First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
The Fallacy of Sexual Liberation
2283 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M / Toronto, Canada
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:


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.



i am an idiot for telling you to MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS? so you can't debate only resort to name calling when somebody don't agree with your puritanical anti-sex craziness? people are having sex and will be having sex GET OVER IT stop spamming the forums with anti-sex puritanical propaganda and then complain of folks attacking people for remain a virgin
155 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / Psychologist's of...
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

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





A little bit out of context here, but wouldn't you think premarital sex is also a contributor to the 54% unwanted pregnancies in the US?

http://www.news-medical.net/news/2007/05/10/24981.aspx

Just a question. Make of it what you will.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

shinto-male wrote:


Mr_Entropy wrote:


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.



i am an idiot for telling you to MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS? so you can't debate only resort to name calling when somebody don't agree with your puritanical anti-sex craziness? people are having sex and will be having sex GET OVER IT stop spamming the forums with anti-sex puritanical propaganda and then complain of folks attacking people for remain a virgin


Methinketh the lady doth protest too much- why do you attack so strongly against so called 'anti-sex puritanical propoganda' (fun facts, Puritans were never against sex, they just hated anything remotely Catholic)- it is not propoganda to point out that human population is growing beyond what is sustainable, nor is it propoganda to point out that the media makes sex much more trivial affair than it actually is. It is also not propoganda to point out that there is now societal pressure to have sex ere they are able to provide for a family- you don't agree, it is your right, just act more civil- instead of screaming that he is a bigot who hates sex, say something meaningful. So, if we feel like talking about how sex is now something trivial and socially encouraged, it is our right to say so, and if you don't like it, than, in your own words, 'MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS.' If we wanted to talk about how great a country Japan is, we are equally entitled to that right, or if we wanted to call the whole Hollywood movie industry is racist, we are still entitled to that.
Posted 12/22/10

shinto-male wrote:


Mr_Entropy wrote:


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.



i am an idiot for telling you to MIND YOUR OWN DAMN BUSINESS? so you can't debate only resort to name calling when somebody don't agree with your puritanical anti-sex craziness? people are having sex and will be having sex GET OVER IT stop spamming the forums with anti-sex puritanical propaganda and then complain of folks attacking people for remain a virgin


Puritanical, eh? I am no such thing. I see you are quick to judge like the next moron. And if you think fucking around changes your life, think again. All you will ever have is regret to accompany you while desperate attempts are made to drown that misery with temporary relief.

Wallow in agony, pig.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/22/10 , edited 12/22/10

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 don't get how this makes sexual liberation fallacious, since it's clearly not intended to prevent the population from increasing. A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, and the only purpose of a sexual liberation movement is to change a society's attitude about sex, not to reduce it's population. Thus they are not fallacious in the sense that you were trying to describe. A more proper term would be "problem," which I know is not as cool to use since it's a common word, but sometimes the simplest words are the best. Please choose your words carefully when looking through the thesaurus for synonyms.

However, the huge fallacy within this post is that the recent sexual liberation movements within western civilizations are not the cause of the increase in the population worldwide. Humans are just like every other animal: our population increases exponentially until we reach the carrying capacity of our habitat, which is when the population will begin the drop. So we would have reached 6.8 billion people even if there were no sexual liberation movements because we would have continued to reproduce regardless. This is simply a matter of basic understanding of human demographic trends.

The most obvious problem with this claim is that western civilizations, where these sexual liberation movements have occurred do not hold the majority of the world's population. The U.S, which seems to be your focus, only contains 5% of the world's total population. Most of the world's population is within 3rd world countries where there haven't been similar sexual liberation movements. Due to this (among other factors of course), there is a severe lack of sexual education, along with a severe lack of availability of birth control. This causes them to have large families more often, which is no longer the norm in developed nations, thus a higher population. So it is even arguable that sexual liberation movements have reduced the population in developed nations by increasing access to sexual education and various forms of birth control. This can be seen in the declining birth rates and smaller family sizes of developed nations, including the U.S.

Another flaw in your argument is the assumption that before these movements, every single person in every single society throughout all of history was productive and there were no lazy bums. This is an assumption often made by people who tend to be old-fashioned and idealize "the good 'ol days," without realizing that many problems that are around today have existed since the beginning of humanity. There have always been leeches and bums, and there always will be. That's just a part of human nature.

It's clear that sexual liberation movements are not a significant cause of the increase in the world's population, if they are even a factor at all. Although they definitely have a huge cultural impact, and your arguments on those are somewhat more valid, but I've had those discussions plenty of times before and don't feel like diving into another one.
Posted 12/22/10

Cuddlebuns 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 don't get how this makes sexual liberation fallacious, since it's clearly not intended to prevent the population from increasing. A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, and the only purpose of a sexual liberation movement is to change a society's attitude about sex, not to reduce it's population. Thus they are not fallacious in the sense that you were trying to describe. A more proper term would be "problem," which I know is not as cool to use since it's a common word, but sometimes the simplest words are the best. Please choose your words carefully when looking through the thesaurus for synonyms.

