Discussion
Whats the deal? 
How can something so wonderful, whilst being the definition of human nature, be whispered
about by some, giggled 
at by others and disgusting 
to a few?
How bizarre is it that when you see the word 'sex', your heart steps up a beat and you have to have a look?
Even more bizarre, how come nearly every swear word is related to sex?
How can something so wonderful, whilst being the definition of human nature, be whispered
about by some, giggled at by others and disgusting to a few? How bizarre is it that when you see the word 'sex', your heart steps up a beat and you have to have a look?
Even more bizarre, how come nearly every swear word is related to sex?
lazyitus said:
Whats the deal?
How can something so wonderful, whilst being the definition of human nature, be whispered
How bizarre is it that when you see the word 'sex', your heart steps up a beat and you have to have a look?
Even more bizarre, how come nearly every swear word is related to sex?
it's because we live in a repressed society that has been conditioned over the past couple of hundred years to think of sex as dirty and sinful. Only recently has the situation changed here, but some of our European cousins are far more enlightened than us, and to them, it's not an issue.
968,
Again I have to agree. (So something must be wrong)
Our morals and attitudes to sex are predominantly a hangover from the contradictory and repressive attitudes and legislation of the Victorian Era.
Before that the British were much less inhibited as a whole.
Many of the current laws on sex and pornography etc have their roots in the 19th Century, where the general consensus of the "intelligensia" was that normal folk had to be protecte from their own weaknesses and libido.
Again I have to agree. (So something must be wrong)
Our morals and attitudes to sex are predominantly a hangover from the contradictory and repressive attitudes and legislation of the Victorian Era.
Before that the British were much less inhibited as a whole.
Many of the current laws on sex and pornography etc have their roots in the 19th Century, where the general consensus of the "intelligensia" was that normal folk had to be protecte from their own weaknesses and libido.
vixpy1 said:
Yes, but my betting is that we would not have so many social ills these days if those morals and attitudes still existed..
Its a trade off, and i believe its a bad one for Society.
It could be argued that some morals have been relaxed too far...
But on balance the Victorian societal attitude was not very healthy in this respect: Back street abortions, child prostitution, rape and abuse were rife, but hidden under a veneer of supposed respectability and moral superiority.
it has nothing to do with living in a repressed society. Sex is essentially a violent act. The emotions that surround sex are those of lust and jelousy. Sex is seen as unmentionable because it illicits very animal uncivilised emotions. Consider the pent up desires and emotions that you feel prior to sex compared to those afterwards? You feel sated as though you have fulfilled an insticntive desire that was not completely under your control. That is partly the reason why sex is such a private part of society. For those free thinking tolerant individuals out there who think sex should be embraced as the most natural act in the world, what would you do if someone had sex with your wife? You'd want to tear them limb from limb (as i say sexual emotions are closely tied with lust and jelousy).
MilnerR said:
it has nothing to do with living in a repressed society. Sex is essentially a violent act. The emotions that surround sex are those of lust and jelousy. Sex is seen as unmentionable because it illicits very animal uncivilised emotions. Consider the pent up desires and emotions that you feel prior to sex compared to those afterwards? You feel sated as though you have fulfilled an insticntive desire that was not completely under your control. That is partly the reason why sex is such a private part of society. For those free thinking tolerant individuals out there who think sex should be embraced as the most natural act in the world, what would you do if someone had sex with your wife? You'd want to tear them limb from limb (as i say sexual emotions are closely tied with lust and jelousy).
Not sure I can go along with a lot of that. Sounds a little like Germaine Greer...lol.
Actually the Victorians were most concerned with the idea that excessive sexual activity, in particular masturbation, led to weakness of the mind and body.
>> Edited by alexkp on Saturday 11th December 00:58
Sex can reinforce the bond between two people who love each other. It can also make two people who love each other hate each other (if one partner has sex outside the union). What i was trying to say is that sex is instictively taboo because of this. as for germain greer?
I wouldn't do her
I wouldn't do her
MilnerR said:
what would you do if someone had sex with your wife? You'd want to tear them limb from limb (as i say sexual emotions are closely tied with lust and jelousy).
I'm not particularly bothered WHO my wife has sex with. But it's been three years since I moved out, some bloody divorce papers would be nice!
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Indeed.
But I wonder if our morals and attitudes were formulated much longer ago?
Sex is inherently a risky act for a human being. It is a method by which some of our nastier diseases can be transferred between us. These days almost all of these can be fixed by anti-biotics or some flea powder.
Its only the very worst, slow incubating killers that are still a problem, at least in the West. Time was, though, that no STDs could be cured. Ancient societies had to face the fact that sex could kill.
Given this - is it any wonder that morals and customs reflected the one defence at STDs at their disposal - fidelity.
This idea of fidelity between sexual partners permeates human history like letters through a stick of Blackpool Rock. I suspect its not for any high-falutin moral strandpoint but from a hard practical standpoint of individual survival.
Ever considered why we fly into a range at the thought of our partner sleeping with someone else?
Possibly the loss of opportunity to pass your own genetic material on to the next generation?
But also our natural survival reaction. We consider the other person "dirtied" by the encounter. Unconciously I suspect this is due to the possibility of infection.
Its also interesting to see how we have built this idea of fidelity into the world's religions. Very few religions tolerate polygamy and those that do still espouse fidelity amongst this larger sexually-connected group. No religion tolerates "free love". Since, at least in the past, we can view religious doctrines as largely reflecting the societies from which they arose we can assume this is because the societies did not tolerate these things - again - I suspect - as a simple matter of survival.
Rambling on now but finally:
We precieve sex as being "dirty" - because it is risky. We minimise that risk through the customs of our society - like marriage and its condition of fidelity. It would appear that very few societies without these customs survived into modern times.
Our modern attempts like 60s free love to throw off these customs would appear to have failed utterly. And some of the reasons seem still to be with us - and killing millions.
My 5p worth.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff