Can Society Survive Without Enforced Sexual Morality?

[Da Blob]

In America, we have abandoned sexual morality. The only 'sexual' law that is actually enforced with any regularity is the law against the rape of children, and members of the Gay Rights Movement are lobbying hard to get that law stricken as well, first by attacking the statutory rape laws. Although rape in general, is frowned upon, few rapists are prosecuted and those who are convicted spend relatively little time behind bars.


It appears the the Intellectual Secular Humanists have been quite short sighted in the promotion of 'sexual freedom' - for the society that they have built is one that produces bastards, not families, as the prime social unit. Single parent households are now the norm, with the parent absent from the home for extended periods of time...

Can a society survive when children are given the responsibility for their own upbringing and their own safety?

Are not enforced sexual mores a necessity for a stable society?

If not, then what are the alternatives for the huddled masses who are taught that sex carries with it no repercussions or responsibilities?

[TriflinThomas]

Get the fuck over yourself, of course it can. I have yet to meet someone in my generation who thinks that they can have sex without repercussions. Also, do you have proof that the Gay Rights Movement is lobbying to get child-rape laws struck down, or have you not taken your meds today?

[Cognisant]

The only 'sexual' law that is actually enforced with any regularity is the law against the rape of children, and members of the Gay Rights Movement are lobbying hard to get that law stricken as well, first by attacking the statutory rape laws.

Not all homosexuals are priests y'know

If not, then what are the alternatives for the huddled masses who are taught that sex carries with it no repercussions or responsibilities?

Well once upon a time humans didn't live all that long and procreation was the beginning of the end of our lifecycle, people got married in their teens, had children in their late teens to early twenties, and died around forty or fifty depending how well off they were. These days however people may not get married until their thirties, see off their children in their fifties, then spend another two or three decades lingering. So between their mid to late teens to their thirties people are now finding themselves in a congenital limbo, too young to have children but too old not to have sex, thus the sex-as-entertainment culture we have today.

I don't think this is a bad thing, poorly managed certainly, I think our reproductive systems should be switched off for our first three decades to account for the our new life cycles and I also think that will have to be amended as our lifetimes continue to become longer, otherwise we're going to start having tiered families, e.g. One set of now legally adult offspring from the first marriage, and a second younger set from the second marriage.

Or maybe these blended/tiered families will be the basis of a new stabler society, who knows?

[Da Blob]

I am actually curious about this for I hope there is a solution for merely requesting 'children' to exercise self discipline in their sexual behavior does not seem to have much effect. If self discipline is lacking, does that not necessarily mean that discipline must be applied by an outside force, re: government?

As far as the issue of statutory rape, there is no shortage of documentation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

[skip]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Can a society survive when children are given the responsibility for their own upbringing and their own safety?

No. I think many of the problems we've been seeing in the last 30 years are the results of such negligence.

[Proletar]

Originally Posted by Cognisant

Not all homosexuals are priests y'know :rolleyes

WOW.... That is like a quadrupel-joke. Hat's off.

[nanook]

i don't believe that humanity will survive, when we don't give up on the enforcement paradigm, in the context of personal life. forcing people to stay at places they don't want to stay, to work in ways they don't want to work, to live in relationships (including the professional ones) that are not authentic. such a mass psychology of SELF-destruction, deployed as conformity on the ethnocentric level, is obviously manifesting as physical self-destruction.

[Jennywocky]

Originally Posted by skip

No. I think many of the problems we've been seeing in the last 30 years are the results of such negligence.

I'm hoping it just swings back around, now that Gen X basically grew up feeling parentless and kind of took things in a different direction, which I think was necessary but the oscillation was too large.

I know my relationship with my kids is far better than the one I have with my parents, but I've had to work at finding just the right place to position myself. I think as a culture the west is still searching out middle ground between the 50's world and today's world -- accessibility vs grounded authority.

