 |
My maternal grandparents were German and I remember having wine when I was about 12. I admit I got drunk once when I was in grade 12 at a graduation party but I quickly outgrew it and from then on, I only drank in moderation. I never saw what was so fun about getting drunk and sick every weekend like typical Canadian people.
You can TRY to make it sound innocent all you want
What about it do you find so alarming?Quote:
Originally Posted by zippit
Is nudity and sex a bad thing to you or part of who we are?
I'm not saying that you should put on hard core porn and sit your kids down to watch it, either is Cats. I think you're reading too much into this.
Sex is a natural act, it's people that make it unnatural and something to be ashamed of. Nudity is also natural, but society has deemed it as inappropriate and taboo. My kids haven't seen porn, but if I was watching it and one of them walked in, I would explain, I wouldn't just rush to hide what I was doing, making it seem like a bad thing.
I would like to hear what you find so alarming about all of this. I would recommend that you re-read Cats post before you respond because I think you missed something when reading it the first time.
Zippit, did you happen to read Cats follow up post that it was the music that put the kids to sleep? They didn't even stay awake long enough to hear any sounds that could be construed as 'sexual'.
Taste and morality are not always easy to justify. Why should the fork be on the left? "Why does it matter and why do I have to remember that?", asks my 16 year old son. I give him answers, but they aren't good ones.
Sex and nudity are similar. If you belong to a tribe of natives who habitually go nude, the idea that you would need to cover up at all ever would seem bizarre. On the other hand, if the CEO of Bechtel showed up at the office in the buff, it would be an issue. So I think we have to respect what people are accustomed to.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with nudity, but nonetheless it makes some people uncomfortable. I went to a nude beach once by accident. I got there early in the morning when no one else was there, and was just sitting watching the waves. Gradually more and more nude people began to show up and soon I was one of only a couple of people with clothes. I tried to be cool about this, but one naked guy kept walking by and trying to start a conversation with me, and another couple came and set up immediately behind me and they smelled really bad, in a genital sort of way. Yuck. I got up and left. Not my thing. That's me. Their beach, I won't go back!
Frankly, sexual mores are no different in my opinion. Bonobos, which are the "other" chimpanzees, the ones that have sex constantly and are semi-matriarchal, engage in passionate kissing, oral sex, you name it. They are probably our closest relatives and they also engage in sexual activities with juveniles (children). Is it "wrong" for them to do this? It's hard for me to say that it is. They obviously don't think so. Is it wrong for humans to do this? We nearly all agree that it is. And partly because we all agree it's bad, it becomes bad. Someone who has been sexually abused as a child feels shamed. I'm not defending child sexual abuse by any means. I am just saying that nudity in front of kids may feel fine for Alty and not fine for Zippit. I have a hard time saying that either of you is wrong (or right). (Nor do I feel like I am a moral relativist generally.)
I feel that the important question is always whether someone is injured. In the case of household nudity, I don't know of any evidence that it injures children. But it still feels wrong to me, like putting the fork on the right, only more so. When my 7-year-old starting coming into my bathroom specifically to stare at me naked, I began to feel uncomfortable and asked him to leave. Maybe that was wrong, but that was my decision. I was trying to be relaxed about it up until then. I was certainly more relaxed than my own mother. But I just wanted some privacy. He was making me uncomfortable.
I think pornography falls into a different category, because so much of it is not simple depictions of love making between consenting adults or of simple unaffected nudity, but mostly depictions of various kinds of humiliations and inequities in power. My opinion is that humiliation and inequality are never good for people. I'm really clear about that in my head.
A long time ago, my ex pressured me to watch pornographic videos with him and they left me feeling kind of sick. I particularly remember being disturbed by Behind the Green Door. After a while I wouldn't do it anymore. On the other hand I had a boyfriend in my 20s who liked to look at Penthouse with me and somehow he made it seem safe and amusing. He was just a nicer person and I never felt like a third wheel. During my marriage, I tried to share what felt like safer pornography with my ex husband and he rejected it and made fun of it. So that was that.
