they don't truly want to. In principle it is just at as natural for a school to teach children about sexuality as it is to teach them about the American civil war, or any other significant subject matter.

EDITED TO ADD:

Depravity? That is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Don't visit Denmark then, its a gazillion times more "depraved" by US standards, and yet I tend to think we are doing alright (in fact we are doing more than alright). If we assume that the US is somehow sexually "depraved", judging by some arbitrary standard, then exactly how is that bad?

About Denmark:
Billboards in public with full frontal nudity? - check!
Nude people on public beaches? check!
Pornography freely availably anywhere and everywhere? check!
Hardcore pornography shown on public television in prime time? check!
Low average age for first sexual intercourse? check!
Massive underage drinking (16 being the legal age)? check!
Gay marriage? check!
Atheism rampant? check!
etc. etc. etc.

And we love it. Proof

I don't think her perspective in the question is quite as skewed as you think. If I understand correctly, she is referring more to the context of how information is classified and protected and censored. And she has a good point. Consider how movies are classified. A movie can maintain a PG rating with a lot more violence than sex. Network television can show violent death but not a pair of breasts. I can turn on CSI (I assume, I've never actually seen it) and apparently see scenes of gruesome forensic study. Yet on no network television show can I see nudity of any kind.

On the other hand, you are correct in another context - our society has become increasingly sexualized in a consumerist way. But while you seem to see this sexualization as the cause of some sort of perceived societal depravity, I am disappointed that you do not see violence as a much more worrying cause of trouble. If my ten year old daughter were somehow allowed unfettered access to a television, I would be much less worried about her watching 9&1/2 Weeks than about her watching Seven.

A note on the earlier thread, from a moderator's perspective. AD did not actually censor the post. It was closed by a moderator who wasn't sure it would be appropriate. Then we began to discuss it. We are all volunteers who log on at random times, just like any other members here. Therefor, the process of discussion can be less than timely. Sometimes it takes a couple of days to get feedback and come to a decision. In this case, once we had discussed it, we decided to reopen it.

Wild over simplification. There was a very short span of time that sex did not kill you. Shortly after penicillin and up to AIDS. What're we talking about ~40 years? NEWSFLASH sex can KILL you again. The clamp down by religion on sexuality was very much a function of keeping the "flock" ALIVE.

In fact, the religious portion of marriage was an invention for the same. Prior a Marriage was a very legal and very binding MARRIAGE of ASSETS. See also dowry. There was little note of love or spirituality or solemn oaths. This lead to (and still does) a lot of promiscuity which of course lead to disease which KILLED you.

So it wasn't about control. It was about maintaining those wily horny converts.

While there's no doubt that some societal ills could be bettered through a "looser" sexuality ruleset it is short-sighted.

To quote Carlsen,

"Depravity? That is in the eye of the beholder I guess. Don't visit Denmark then, its a gazillion times more "depraved" by US standards, and yet I tend to think we are doing alright (in fact we are doing more than alright). If we assume that the US is somehow sexually "depraved", judging by some arbitrary standard, then exactly how is that bad?"

I agree that there could be a loosening of American standards enough to open up a more mature conversation about sexuality. Perhaps Denmark is further down that continuum than the US. I believe that much of this "stifling Puritanism" though has served an important purpose. Part of the American ideal, at least traditionally, has included a belief in the sanctity of the family unit. To the extent that raising children in a nurturing home and societal environment is held in high regard then I believe the struggle over ideas of sexual expression will continue. Am I correct in assuming that the average European family size has shrunk over the last many years? Don't you have some countries that are not even able to sustain minimal growth?That being the case, is there a connection?

Carlsen again,

"About Denmark:
Billboards in public with full frontal nudity? - check!
Nude people on public beaches? check!
Pornography freely availably anywhere and everywhere? check!
Hardcore pornography shown on public television in prime time? check!
Low average age for first sexual intercourse? check!
Massive underage drinking (16 being the legal age)? check!
Gay marriage? check!
Atheism rampant? check!
etc. etc. etc."

Wow, I've only heard stories... I'm not sure that all of these markers though are positive indicators of a maturing, responsible society (yes, I know, in the eyes of the beholder). In a country that more favors childbearing I don't believe much of your list would be conducive to this effort.

Additionally, I question why Denmark stops there? You'll notice in my previous post I questioned who's "line" was preeminent? What made the country decide to stop at 16 as the legal age for drinking? Why not 15?Billboards not only showing full frontal nudity but more pornographic sexual exchanges between & among partners? Nude people in other public areas?

To quote Quarkhead,

"On the other hand, you are correct in another context - our society has become increasingly sexualized in a consumerist way. But while you seem to see this sexualization as the cause of some sort of perceived societal depravity, I am disappointed that you do not see violence as a much more worrying cause of trouble. If my ten year old daughter were somehow allowed unfettered access to a television, I would be much less worried about her watching 9&1/2 Weeks than about her watching Seven."

I agree with your take on violence. I believe our society has become too callused to gratuitous violence in media. Additionally, I've seen many a PG movie much more pornographic both in violence and sexuality than many quality Rs. I don't believe it's a question of which is better though. In one instance (violence) we are far too desensitized and in the other (sexual expression) we shouldn't become so.

On a final note, wasn't Artemis' initial post actually changed? I believe that's why she posted the current questions. What happened to the Orgasmo Wasmo love in?

As Quarkhead mentioned, it has been reopened.

Here's the link:

http://www.americasdebate.com/forums/index...mp;#entry203246

As my grandmother used to say, "if it had been a snake it would-a bit you."

To be sure, birth rate is in steep decline in most European countries, including Denmark, but that has more to do with women working just as much as men, as it has to to with with "the sanctity of the family unit". I'm betting there are lot less divorces in Denmark than in the US for example. We do have a net population gain though, although that probably has more to do with immigration. Thats a whole other discussion, which I wont get into in this thread.