Originally parents and culture seemed to jam kids into very rigid roles and stereotypes; then parents went too far trying to "befriend" their kids and also avoiding the rigidity of their OWN roles; and now I'm seeing things settle out a bit. Some parents are exerting more authority even if they are also more accessible as human beings to their children. You can meld the two together. But we still need some time to really find the balance.

---

I'm not sure why gay people are being dragged into this as per the OP. I find that rather offensive, since the gay people I am friends with and know would never condone the rape of children. It's a pretty low blow to throw lines like that out there, slandering entire groups of people like that.

[Cogwulf]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Can Society Survive Without Enforced Sexual Morality?

Yes but that's not what you're asking, you're just asking if sexual immorality is bad for society.
It should be a question of education and support, not enforcement. You are basically just saying that people should rely solely on the government to solve all their problems. Blanket enforcement on these matters is archaic, we're just being a bit too slow at implementing replacements.

[Darby]

I know this is going to be a not very well liked comment, but what sorts of sexual "deviance" should society not allow?

I personally know that there are very serious consequences for sex, because I'm not totally retarded.

I think that for a vast majority of people sex is sex, and they should be able to enjoy their desires just as much as anyone else, as long as they are held accountable for their actions. I don't see what the extreme need to enforce sexual limits on people who simply want to enjoy their bodies with other human beings.

The only time it's not acceptable, is when the other half of the equation (the partner), doesn't enjoy it (rape), or is not in a state to (drugged (not necessarily on drugs, but taken unintentionally) and children). There may be other categories which I'm not aware of which I would frown upon, but those are the big 2 (3-ish), that without a doubt I don't support.

[nanook]

the fact that we have a bastard society has nothing to do with sexuality, it has to do with how we live life in general. let's say we are very confused about everything. this can't be solved by law, it needs to be solved with some extra intelligence. we have to grow that. people adapt automatically to the intelligence of culture. no hard laws are required. we are all enough conformists, somewhere inside of us. adaption pays out. but right now our conformity is somewhat psychotic. there is nothing coherent to adapt to. obviously the old morals won't remove the new morals, so they are not the solution. neither will the new morals remove the old ones, besides, that wouldn't be a solution either, because the new morals ain't coherent within themselves. a working synthesis of it all is needed.

[Puffy]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

As far as the issue of statutory rape, there is no shortage of documentation...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

This is the only bit I found on same-sex couples in the link:

"In some jurisdictions, relationships between adults and minors may be prosecuted more strongly when both are the same sex. For example, in Kansas, if someone 18 or older has sex with a minor no more than four years younger, a Romeo and Juliet law limits the penalty substantially. As written, however, this law does not apply to same-sex couples, leading to higher penalties. The Kansas law was successfully challenged, as being in conflict with the U.S. Supreme Court rulings Lawrence v. Texas and Romer v. Evans.[16] The Lawrence v. Texas precedent did not directly address equal protection, but its application in the case of State v. Limon was that it also invalidated age of consent laws that discriminate based on sexual orientation in Kansas (Lawrence v. Texas)"

I think you're misconstruing this a tad. They're not arguing that adult-child relationships are fine, they're saying that everyone should face the same sentence, regardless of sexual orientation.

[Puffy]

I mean, sorry to derail slightly, but this is an important issue to me:

"For whoever keeps the whole law but fails in one point has become accountable for all of it." - James 2:10

I would not concede homosexuality as a "sin" anyway. But even if you work from the mentality that it is, I can not understand why homosexuals should be targeted by Christians any more than any 'sinner' in the Bible. Most seem to point to Leviticus's labelling of them as an 'abomination', and yet this is the same book that says that disabled people are abominations. I recall it even saying that those with any blemish on their skin (or people who have touched a dead person) are unpresentable before God.

If any sin accounts for all, why does being a homosexual somehow trump the woman who doesn't wear her hat to Church? And what if by chance the US law gave harsher punishments to people with ACNE, if they fought for equal rights would they be child rapists as well?

