# Why is America so sexually closed off?



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> if you are offended by something that I clearly explained applied to both genders and think that it's sexist, my threads are not the place for you.


Oh yeah, because men are called bitches all of the time, aren't they?



> I suggest you take responsibility for your hopeless delicate sensibilities because you will see no trace of political correctness or attempts to sugar coat from any of my posts. also, I think you'll find life is a lot more enjoyable when you aren't so on edge about "offensive" language. just some food for thought. tootles


So basically your argument is to sound like a stroppy teenager who thinks he's tough for using bad language?


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

I have two conflicting opinions here, because I love being a walking paradox. 

First off, people get too offended about other people's sex acts. A sex act is a personal, private, and hedonistic affair and it's none of anyone else's business, nor should other people have sway to shame or prevent sex acts that are desired by free individuals. 

And here's the contradictory part. I also believe that many people engage in sex for what I subjectively deem to be the wrong reasons, to raise their status or self esteem at the expense of their integrity and pride. 

As a sappy, oversentimental INFJ, I believe sex ought to be an expression of bonding (hehehe bondage) between people who respect each other, and sex therefore becomes a vehicle for adoration and respect. I believe that a lot of sex nowadays is overobjectified and that sexual partners are viewed like a new car, or a new purse. . . a commodity. I see this as a huge disrespect to the partner. 

I am against people who diminish themselves to something that they are personally ashamed of in order to "fit in" or please the crowd, as a staunch individualist. 

However, I am also against openly judging people. . . so I keep my opinions on this issue to myself. Laissez-Faire. De gustabus non disputandem est. 

Above all, I believe in flexibility. Perhaps you could have a casual relationship, mix in some threesomes, get dominated and slapped around in a dominatrix style relationship, and have lots of fun. Perhaps that would be fulfilling at a particular moment in one's sex life. 

But then you can swing back and have a loving, transcendent relationship. It all depends on what is appropriate at that time in your life.


----------



## Planisphere (Apr 24, 2012)

Americans seem paradoxically enraged at the concept of 'casual sex', yet do it often anyway. Casual sex is on the rise, and the only reason people still act like they're against it is because of the effects our past cultures (predominantly the Puritans) had on us. It seems many Americans these days fall for the old psychological defense mechanism of 'projecting' their presupposed 'faults' on others as yet another way of maintaining their feeling of superiority. I find it rather despicable.

I'm not a big fan of sex myself, but people are going to be people. And the last thing I want to see is humanity die out because everyone decided to become celibate. I'll make my own choices and live with whatever consequences come from them, just as others will live with their own choices. No point in teaching people doctrines unless they're willing to hear them; even then, you're responsible at that point for consequences directly related to your doctrine. Most religious leaders don't seem to get that.

Now excuse me while I make sweet, passionate love with my thoughts. Goddamn, I need to leave the house and find some people. Preferably, people who will just play games at the arcade with me or something. Doesn't require a lot of thought, and I've been spooned by my mind so often at this point that I've got to have a break.


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

theorycraft said:


> I think these are manifestations of an unhealthy sexually repressed culture rather than open mindedness to sexuality. A sexually healthy person does not need to view spankwire everyday (me!). He or she does not get exploited by sexually illicit advertising, nor does he or she feel the need to have sex at a young age just to see what its like.



True. But doing those things doesn't make one sexually repressed.... 

Repessed means: _characterized by or showing the suppression of impulses or emotions

_So wouldn't a truly repressed individual avoid these things entirely? Not go hog wild on them. Of course, both ways are unhealthy. I just reject the notion that America is sexually closed off. I think we are more oversexed. We indulge in sexuality when we should be focusing on love and relationship; with self, other, and community.


----------



## theorycraft (Feb 27, 2012)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> Maybe it's just your perspective.


Not maybe, I am certain it is my perspective. 



AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> You want your date to be a hetaerae-in-training?


If I am paying for our 2 for 20 at Applebees she better be!



AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> God will deliver you what you need.


Not sure if serious <-_->


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

NovaStar said:


> Americans seem paradoxically enraged at the concept of 'casual sex', yet do it often anyway. Casual sex is on the rise, and the only reason people still act like they're against it is because of the effects our past cultures (predominantly the Puritans) had on us. It seems many Americans these days fall for the old psychological defense mechanism of 'projecting' their presupposed 'faults' on others as yet another way of maintaining their feeling of superiority. I find it rather despicable.
> 
> I'm not a big fan of sex myself, but people are going to be people. And the last thing I want to see is humanity die out because everyone decided to become celibate. I'll make my own choices and live with whatever consequences come from them, just as others will live with their own choices. No point in teaching people doctrines unless they're willing to hear them; even then, you're responsible at that point for consequences directly related to your doctrine. Most religious leaders don't seem to get that.
> 
> Now excuse me while I make sweet, passionate love with my thoughts. Goddamn, I need to leave the house and find some people. Preferably, people who will just play games at the arcade with me or something. Doesn't require a lot of thought, and I've been spooned by my mind so often at this point that I've got to have a break.



:laughing:

*passes the lotion*


----------



## Svensenberg (May 13, 2012)

theorycraft said:


> I think these are manifestations of an unhealthy sexually repressed culture rather than open mindedness to sexuality. A sexually healthy person does not need to view spankwire everyday (me!). He or she does not get exploited by sexually illicit advertising, nor does he or she feel the need to have sex at a young age just to see what its like.


Not cool. You stole my rebuttal!


----------



## theorycraft (Feb 27, 2012)

godamn this thread makes me horny


----------



## theorycraft (Feb 27, 2012)

Svensenberg said:


> Not cool. You stole my rebuttal!


i stole your butt too when you weren't looking


----------



## Ace Face (Nov 13, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Oh yeah, because men are called bitches all of the time, aren't they?
> 
> 
> 
> So basically your argument is to sound like a stroppy teenager who thinks he's tough for using bad language?


I like you, dude, but seriously... come off it. This one looks desperate =S Too much <3 

Swordsman, it works the same the other way around, too. Let's say that somebody wants wait to have sex, and has made that decision for themselves. How come they get ridiculed for the self-restraint by those who don't understand it? What it all boils down to is lack of understanding on both sides, and it's a real shame, but let it be known that your side is not the only one to experience any ridicule on that front.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> No. I don't think any sexual acts involving consenting adults are immoral, when love is primary.


Good to see we agree. At least my sentimental sappy side is very much pleased by this kind of idea  



> Maybe it's just your perspective. ? You want your date to be a hetaerae-in-training?  Be patient and pray. God will deliver you what you need.


Not to speak for Swordsman, but I'm assuming he sees sex in a more hedonistic, secular sense of self expression. People who throw God into these discussions generally are doing so in order to tar and feather someone else as acting in an "sinful" way, making them worthy of scorn/ridicule.

So long as you're not attempting to claim that someone is "bad" for emotionally and physically gratifying sex acts, despite how unnatural or unbiblical they may be, then we have no argument.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Ace Face said:


> I like you, dude, but seriously... come off it. This one looks desperate =S Too much <3


Come off what?


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

Btmangan said:


> Good to see we agree. At least my sentimental sappy side is very much pleased by this kind of idea
> 
> 
> 
> Not to speak for Swordsman, but I'm assuming he sees sex in a more hedonistic, secular sense of self expression. People who throw God into these discussions generally are doing so in order to tar and feather someone else as acting in an "sinful" way, making them worthy of scorn/ridicule.



Not trying to do any such thing. 

I believe that your body is a temple, as is mine. And true love should be the alter upon which I am worshiped. Waiting in, and trusting in, the Lord to deliver exactly what I need when I need it (even if I don't realize it at the time), means having the self-control to deny my instant hedonistic gratification in the hopes of something much more meaningful, avoiding casual sex for sex's sake. 