If you are uncomfortable with it then of course you shouldn't do it. My kids have never come into the room just to stare at me, nor does it make me uncomfortable to be naked in front of them.Quote:
I feel that the important question is always whether someone is injured. In the case of household nudity, I don't know of any evidence that it injures children. But it still feels wrong to me, like putting the fork on the right, only more so. When my 7-year-old starting coming into my bathroom specifically to stare at me naked, I began to feel uncomfortable and asked him to leave. Maybe that was wrong, but that was my decision. I was trying to be relaxed about it up until then. I was certainly more relaxed than my own mother. But I just wanted some privacy. He was making me uncomfortable.
It's not like I walk around the house naked shaking what my mama gave me, I just don't hide my nudity if my kids should happen to walk in on me when I'm naked.
The thing that bothered me about Zippit's post was the fact that he was judging because it's not okay to him. That's his right, but to admonish someone else because of a choice that they made, that's not his right and it made me mad.
We all have different parenting styles. We all have different boundaries with our kids. We all have been raised differently as well and that also reflects on how we raise our children.
I am a survivor of child molestation by my cousins hand. I am a lot more careful then most parents about who I leave my children with. Because of my fears we don't get to go out a lot, because there are only two people that I trust to babysit.
Most people would say that I'm being overly cautious, but I'm not comfortable changing my ways. I could do it, but I wouldn't be happy about it.
Would I look down on someone else because they leave their kids with teens they hardly know? No. I may not be comfortable with it but it's their choice.
I just don't think it's right that Zippit would dare to judge someone else. I'm sure that there are things he does as a parent that we wouldn't agree with either.
Good points all, asking.
Zippit, please come back with your reasons you think pornography is bad.
Unky started this to get a debate going, let's go.
Here are my points, please refute them in any order you choose:
- Simple depictions of men and women having sex are positive images/videos.
- Using implied sex and violence to sell Halloween costumes(among other things) is much more negative and harmful to developing personalities than explicit sex.
- Explicit sex movies are boring to those not interested in sex.
- False depictions are everywhere, not only in pornography.
- Poor dialogue, strained plots, forgettable music, and mediocre photography make for bad movies regardless of subject matter.
You see more hardcore stuff on billboards these days than in the old cheesy porn films...
Boom-chicka-waa-waa
It depends firstly on who is watching. If you take Zippit for example, I don't think he'll see it as positive ;). Hmm.. positive perhaps in the way that is provides some sort of experience of how to do things, except that nowadays, like you said earlier, it's not the real thing most of the time, but fake ones, set up, nothing like what really happens in life.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cats
I agree. However, that doesn't mean that explicit sex is not harmful at all.Quote:
Using implied sex and violence to sell Halloween costumes(among other things) is much more negative and harmful to developing personalities than explicit sex.
True, though some might have some weird reactions in seeing them (:p)Quote:
Explicit sex movies are boring to those not interested in sex.
Yes, but again, does that mean that we have to go forward with pornography?Quote:
False depictions are everywhere, not only in pornography.
Then, don't watch the movie!Quote:
Poor dialogue, strained plots, forgettable music, and mediocre photography make for bad movies regardless of subject matter.
~~~~
Okay, not my real me in there. I'm trying to simulate the arguments, trying to give rebuts. Sorry if that may sound 'offensive' or who knows 'defensive' but I consider that in a debate, you have to do everything, even if that may be insensible to some, to win.
Anyone has other ways to tackle with that? Or perhaps more arguments?
Oh, yes, Zippit, I'd love to hear your arguments. They will definitely help me :)
Please, Unky, no apologies for legitimate debate. I welcome the response, especially from other points of view.