[Etheri]

Sex, as long as enjoyed and within the consent of both people (in a clear state of mind) is their own choice and business, regardless of age, genders and fetishes they may or may not enjoy. For all I care, I don't see a problem with fourteen year olds having sex. Or gays, bdsm, other fetishes... Laws should strive to keep the balance between both people having a fair choice, nothing more. (imo)
(in a way this raises questions concerning prostitutes.)

In history, society has always oscillated between 'very sexual' and 'unspoken and unheard of'. The romans had a very open, sexual society for quite a while, and their civilisation could easily be considered far greater (but how does one measure?) than atleast 5 ages after the fall of the roman empire, during which time a pope cut off the genitals off the statues just to hide them. What makes the sixtees so much worse (society / morality wise) than the other decades in last century?

I do think the media is often oversexualised, as is perhaps our youth, me included. By that I mean it's everywhere, and i'm sure i've already seen more than the avarage person would in his entire lifetime before 1950. This may be a bad thing within relationships and regards the 'value' of sex.

As for sex not carrying repercussions or responsibilities... Unless you're a rapist, GOODLUCK. The only sex without repercussion or responsibilities is the sex you have with yourself. As soon as you involve other people, they'll have expectations (both during and after the sex.) Sometimes these will be low or even the hopes of never seeing you again (one night stands), but more often they'll be less simple to satisfy. Just because we all like sex, doesn't mean we all have it with eachother without any strings attached. There's no such thing as free sex (unless you're both drunk too drunk to remember the next day. ). Having sex with good friends, for example, is usually a terrible idea.

Note that i'm talking about sex. Not about the production of new humans, nor about starting families. I know this is probably exactly your point, however the diffrence is called anticonception / birth control.

[Fukyo]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

The only 'sexual' law that is actually enforced with any regularity is the law against the rape of children, and members of the Gay Rights Movement are lobbying hard to get that law stricken as well, first by attacking the statutory rape laws.

Okay, I just can't take this seriously. It's foul and it's low.


Many teenaged "children", regardless of how they are regarded by country specific laws or the adults who are uncomfortable with their nascent sexuality, have active libidos and will have sex sooner or later, no matter what anyone says about it.

Now, I'm not a U.S. citizen but from what I understand many states have quite stringent laws about the age of consent. The age of consent being set at something like 16 years of age seems reasonable to me. Now if you'd only let the kids be privy to proper education about health hazards and various means of protection as well as contraception... unfortunately I also understand that the schools in the U.S. are free to choose how, and if they will educate young people about it, so the adults that are uncomfortable with teenage sexuality end up teaching abstinence, which is simply inadequate, if nothing else because it fails in many cases. The "children" end up having sex anyway and those same adults are outraged about it now. So...what to do about it?


The law should concern itself with protecting against sexual violence and exploitation, and when applicable protect certain sensitive categories (children, the mentally disabled, animals), and not with the imposition of someone's arbitrary preference.

I think some form of sexual education should be compulsory, not necessarily as part of regular schooling, it could be done by health professionals or specially trained individuals.

[Da Blob]

There are many types of sexual predation and quite often it is prepubescents and adolescents who are the prey, the targets for sexual exploitation. There are even a number of cultures and subcultures that legitimize rape/seduction of such.

Again, the issue is whether enforced sexual morality is necessary for a stable multi-generational society?

Can a male whose only goal is to experience organism be held responsible if an unwanted child results from a session of entertainment?

Should adults be allowed to seduce adolescents without penalty?

What kind of society can be built when 'sperm donors'/biological fathers replace the Father? What comes when fatherhood becomes a lost art? What motivation is there for a young male to strive to learn how to become a good father, when practicing the skills of seduction is a better investment of time?

EDIT: perhaps I should not have raised the issue of NAMBLA in the OP, but it was a good example or so I thought, but it just offers opportunity for derailment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...ve_Association

It is to be noted that the only reason that GLAAD distanced itself from NAMBLA was to achieve political goals...

By the mid-1980s, NAMBLA was virtually alone in its positions and found itself politically isolated. Gay rights organizations, burdened by accusations of child recruitment and child abuse, had abandoned the radicalism of their early years and had "retreat[ed] from the idea of a more inclusive politics,"[24] opting instead to appeal more to the mainstream. Support for "groups perceived as being on the fringe of the gay community," such as NAMBLA, vanished in the process

[Absurdity]

In 1970, Oberlin made the cover of Life as one of the first colleges in the country to have co-ed dormitories. The article featured two students who lived in South Hall. At first, the dorm was floor-by-floor co-ed, which was considered quite radical. Dean of Women Rose Montague and the two senior residents in the dorm at the time were guests on a Chicago TV station morning talk show soon after Life's article came out, to talk about the "experiment". The program, "Kennedy and Company," sought to reveal the "darker" side of co-ed dorm life from parents' perspective. The male senior resident (Lloyd Blanchard) was asked on live TV if he had "ever had sex in the dorm," to which he replied, "That's really none of your business."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oberlin_College

[Animekitty]

What comes when fatherhood becomes a lost art? What motivation is there for a young male to strive to learn how to become a good father, when practicing the skills of seduction is a better investment of time?

I think this is how it is with any peer group that what you observe has an impact but I never really has a peer group to look to. Leaning responsibility can come from any circumstance but if not from the icons of childhood what should these examples come from. My parents divorced when I was 6 so I haven't seen my father in 18 years. I cant see why everyone would end up the same way but character I believe is part of temperament. I cant loose something resides at the center of my being. Thought I never dated in highschool I never tried seduce anyone. What if the opposite happened to me. I might be happier if circumstances were different.

[TriflinThomas]

I know, from personal experience, that 95% of gay men will turn and walk away once they find that you're a minor. Your argument is flawed because you're only focusing on gay men when there are these people called lesbians who are also gay.

[inner_mind]

In America, we have abandoned sexual morality.

I can't see that. Although I don't live in America. But sexual morality is strengthening, if anything.

Let us take a quick walk through history. I remember reading about people's opinions on rape. Some people in history believed that you couldn't rape a prostitute or a wife. Well obviously we see better now on that. Some people in history thought gay sex was wrong and should be punished. Well obviously we see better now on that. People were uneducated about safe sex, diseases, pregnancy and so on. Some women were never told about their periods until they started bleeding (imagine the shock!).

Now, people are much more clear about their rights and where to draw the line.

Although rape in general, is frowned upon, few rapists are prosecuted and those who are convicted spend relatively little time behind bars.

yeah. and assault too is treated far too lightly.

perhaps I should not have raised the issue of NAMBLA in the OP, but it was a good example or so I thought, but it just offers opportunity for derailment.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_A...ve_Association

members of the Gay Rights Movement are lobbying hard to get that law stricken as well, first by attacking the statutory rape laws.

The gay rights movement are doing nothing of the sort.

Well what some crazy fringe group to do with anything is beyond me. I'm sure if I looked I could find some crazy straight equivelent but I'm not that sick to look up stuff like that.

Can a male whose only goal is to experience organism be held responsible if an unwanted child results from a session of entertainment?

Yes. Of course.

What comes when fatherhood becomes a lost art?

Why would it? Look around. There are loads of good fathers. I don't even know where you are coming from.

What motivation is there for a young male to strive to learn how to become a good father, when practicing the skills of seduction is a better investment of time?

Although many people are focused on sex, many are focused on other aspects of life, including parenthood. Perhaps when the men around you grow up a bit, you will see a change in their attitude.

for the society that they have built is one that produces bastards, not families, as the prime social unit. Single parent households are now the norm, with the parent absent from the home for extended periods of time...

Oh boy, where do I start? Oh... how about... so what? Sure, it is hard to raise children alone, but nowhere near as hard as raising them with a husband beating you up, like the days before divorce laws, what kind of an example was that setting???

Can a society survive when children are given the responsibility for their own upbringing and their own safety?

