Sexual expression: your opinion

Who would have thought it... sex is apparently good for you.How about the flip side of the coin - what are the bad effects? Apart from the obvious ones, like STD's - though I'd contend that they are a result of irresponsibility and not an intrinsic part of sex.I'm wondering where the fundys are... no discussion about sex is complete without one.

This was the day when Schraf revealed her complete lack of need for intelligent pillow talk.

For all of you that enjoy sex and think of God as some cranky old spoil sport, it is worth noting that model for it, as rolled off the factory floor was designed by him. There was no need to make it as enjoyable as it is - it could have made as much fun and have been as unavoidable as breathing - after all.Whether one considers spannering on the original to produce a custom-made version to be a good thing or not is, I think, down to the individual.Of all the variations on the theme that are possible (and the fact that I have tried to find satisfaction through my production of a wide variety of custom-models puts me in a position to comment) I cannot avoid the conclusion that the very best is that which is produced by the maker himself. The model called making love."And the two shall become one flesh" kind of puts it in a nutshell for me

I already have a thread on that exact topic. Yes the US is cracking down on porn already.My original thread was discussing the tightening of record keeping regulations in order to drive most people (except major corporations) from communicating using sexually graphic imagery.Over the last year the US has created an FBI taskforce to begin targeting adult porn businesses in order to hobble the industry.The reasons given are that it harms society because it does. That is all. There have already been govt studies which show that it doesn't, so that is no longer the question. It just does, contrary to all evidence.The religious fanatics at least have the excuse that they say their God says it is bad, which he never did and indeed Jesus defended a prostitute from state sanction in one of the more famous passages of the Bible. But hey, maybe he changed his mind. They say it is immoral, sinful, and so bad.The nonreligious antiporn fanatics, are usually zealots belonging to a wing of feminism. In this case they have anecdotal evidence, which apparently trumps scientific evidence. And they seem to run with the logic, we all agree that sex is bad (or men are bad) so pictures of it must be hurting women somehow.Yes, these are somewhat caricatured, but in fact what the arguments boil down to.Oh wait, they also all scream that this somehow protects children and that is a great way to defend any policy, especially when one has no evidence besides contrary evidence including about kids being harmed.No, none of them have a right to do what they are doing. But they are doing it anyway.America is not the only region affected by this growing antisex hysteria. It is sweeping the globe.I have no idea what the long term effects will be. Much the same (if they succeed) as any other repressive regime has for whatever amount of time they stay in power. People will be miserable until a large enough group wakes up to the fact that they don't have to be miserable. Its happened before in history and it'll happen again.I guess the only difference this time is that unlike past times in history globalization is going to prevent people today from moving away to escape oppression. There is actually a possibility of wiping out an entire form of communication from existence. Sexual expression is rated as equal to or more damaging than expressions of violence, and at any rate more damaging than nonsexual communication by people that are not rational. Unfortunately that appears to be a mounting majority.It is a cultural hysteria, but finding a home across all cultures. It is not religious, as religion can support all viewpoints (St Augustine argued for legal prostitution after all). However, it was driven by those using religion and believe it has a basis in their "true" religion. Unfortunately it also found a home among nonreligious feminist and liberal movements. Much of the hysteria can be traced back to the Progressive Movement in the late 1800s. They believed we could make society better, perfect, and because they were prudes they believed sex had to be removed to some degree to achieve such perfection.In away this is just a reemergence of the Victorian era, with atheists and theists joining together to hate sex once again... except for the sex that THEY like of course.I am hoping that it will change back in my lifetime but I doubt it. We have to hit rock bottom first. Just like the witch trials, just like Prohibition, just like the McCarthy red scare.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

There are no intrinsic bad effects with sex. That is what we were built to do and enjoy.Blaming sex for STDs is like blaming breathing among others for Pneumonia.Of course like anything else, one can damage onesself during a physical act. But that's an accident, and not part of the process.It is true that pregnancy can be a result and pregnancy can be life threatening. Of course it has been shown that the earlier in life a girl gets pregnant there is an added protection against breast cancer. Not sure what the trade off is.Pregnancy itself is life altering, but that is not a bad effect unless that is how you want to view it.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I knew there must be at least one hanging around... Hey iano, welcome to the debate! As a fellow Irishman, how do you feel about the questions I posed earlier?