However, the huge fallacy within this post is that the recent sexual liberation movements within western civilizations are not the cause of the increase in the population worldwide. Humans are just like every other animal: our population increases exponentially until we reach the carrying capacity of our habitat, which is when the population will begin the drop. So we would have reached 6.8 billion people even if there were no sexual liberation movements because we would have continued to reproduce regardless. This is simply a matter of basic understanding of human demographic trends.

The most obvious problem with this claim is that western civilizations, where these sexual liberation movements have occurred do not hold the majority of the world's population. The U.S, which seems to be your focus, only contains 5% of the world's total population. Most of the world's population is within 3rd world countries where there haven't been similar sexual liberation movements. Due to this (among other factors of course), there is a severe lack of sexual education, along with a severe lack of availability of birth control. This causes them to have large families more often, which is no longer the norm in developed nations, thus a higher population. So it is even arguable that sexual liberation movements have reduced the population in developed nations by increasing access to sexual education and various forms of birth control. This can be seen in the declining birth rates and smaller family sizes of developed nations, including the U.S.

Another flaw in your argument is the assumption that before these movements, every single person in every single society throughout all of history was productive and there were no lazy bums. This is an assumption often made by people who tend to be old-fashioned and idealize "the good 'ol days," without realizing that many problems that are around today have existed since the beginning of humanity. There have always been leeches and bums, and there always will be. That's just a part of human nature.

It's clear that sexual liberation movements are not a significant cause of the increase in the world's population, if they are even a factor at all. Although they definitely have a huge cultural impact, and your arguments on those are somewhat more valid, but I've had those discussions plenty of times before and don't feel like diving into another one.




You could have summed up your views with, "stupid fucker op doesnt know what hes talking about. i am so smart. yes i am"

I feel sex should be treated more as a very sensitive matter in which people need to be very careful with. Since there will always be some amount of people who feel uninhibited for whatever reason, why should I have even offered my opinion? Why should I care about human minds being obsessed with sex all the time? It's not as if I am so different than everyone else with my own natural hormones coursing through my veins. [/digression]

There will always be a certain aspect of fear in our interactions. It isn't without reason. If you prefer to shamefuck yourself into an early grave, be my guest. I won't be there to help.
Posted 12/22/10
So apparently the OP thinks everyone should just stop having sex?
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:

You could have summed up your views with, "stupid fucker op doesnt know what hes talking about. i am so smart. yes i am"


I could have, but I'm not that arrogant or disrespectful. I didn't even write that much in comparison to other posts I've made here and in other places, and I was hoping that since you took the time to make a thread in Extended Discussion, you'd want well thought-out responses. But I guess I assumed too much.


I feel sex should be treated more as a very sensitive matter in which people need to be very careful with.


So you should be happy that sexual liberation movements have occurred, since they indirectly cause an increase in sex education and access to birth control, as I explained in my previous post. Being better educated about sex and having easy access to birth control makes people more sexually responsible than if they didn't have those things.


Since there will always be some amount of people who feel uninhibited for whatever reason, why should I have even offered my opinion?


Nothing wrong with having an opinion as long as it's informed.


There will always be a certain aspect of fear in our interactions. It isn't without reason.


Just because there is a reason behind the fear doesn't mean it is rational.


If you prefer to shamefuck yourself into an early grave, be my guest. I won't be there to help.


I don't prefer that actually, I've never had sex and won't for a long time, if ever. Being open-minded about sex doesn't mean I'm doing it all the time.

2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

Cuddlebuns 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 don't get how this makes sexual liberation fallacious, since it's clearly not intended to prevent the population from increasing. A fallacy is a flaw in reasoning, and the only purpose of a sexual liberation movement is to change a society's attitude about sex, not to reduce it's population. Thus they are not fallacious in the sense that you were trying to describe. A more proper term would be "problem," which I know is not as cool to use since it's a common word, but sometimes the simplest words are the best. Please choose your words carefully when looking through the thesaurus for synonyms.

However, the huge fallacy within this post is that the recent sexual liberation movements within western civilizations are not the cause of the increase in the population worldwide. Humans are just like every other animal: our population increases exponentially until we reach the carrying capacity of our habitat, which is when the population will begin the drop. So we would have reached 6.8 billion people even if there were no sexual liberation movements because we would have continued to reproduce regardless. This is simply a matter of basic understanding of human demographic trends.