Well, I tend to think Denmark is just as mature and responsible as any other western country. We just don't tend to be offended as easily, and I think we are pretty easy going people. We don't throw a lawsuit as someone just because they looked at us the wrong way.... not that we would get anything out of it anyway.. even if we would win, then the punitive damages would be extremely low.

Also, if sex leads to pregnancy, then how is nudity not conducive to promoting childbearing? (although I am pretty sure every country on earth, except maybe China, supports childbearing to a large degree).


Well, actually Denmark has become somewhat more "conservative" in the recent years. When I was in your equivalent of college 11 years ago there was no "legal age" so to say, meaning a 5 year old could legally buy alcohol in a store. Since then the age was raised to 15 then 16. To drink in public establishments like bars the legal age has always been 18. Note, it is still not in any way illegal for a 10 year old to drink alcohol, it's just illegal for shops to sell it to them. Likewise it's not illegal for a 10 year old to smoke or look at pornography, it's just illegal to sell it to them. The rest we leave up to the parents, and they tend to be pretty liberal. Haven't screwed up our society yet by any scientific standards, but if your heavy on religion then you would probably disagree.

About full frontal nudity in public: posters often show nude people in commercials. To be fair, even in Denmark that is often criticized, and some posters have been pulled back. Not because there was any legal problem though. People could appear nude in other public areas, and it sometimes happen, but unless that nudity could be construed as being part of a "sexual assault", then there is technically no limit on that either. There is some prohibiting public nudity, but I can't remember anyone being prosecuted under that law. You could get a ticket though for disturbing the public peace, if your nudity disturbs traffic for example.

Network television encompasses four channels. Anyone with basic cable has access to about a hundred other channels, pay a bit more and you can have nudity on your home all of the time if you feel you need that sort of thing, so I have to wonder what the beef is (not to you specifically, Quark, speaking generally of the arguments I always hear in these styles of debates). Pretty much, we are inundated with sex constantly. Have you seen daytime television? The other day I was at the barber's getting my children haircuts and the women were watching "Days of our Lives". I thought my brain was being sucked out through my nose by the screen it was so moronic, and the entire theme was sex. I would never watch that crap around my kids, nor would I watch violence on television. This isn't the "Leave it to Beaver" generation, our kids have full access to everything and it's hard to screen. Case in point, can you imagine a child called 'beaver' today? How much ridicule would that child receive? Sort of speaks for itself. I don't watch television in front of them unless it's Nickelodeon or Disney. Not even the nightly news.

Per the rating system, I've seen nudity in PG movies many times though it's not usually a central theme. I don't really understand the beef with that either. If it doesn't add to the story line why have it? In the case of a PG movie, unless it's about bathing, nudity generally isn't plot appropriate. The last Pirates of the Caribbean was PG-13, not PG and there was no nudity or sex at all....and I definitely wouldn't take my kids to see that.

Why don't I want my children exposed to sexual media themes? Because I think people are influenced by what they see and hear. That's the primary way that children learn, in fact...and I want them respect themselves and others which isn't the theme of most sexually explicit (or violent) material. Nor does most sexually explicit material indicate the emotional and physical consequences of sexual activity which should be well understood before it is engaged in. Until they are old enough to understand these things, they aren't old enough to watch such material.

Regarding this forum and material that is considered appropriate, we have discussed many sexual issues to include even bestiality in the past, so I think we draw the line far enough. Prohibited items include: IV. Inappropriate sexual references or terminology. Sexual acts/body parts are to be referred to by their scientific/medical names. Artemise's thread did not cross the line in this regard, but the concern was that it might lead to a series of bawdy one-line responses that would cross the line and might trip the nanny-guard filters. As Quark indicated, upon consideration the thread was reopened.

Edited to add: Oh, and regarding "orgasms for global peace" yesterday, I did my part. But when I told my husband, "Wait! Concentrate on global peace!" He responded with an expletive I can't repeat here.

Um- you apparently haven't read the bible- promiscuity was wrong for the female- NOT the male- as long as you had like, 1000 wives- who is promiscuis?

Thank you Carlsen for bringing up the point that counter to what many people say sexuality in itself does not lead to an implosion of a society.

I do tend to think its cultural though. Like why is America so violent in regards to crime then other nations, why do we have such high statistics in crime? I mean if you look at places like Amsterdam going from what many say about sex drugs and rock and roll Amsterdam should have already imploded, but of course it has not, and furthermore it seems to be doing just fine. I don’t think however that you could give America that freedom and expect it to work, I just think overall that American perception currently has some issues, this is why we have emo music or what not We do have Las Vegas or what not, it seems to be getting close to Amsterdam, but for many in America such freedom does not ring to well with there views.

Personally I don’t know if there is some perfect algorithm for raising children, or moreover I think that reality proves this point, in that people that commit heinous or dumb acts seem to come from all walks of life. All I know is sexuality regardless of packaging is about as natural as needing to eat, so for the most part I just try to be open about it, or honest when approached with questions. I mean sitting at the dinner table even is a prime place to talk about such in my home, it seems that you can get everyone’s interest going, and a general air of being able to talk about things or confide even, and for the most part I think its healthy, vs. what I think is one of the biggest parenting mistakes you can make of making your children conduct such behind your back and them holding no knowledge what so ever on any subject in life they may or will come into contact with.

To quote Carlsen,

"To be sure, birth rate is in steep decline in most European countries, including Denmark, but that has more to do with women working just as much as men, as it has to to with with "the sanctity of the family unit". I'm betting there are lot less divorces in Denmark than in the US for example. We do have a net population gain though, although that probably has more to do with immigration. Thats a whole other discussion, which I wont get into in this thread."

Phrasing the issue as honoring the "sanctity of the family unit" is probably not the best way to say it. I did not mean to suggest there are no Danes who regard child rearing in that way. I do believe however that a higher percentage of the Denmark population does not hold in high regard the idea of childbearing for themselves hence your growing problem with native, Dane population growth. The fact that there are more women working serves only to make my point.

Carlsen again,

"Also, if sex leads to pregnancy, then how is nudity not conducive to promoting childbearing? (although I am pretty sure every country on earth, except maybe China, supports childbearing to a large degree)."