I wonder is it worth reawakening that thread or continuing with this one?My next question would be why exactly the US government is trying to hamstring a particular industry that is obviously profitable and probably paying a nice chunk of tax simply on the grounds of morality. I'd think all it will do is drive the industry out of the country, and seeing as the Internet is what it is, it will not stop people from accessing porn if they want it. All it will do is take away that nice chunk of tax money.My third question would be if there has ever been a case similar to this before - of an industry being repressed due to morality.

quote:

---

Sexual expression is rated as equal to or more damaging than expressions of violence, and at any rate more damaging than nonsexual communication by people that are not rational. Unfortunately that appears to be a mounting majority.

​

It is a cultural hysteria, but finding a home across all cultures.

---

quote:

---

In a way this is just a reemergence of the Victorian era, with atheists and theists joining together to hate sex once again... except for the sex that THEY like of course.

---

And now I wonder what exactly is the singular factor that can cause this kind of hysteria in all cultures, as you say. Is it the Victorian influence? Do we see this kind of attitude in countries in the Far East, say?(For the record, extreme feminism, i.e. man-hating, scares me a lot. I place it next to racism in many ways; I cannot understand the reasoning behind hating someone because they were born a certain race or gender.)

---

"Those who fear the darkness have never seen what the light can do."

We can keep using this thread, unless this is going to get to detailed to your overall topic. You call the shots. The following three links discuss the formation of the new FBI taskforce, as well as the efforts by this administration (starting back under Ashcroft) to go after porn.http://www.washingtonpost.com/.../09/19/AR2005091901570.htmlMSN | Outlook, Office, Skype, Bing, Breaking News, and Latest VideosXtreme MeasuresThey don't view the income as legitimate, thus the tax revenue is besides the point. I'm sure there is something so egregious to you personally that no matter how much it made in tax money you wouldn't want it to exist as a legal entity. I don't know about Ireland but the US had Prohibition, where the entire liquor industry was pushed underground. Of course people that hate porn might say yes as well and point to the slave industry. The east had its own sexual taboos, but was not as hysteric about sexuality until Western nations came in and told them they had to be. We've been driving their moral systems ever since we gained financial and military advantage over them.Japan has a real interesting history regarding sexual expression. It used to be totally free. Then after we took over we imposed our own rules against graphic sexual imagery. Eventually sex was allowed to be shown but the naughty bits had to be censored. Of course they did not have the child sexual phobia that we had so they produced lots of child porn which they just thought was normal. Young kids also had the benefit of no pubic hair so they didn't have to be blurred.Within the last 10 years there was major pressure applied to them to change their laws so that they would match the rest of the world, show the naughty bits but do not show kids in a sexually stimulating way, or that they might like sex. Eventually they caved on the age issue, destroying rather large industries they had, but are still working on removing the original laws we forced on them to not show the naughty bits.Of course one of the answers to this change was the rise of Manga/Hentai which involves quite a bit of childpornish elements in cartoon form.From what I understand recently Cambodia's leader announced a war on porn in his nation and apparently that includes sex educational material. Good job!China tried to wipe out the Opium industry which the west used to rake in massive profits. The west shoved it down their throat until they didn't need the money anymore. Now the west tells everyone else not to do drugs, especially opium derived.Hmmmmmmmmmm.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

quote:

---

They don't view the income as legitimate, thus the tax revenue is besides the point. I'm sure there is something so egregious to you personally that no matter how much it made in tax money you wouldn't want it to exist as a legal entity.

---

That simply raises the question of why they think the income is not legitimate. Is the income of companies using child labour in developing countries not legitimate then? I mean, if we're talking about protecting the kids here...Personally I take the view of Bill Hicks in that matter, by the way. "'Think of the children, we have to protect the children!' What, they turn eighteen and suddenly you don't give a shit anymore??" Course, I'm paraphrasing, but you get the idea.I can't really think of an industry that I find offensive enough to my morality that I'd want to shut it down. How about you, holmes?

quote:

---

Japan has a real interesting history regarding sexual expression. It used to be totally free. Then after we took over we imposed our own rules against graphic sexual imagery. Eventually sex was allowed to be shown but the naughty bits had to be censored. Of course they did not have the child sexual phobia that we had so they produced lots of child porn which they just thought was normal.

---

And what do you know, their entire society didn't collapse into a black hole of sin and depravity. Funny that.