- Refuting the rebuttal:
- The eye of the beholder is the entire point of the debate. Those of us who prefer complete nudity and cornstatch gel (used to simulate sexual fluids) over semi-nudity, knives, and red-dyed corn syrup (fake blood) get very defensive whenever the corn syrup crowd pronounces from on high that the cornstarch should be banned.
- There are six billion people on this planet. If sex is harmful, why is there so much of it? Depictions of anything will cause questions to be asked. Answering the questions, while sometimes awkward or embarrasing, is not harmful to asker or answerer.
- If, by allowing pornography to go forward, other subject matter escapes censure, does that not move everyone closer to wisdom?
- Cheap exploitation makes bad movies of all subjects. Foxy Brown and Navy Seals did not contribute to the art of moviemaking, while House of Dreams and 91/2 Weeks did.
In Conclusion:
Everyone has different tastes. The entertainment industry will try to profit from every subject imaginable. Sex is only one of many. Should only one be labelled "bad?"
There is so much of it because people have to procreate. It is only natural to do that. Porn, on the other hand is affecting people. From the previous page, I posted a link to an article, showing that a great majority of people showing misconduct were watching porn through their computers during work hours. Teens are being affected by it in a way that they want to perform sex as soon as possible, resulting in early motherhood.
A better way to wisdom is (perhaps) to separate all censures, and deal with them separately.
Ok, I had to think of that one for a while:
1. There are many other films that certain people call bad. Films involving violence, too much sudden colours (an example are some video games and cartoons where some children suffered from epilepsy).
2. And what about the free ones, that circulates around through mobile phones, internet, etc? Film companies have nothing to gain, but everything to lose! Their audience is largely reduced.
Why should it be banned, because you can't stop watching it?Quote:
Porn should be banned imo.
Here's the great part about being a human being, you have a choice. You don't have to watch porn if you find it distasteful, you can walk away.
Freedom of choice. If you ban porn how long before you ban cigarettes, then beer, then perhaps chocolate, or milk. If we banned things because a small portion of the world didn't like it, we'd have nothing.
You find it disturbing but you need it in order to get off? That's disturbing!Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Student
Then you need to develop your imagination. You might even imagine how to ask a girl out nicely, just to have fun with.Quote:
Originally Posted by Serious Student
I agree it's possible to masturbate without porn. So that's an option, Serious Student. Or wean yourself from this porn and use something more innocuous.
But about banning things, I don't agree that banning things is necessarily bad. I am no libertarian (although I joined the libertarian party briefly, before I knew they objected to public schools and public libraries :) ). There are lots of things that we all agree are not good for us, either individually or as a group. We ban child pornography to protect children; nobody with a felony is allowed to teach children. Why not protect young women as assiduously as we protect children? A 19 year old may be an adult, but if she is unable to escape from an abusive pornographer like Chuck Traynor, aren't we all partly culpable for not making laws that limit the power of people like him?
Banning shouldn't be banned. The main reason not to ban cigarettes for example is not that it is essential to human life, but that banning creates a black market, provides a revenue stream for organized crime, and makes a deadly product more difficult to tax and regulate. (The other reason is that the industry has bought certain congressman.) We learned these things with prohibition. The failure of prohibition was not because alcohol wasn't a dangerous product that destroyed families. We ban or regulate all kinds of things, including a lot of materials needed to build bombs, and the distribution of thousands of pharmaceuticals. Why is it okay to tightly regulate a drug like Nexium or to ban speech that incites to riot but not things that kill thousands of people annually--like cigarettes and unhealthy foods?
It's become clear from the epidemic of obesity and diabetes that the food industry is destroying our health with what they call "eatertainment." Yes, we should resist eating too many nacho cheese doritos, but it would be a lot easier to resist if we were not bombarded with similar foods everywhere we went. These products appeal to us at a biological level that is difficult to resist and I think it's disingenuous to say to people, "just say no." It doesn't work for sex and it doesn't work for food.
I'm not saying individuals have no willpower, but average lifespan is getting shorter instead of longer. Are we going to let that happen and just shrug and let it happen because banning things is never good?
