What's the deal with sex, hmm?
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:46 pm
What's the deal with sex, hmm?
Post #1Why must people have this aversion to sexual imagery in the media? I hear complaints about youth being desensitized, well, so? So my question, which is posed to anybody who thinks sex shouldn't be made public in any way, is why not?
- Flashpoint
- Student
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:48 am
- Location: Potcheftsroom, South Africa
Re: What's the deal with sex, hmm?
Post #2TheParticlePerson wrote:Why must people have this aversion to sexual imagery in the media? I hear complaints about youth being desensitized, well, so? So my question, which is posed to anybody who thinks sex shouldn't be made public in any way, is why not?
Sex in western culture is a taboo subject, and I suspect that the Abrahamic religions played some part in it attaining that status. In Ancient Greece public nudity was pretty commonplace, with members of both sexes prancing around naked infront of each other.
I think many of the nudist sub-cultures of late have tried to shrug off this childish fear of our own sexual nature, and I see nothing wrong with that.
A naked human is a beautiful thing, we were shaped by the ages to be well suited toward our way of living. There can be no shame in that.
- Miles
- Savant
- Posts: 5179
- Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
- Has thanked: 434 times
- Been thanked: 1614 times
Post #3
That the body is a beautiful thing is a bit too generalized for me; some bodies are, most are not--some, even ugly. Be that as it may, I have to agree that the taboo against the naked body, like all taboos, is very unreasonable. As for sexual imagery in the media, it is allowed. That publications and shows choose not to show them is their choice, although I believe hard pornography is still verboten on TV.
- Flashpoint
- Student
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:48 am
- Location: Potcheftsroom, South Africa
Post #4
Miles wrote:That the body is a beautiful thing is a bit too generalized for me; some bodies are, most are not--some, even ugly. Be that as it may, I have to agree that the taboo against the naked body, like all taboos, is very unreasonable. As for sexual imagery in the media, it is allowed. That publications and shows choose not to show them is their choice, although I believe hard pornography is still verboten on TV.
The curious part to me is why it is such a no-no. What part of sex and nudity do we as a society find so repulsive as to want to hide it in the darkest recesses of privacy?
Post #5
As far as I know, concerning most catholic/christian beliefs that I have, sex in itself is not a bad thing. It is a union between two people to make new life. That is it's purpose, and we believe we were created with two genders because we form a union with our partner, to one day make a family.
The reason sex had been so debateable in media, is that it has strayed from that to corruptive entertainment some call porn.
Porn hurts a person... People who seek relationships merely out of lust, quickly break down. To have sex with someone, requires respect for that person. Having sex otherwise, says you don't care about them much further than than what they can physically provide pleasure-wise.
It's hard to explain... Basically people are worried about breakdowns in morals... An old saying,
In loss of a shoe a horse was lost...
In loss of a horse, a rider was lost...
In loss of a rider, a soldier was lost...
In loss of a soldier, a battle was lost...
In loss of a battle, a nation was lost...
In loss of a nation, a world was lost...
Pretty much covers what I'm trying to say. Sex and nudity wasn't the problem... It's what came with it from corrupted minds.
The reason sex had been so debateable in media, is that it has strayed from that to corruptive entertainment some call porn.
Porn hurts a person... People who seek relationships merely out of lust, quickly break down. To have sex with someone, requires respect for that person. Having sex otherwise, says you don't care about them much further than than what they can physically provide pleasure-wise.
It's hard to explain... Basically people are worried about breakdowns in morals... An old saying,
In loss of a shoe a horse was lost...
In loss of a horse, a rider was lost...
In loss of a rider, a soldier was lost...
In loss of a soldier, a battle was lost...
In loss of a battle, a nation was lost...
In loss of a nation, a world was lost...
Pretty much covers what I'm trying to say. Sex and nudity wasn't the problem... It's what came with it from corrupted minds.