How is that not something worth striving for?


----------



## Svensenberg (May 13, 2012)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> True. But doing those things doesn't make one sexually repressed....
> 
> Repessed means: _characterized by or showing the suppression of impulses or emotions
> 
> _So wouldn't a truly repressed individual avoid these things entirely? Not go hog wild on them. Of course, both ways are unhealthy. I just reject the notion that America is sexually closed off. I think we are more oversexed. We indulge in sexuality when we should be focusing on love and relationship; with self, other, and community.



Yes, people are suppressing their true desires and emotions about sex. This is why people tend to deny sexuality as part of the culture in a broad sense, and spend their evenings alone trolling fetish porn sites. 

It is still not considered "socially acceptable" behavior to be a sexual person, and we have begun to take on a very twisted idea of what constitutes a sex symbol these days... as we have managed to twist everything else that has to do with sex.

Just because sex is everywhere doesn't mean that we are viewing it or interpreting it in a healthy way, far from it; a society that idealizes sex as much as ours does can't possibly have a realistic view of it... and this idealization is a symptom of the long history of sexual repression if you ask me.


***Actually, we have breaking news that may render everything I've said moot***




theorycraft said:


> i stole your butt too when you weren't looking


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

skycloud86 said:


> Come off what?


You're throwing a subjective hissy fit because someone said something that upset you without even understanding his intent in saying it. 

Your reaction to what was said is entirely irrelevant if you didn't understand the intent of the expression. Because your inability to read his intent is your error. 

Your feelings don't dictate the discourse, buddy. Neither do they give you any right to dictate people's expression. As I said before offense and hurt are not axiomatically sound reasons to censor free expression. 

I can literally start throwing up some thought experiments to prove exactly that. 

If you insist on being selfishly subjective and irrational, then I won't waste my time.


----------



## AphroditeGoneAwry (Jan 10, 2012)

Svensenberg said:


> Yes, people are suppressing their true desires and emotions about sex. This is why people tend to deny sexuality as part of the culture in a broad sense, and spend their evenings alone trolling fetish porn sites.
> 
> It is still not considered "socially acceptable" behavior to be a sexual person, and we have begun to take on a very twisted idea of what constitutes a sex symbol these days... as we have managed to twist everything else that has to do with sex.
> 
> Just because sex is everywhere doesn't mean that we are viewing it or interpreting it in a healthy way, far from it; a society that idealizes sex as much as ours does can't possibly have a realistic view of it... and this idealization is a symptom of the long history of sexual repression if you ask me.



I agree. Just don't want to give SEX any more air time, ya know? It's getting enough as it is. 

Sex will come with love. And should come wrapped up in love. When that happens, sex could be the penultimate expression (for most?) of that love. 

It's not about sex in and of itself being the problem...it's about not being able to love that is the real problem.


----------



## Svensenberg (May 13, 2012)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> I agree. Just don't want to give SEX any more air time, ya know? It's getting enough as it is.
> 
> Sex will come with love. And should come wrapped up in love. When that happens, sex could be the penultimate expression (for most?) of that love.
> 
> It's not about sex in and of itself being the problem...it's about not being able to love that is the real problem.


I agree and disagree. I actually think that people assuming that "sex" and "love" are interchangeable terms is part of this problem. Sex doesn't have to mean love, and love doesn't have to mean sex.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> Not trying to do any such thing.
> 
> I believe that your body is a temple, as is mine. And true love should be the alter upon which I am worshiped. Waiting in, and trusting in, the Lord to deliver exactly what I need when I need it (even if I don't realize it at the time), means having the self-control to deny my instant hedonistic gratification in the hopes of something much more meaningful, avoiding casual sex for sex's sake.
> 
> How is that not something worth striving for?


For those who reject your framework, and attached concepts (such as God, for example), an act of casual sex could be construed as incredibly meaningful and spiritually uplifting. 

The spirit, and what uplifts the spirit is an entirely subjective feeling, and thus differs widely from person to person. 

