Sexism

A place for more serious off-topic discussion and debates.
Post Reply
Posts: 15994
Joined: June 2011
Location: North Carolina
Cilogy wrote:
chinn70 wrote:can someone just lock this thread ffs .



/ thread
chinn I tolerated your nonsense for a while, but you need to calm down

Go to another thread, we are having a pretty non-combatant discussion about a range of topics.
chinn is not nonsense

Posts: 3470
Joined: October 2011
Location: Bates Motel
Cilogy wrote:
chinn70 wrote:can someone just lock this thread ffs .



/ thread
chinn I tolerated your nonsense for a while, but you need to calm down

Go to another thread, we are having a pretty non-combatant discussion about a range of topics.
omg
when someone said that she's not comfortable talking about her body , it means a lot .
the point is that the actual persons starting behind this were not into the topic .
consider this as my last post in this thread

Posts: 18800
Joined: June 2010
Location: The White City
Well, okay. I'll bite. Advocating the sexualization of society and its members have specific, observable, and statistically proven deeply negative consequences. Much has been researched and covered of the incredibly damaging effects of divorce- to the former spouses, but especially the children. Having been enrolled in five psychology courses over the last few years, I've come across more heartbreaking data points proving this than I'd care to say. Sexual promiscuity has an obvious and easy link to a sexualized culture that necessarily places far less importance on monogamous relationships, leading to the skyrocketing divorce rate. I mean, when did the divorce rate spike up? Well, right around the sexual revolution in the 60's and Elvis, and rock and roll, and the birth of that entire movement that changed the media's entire relationship with sex. Further, monogamy has been statistically verified to promote mental and emotional health, and cultivate the family in an enduring way. This necessarily impacts society at large, and forms a harmony running through all levels of society and culture.

This builds into this point, since they're interconnected:
That makes sense since the sun is a force of nature that we've come to accept. However, people should be able to do harmless things without the threat of negative reactions that can and should be stopped.
You're ostensibly cognizant of many of these issues, even in the absence of statistical evidence. Your brain does that for you, and you already admitted it as such. Compartmentalizing the issue, which is what you recommend: we should be able to do what we want regardless of negative consequences, is implicitly rejecting the full-breadth and weight of the issues at hand. Essentially, it breeds ignorance. I don't really like stuffing things into that sort of a binary because of how reductive they can be. It isn't, 'it's a force of nature and we allow it to continue" or "condemn it all", reality is always closer to a gradient of shifting measures we have to understand and thus react intelligently. I have this kind of coined phrase called 'general reasonability'-- essentially, regardless of what extremities your position concerns, never reject practicality or, really, just being kind of reasonable about things. You don't want to get mugged? Take precautions. I do. It has nothing to do with how 'fair' or 'unfair' it is, I don't want to get mugged, so I do what I can to make sure I'm not, even in supposedly safe areas of Chicago. I'm practical. Does this justify or advocate muggers? Absolutely fucking not, that's ridiculous, it's merely the expectation and reacting accordingly. On a social level, the principle carries over. What you deem 'fair' or 'unfair' isn't nearly as relevant as what will or won't construct positive consequences to the society as a whole in a Kantian or Utilitarian sort of method. React accordingly.

One source (of many): http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/doe ... le-happier

-Vader

Posts: 26113
Joined: February 2010
Location: Texas
Vader182 wrote:Well, okay. I'll bite. Advocating the sexualization of society and its members have specific, observable, and statistically proven deeply negative consequences. Much has been researched and covered of the incredibly damaging effects of divorce- to the former spouses, but especially the children. Having been enrolled in five psychology courses over the last few years, I've come across more heartbreaking data points proving this than I'd care to say. Sexual promiscuity has an obvious and easy link to a sexualized culture that necessarily places far less importance on monogamous relationships, leading to the skyrocketing divorce rate. I mean, when did the divorce rate spike up? Well, right around the sexual revolution in the 60's and Elvis, and rock and roll, and the birth of that entire movement that changed the media's entire relationship with sex. Further, monogamy has been statistically verified to promote mental and emotional health, and cultivate the family in an enduring way. This necessarily impacts society at large, and forms a harmony running through all levels of society and culture.
I don't want to continue deeper into this because I have a feeling it will turn out like my discussion with prince over marriage and etc. which was a complete mess and I think prince hates me even more now after that. My view is that the concept of monogamy as a convention will inevitably fall. I mean there will always be people who want monogamy, but it being this immovable cornerstone will probably be replaced by something different. It's all a part of natural change, which is a conversation for another day. Maybe we can just agree to disagree.