Don't forget that young sex for women was ordinary not that long ago in the western countries. Girls married at 13 and start having children. Certainly evolution-wise before cultural imperatives sexually mature females would start producing children as soon as they were mate-able.A major part, imh(ysa)o, of the reason for apparent bareness in humans is so that women in particular look younger and thus more attractive. You see this today with a whole industry dedicated to encouraging apparent body bareness in women - shaved legs just for starters.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Could we include the intrinsic risks of any physical and frictive activity? Sprains, aches, chafing, rashes, allergic reactions to materials, etc. Also it can be rough on your bedsheets.I guess a lot of that stuff is accidental. It's the rubbing of sensitive parts, and physical exertion, and the exchange of sticky fluids. There's inherent risks there, to your person and property, but obviously the inherent negatives of sex can't be extreme; as you say, we're built to do it and enjoy it.Although I wonder what your opinion is of people who don't seem to be built to enjoy it; so-called "asexual" people. Is that simply a third sort of orientation - "none of the above" - or a sexual dysfunction?

Of course you are absolutely right. And intriguingly Bush and Co passed legislation so that no one from the US can go to a foreign country and have sex with someone below 18 (nevermind that within the US you can do that), yet they appear to staunchly defend the right of corporations to leave the US in order to get past US child labor laws.Yes, the signal is clear, children should not be sexually molested as that might interfere with their making my new shoes and a shitload of money for some millionaire. I am sure that in theory there is something that would offend my tastes enough that I would want it shut down.Although I honestly don't see why it could not be done safely with some oversight, I guess I am relatively amenable to not allowing a childporn industry. Its not so much the sex that is what would offend me, but I don't like people making loads of money off kids, and there is a reasonable argument it could encourage abuse... although I would love to hear why this would be so much more horrible than the abuse within the garment industry.I guess when one is wearing the products of child slavery, its less offensive than viewing it.To be honest I also would not mind putting a huge dent in the advertising industry as well as the televangelist industry.Oh yes... THE HEALTH INSURANCE INDUSTRY.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yeah, though I would lump that in as accidental. Since it could happen in any other physical activity to lay that as something special on sex would be hypocritical. Dysfunction might be the right term. If their system was functioning, then they'd be sexually interested and active (though obviously everyone varies in how much). Then again this sounds like it could be used as a sort of judgement.Asexuality is a lack of orientation, but it could be considered a proper label and just as valid a behavior as those who have an orientation.The only truly dysfunctional people to me, in a sort of judgemental way, are those that have a functioning sexuality and then want to pretend they don't and that that is the inherent state of humans. Forced asexuality and the idea that that is innocence is to me one of the most perverse and malignant activties people can engage in.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Sorry, couldn't help, but, Sure sounds like a judgment to me. Establishing norms seems fine, but calling what is outside of them, whether we're talking about behavioral or physical traits, seems to me taking a wrongly judgmental standpoint (given an evolution view of things). I would call them variations, possibly beneficial variations. I think bees might be a good example of a place where asexuality works out.Not that I'm trying to scold you; I do note you expressed uncertainty. Just to take time to express myself on what I think the right vocabulary and thinking on the subject is. It's a tough call. To what degree do we think of ourselves as animals, and whatever we do is "OK", and to what degree do we have some "ideals" that we're forcing upon ourselves? And to what degree are those "ideals" implementable and sustainable?Trying to "gain an upper hand" on sexuality isn't obviously bad to me. I see some utility in having control over any urge--it allows people to make decisions by weighting values as they (mentally) wish. Then again, I also am unsure about it. With no intrinsic values to things, we become less human and more decision-making machines.Lots of words to say, I can't agree or disagree. I haven't decided yet.Ben

Well, if we're going to take that view, then haven't you just eliminated the entire medical profession? If recognizing an abnormality as something to be treated is "judgemental", then what's to stop us from demanding that doctors stop treating eczema, or hair loss, or even fatal diseases?I know that, in the past, differences that we recognize as legitimate now were then held to be pathogenic. But I think we should be vary wary of "defining deviancy down", and legitimizing abnormal conditions that prevent a person from experiencing the full range of life's experiences. (To answer a reasonable rebuttal question - yes, I would be in favor of a medical treatment that would turn hetero- and homosexuals into bisexuals, so that they would experience the full range of sexual experience. I'd even take such a treatment, myself.)Hey, slightly off-topic, but germaine to the discussion - I learned a new word yesterday: "cisgendered". It's the opposite of "transgendered". It was coined for symmetry's sake, and to legitimize transsexuality by replacing the "transexual/normal" linguistic dichotomy with something more balanced. Probably old hat to you folks but I found it interesting.