Well, it gets more complicated than that. It is not merely an issue of procreating at will. Certainly, you would not advocate access to pornography for children simply to better insure they will procreate when they are physically capable? The US has for sometime been wrestling with the notion of procreation within certain bounds (i.e., only under the contract of marriage, with one male & one female as a parent, with parents of the same sex, with just one parent, and so on).

To come full circle, the US does have a need for a more prominent dialogue about sexuality. I believe the different religions could contribute more to this dialogue (certainly mine could). Part of the problem resides in determining which entities in society should be entrusted with passing this information on. Should it be primarily the government, families, religion, private enterprise, or driven solely by the free exchange of ideas as found on many a web-site?

Depending on what your answer is, it may illicit powerful reactions within segments of our society. It sounds like you may have similar segments in Denmark?

Well, I think childbearing is highly regarded, its just that having more than two children is not very common here. The average has to be around 2.2 children per couple to ensure population growth IIRC. Blame it on the emancipation of women if you will, but there is no going back, nor should there be.


No, I and the majority of Danes certainly don't advocate that children get access to pornography, all I am saying is that the freedom of adults should not be limited because something might be bad for children. It's not like pornography is plastered over the place here to any degree, people just don't make a big fuss about it.

Furthermore, in my mind (and probably in yours too) there is a big difference between pornography and nudity. The "sex" and "nudity" shown on mainstream television both here and in the US I do not in any way consider harmful to children. Its not harmful to see a naked body.

About marriage if I remember correctly then half of children are born out of wedlock here in Denmark. Many couples in my own family have children without being married. Its totally accepted here, as it should be. Note, that just because all these couples are not married, that doesn't mean they don't live like a traditional family. Many of them do. My aunt and her partner have been together for 30 years without being married and they have several children.


I don't think government has a role in the debate in any way shape or form, other that ensuring people are giving the facts, meaning that public schools should at an appropriate age teach children about what sex is, what prevention is etc. etc.. The government shouldn't encourage or discourage children from having legal sexual relations. Other than that I would say its the responsibility of parents. Although I strongly disagree with and dislike those parents that teach their children that "sex is bad", "abstinence is good" and "masturbation killsl puppies", for whatever reason, I respect their rights to teach those values to their children, just like I grudgingly accept parents have the right to indoctrinate their children with whatever religious belief they tend to hold themselves. I do think society would be better if they didn't though, but thats just the evil scientific atheist in my I guess.


Well, liberalism is king here (at least in a social if not economic context). People have accepted that children are taught the facts about sex in school - it's not really an issue. We had that dialog about sexuality ages ago. Parents that want to teach specific non-mainstream values to their children home school them or put them in private schools (like many muslims do). I am sure its the same in the US, although what is mainstream is of course different (that's what this thread is about after all). So to answer your question, yes we have similar segments in Denmark, they are just very very insignificant (except in the muslim community, but let's not go down that road in this discussion).

To quote Carlsen,

"Well, I think childbearing is highly regarded, its just that having more than two children is not very common here. The average has to be around 2.2 children per couple to ensure population growth IIRC. Blame it on the emancipation of women if you will, but there is no going back, nor should there be."

If you mean by "there is no going back, nor should there be" some effort to compel women back into the hearth then I agree with you. I too believe powerfully that women should have opportunity / access to everything men do. If you mean to suggest women should not in mass and on their own volition return to the hearth then I question why you would feel that way.

Carlsen again,

"No, I and the majority of Danes certainly don't advocate that children get access to pornography, all I am saying is that the freedom of adults should not be limited because something might be bad for children. It's not like pornography is plastered over the place here to any degree, people just don't make a big fuss about it."

Do you think that access to pornography is limited here?

Carlsen again,

"Furthermore, in my mind (and probably in yours too) there is a big difference between pornography and nudity. The "sex" and "nudity" shown on mainstream television both here and in the US I do not in any way consider harmful to children. Its not harmful to see a naked body."

I suspect your point here would be where we most disagree. While the naked body is not something to be ashamed of, many of it's uses are.

Carlsen again,

"About marriage if I remember correctly then half of children are born out of wedlock here in Denmark. Many couples in my own family have children without being married. Its totally accepted here, as it should be. Note, that just because all these couples are not married, that doesn't mean they don't live like a traditional family. Many of them do. My aunt and her partner have been together for 30 years without being married and they have several children."

I think that's great. Certainly, any example of fidelity, focus on childrearing, and "staying power" (though not the only qualities) in a relationship is a boon to any society. I am sure there are innumerable examples of this in Denmark. It does not change however the reality that many European societies (generally speaking of course) are drifting from the ideal of raising a family and certainly less from having multiple children as evidenced by the decline in per capita childbearing. At the risk of over-simplification, this "allows" a society to focus more on the pursuit of individual liberties as they pertain to sexual expression and the like. Though I'm sure the Danes care every bit as much for their children as we do, the reality is that should your demographic trend continue, it will become moot.

Carlsen- I don't know if you have been to the US- but in many ways- US sexual hangups are worse than the muslims- they are more into oppressing women, whereas christians are much more into oppressing EVERYONE -

Nudity SHOULD have no label automatically attached to it as 'porn"- my ex is european, so we have pretty Euro values as far as this went in my house, because I tend to lean that way anyway. It is always so refreshing to go to Europe and not have the craziness in this arena like Americans do- we are just freakin' insane, I swear to gawd!

I remember in church in Texas when I was a kid, one woman talking to an old woman, how you are supposed to take a bubble bath so you don't see your nude "sinful" reflection in the water!

Most American citizens, having never been outside the US- don't realize how wierd and oppressed we are until we travel- my first time with this was in Australia-I had on "jams" a long short beach wear popular here in the US with the surf scene at the time- I got to Biondi beach- everyone has on speedos- including those that are, um, not so atractive in speedos - including, an 70+ year old grandmother with like 9 grandkids in tow, her breasts nipples having on some Zinc oxide so they wouldn't burn, but otherwise, nothing but a speedo on.