The most obvious problem with this claim is that western civilizations, where these sexual liberation movements have occurred do not hold the majority of the world's population. The U.S, which seems to be your focus, only contains 5% of the world's total population. Most of the world's population is within 3rd world countries where there haven't been similar sexual liberation movements. Due to this (among other factors of course), there is a severe lack of sexual education, along with a severe lack of availability of birth control. This causes them to have large families more often, which is no longer the norm in developed nations, thus a higher population. So it is even arguable that sexual liberation movements have reduced the population in developed nations by increasing access to sexual education and various forms of birth control. This can be seen in the declining birth rates and smaller family sizes of developed nations, including the U.S.

Another flaw in your argument is the assumption that before these movements, every single person in every single society throughout all of history was productive and there were no lazy bums. This is an assumption often made by people who tend to be old-fashioned and idealize "the good 'ol days," without realizing that many problems that are around today have existed since the beginning of humanity. There have always been leeches and bums, and there always will be. That's just a part of human nature.

It's clear that sexual liberation movements are not a significant cause of the increase in the world's population, if they are even a factor at all. Although they definitely have a huge cultural impact, and your arguments on those are somewhat more valid, but I've had those discussions plenty of times before and don't feel like diving into another one.


Well, I would say that the sexualisation of Western Culture, along with advancement in technology, help to increase the population beyond what is wise or sustainable because of this- one, the media make sex to be a trivial pass-time that everyone, especially males, must undergo in order to become a respectable member of society, and, better, if it comes without the attachment of marriage or children. It libertine and calavier view of things only leads to more people copulate unwisely ere they can sustain a family, leading to pregnency, and many more sad realities that lead to a large family with an unstable income.

Secondly, there was no such assumption- you just put that in because it would allow you a front to bring up your leftist ideas into the debate. It is a dreadful assumption that we are idealising the days of old as the heyday of chilvary, industry, morality, &c., that era where Communists are hunted down like foxes, blacks are forced into what a pundit once satrically called 'Slavery-Lite', and there were myraid of plagues to match those sent to Egypt. There were always the idle in history, sure, but there were always the libertines and the whores, only now, the libertines and whores are made into heroes and where Dom Juan was dragged kicking and screaming into hell, he is now canonised with laurels and pangentry.

So, sexualisation is a factor for the spread of STDs and, possibly, the increase in population among developed countries, but, I don't object to it because of these reasons. It is the degradation of our culture due to its sexualisation that worries me, wit placed with vulgarity, humour with the bawdy, the death of subtlety in humour, &c.
5229 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Mammago Garage, Y...
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

longfenglim wrote:
Well, I would say that the sexualisation of Western Culture, along with advancement in technology, help to increase the population beyond what is wise or sustainable


This point is halfway valid. Clearly advancements in medicine and agricultural technology have increased life expectancies, which causes the population to increase simply because people are living longer. However, saying that the sexualization of our culture has increased our population is a huge misconception, since birth rates in developed nations have been steadily decreasing since the early 1900s. Being more open about sex cannot have increased our population if people have been reproducing less and less since the sexual liberation movements have occurred. On the other hand, in underdeveloped nations where people are presumably not as open-minded about sex, birth rates continue to be high due to lack of sex education and availability of birth control, as I explained earlier.




one, the media make sex to be a trivial pass-time that everyone, especially males, must undergo in order to become a respectable member of society, and, better, if it comes without the attachment of marriage or children. It libertine and calavier view of things only leads to more people copulate unwisely ere they can sustain a family, leading to pregnency, and many more sad realities that lead to a large family with an unstable income.


I can agree with this.


Secondly, there was no such assumption- you just put that in because it would allow you a front to bring up your leftist ideas into the debate. It is a dreadful assumption that we are idealising the days of old as the heyday of chilvary, industry, morality, &c., that era where Communists are hunted down like foxes, blacks are forced into what a pundit once satrically called 'Slavery-Lite', and there were myraid of plagues to match those sent to Egypt. There were always the idle in history, sure, but there were always the libertines and the whores, only now, the libertines and whores are made into heroes and where Dom Juan was dragged kicking and screaming into hell, he is now canonised with laurels and pangentry.

I'm sorry for making that assumption, although I don't think it's an unreasonable one since you nor the OP never acknowledged that all these issues that you claim to be a result of the sexualization of western culture have always existed. If you did then that's my fault for not reading carefully.


So, sexualisation is a factor for the spread of STDs and, possibly, the increase in population among developed countries


I'm not sure if it has caused an increase in STDs, but it is difficult to know that since we've only been aware of STDs for less than a century (as far as I know, which admittedly isn't very far). But as I explained earlier, it definitely hasn't caused the populations of developed countries to increase since birth rates have steadily been declining in those nations for over a century.