As far as I know, porn isn't being regulated anyway. Why not regulate it?
I have just convinced myself that pornography should be regulated! To be honest, I really hadn't thought much about it before.
You hit the nail on the head Asking. That's what would most likely happen if porn was banned. After all, child porn is illegal but still available, it's just gone underground.Quote:
The main reason not to ban cigarettes for example is not that it is essential to human life, but that banning creates a black market, provides a revenue stream for organized crime, and makes a deadly product more difficult to tax and regulate.
No, I'm not saying child porn is okay, of course not, but porn is supposed to be with consenting adults. Bad things happen in every industry, that's life. If porn was banned then it would be even more difficult to monitor people like Chuck Taylor. They'd still exist but we wouldn't have any control at all.
It depends on what you mean by regulated. There are laws in place to protect every person against sexual acts, porn isn't above that. So in a way it is regulated.Quote:
As far as I know, porn isn't being regulated anyway. Why not regulate it?
I have just convinced myself that pornography should be regulated! To be honest, I really hadn't thought much about it before.
I agree that more regulation would be a good thing, but not banning, because of what I stated above. :)
I never knew anyone who talked about his "massive boner" who actually HAD a massive boner. Maybe it's in the eye of the beholder.
This is one person who two user names -
Too funny!
Yes, masturbating must rot the mind.
So far I haven't seen anyone saying that pornography is itself bad or wrong. Unky posted a link about workers misusing government computers. Asking and Alty talk about nicotine and alcohol and raping children. Serious Student explains his impulse control issues.
Does erotic material cause any of these things? There were "no personal phone call" policies long before there was the internet or even phone sex companies. "Altarboys" has meant something other than religious for generations. Chronic masturbators have been around so long that hairy palms and going blind are jokes. Worldwide, the temples in Cambodia (Angor Wat) and the Kama Sutra are how many millenia old?
As far as banning things, Robert Heinlein said it best:
"If any government, any church, any group says 'This you may not see, this you may not read, this you may not know," the result is tyranny and oppression."
Unky, have you got enough material for your debate project yet?
This is one argument that keeps being brought up usually by those who forget human history and biology. They seem to have a tendency to believe that humans do not become aware of their bodies in a sexual sense until they are over the age of 18 years old and those that have an earlier awareness had to have been subjected to sexually related materials by someone else. They tend to deny that humans start exploring their own bodies as toddlers.Quote:
Originally Posted by Unknown008
Children have a natural curiosity about touching and finding out what 'feels' good. As they mature the curiosity extends to other people. Potty training can be very interesting as the child learns that males and females have different genitalia that causes them to urinate in different ways resulting in urinals and toilets.
Children have to be taught the boundaries of what is permissible. Those boundaries change as the society/culture children grow up in changes. It wasn't too long ago (due to a shorter life expectancy) that it was common in most societies for females to be 'married off' not long after their menstrual cycle began (sometimes as young as 13 years of age with 18 years old being considered abnormal). They were considered adult women and capable of producing offspring to further the family and the community. Males were given a little longer to mature only because they were expected to learn a trade (even if it was taking over the family farm) before marrying.
Life expectancy increased. The age at which children become sexually aware didn't. Teenage pregnancy has always been around. As mentioned, it was (and in some places still is) considered normal. However, many societies set an arbitrary age at which youth become adults and ignore that biologically the reproductive and sexual drives are still there. Those new 'laws' resulted in a lot of young people still being driven by hormones and nature to reproduce or at least explore those 'sensations' with no legal outlet for those 'needs'.
As for teen pregnancy and society, 'shotgun' weddings or sending the girl off to 'visit' relatives or to a 'special' school was the way to handle the 'inconvenience'. Today, it is still frowned upon, however, it isn't hidden like it was a few decades ago and more teens are choosing to raise their children rather than for the child to become their 'sister/brother/cousin' or to put the child up for adoption.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 05:52 PM. |