I had swore many times before in my life, I would not be caught in one of those "grape smuggling speedo shorts"- and, I stayed true to my word, and bought a square cut lifeguards suit, which, is quite a bit more flattering on just about anyone anyway LOL (especially important when you are 19 years old) -

but the moral of the story is this- when in Rome- you feel COMPELLED to act as the romans- and you drop some of that silliness when you enter a society without that silliness.

Our puritan heritage is a chain around our countries neck, a pity that they ended up being the dominate culture so early on.

I am all about individual freedom, so if that is what women freely choose, I will applaud them.


Certainly more than it is here. You have laws regulating sale of pornography (differing from state to state), laws that regulate television and radio, obscenity laws, repelled laws censoring the internet etc. etc. But of course, internet being all the rage (duh) everybody has the same easy access to pornography anywhere in the world.


What "legal" uses would that be?


Well, I tend to think other things will happen sooner that will have a bigger impact on the future of Denmark than declining birthrates. There are a lot of bigger more urgent problems facing western countries, and no I don't mean terrorism.


I haven't been to the US... yet. I would very much like to visit though. I think the US is a extraordinary country in many ways (however from what I know about, I would still prefer Denmark). Hopefully I will be visiting on a business trip in the next year or so.

But from my impression of the US, I would tend to agree with you on the "sexual hangups" issue and puritanism in general, although it is also my impression that the religious right is a extremely vocal minority that luckily doesn't necessarily have large mainstream support.


Hehe... yeah I bet most Europeans laugh when they see American movies or television series and pictures containing nudity is called porn. By that standard most newspapers in Europe contain porn. The biggest selling newspaper in Denmark feature a nude girl on page 9 everyday (it's a semi-tabloid of course) but nude pictures are shown all the time in mainstream papers also.


Ingenious...


Well, right there it a case for limiting nudity.

If it wasn't for my principles, I would advocate that only pretty blonde's could be nude in public.


Well, seems to be going in the right direction, albeit slowly.

To quote CR,

"Most American citizens, having never been outside the US- don't realize how weird and oppressed we are until we travel- my first time with this was in Australia-I had on "jams" a long short beach wear popular here in the US with the surf scene at the time- I got to Biondi beach- everyone has on speedos- including those that are, um, not so atractive in speedos - including, an 70+ year old grandmother with like 9 grandkids in tow, her breasts nipples having on some Zinc oxide so they wouldn't burn, but otherwise, nothing but a speedo on."

About 20 yrs. ago I did some missionary work down in Brazil. On one particularly fine summer day my buddy and I found ourselves on one of the many resort beaches. Wowsers, you're right when you say things are quite different outside of the US. The standard seemed "wear as little as possible". Your description of your experience parallels mine. Mine was even worse if you can imagine two lilly-white young adults dressed with shorts down to our knees and myself in red, Converse high-top sneakers!

This experience, and many others while in Brazil, reminded me of how skewed my own perception of the female anatomy was. Many of the barely-clad bodies laying on the beach were far from, shall we say, "inspirational"! On the other hand, I saw many examples of sexual expression gone awry. If you've never been to Carnival (Brazilian style) you can only imagine what it must be like. I remember seeing newspapers hanging no the front of newstands and covered with shots of all kinds of sexual debauchery plastered on the front page for all to see. Certainly, nothing to be proud of regards to "sexual freedom".

CR again,

"Our puritan heritage is a chain around our countries neck, a pity that they ended up being the dominate culture so early on."

Your characterization of our Puritan heritage is cumbersome at best and quite ignorant at worst. Unfortunately, your stance requires too much ground to be covered that this thread would not allow. Suffice to say, my belief is that due to our Puritan heritage we have enjoyed unparalleled liberty and prosperity for many years. Of course, every virtue a vice - I do see where much of this legacy should continually be re-examined. But please don't throw the "baby out with the bathwater" on this one.

To return to the original topic, our youth should be given a greater forum for healthy conversation about sex. My plans are to be quite open about sexuality with my children - this despite the fact that I am in many respects a "fundi-Christian". Imagine that!

CS Lewis said it quite well in Mere Christianity,

"I know some muddle-headed Christians have talked as if Christianity thought that sex, or the body. or pleasure, were bad in themselves. But they were wrong. Christianity is almost the only one of the great religions which thoroughly approves of the body - which believes that matter is good, that God Himself once took on a human body, that some kind of body is going to be given to us even in Heaven and is going to be an essential part of our happiness, our beauty, and our energy. Christianity has glorified marriage more than any other religion: and nearly all the greatest love poetry in the world has been produced by Christians. If anyone says that sex, in itself, is bad, Christianity contradicts him at once."

Amen! Bring it on! (I hope my wife feels the same).





To quote Carlsen,

"Certainly more than it is here. You have laws regulating sale of pornography (differing from state to state), laws that regulate television and radio, obscenity laws, repelled laws censoring the internet etc. etc. But of course, internet being all the rage (duh) everybody has the same easy access to pornography anywhere in the world."

Do you believe these differences between our two countries amount to anything of significance? Do you believe the limits to your freedoms as a Dane in this regard should be loosened up?

Vanguard's quote,

"I suspect your point here would be where we most disagree. While the naked body is not something to be ashamed of, many of it's uses are."

Carlsen's response,

"What "legal" uses would that be?"

Who's "legal" uses are you referring to? Ours or yours?

If you have a point here it escapes me.

Within your framework of "shameful" are there not as many things that would fit that definition one can do either fully or partially clothed?

Does not Victoria's Secret make a fortune making the nude form sexier or more enticing?

Vanguard- what we even call "indecent" here or "porn" wouldn't make a ripple in Denmark, or pretty much any part of Northern Europe, and most of Southern Europe. Ya, been to carnival, it was great!

Also- the comparison to Amersterdam and an American city of equal size and diversity- it's great- legal drugs, prostitution (well, not quite legal, but not really enforced either) and all that liberal thinking leads to a - well, safer and cleaner society- why?