I don't object to it because of these reasons. It is the degradation of our culture due to its sexualisation that worries me, wit placed with vulgarity, humour with the bawdy, the death of subtlety in humour, &c.


Another valid point, although I personally don't see that because I'm not caught up in mainstream American culture. If you're not into vulgarity then there's plenty of places to find stuff that doesn't contain it, you just have to look around in the right places.

Posted 12/22/10

LosingOrbit wrote:

So apparently the OP thinks everyone should just stop having sex?


Yes. Then this doomed race can die a peaceful death once and for all...
Posted 12/22/10
This thread in and of itself is a fallacy. A waste of all our time, and mostly; my own time.

It comes to an end now.
2106 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Guess
Offline
Posted 12/22/10

Cuddlebuns wrote:


longfenglim wrote:
Well, I would say that the sexualisation of Western Culture, along with advancement in technology, help to increase the population beyond what is wise or sustainable


This point is halfway valid. Clearly advancements in medicine and agricultural technology have increased life expectancies, which causes the population to increase simply because people are living longer. However, saying that the sexualization of our culture has increased our population is a huge misconception, since birth rates in developed nations have been steadily decreasing since the early 1900s. Being more open about sex cannot have increased our population if people have been reproducing less and less since the sexual liberation movements have occurred. On the other hand, in underdeveloped nations where people are presumably not as open-minded about sex, birth rates continue to be high due to lack of sex education and availability of birth control, as I explained earlier.




one, the media make sex to be a trivial pass-time that everyone, especially males, must undergo in order to become a respectable member of society, and, better, if it comes without the attachment of marriage or children. It libertine and calavier view of things only leads to more people copulate unwisely ere they can sustain a family, leading to pregnency, and many more sad realities that lead to a large family with an unstable income.


I can agree with this.


Secondly, there was no such assumption- you just put that in because it would allow you a front to bring up your leftist ideas into the debate. It is a dreadful assumption that we are idealising the days of old as the heyday of chilvary, industry, morality, &c., that era where Communists are hunted down like foxes, blacks are forced into what a pundit once satrically called 'Slavery-Lite', and there were myraid of plagues to match those sent to Egypt. There were always the idle in history, sure, but there were always the libertines and the whores, only now, the libertines and whores are made into heroes and where Dom Juan was dragged kicking and screaming into hell, he is now canonised with laurels and pangentry.

I'm sorry for making that assumption, although I don't think it's an unreasonable one since you nor the OP never acknowledged that all these issues that you claim to be a result of the sexualization of western culture have always existed. If you did then that's my fault for not reading carefully.


So, sexualisation is a factor for the spread of STDs and, possibly, the increase in population among developed countries


I'm not sure if it has caused an increase in STDs, but it is difficult to know that since we've only been aware of STDs for less than a century (as far as I know, which admittedly isn't very far). But as I explained earlier, it definitely hasn't caused the populations of developed countries to increase since birth rates have steadily been declining in those nations for over a century.


I don't object to it because of these reasons. It is the degradation of our culture due to its sexualisation that worries me, wit placed with vulgarity, humour with the bawdy, the death of subtlety in humour, &c.


Another valid point, although I personally don't see that because I'm not caught up in mainstream American culture. If you're not into vulgarity then there's plenty of places to find stuff that doesn't contain it, you just have to look around in the right places.




Because we agree 80% of the times, I think I will answer only to your first point:

Sir, the decrease in population growth is only due to this factor- living comfortably and used to an age where medicine and treatment help increase the population, we have abandoned our ancient agricultural mentality, that is, produce as many children as possible, for each child is a potential farm hand and may just as easily die before their first year. But, it is increasing more than it should because of the unwise advice fed by the media concerning sex, and the active encouragement of that activity by all medium of communication.

The same reason why developing nations have exponential growth- they are Agrarian societies, with Agrarian mentality, and where the tragedies concerning death at birth or death in general are still very real. But, with business opening sweatshops, their condition are improved from their previous condition, and, with better medicine and doctors, they are living longer, thereby, they, still caught up, and rightfully so, in their mentality of reproducing as much as possible to increase the likelihood that some will live to adulthood. Better medicine help allow a good portion of the children to live to adulthood, produce equally large families, &c. The habit is not from any love of sex (though it is a great factor), rather, it is that their lifestyle has, previously and arguably currently, necessitated such exponential reproduction.
Posted 12/22/10

Mr_Entropy wrote:


LosingOrbit wrote:

So apparently the OP thinks everyone should just stop having sex?


Yes. Then this doomed race can die a peaceful death once and for all...


I could list a number of reasons of why that's illogical, but...
Thread locked by request of OP.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.