First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
The Fallacy of Sexual Liberation
Posted 12/20/10 , edited 12/20/10
People in societies are often repressed (as we have commonly seen) from following their basic instincts. Nowadays, most of us have loosened up. The consequence of this are an outrageous overabundance of human lives, epidemics of STIs, and so forth. Do we have the resources necessary to support a continually growing population? The answer, quite frankly, is: no. With 6.8 billion people and counting living on Earth, where will the basic requirements for our existences come from when it all runs out? Even space is a precious commodity, and we are quickly loosing ground. In the old days, people not only had children because they wanted to, they did out of the necessity for more people to help out with the daily workload. Each person used to earn their keep. Today, we have too many spoiled brats and street punks contributing nothing. Was there any justification in them being born without their contributions? Yes, but only if they eventually learn to give something in return for their living, instead of leeching it off others.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/20/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:

People in societies are often repressed (as we have commonly seen) from following their basic instincts. Nowadays, most of us have loosened up. The consequence of this are an outrageous overabundance of human lives, epidemics of STIs, and so forth. Do we have the resources necessary to support a continually growing population? The answer, quite frankly, is: no. With 6.8 billion people and counting living on Earth, where will the basic requirements for our existences come from when it all runs out? Even space is a precious commodity, and we are quickly loosing ground. In the old days, people not only had children because they wanted to, they did out of the necessity for more people to help out with the daily workload. Each person used to earn their keep. Today, we have too many spoiled brats and street punks contributing nothing. Was there any justification in them being born without their contributions? Yes, but only if they eventually learn to give something in return for their living, instead of leeching it off others.


I also oppose 'Sexual Liberation', not for the stress placed upon the world by human life, in that it 'Sexualises' our culture to the point where wit is replaced with vulgarity, and art by phalli, the vulae, and offensiveness.
Posted 12/20/10

longfenglim wrote:


Mr_Entropy wrote:

People in societies are often repressed (as we have commonly seen) from following their basic instincts. Nowadays, most of us have loosened up. The consequence of this are an outrageous overabundance of human lives, epidemics of STIs, and so forth. Do we have the resources necessary to support a continually growing population? The answer, quite frankly, is: no. With 6.8 billion people and counting living on Earth, where will the basic requirements for our existences come from when it all runs out? Even space is a precious commodity, and we are quickly loosing ground. In the old days, people not only had children because they wanted to, they did out of the necessity for more people to help out with the daily workload. Each person used to earn their keep. Today, we have too many spoiled brats and street punks contributing nothing. Was there any justification in them being born without their contributions? Yes, but only if they eventually learn to give something in return for their living, instead of leeching it off others.


I also oppose 'Sexual Liberation', not for the stress placed upon the world by human life, in that it 'Sexualises' our culture to the point where wit is replaced with vulgarity, and art by phalli, the vulae, and offensiveness.


Whereupon, we lose taste for finer expressions and variety. The media is oversaturated with sex, and could at least make forms of entertainment regarding sexuality more realistic. The sad truth of anyone being pressured into doing something they are not ready for just goes to show that some people will do anything to direct their own regretful decisions on someone else. Conservative values concerning intimacy (if that word can even be used anymore) are in dire need, at this point. People should be made aware of how doing something improperly which requires responsibility and maturity just ends up with an emotional aftermath.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/20/10 , edited 12/20/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Mr_Entropy wrote:

People in societies are often repressed (as we have commonly seen) from following their basic instincts. Nowadays, most of us have loosened up. The consequence of this are an outrageous overabundance of human lives, epidemics of STIs, and so forth. Do we have the resources necessary to support a continually growing population? The answer, quite frankly, is: no. With 6.8 billion people and counting living on Earth, where will the basic requirements for our existences come from when it all runs out? Even space is a precious commodity, and we are quickly loosing ground. In the old days, people not only had children because they wanted to, they did out of the necessity for more people to help out with the daily workload. Each person used to earn their keep. Today, we have too many spoiled brats and street punks contributing nothing. Was there any justification in them being born without their contributions? Yes, but only if they eventually learn to give something in return for their living, instead of leeching it off others.


I also oppose 'Sexual Liberation', not for the stress placed upon the world by human life, in that it 'Sexualises' our culture to the point where wit is replaced with vulgarity, and art by phalli, the vulae, and offensiveness.


Whereupon, we lose taste for finer expressions and variety. The media is oversaturated with sex, and could at least make forms of entertainment regarding sexuality more realistic. The sad truth of anyone being pressured into doing something they are not ready for just goes to show that some people will do anything to direct their own regretful decisions on someone else. Conservative values concerning intimacy (if that word can even be used anymore) are in dire need, at this point. People should be made aware of how doing something improperly which requires responsibility and maturity just ends up with an emotional aftermath.