I would say it is a basically societie's decision to approach problems pragmatically, instead of ideologically, like the US- got a problem with IV drug users getting aids? Give them clean needles- and a pamphlet of free clinics to get rid of the addiction as well- have a problem with prostitution, the disease and crime? Make it legal and regulate it- and on and on- the US get's so wrapped up in telling other's how to live thier lives we don't take care of our own- I don't want my daughter to ever be a drug using prostitute- but I wouldn't want her thrown in jail for it either!

This is why I always point out how much closer our culture is to Islam than to European style liberal democracy- we have so much more in common with Islam- the need to control others day to day behavior through religiously demanded laws, a "moral police" if you will- we actually have our own "morality police" = it is called "vice squad"- and is really no different than thier counterparts in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

And please clarify for me as well- what are these "shameful practices" - I would say anything that doesn't do permanent harm between consenting adults is far from "shameful".

I am referring to what would be the legal usage in the readers area of residence, in this case yours. It would be unfair of me to expect you to say prostitution is acceptable behavior, even though it is legal here in Denmark.

Of course there are many places, especially in the middle east, where I consider activities that local authorities call illegal usage of the body as perfectly acceptable - even to be admired in some cases, but I digress.

Yikes, it feels like vanguard against the world! I think it's delusions of grandeur of something like that!

To quote BoF,

"Within your framework of "shameful" are there not as many things that would fit that definition one can do either fully or partially clothed?"

Before I get into providing examples of what I consider "shameful" uses of the naked body (whether fully or partially clothed) how about you tell me if you believe there is any such thing as a "shameful use"? Could you also rephrase that question - I didn't completely understand what you were driving at?

BoF again,

"Does not Victoria's Secret make a fortune making the nude form sexier or more enticing?"

I never implied that it didn't. And yes, I agree that VS makes nudity even sexier. That's not want you meant to ask though is it?

To quote CR,

"Vanguard- what we even call "indecent" here or "porn" wouldn't make a ripple in Denmark, or pretty much any part of Northern Europe, and most of Southern Europe. Ya, been to carnival, it was great!

Also- the comparison to Amersterdam and an American city of equal size and diversity- it's great- legal drugs, prostitution (well, not quite legal, but not really enforced either) and all that liberal thinking leads to a - well, safer and cleaner society- why?

I would say it is a basically societie's decision to approach problems pragmatically, instead of ideologically, like the US- got a problem with IV drug users getting aids? Give them clean needles- and a pamphlet of free clinics to get rid of the addiction as well- have a problem with prostitution, the disease and crime? Make it legal and regulate it- and on and on- the US get's so wrapped up in telling other's how to live thier lives we don't take care of our own- I don't want my daughter to ever be a drug using prostitute- but I wouldn't want her thrown in jail for it either!

This is why I always point out how much closer our culture is to Islam than to European style liberal democracy- we have so much more in common with Islam- the need to control others day to day behavior through religiously demanded laws, a "moral police" if you will- we actually have our own "morality police" = it is called "vice squad"- and is really no different than thier counterparts in Iran or Saudi Arabia."

Again, too much to tackle in that post. Much of what you say I can agree with though what you consider to be appropriate seems to be all over the board. Your skew however is to suggest that we are more closely than not aligned with the cultural precepts of Islam. I don't agree.

CR again,

"And please clarify for me as well- what are these "shameful practices" - I would say anything that doesn't do permanent harm between consenting adults is far from "shameful".

As I said to BoF do you consider any expression of sexuality as shameful? I know you believe that anything between consenting adults is far from that. Are there any instances that you consider to "fit the bill?" I believe that an 18 yr. old woman who sells herself into prostitution for no other reason but for the experience would be shameful.

Once again, what needs to happen that currently isn't regards to having a healthier sexual outlook for our youth?

There is NOTHING I consider "shameful" when done between consenting adults - nothing. Prostitution for fun instead of profit? Why not? If it is in the framework of safe and consensual- it is not my turn on- but certainly not "shameful"- and that is one of the reasons we have such a screwed up sexuality in this country- and why we do have so many "extreme" sexual behaviors- you can't squish a desire, oppress it, without the person's consent, and not have an extreme reaction- take Bondage, discipline, sadism and masochism- at first blush- it seems horribly repellent- but it has lot's to do with not wanting to have control for a bit- allowing someone to control you- or, on the other side, a need for temporary control- and it is all healthy and in good fun, when done consensually and they both have a desire for this.

Polygamy is definately a natural state of human affairs, considering it has just recently, in terms of human history- become something that is "wrong" (though, interestingly enough, the bible doesn't condemn THIS as sin, nor slavery- but male on male homosexuality is- bizzare) - but it is heavily repressed in the US, and it seems to surface instead in the religioius aspect of it instead-

whereas, in Europe, there are lot's of poeple living in "polyamory" - usually triads, in what they call a "V" relationship, a man or woman in the bottom of the V, and two of the same sex at the top of the V- and from what I gather in my travels, it must be very common in Switzerland, as there is this saying I keep running across when talking with Russians or Euros- "living as Swiss" they call it

Vangaurd- there is no way to deny that, in social arenas, we are far closer to the Muslim states than we are with Europe- in fact, there is darn little difference in the outrage over sexual issues- in fact- the fact that you consider things "shameful" - puts you very much in the Islam camp vs the Euro camp- you react to sexual discussion much like I would expect a devout Muslim to do, but would be shocked if I heard a Dane talk that way- an ethnic many generation dane.

As to your question-

1) Take the shame out of nudity, and stop banning it- go with the Euro standards

2) Take the religion out of goverment- all the "vice" laws need to go- this alone would have a positive ripple effect throughout the nation. We could empty jails, free up legal resources, tax, legalize and license all the sex trade.

3) Now, you have the resources to go after REAL bad guys, the ones that seem to mess up so m any folks- we talk so much about Janet Jackson's boob- but really- why haven't we totally broke the Catholic church's bank over all those priests? We certainly went whole hog on JJ and Justin Timberlake- we won't protect our kids against predators- but we will protect them from Janet Jackson!