Just because a sex act would seem a defilement or self-defacement by _*your *_framework doesn't mean that by another person's framework, the same act (that offends you) might be the pinnacle of self-fulfillment and empowerment. 

To see what I mean by this, you need to transcend your own values and your own beliefs/emotions and attempt to understand something outside of yourself and your experiences. 

I intend no typism or disrespect in saying this, but dropping your own objectivist framework is difficult for Fe-users so I understand if it is not something you're comfortable with. It is quite difficult for me too.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

skycloud86 said:


> Oh yeah, because men are called bitches all of the time, aren't they?


yes, they are. in fact, more often than women where I'm from. 




> So basically your argument is to sound like a stroppy teenager who thinks he's tough for using bad language?


you really need to stop making disrespectful assumptions and judging people by a simply matter of word choice (at times you appear nearly as judgmental as the ideologies you preach against). words are not inherently wrong, ideas are. I will say it again, if you do not have the maturity to take responsibility for your delicate ego, leave my thread because I will not cater to it. making unfounded assumptions about people will neither help your case nor inspire a change of views on my part.


----------



## skycloud86 (Jul 15, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> yes, they are. in fact, more often than women where I'm from.


Except that it isn't used as a sexist slur towards men.



> you really need to stop making disrespectful assumptions and judging people by a simply matter of word choice (at times you appear nearly as judgmental as the ideologies you preach against). words are not inherently wrong, ideas are. I will say it again, if you do not have the maturity to take responsibility for your delicate ego, leave my thread because I will not cater to it. making unfounded assumptions about people will neither help your case nor inspire a change of views on my part.


How am I being direspectful?

As for maturity, I'm not the one who uses the word bitch to describe people.


----------



## CrabbyPaws (Mar 5, 2012)

I don't know, I think many countries in Europe are much worse in terms of open sexuality than America. The thing I have noticed in America though is that they don't get as much education on contraception and they aren't as accessible. I have a lot of female friends from there and when I have mentioned that I'll be going on the pill or something like that, they have often never known it even existed.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Promethea said:


> ‎"Twenty men and 20 women completed measures of body satisfaction before and after viewing images of either thin or overweight individuals matched for the subject's gender. The results suggested that subjects of both gender reported feeling less satisfied with their bodies as measured by rating scales (e.g. feeling fat, feeling attractive), body silhouettes and body size estimation, after viewing the thin pictures and showed improved body satisfaction after viewing the overweight pictures. The results also suggested that this response was greater in the female than in the male subjects for some of the measures (e.g. feeling fat, feeling toned) and was unrelated to levels of restrained eating. The results are discussed in terms of the role of the media in determining body image and the possible use of such images in clinical practice."
> The Effect of the Media on Body Satisfaction: the Role of Gender and Size - Ogden - 1998 - European Eating Disorders Review - Wiley Online Library


I didn't say I didn't believe you, I'm well aware on the statistics of the psychological effect. However, it does not excuse the fact that people feel something is wrong with them, likely know the cause and do nothing about it but merely conform more and more to the stereotypes that affect them so much. That's what I don't get. It's purely masochistic, and when it reaches that point, it's no longer the media's fault and it becomes the fault of the individual for failing to separate themselves from the source of their neuroses.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

Christians


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

CrabbyPaws said:


> I have a lot of female friends from there and when I have mentioned that I'll be going on the pill or something like that, they have often never known it even existed.


Yes, because nice girls don't do that sort of thing so they have no need to be aware.

They're American, after all.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

This may just be my anecdotal experience, but in America it really depends on where you live regionally as to whether or not sexuality is an open topic or not. I come from the South where people often opt their children out of sex education courses, because children should not know about sex! Unsurprisingly, these children end up doing things like getting pregnant and failing out of high school or college. It's my firm belief that leaving your children uneducated in such areas is tantamount to neglect, your religious "convictions" be damned (let me say: typically, evangelical.) My peers who attended Catholic high schools were better prepared in terms of sexual education than most of my peers who attended public school, because many of these people's parents refused to sign consent forms for them to participate in it.