The media makes light of many thing that should be given more careful consideration in real life. Sex, for example, is seen as a recreational activity- something absolutely free from any responsibility, and, if there is any responsibility attach, like children or diseases, it is usually brought up for humour. Likewise, female-on-male abuse is more humour or deserving than anything. &c. &c. The sexualisation of our culture rots it, where genuine wit is needed to provoke laughter in the past, it can be replaced by what is vulgar and offensive, and those who do not laugh are compelled to 'stop being such a puritan.' The most glaring example of how sexualisation ruin our culture is the ruination of the art of 'Double Entandre'- its humour relies on making suggestive yet innoculous statements, bypassing the unspoken rule of genteel society that prohibits, out of politeness, anything to do with sex, ie 'I wish someone will stroke my Pussy's fur', which, as you can see, relies on the listener's knowledge of the slang for a female genetalia, while still seeming innoculous in that it can just as easily be taken for actually petting a cat, raising laughs in that, it can, through innocence, envoke knowledge that most within the party knows but cannot say aloud.

Additionally, Sex, in the media, is something everyone does, and that a virgin is an object of humour, and that he cannot be accepted into the media's view of society, that is extemely lewd and extremely promiscuous, unless he goes through that rite of passage- what is wrong with virginity? What is wrong with not being overtly sexual?

Sex is everywhere, and homosexuality seems to be the greatest victim of the Media's view of sexuality- they are the embodiment of unbridled lust, not committed to any relationship, only out for 'flings', and, because they like men, are depicted more 'feminine', but with 'male lust'.
Posted 12/20/10

longfenglim wrote:


Mr_Entropy wrote:


longfenglim wrote:


Mr_Entropy wrote:

People in societies are often repressed (as we have commonly seen) from following their basic instincts. Nowadays, most of us have loosened up. The consequence of this are an outrageous overabundance of human lives, epidemics of STIs, and so forth. Do we have the resources necessary to support a continually growing population? The answer, quite frankly, is: no. With 6.8 billion people and counting living on Earth, where will the basic requirements for our existences come from when it all runs out? Even space is a precious commodity, and we are quickly loosing ground. In the old days, people not only had children because they wanted to, they did out of the necessity for more people to help out with the daily workload. Each person used to earn their keep. Today, we have too many spoiled brats and street punks contributing nothing. Was there any justification in them being born without their contributions? Yes, but only if they eventually learn to give something in return for their living, instead of leeching it off others.


I also oppose 'Sexual Liberation', not for the stress placed upon the world by human life, in that it 'Sexualises' our culture to the point where wit is replaced with vulgarity, and art by phalli, the vulae, and offensiveness.


Whereupon, we lose taste for finer expressions and variety. The media is oversaturated with sex, and could at least make forms of entertainment regarding sexuality more realistic. The sad truth of anyone being pressured into doing something they are not ready for just goes to show that some people will do anything to direct their own regretful decisions on someone else. Conservative values concerning intimacy (if that word can even be used anymore) are in dire need, at this point. People should be made aware of how doing something improperly which requires responsibility and maturity just ends up with an emotional aftermath.


The media makes light of many thing that should be given more careful consideration in real life. Sex, for example, is seen as a recreational activity- something absolutely free from any responsibility, and, if there is any responsibility attach, like children or diseases, it is usually brought up for humour. Likewise, female-on-male abuse is more humour or deserving than anything. &c. &c. The sexualisation of our culture rots it, where genuine wit is needed to provoke laughter in the past, it can be replaced by what is vulgar and offensive, and those who do not laugh are compelled to 'stop being such a puritan.' The most glaring example of how sexualisation ruin our culture is the ruination of the art of 'Double Entandre'- its humour relies on making suggestive yet innoculous statements, bypassing the unspoken rule of genteel society that prohibits, out of politeness, anything to do with sex, ie 'I wish someone will stroke my Pussy's fur', which, as you can see, relies on the listener's knowledge of the slang for a female genetalia, while still seeming innoculous in that it can just as easily be taken for actually petting a cat, raising laughs in that, because its secondnary agreed not to be spoken aloud, it can, through innocence, envoke knowledge that most within the party knows but cannot say aloud.


Ah, the double entendre. Suggestive humor and everything else hinting at sexuality is quite the art, for that is at least better than forthright, obvious sexual content in media giving people the wrong idea. The "prudes" will always have the upper hand in the long run, since temporary fulfillment through casual sex will never compare to what people experience inside meaningful relationships.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/20/10


Well, although I don't mean to waste your time, I have added two more passages in my above post to make it more relevant to the culture cultivated by the media surrounding sexuality.
Posted 12/20/10 , edited 12/20/10

longfenglim wrote:



Well, although I don't mean to waste your time, I have added two more passages in my above post to make it more relevant to the culture cultivated by the media surrounding sexuality.


I read them. Truthfully, a virgin has a rare gift. Not only is the mind of a virgin sharp and often pure, it is unscathed by the most severe corruption. With homosexuals, there is never a problem. Their freedom should be an exemplification of choice, since all of us should be allowed to do what ultimately makes us happy, except for anything which can conceivably be considered morbid.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/20/10 , edited 12/20/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:


longfenglim wrote:



Well, although I don't mean to waste your time, I have added two more passages in my above post to make it more relevant to the culture cultivated by the media surrounding sexuality.


I read them. Truthfully, a virgin has a rare gift. Not only is the mind of a virgin sharp and often pure, it is unscathed by the most severe corruption. With homosexuals, there is never a problem. Their freedom should be an exemplification of choice, since all of us should be allowed to do what ultimately makes us happy, except for anything which can conceivably be considered morbid.


I don't object to Homosexuality in general, but their protrayal- they are much more 'feminine' than other men, that is, they are interested in things usually considered by society as 'feminine interests' (which is utter bull), such as manicures, fashion, musicals, &c., but, to compel that, they are added the most negative of what the media percieves to be 'masculine' traits, that is unbridled lust. It seems more like a mishmash of the most negative traits of both sexes, exaggerated, and put into a male character. Indeed, my homosexual teacher objected to most media protrayal of homosexuals as 'minstrel shows'.
Posted 12/20/10


The only really feminine thing about homosexual men is the way their brains react to male pheromones. I have observed homosexual men acting feminine, but this is not the way all of them behave. There is even a scale for inherent tendencies of sexuality towards one's own gender, and it varies from virtually non-existent to outright bi-sexuality.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/20/10 , edited 12/20/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:



The only really feminine thing about homosexual men is the way their brains react to male pheromones. I have observed homosexual men acting feminine, but this is not the way all of them behave. There is even a scale for inherent tendencies of sexuality towards one's own gender, and it varies from virtually non-existent to outright bi-sexuality.


Exactly- homosexuals are not any more likely to be effeminate or any more likely to be a dandy than heterosexual men, and, yet, the media protray them as some sort of grotesque juxaposition of the most negative traits associated with both sexes. I would like to make example of Mr Dumbledore of Rowling's Harry Potter Universe- when she announced that he was a homosexual, the world was in an uproar, but, when reading the actual text, not only did he not give out any indication that he fancied the men folks, but his homosexuality didn't affect him as a character or the story at all. But, in contrast, in the sitcom Will and Grace, homosexuals are apperantly a tribe of sqweaky voiced musical lovers, who enjoy fashion, shopping, and sex.
2285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/21/10
the sex lives of people are none of your business stop starting these anti-sex threads
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/21/10 , edited 12/21/10

shinto-male wrote:

the sex lives of people are none of your business stop starting these anti-sex threads


There is a huge gap between sex life- that is, to keep what you do behind closed doors to yourself and performing the act in senseful and tasteful moderation, and promiscuity, that is the flaunting of sex everywhere. As far as I can tell, we have never said, 'Sex is totally bad, and it is a horrid thing, it is.' We can both agree that too much of anything is never good.
Posted 12/21/10

shinto-male wrote:

the sex lives of people are none of your business stop starting these anti-sex threads


Troll detected!

As for being against sex, it depends on how it is conducted. Most people are too stupid to realize the damaged they are doing by fornicating outside of a relationship.
2285 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
35 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/21/10
sex between consenting do not cause damages people will always have sex GET OVER IT!!!!


Premarital Sex: Almost Everyone's Doing It
Study Shows More Than 90 Percent Of Americans Have Had Premarital Sex, Even Older Generations

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/19/national/main2282940.shtml



Posted 12/21/10

shinto-male wrote:

sex between consenting do not cause damages people will always have sex GET OVER IT!!!!


Premarital Sex: Almost Everyone's Doing It
Study Shows More Than 90 Percent Of Americans Have Had Premarital Sex, Even Older Generations

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/12/19/national/main2282940.shtml





>almost everyone's doing it
>bandwagon mentality
>mental retardation

You, sir, are an idiot.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.