You don't see many parents, do you? The norm is 'helicopter' parents. They just won't leave their children alone. When do the children learn independence is my question.

Are not enforced sexual mores a necessity for a stable society?

If not, then what are the alternatives for the huddled masses who are taught that sex carries with it no repercussions or responsibilities?

Yes. I think I agree here. We have now a strong understanding of sexual mores and rights and responsibilities. Is our society getting stronger as a result? No sure.

[Etheri]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Should adults be allowed to seduce adolescents without penalty?

Should adolescents be allowed to seduce adults, in return? Howmany girls 'fall' for older guys? If it's already a stereotype, would it not occur often enough to consider, at the very least?

Originally Posted by inner_mind

Although many people are focused on sex, many are focused on other aspects of life, including parenthood. Perhaps when the men around you grow up a bit, you will see a change in their attitude.

This says alot. I think they're, in a way, diffrent parts of life. What's wrong with having (safe) sex before you're ready to start a family? Would it not be better to wait on producing children if you're not ready for them? Would, just because you're not ready for children, you suddenly have no more physical need for sex? If it goes wrong, you're stuck with consequences. Yes, in a way you're playing with fire, but that's a constant in life.

You don't see many parents, do you? The norm is 'helicopter' parents. They just won't leave their children alone. When do the children learn independence is my question.

When the children get annoyed with their parents everyday smalltalk, because answering 'good' to the every day question : "How was your day?" simply doesnt satisfy them. When children realise their parents are wrong, a lot of the time. When they realise that, if they want something, they should work for it / get it done.

I do get the question you're raising, I was the eldest at home. My younger brother will, as long and as much as I permit him, have me do anything requiring any independence for him, because he has no clue how to get started on these things himself. That being said, I think the problem fixes itself. People learn being independent by being independent, regardless of the age. It may be sad to see a 25 year old who can't look after himself, but at the same time I know a 19 year old perfectly capable of running her own household for her and her younger sister since her mum passed away. (And she's been doing this for two years, so 17 at the time). (+while studying and maintaining a social life)

[Cogwulf]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Should adults be allowed to seduce adolescents without penalty?

These laws exist for protection not punishment.

Often they work as intended, but to suggest that adolescents are vulnerable 100% of the time and adults are malevolent 100% of the time is arrogant, insulting and ignorant. This is why we have jurys and judges.

Can a male whose only goal is to experience organism be held responsible if an unwanted child results from a session of entertainment?

This is an issue of education not morality, unless you're taking the viewpoint that sex is evil if you're not intending to conceive a child. But that's a completely different argument.

Again, the issue is whether enforced sexual morality is necessary for a stable multi-generational society?

Who gets given the job of defining "morality"?

[Da Blob]

[quote=Cogwulf;307977]These laws exist for protection not punishment.

Often they work as intended, but to suggest that adolescents are vulnerable 100% of the time and adults are malevolent 100% of the time is arrogant, insulting and ignorant. This is why we have jurys and judges.

So adolescents are only vulnerable 90% of the time and those who prey on them only malevolent 95%? Sure there are exceptions to the rule, but the question is, "What should that rule be?" The old rule does not seem to be working very well...

This is an issue of education not morality, unless you're taking the viewpoint that sex is evil if you're not intending to conceive a child. But that's a completely different argument.

No sex is not evil, but then education is not a cure all. Most rapists have been educated that rape is not a nice thing, but that does not seem to discourage them...

Who gets given the job of defining "morality"?

That is the crux of the issue. In a society dominated by secularists proclaiming freedom as the ultimate condition, who has the authority to restrict anyone's freedom, by establishing rules that set standards for sexual behaviors and punishes those that violate those standards?

Where is the line to be drawn, who is going to draw it and how will those who cross the line be dealt with?