4) Stop worrying about sex in TV and media, let it become so commonplace that it is not an issue- it will eventually not be an issue- just like in Europe. Start worrying, however, about violence on TV, and campaign commercials- seriously- most Euro countries have laws against TV evangelists and curb campaign commercials- we don't do either- so they show boobies, but no TV Evangelists and campaign commercials- I think this is a direct causation/correlation to our violent society- more boobies, less guns and TV preachers.

You were the one who brought up the word "shameful" so the onus is on you to provide definitions and examples.

Saying "your framework" was just another way of referring to those things you consider shameful and whether or not shameful means primarily having to do with sex and or nudity. Are there things that are shameful that don't involve either sex or nudity?

So, now please define shameful and list as many examples, both involving nudity and/or whatever you wish.

CR - It's much easier to critique the predominant US paradym than to have to defend only a theoretical belief system (yours is theoretical regards to the predominant US paradym). Nonetheless, where does American culture prohibit bondage, discipline, sadism, or masochism? Are you suggesting that these sexual expressions should be more tolerated in the public arena? Can't one legally purchase pornography that depicts these kinds of sexual exchanges? Don't we already have nude beaches? What exactly are you seeking that you can't have?

Also, what does a Muslim nation permit regards to these areas? What kind of punishments are meted out when their "vice squads" capture perpetrators of such activities? I would submit there is much more of a contrast than a comparison to our culture. Muslim nations reel in horror when exposed to the sexual liberties we take for granted. Nope, I don't see the comparison. Sorry.

Additionally, you claim that many of the European countries are fine examples of being free of sexual repression. Don't they have limits though? Do they consider any form of sexual, consensual expression ever to be a detriment? Regards to this liberated "sky's the limit" mindframe it would seem that Denmark is rather repressed. Children must wait until they are 16 until they can purchase liquor? Whatever for? Why is prostitution against the law? Why aren't billboards revealing full-on, hardcore sex acts? Why can't any minor purchase pornography? Why isn't any public arena fair game for parading oneself in the nude? Why isn't the onset of puberty enough to merit taking part in everything the "adults" participate in? My, quite repressed if you ask me...

To quote CR,

"Vangaurd- there is no way to deny that, in social arenas, we are far closer to the Muslim states than we are with Europe- in fact, there is darn little difference in the outrage over sexual issues- in fact- the fact that you consider things "shameful" - puts you very much in the Islam camp vs the Euro camp- you react to sexual discussion much like I would expect a devout Muslim to do, but would be shocked if I heard a Dane talk that way- an ethnic many generation dane" (emphasis added).

You reveal what you little you understand about the Muslim culture if you think mine would be the typical reaction from any devout Muslim. I suspect their reaction might be little more punitive or judgmental? Don't ya' think?

CR again,

1) Take the shame out of nudity, and stop banning it- go with the Euro standards.

Nudity is not banned here nor is there shame in nudity.

CR again,

2) Take the religion out of government- all the "vice" laws need to go- this alone would have a positive ripple effect throughout the nation. We could empty jails, free up legal resources, tax, legalize and license all the sex trade.

I don't catch your drift. Religion out of government? Are you suggesting religion is the only reason we have these restrictions?

CR,

3) "Now, you have the resources to go after REAL bad guys, the ones that seem to mess up so m any folks- we talk so much about Janet Jackson's boob- but really- why haven't we totally broke the Catholic church's bank over all those priests? We certainly went whole hog on JJ and Justin Timberlake- we won't protect our kids against predators- but we will protect them from Janet Jackson! "

I agree that we have handled this Catholic priest thing in a way that leaves much to be desired. "We" went whole hog over JJ & JT because "we" are not interested in watching others attempt to introduce pornography (albeit rather mild) to the American populace during a football game. As an aside, I wonder if Denmark or any other European nation parades one commercial after another portraying female nudity on TV during their version of Sesame Street? If they don't, why not?

4) "Stop worrying about sex in TV and media, let it become so commonplace that it is not an issue- it will eventually not be an issue- just like in Europe. Start worrying, however, about violence on TV, and campaign commercials- seriously- most Euro countries have laws against TV evangelists and curb campaign commercials- we don't do either- so they show boobies, but no TV Evangelists and campaign commercials- I think this is a direct causation/correlation to our violent society- more boobies, less guns and TV preachers."

I am also worried about violence on TV and in video gaming. I'm surprised Denmark restricts TV access for evangelists. Rather repressive isn't it? Can't the Danes make up their own mind for themselves? If pornography is so commonplace as you say, why is their such a flourishing trade in it? If the Danes (or any other European country for that matter) are desensitized to pornography then why the need for nude pictures in their newspapers? What purpose does this serve?

OK, you got me. I didn't want to go down this route but I couldn't resist.

Have a good holiday.

To quote BoF,

"You were the one who brought up the word "shameful" so the onus is on you to provide definitions and examples."

Really, I'm not trying to spar with you. It helps though to establish the parameters before getting into a conversation about what may or may not fall within those parameters. I'm not asking you to provide instances where something may or may not be considered "shameful" regards to sexual expression. I am only asking you to reveal whether there are unspecified (thus far) instances when something would pass from "not shameful" to "shameful". It's akin to arguing with an atheist about the existence of God without that atheist revealing that he is one.

Nonetheless, you'll notice that in my previous post with CR I did reveal that I consider an 18 yr. old (or any age for that matter) female who sells herself to prostitution solely for the experience to be shameful.

Oh boy, here we go.

Ok, as me who started this thread, I feel inclined to bring it back to it's origins, which were- 'Healthy sexual attitudes regarding youth'.

My stance comes from the idea that sex and 'nudity' as some of you have pointed out, is pretty natural, and a healthy part of the human experience. Yet in america we often allow extreme violence to be seen by youth, yet sex and most nudity is off limits.