- Flashpoint
- Student
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:48 am
- Location: Potcheftsroom, South Africa
Post #6
Was it not Paul who said that sex is pretty much bad, but sex in marriage is the least bad?Sketch wrote:As far as I know, concerning most catholic/christian beliefs that I have, sex in itself is not a bad thing. It is a union between two people to make new life. That is it's purpose, and we believe we were created with two genders because we form a union with our partner, to one day make a family.
This I could argue about. I've seen very very tastefully produced pornography (although some would say it's erotica, not porn) that clearly didn't hurt anybody.Sketch wrote:The reason sex had been so debateable in media, is that it has strayed from that to corruptive entertainment some call porn.
Porn hurts a person... People who seek relationships merely out of lust, quickly break down. To have sex with someone, requires respect for that person. Having sex otherwise, says you don't care about them much further than than what they can physically provide pleasure-wise.
It's hard to explain... Basically people are worried about breakdowns in morals... An old saying,
In loss of a shoe a horse was lost...
In loss of a horse, a rider was lost...
In loss of a rider, a soldier was lost...
In loss of a soldier, a battle was lost...
In loss of a battle, a nation was lost...
In loss of a nation, a world was lost...
Pretty much covers what I'm trying to say. Sex and nudity wasn't the problem... It's what came with it from corrupted minds.
I must also ask you then: Can there be no such thing as respectful casual sex? If two concenting adults choose to have a one night stand because they'd both enjoy it, how is that bad?
Post #7
That was a cultural thing unique to his time period. The Jewish people back then believed that certain things made you "unclean" for a period of time. When a woman was going through her period for instance, she was separated from certain members of the family and had her own living quarters, because it was worried that she would pass that uncleanliness to others... To be unclean, required a ritual cleansing that could last several months in the most extreme cases... And you were not allowed to go in the Temple while "unclean"... Likewise from my above example, a couple became "unclean" when they had sex... Thats why Paul is cautioning against it... He's not really saying it is bad, but he's worried that it would prevent people from connecting with God if they were too focused on it.Was it not Paul who said that sex is pretty much bad, but sex in marriage is the least bad?
We believe such behavior is an irresponsibility... A disrespect to the women and men being viewed for lustful pleasures... As for the above couples, they are forewarned that if consequences arose from their actions(not just sinning...) But pregancy for example, they are responsible for that mistake... The choice they make afterwards, would directly show their integrity.This I could argue about. I've seen very very tastefully produced pornography (although some would say it's erotica, not porn) that clearly didn't hurt anybody.
I must also ask you then: Can there be no such thing as respectful casual sex? If two concenting adults choose to have a one night stand because they'd both enjoy it, how is that bad?
-
- Scholar
- Posts: 251
- Joined: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:46 pm
- Flashpoint
- Student
- Posts: 67
- Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2010 4:48 am
- Location: Potcheftsroom, South Africa
Post #9
So being focused on God's creation would detract from God? I'd imagine he would be pleased that we're admiring his work.Sketch wrote:That was a cultural thing unique to his time period. The Jewish people back then believed that certain things made you "unclean" for a period of time. When a woman was going through her period for instance, she was separated from certain members of the family and had her own living quarters, because it was worried that she would pass that uncleanliness to others... To be unclean, required a ritual cleansing that could last several months in the most extreme cases... And you were not allowed to go in the Temple while "unclean"... Likewise from my above example, a couple became "unclean" when they had sex... Thats why Paul is cautioning against it... He's not really saying it is bad, but he's worried that it would prevent people from connecting with God if they were too focused on it.
Why would having sex make you "unclean"?
Do you think that porno actors and actresses feel disrespected when people admire their bodies in a film? I cannot see how looking at someone in lust could be disrespectful, it seems more of a compliment to me.Sketch wrote:We believe such behavior is an irresponsibility... A disrespect to the women and men being viewed for lustful pleasures... As for the above couples, they are forewarned that if consequences arose from their actions(not just sinning...) But pregancy for example, they are responsible for that mistake... The choice they make afterwards, would directly show their integrity.
Modesty is good...
Post #10Modesty is good, but we are certainly uptight about sex and nudity in our society. (I think it's not completely healthy.)
"It is better to BE more like Jesus and assume to speak less for God." -MA-