When American politicians and citizens talk about changes in the family, moral issues tend to dominate the discussion. But when social scientists talk about changes in family structure, they seldom describe the changes in moral terms. Even social scientists who deplore the spread of single parenthood, for example, mostly do so because they think single parenthood has costly social consequences, not because they think it is morally wrong. Sociologists do tackle the moral dimension of social change indirectly, however, when they discuss changes in social norms, many of which are based on moral judgments. Sociologists also discuss the factors that influence a society’s ability to enforce its moral norms, whatever these may be.

http://www.hks.harvard.edu/inequalit...s/ElwdJnck.pdf

[Cognisant]

Where is the line to be drawn, who is going to draw it and how will those who cross the line be dealt with?

The cold soulless unfeeling bureaucrats will decide.
Justice requires objectivity and objectivity is not empathetic.

Why, would you have the priests take their place?

I quote: BURN HER, BURN HER!

[Hawkeye]

I present a crude counter-argument

"Old enough to bleed; old enough to breed"

[Da Blob]

Originally Posted by Cognisant

Where is the line to be drawn, who is going to draw it and how will those who cross the line be dealt with?

The cold soulless unfeeling bureaucrats will decide.
Justice requires objectivity and objectivity is not empathetic.

Why, would you have the priests take their place?

I quote: BURN HER, BURN HER!

Agreed, He who has not made the same mistake cast the first stone.

But again, by what standard will the cold hearted bureaucrat mete out 'justice'?

What new form of sexual regulation will actually work for the betterment of society, at the expense of the individual?

I present a crude counter-argument

"Old enough to bleed; old enough to breed"

In the end can we argue against biology as the reality?
However, grandmothers at the age of 25 and great grandmothers at the age of 37 really does not seem the way to go. I sincerely hope that the Islamic practices are not the sexual mores that win out in the end.

[Felan]

The only thing I think society can't survive without is tolerance of others.

In my opinion if the whatever it is is age of consent and consensual then I think that it should be tolerated. By which I mean it isn't anyone's place to judge or condemn or ostracize them for that choice. I think this is most essential governing principal that makes us civilized and should be the fundamental guide for any legal thing.

There are edge cases to everything, but when considering that edge I think is important to not lose sight of the very essential good that is tolerance. The more you open the door to intolerance the more the society will swing wildly from one intolerance to another. A frenzy that feeds itself to ever increasing appetite.

So short answer, no I don't sexual mores are the problem.

[Da Blob]

We, as a species can't even define rape, but yet feel that it is wrong...

Assange case: How is rape defined?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-19333439

[Hawkeye]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

We, as a species can't even define rape, but yet feel that it is wrong...

Whilst not defining rape absolutely, they all agree on a common theme which is: rape is non-consensual sexual activity.

It is a violation of one's human rights.

[Darby]

This conversation reminds me a lot of the film Dogville, which I recommend to all of you. Not for everyone though.

[Minuend]

This is so silly I dreamt [MENTION=655]Inappropriate Behavior[/MENTION] returned just to mock it.

[crippli]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Can a society survive when children are given the responsibility for their own upbringing and their own safety?

No. Children will not survive on their own.They will die off starvation.

Are not enforced sexual mores a necessity for a stable society?

No. This will be abuse of power. You will not get a stable society if you do this.

If not, then what are the alternatives for the huddled masses who are taught that sex carries with it no repercussions or responsibilities?

I have not heard of anyone who have been thought this. Ever. You need to look at the complete education a person has received if you are to make an accurate guess as to the knowledge a person posses about a subject. You may be able to deduct something from a singular event. But you are not going to get a solid premise on your general statements. As the OP is a good example off. It's awful, it hurts to read it. All your general premises are false. It's actually quite amazing that you manage to accomplish this, if this was a serious attempt to make an argument?

[Da Blob]

Originally Posted by Minuend

This is so silly I dreamt [MENTION=655]Inappropriate Behavior[/MENTION] returned just to mock it.

I rather wish he would... sigh


So I guess the general consensus is that a healthy stable society needs no sexual mores.

I vehemently disagree, not that it matters...

[Darby]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

I rather wish he would... sigh


So I guess the general consensus is that a healthy stable society needs no sexual mores.