You're ostensibly cognizant of many of these issues, even in the absence of statistical evidence. Your brain does that for you, and you already admitted it as such. Compartmentalizing the issue, which is what you recommend: we should be able to do what we want regardless of negative consequences, is implicitly rejecting the full-breadth and weight of the issues at hand. Essentially, it breeds ignorance. I don't really like stuffing things into that sort of a binary because of how reductive they can be. It isn't, 'it's a force of nature and we allow it to continue" or "condemn it all", reality is always closer to a gradient of shifting measures we have to understand and thus react intelligently. I have this kind of coined phrase called 'general reasonability'-- essentially, regardless of what extremities your position concerns, never reject practicality or, really, just being kind of reasonable about things. You don't want to get mugged? Take precautions. I do. It has nothing to do with how 'fair' or 'unfair' it is, I don't want to get mugged, so I do what I can to make sure I'm not, even in supposedly safe areas of Chicago. I'm practical. Does this justify or advocate muggers? Absolutely fucking not, that's ridiculous, it's merely the expectation and reacting accordingly. On a social level, the principle carries over. What you deem 'fair' or 'unfair' isn't nearly as relevant as what will or won't construct positive consequences to the society as a whole in a Kantian or Utilitarian sort of method. React accordingly.

One source (of many): http://bigthink.com/dollars-and-sex/doe ... le-happier

-Vader
I agree with your perspective there, especially about your "general reasonability", which is a great point. I have no problem at all. I guess I was just talking in broader terms because I was I often see injustice in the fact that people simply go along with the status quo without taking much action to change it for the better. So it's possible I'm just wandering off into a different subject from the one we were originally on.

I never said we should be able to do whatever we want without regard to negative consequences, I said we should be able to what we want as long as it doesn't harm others or cause actual obstruction. I don't think it breeds ignorance because any negative consequences having to do with open sexuality or sexual promiscuity have more to do with the massive discomfort around sex in the first place. In other words, there really aren't many negative consequences in this situation that are also not minor or pointless personal issues. I would actually say that the opposite breeds ignorance, it propagates methods of shaming people who are more openly sexual. I think there's also a lot to be said when this concerns education. I remember reading a study a while ago about how red states often have higher rates of teen pregnancy and unsafe sex than blue states (I'm sure a google search would have it turn up). This was correlated to how little sex-ed there is in those states. Now that's just a minor example, but it gets to my larger point about how a certain level of knowledge and comfort with sexuality is necessary to understand the responsibilities of it.

Maybe this is also where my sex positive mind kicks in, because at this point I'm just automatically thinking "wait a second, I really don't see anything wrong with open sexuality". I literally do not see anything morally incorrect about that, which maybe has more to do with my upbringing and the area I grew up in which itself was quite repressive. It's not like people are being forced into being sexual and it's not some sort of epidemic.

Posts: 264
Joined: February 2011

Posts: 15363
Joined: June 2010
Location: You're pretty good.

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013

Posts: 22408
Joined: May 2010
Location: Castle
lawyered

Image

Posts: 460
Joined: January 2013
"It doesn't matter what she did?" What the hell? Do they levitate above the rest of us just because we wanna fuck em?

Posts: 21411
Joined: June 2010
Location: All-Hail Master Virgo, Censor of NolanFans
Jungian wrote:"It doesn't matter what she did?" What the hell? Do they levitate above the rest of us just because we wanna fuck em?
:lol: :lol: :lol: true.

this whole "don't hit a woman no matter what she did" is so dumb...

Post Reply