Id like to adress Mrs P's comment, because it bares usefullness to 'our dirty, dirty, minds'.


As such, we as adults might say something so nasty and 'bawdy' which might 'trip' the nanny filters, causing the schools, and AD to go down in a burning flame of objection and dissent, based on Orgasms for Peace.

This is the basis for my concern and wonderment, as Daffy Girl already pointed out; We have a christian video game, let out for 'Christmas', which is based on either trying to convert, figures mostly muslim named, or killing them, ( for which you lose points, a positive), a gmae touted as "something parents can play with their kids". We have plenty of violent and sexual topics on this board, which somehow dont trip the 'nanny/state filters, how, I have no idea.
The consensus was that 'this topic' might cause a 'nanny-guard trip'. That 'must be' because it was not a debate about abortion, prostitution, gay marriage, racism, the war on terrorism, or the state of death and destruction going on worldwide, but a peaceful demonstration that included sex, and worry about the 'one liner' response. Now HOW did we get there? How did AD get there? And where do the Nanny-guards draw the line, and why are we subject to Nanny Guards anyway?

As far as some things you all have brought up about nudity, etc. I wonder how boys and men feel, and the subliminal consequences in our society that their private parts are never shown. It's as if penises simply dont exist. Women walk around nude, breasts are shown, sex is shown, mostly clothed, but the male genitalia is totally non-existant.
Male genitalia must be 'naughty, bad, bad, dirty and should never be shown', even in the most benign situtions, even natural walking around in film.

How does youth view our values? Penises dont exist, female nudity is somewhat ok and lots of females shakin the goods is ok, but sex is done clothed, sex education is rare in schools, (except I had it in 1976), the current trend is a heavily bent on abstinance, birth control is available, but not available to you (you're too young to know about these things, but -not -because teen pregnancy is an issue), yet sexual objectification is everywhere (as Mrs P mentions)... its mostly female, because penises dont exist...but not exclusively, healthy sexual attitudes and talk are censored, as the current example, yet a kind of schizophrenic, a mixed message prevails. The same message most of us grew up with, sex is fun and also bad and dirty.
Public messages are all too blatant, but open discourse and education is opressed, or else, theyll just 'get the wrong idea'. I think they are getting the wrong idea.

And sex is much 'badder' than violence. Really bad and sinful. Did you know you will go blind if you have sex before marriage! Your non existant penis will fall off if you touch it while having dirty thoughts.

Prostitutes selling themselves for experience isn't the norm - it's about money. Also, would it be equally shameful for a male to sell himself in this way?

Ok, now it's my turn. I have to agree with CR about nothing between consenting adults being "shameful". What is shameful, in my opinion, are those adults that show up on Dateline NBC's To Catch a Predator looking for 13 and 14-year old boys and girls. Not only is it shameful, but it is pathetic.

Equally, I would consider anything involving necrophilia shameful. While the same act would not be shameful between two consenting adults, any act of necrophilia is shameful, simply because the corpse has no ability to give consent. I would include anything involving animals in the same category, since animals don't have the ability to consent.

So, to summarize, sex with - unwilling adults (rape), children, animals and dead people - is, in my opinion, shameful.

FYI



The board doesn’t allow religious discussion. So to keep from being preached to or lectured as you have recently with Barnaby2341, nightimer, and Artemise, I’ll just say that I’m mildly agnostic. That’s as far as I’ll go. If I want to read C. S. Lewis, I can locate his books.

BoF - I appreciate your thoroughness. You do understand that I was not asking as of yet for your definition of when something becomes shameful? I just wanted to know if there was a general category of sexual behaviors that you do consider as such. You fall along the same lines that CR does regards to this (i.e., consenting adults standard). I too agree with most of your take on shameful sexual behavior excepting my example of prostitution.

You state,

"Prostitutes selling themselves for experience isn't the norm - it's about money. Also, would it be equally shameful for a male to sell himself in this way?

For the purposes of this discussion it is irrelevant whether motives for any activity fall along normative lines (i.e., for money, or otherwise). The fact of the matter is that I am sure there are those out there (or at least one) "working the trade" simply because they have nothing better to do. That being the case, I am interested in knowing if you would still hold to your "consenting adults" standard? By the way, of course gender has nothing to do with it.

You state,

"The board doesn’t allow religious discussion. So to keep from being preached to or lectured as you have recently with Barnaby2341, nightimer, and Artemise, I’ll just say that I’m mildly agnostic. That’s as far as I’ll go. If I want to read C. S. Lewis, I can locate his books."

Caramba, where did that come from?! I've not had a religious discussion with anyone nor have I asked for one. Have you had a bad experience with a preacher? I've not preached to you, the other posters you listed, nor anyone else on any other thread. At the very least, I haven't said anything to anyone that hasn't been said to me although I honestly don't know what you're referring to (you can PM me if your sensitivities have been offended.)

Furthermore, you did not have to reveal you are mildly agnostic. Though it is helpful, I never asked for this. My example was merely an effort to shed light on why I wanted to know whether you "believed" in the idea of shameful behavior not whether you struggled with the idea of a divine creator.

Finally BoF, this whole thread is about how religious prescriptions influence our public discourse on sexuality in the US (although I'm not sure Artemis would approve with this topic's turn of events!). My quoting C.S. Lewis (God rest his soul) was an effort to illuminate from whence I draw my views on the expression of sexuality in our culture. It was not an effort to convert you to Christianity. I will continue quoting from CS Lewis as I see fit or until told otherwise from the moderators (you can look away if you like.) On second thought, you should probably not try to locate his books.

To return to the thread theme, do you think that our country's sexual mores are prohibitive regards to what our youth are exposed to? I believe improvement could be made particularly within the religious community though I would not call our sexual mores prohibitive.

I have to respond to a few comments here:


Of course, you cant argue the results, if you had results. So far, abstinance programs have teens using any loophole they can to get around the actual act, including oral and anal sex. This has been discussed in other threads, crap, I might have to look it up, if you question it I will, but its been debated extensively.
Are you saying we dont have the AIDS epidemic that does Africa, and this is a result of abstinance? Like Which countries? Do you think most of our teens are being abstinant? Do you think Anyone is being abstinant?


I dont believe this is true, certainly not what was going on in my neighborhood (1970's), or from the children Ive known recently. Kids, especially male children are getting pretty attuned to sex by age 10. This is especially a good time to start talking to them as Ive seen male children pick up on that women are basically a set of boobs or no boobs, a societal consequence I guess. Bouncing boobs are a favorite discussion and a talk about how women are not sex objects and their body parts are part of them and not divided 'from them' is pertinent at this time.
(If you have open parenting they will talk to you about it, and masturbation and everything) They do not understand it, but they are picking up on the meaning. Many children have played significant sex games such as 'doctor' or mutual masturbation, or experimental touching by age ten, and by age 13-14 have graduated to heavy petting. By 15 they have done plenty of experimentation, and the trigger can go either way to 'going all the way'. We often forget the sex games we played as kids, and at what age. The priests were fiddling the boys in my neighborhood by age 10, and we knew it, but you never talked to your parents about it, because they were prudes and would have beat you to death for saying such a thing. The reality is, we see our children as children and dont realize they are becoming sexually experimental beings very young.



I do not have an ideology of 'loosening up'. My position is generated around and against the concept that sex is dirty, sinful and harmful. That, in our puritanical viewpoint we eliminate healthy discussion and healthy views of sex to our youth, leaving them in an abyss of confusion because of our own discomfort.
Where-as sex is truly an affirmation of life, it should be educated upon, dealt with in that manner, not, the clandestine and 'dirty cloak of mystery' which it currently is. Expecting that our kids 'find out what its all about' on their own, to their own detriment, is unfair and creates sexual dysfunction, as well as telling them, or implying through society that its 'bad'.



Spoken like a true Muslim. Only kidding, actually the neocons believe the same. On that Im not kidding, the neocon strategy is born out of hate for liberalism and its excesses, and so is Islamism. I have long argued that Western society is depraved to a certain extent, and for that very reason we cannot bring western democracy to Islamic nations, because they do have a few things right which they fight for, for themselves, not us. And they are right to fight for those things, and we are right to preserve ours, but neither is totally right
We are essentially a product of materialism and hedonism, with which the objectification of the female body, or now any 'body' is up for grabs as well as a slew of other ethics and morals thrown under the bus.
What you speak of is an ideological battle, playing out, right now, but the solutions hold two different paths.
I believe more education , about sex , and just about everything, will empower us and dispell the fear which the unknown holds over us, whilst some believe, keeping people in the dark and severely controlled, especially under religious dogma will solve our problems, and guess what? Those people are not Muslim extremists but our own administration.
So, if you are saying that our sexual depravity is actually caused by a view of sexual objectification of the 'body' and a superficial concentration on it, media etc- then I would call that correct, but I would Not say that our 'depravity' is caused by real sex education, a sense of normal and healthy sexual attitudes and a society that deems the sexes equal without objectification, or discrimination, because it has not occurred yet and is an experiment yet to be seen.



I got a good laugh over this. Merry Christmas Mrs P. At least you and your family are safe and warm, as well as mine. Isnt the idea of Global Peace such a great , incredible, stupid Joke! HAhahahaha, ho, ho ho, Merry Christmas!

Artemis - I can't believe how riveted I am to this stinkin' thread!! Yes, it is almost 2:00 and why am I not sleeping?

To quote Artemis,

"I do not have an ideology of 'loosening up'. My position is generated around and against the concept that sex is dirty, sinful and harmful. That, in our puritanical viewpoint we eliminate healthy discussion and healthy views of sex to our youth, leaving them in an abyss of confusion because of our own discomfort.
Where-as sex is truly an affirmation of life, it should be educated upon, dealt with in that manner, not, the clandestine and 'dirty cloak of mystery' which it currently is. Expecting that our kids 'find out what its all about' on their own, to their own detriment, is unfair and creates sexual dysfunction, as well as telling them, or implying through society that its 'bad'."

I can't believe how much I agree with you. So much of the shame behind sexual expression has become, in part, the catalyst for so much of the dysfunction. And yes, much of this is generated by religious taboo. I'm afraid though as we "drill down into the details" of a new paradym regards to sexual education/expression we will have to part company on many points.

Artemis again,

"So, if you are saying that our sexual depravity is actually caused by a view of sexual objectification of the 'body' and a superficial concentration on it, media etc- then I would call that correct, but I would Not say that our 'depravity' is caused by real sex education, a sense of normal and healthy sexual attitudes and a society that deems the sexes equal without objectification, or discrimination, because it has not occurred yet and is an experiment yet to be seen."

Once again, I'm on board at least conceptually. I certainly see the objectification issue though I have to believe that the sexual objectification of men has certainly gained in notoriety. Indeed, some of the gains that women have made as measured against the entitlements men have always enjoyed, leaves me concerned for the well-being of both genders.

Have a "Merry" one.

It is interesting to have lived this long and gone through our human form of sexuality. The hormones no longer rage, the bio clock has stopped.

Sexuality is not like eating. It isn't that permanent, if you live long enough. Eating is. Sexuality becomes like a long, soaking hot bath -- nice once in a while, but not necessary.

Whatever, the point of this thread is sexuality and younger people. Yes, that does exist.

Adults, especially parents, get all upset about it. That's another phase of human life, and it too is not permanent. Nor is youth.

Looking at this from a distance is pretty cool, like being in an orbiting spacecraft and actually seeing how repression begets something else, and it ain't pretty. While in college those many years ago, the idea that suppressing sexuality brings about violence was a debating point.

Yes, I think now that this is true. It's obvious. Sexual lust repressed becomes blood lust.

So seeking sex with 14 year olds is shameful? That is the age of consent in much of Europe. Similarly, the boys that the priests were abusing were most frequently 14 or older. The priests were only guilty of abuse of authority if their actions had occurred in libertine Europe.