I vehemently disagree, not that it matters...

I don't know about sexual mores, but I remember reading something somewhere that a society basically is a collection of agreed upon rules where everyone in it follows them, and everyone who doesn't is either punished or kicked out. Does this mean they necessarily NEED sexual rules? I don't think so, but there needs to be some form of rule, otherwise your starting definition of "society" should change to something like "clump of people."

[Felan]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

I rather wish he would... sigh


So I guess the general consensus is that a healthy stable society needs no sexual mores.

I vehemently disagree, not that it matters...

Age of consent and consensual are not sexual mores? What are they then?

To be honest from what I've learned sexual mores are cyclical and pretty much going to be whatever they are at the moment. The 1920's were pretty wild, probably more so than 2010's. Society neither imploded nor exploded then, nor when ancient Egyptians or ancient Romans had orgies.

I think if you wait long enough and sexual mores will be more to your taste again. And I'm fine with whatever the prevaling attitudes are as long as they are tolerant.

[MichiganJFrog]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

Can a society survive when children are given the responsibility for their own upbringing and their own safety?

No. Children should not be expected to parent themselves, their siblings, and, in some cases, their parents.

[MichiganJFrog]

Originally Posted by Darby

This conversation reminds me a lot of the film Dogville, which I recommend to all of you. Not for everyone though.

I liked Breaking the Waves, too. For me, the key scene in that movie (and I think it's relevant to this discussion) was when the hip, happening young guy crushed a beer can with his bare hand, and the uptight old guy broke a glass in his bare hand and got some of the shards embedded in his palm.

[travelnjones]

The one thing i will point out in America, times associated with more sexual repression seem to be the years we are doing better financially. I am not sure of the reason for that. The sexual explosion of the 20's happens just when the economy goes off the rails. Then you have the 50's very repressed but cash. The late 60's through the 70's sexual explosion and gas crisis. 80's Aids scare and pretty solid economy.

Personally I just wish people did their crap behind closed doors. Shades drawn, sound proofed walls. I don't care what they do, I just don't want to know about it. That kind of repression I can get behind.

Perhaps the question is what happens in a quilt based society what happens when we decide everything is ok and nothing should be a source of guilt. I have written before that I our society going that direction. For me the problem is we in the west are allowed to basically do whatever we want. I know several people that lead rather pointless lives because they have accepted this quilt free existence. They have basically accepted the view point of us being a machine made out of genes and that seeing pleasure is all their is. The jobs they hold are rather easy and pointless and really little do they contribute to the world beyond themselves. I see their lives as pointless. Really if they life to their natural death or die today there is no difference. Save for the natural resources they would not use, so not existing is better.

I think i am going off topic and not talking a about sexually but rather in a moral view. This is not even to talk about a higher being but that there goals and dreams bigger than ones self. Service to others and doing something that changes the world for the better. Science and Technology are at the fore but really anything were you advance some field and don't just proceed every day the same. I think when that is tossed out and self becomes the highest goals we have a problem.

[scorpiomover]

Originally Posted by Da Blob

In America, we have abandoned sexual morality. The only 'sexual' law that is actually enforced with any regularity is the law against the rape of children, and members of the Gay Rights Movement are lobbying hard to get that law stricken as well, first by attacking the statutory rape laws. Although rape in general, is frowned upon, few rapists are prosecuted and those who are convicted spend relatively little time behind bars.

It appears the the Intellectual Secular Humanists have been quite short sighted in the promotion of 'sexual freedom' - for the society that they have built is one that produces bastards, not families, as the prime social unit. Single parent households are now the norm, with the parent absent from the home for extended periods of time...

Can a society survive when children are given the responsibility for their own upbringing and their own safety?

Are not enforced sexual mores a necessity for a stable society?

If not, then what are the alternatives for the huddled masses who are taught that sex carries with it no repercussions or responsibilities?

Bollocks. Americans follow what TV and the media tells them to do, sexually. They are even more controlled than they were before.