I might have more to say on this topic tomorrow, but I'm in a really bad fibrofog at the moment.


----------



## CrabbyPaws (Mar 5, 2012)

SlowPoke68 said:


> Yes, because nice girls don't do that sort of thing so they have no need to be aware.
> 
> They're American, after all.


You are only nice if you are aware and choose not to do something bad. But if you are unaware then you are simply innocent. :tongue: Which perhaps isn't a bad thing.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

android654 said:


> I didn't say I didn't believe you, I'm well aware on the statistics of the psychological effect. However, it does not excuse the fact that people feel something is wrong with them, likely know the cause and do nothing about it but merely conform more and more to the stereotypes that affect them so much. That's what I don't get. It's purely masochistic, and when it reaches that point, it's no longer the media's fault and it becomes the fault of the individual for failing to separate themselves from the source of their neuroses.


It seems to be more of a visceral reaction to these images. In that experiment they were merely shown photos, and asked to rate themselves -- not to objectively analyze what it means to be thin in this culture. To further the damage, like someone else demonstrated in that other thread, men have also developed crazy ideas of whats an acceptable body type - and the bottom line here is that women don't want to be lonely. It hits on a very base drive - sexuality. The message is clear: be thin, or be lonely. And then you have all of the body shamers objectifying everyone and cheering it on. 

I think its very idealistic to think that people can just decide not to be affected by something as pervasive as this. And theres nothing wrong with that. It would be great, but I don't think its very realistic until there is enough of a cultural change. 

I think there is a cultural change beginning though - as I have witnessed, more people are becoming aware of the issue, and if people in general feel supported and accepted in these changes, then you will see improvement. But not everyone is a staunch objectivist who can turn off their feelings of inadequacy like a switch, and decide to be unaffected by their culture. I doubt most people are. 

It seems to me that many have a hard time imagining any alternative to the limits of their culture in the first place. As terence mckenna says, culture is our operating system.


----------



## SlowPoke68 (Apr 26, 2010)

CrabbyPaws said:


> You are only nice if you are aware and choose not to do something bad. But if you are unaware then you are simply innocent. :tongue: Which perhaps isn't a bad thing.


The difference between niceness and innocence is that niceness can be increased, even as a product of awareness. Innocence is a one-shot deal.

Another thing we don't get in this country.


----------



## Nowhere Man (Apr 22, 2012)

Ironically, America's taboos regarding sex make us even more mindless and sex obsessed.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

@Promethea
I'm not talking about getting it on with minors. I'm talking about, say, a 20 year old and a 40 year old getting together. they're both consenting adults, so why do people care?


----------



## CrabbyPaws (Mar 5, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @_Promethea_
> I'm talking about getting it on with minors. I'm talking about, say, a 20 year old and a 40 year old getting together. they're both consenting adults, so why do people care?


They are jealous


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> @Promethea
> I'm talking about getting it on with minors. I'm talking about, say, a 20 year old and a 40 year old getting together. they're both consenting adults, so why do people care?


I personally don't care in that case - but I think some of the response to it is "if all the men/women are dating younger, wheres mine?" I see the same thing in some racial dating issues, but people would probably be uncomfortable actually acknowledging it, so I won't go into detail -- but I think theres this whole idea of being left out.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm talking about getting it on with minors. I'm talking about, say, a 20 year old and a 40 year old getting together. they're both consenting adults, so why do people care?


My boyfriend is seven years older than I am; some people who know both of our ages were somewhat appalled because I was 24 and he was 31 when we began dating. When they find out that he's Turkish and Muslim, people start whispering more about the religion than the age, though. On the other hand, my parents have found him to be a generally positive impact on my life, and they don't give a damn that he's older than me or that he's a Muslim.

That said, I'm not sure why other people give a flying flip about the age difference or the fact that he is Muslim. His family is fine with him dating a younger woman of a Christian background, and they don't disagree with the fact that I would be obligated by family and religion to baptize any children we had together. There would also be a Muslim circumcision ceremony for any boys we did have.


----------



## quadrivium (Nov 6, 2011)

I won't lie, I have not read all ten pages of this thread. What I'm saying could have already been said more eloquently.

I once had a psychology teacher tell me that "Sex is more and less important than what we make it." It doesn't need to be so stigmatized. It also calls for responsibility.

My theory is that individuals do not have a prudish problem, but our culture does. Sex sells, and as long as it is taboo, it can be utilized for one of the most powerful marketing tools consciously known. Could be off-base though.


----------



## SenhorFrio (Apr 29, 2010)

It is very paradoxal, American is quite reactionary about alternative sexuality, but at the same time one of the most sexually "permissive" in the world, lots of porn and what some people call over sexualization.

America is sadly in many ways still a conservative country


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> My boyfriend is seven years older than I am; some people who know both of our ages were somewhat appalled because I was 24 and he was 31 when we began dating. When they find out that he's Turkish and Muslim, people start whispering more about the religion than the age, though. On the other hand, my parents have found him to be a generally positive impact on my life, and they don't give a damn that he's older than me or that he's a Muslim.
> 
> That said, I'm not sure why they give a flying flip about the age difference or the fact that he is Muslim.


 Could be one part bigotry, one part lack of familiarity. People don't like things that look too different from what they think is right.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

Nowhere Man said:


> Ironically, America's taboos regarding sex make us even more mindless and sex obsessed.


This is a good point, and maybe it has something to do with the second part of @android654 's post that I wasn't very clear on -- but sure, forcing something into a taboo (puritans) then desublimating it causes very unrefined perceptions of the issue. I think the term is '_repressive_ desublimation' actually but I'm not entirely certain.


----------



## Jennywocky (Aug 7, 2009)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I'm talking about getting it on with minors. I'm talking about, say, a 20 year old and a 40 year old getting together. they're both consenting adults, so why do people care?


Technically I suppose it doesn't matter, although I don't think I could ever date a 20 year old. The gap in life experience is _substantial_, and that would almost be the same age as my kids, which would feel very weird to me as well as to my children. (I think a 20 year gap between a 40 and 60 year old, or some older pairing is not nearly as large.)


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

android654 said:


> Could be one part bigotry, one part lack of familiarity. People don't like things that look too different from what they think is right.


It could be. People always seem surprised at how "white" he looks, and our comeback for that is, "Well, actually, he's more of a natural 'Caucasian' than you are." There seems to be some bigotry out there that assumes anyone who is Muslim is "brown".


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> It could be. People always seem surprised at how "white" he looks, and our comeback for that is, "Well, actually, he's more of a natural 'Caucasian' than you are." There seems to be some bigotry out there that assumes anyone who is Muslim is "brown".


Even if they were, it's 2012. Who's really wasting time getting worked up over interracial couples?


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

android654 said:


> Even if they were, it's 2012. Who's really wasting time getting worked up over interracial couples?


People still get worked up over it. You might as well have a scarlet N on your chest in the South if you're a white woman with a black boyfriend or husband. If you're a white woman dating an Asian man, you're looked down upon. The thing is, white men can date or marry black women or Asian women here without it being frowned upon (these women are considered "exotic.") The double standard, I think, is related to racial purity in a way that's analogous to women's chastity in honor cultures.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

android654 said:


> Even if they were, it's 2012. Who's really wasting time getting worked up over interracial couples?


Though completely ridiculous, I grew up in the south and witnessed people getting worked up over it a lot. There were some very colorful terms tossed around also. *smh*


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

koalaroo said:


> People still get worked up over it. You might as well have a scarlet N on your chest in the South if you're a white woman with a black boyfriend or husband. If you're a white woman dating an Asian man, you're looked down upon. The thing is, white men can date or marry black women or Asian women here without it being frowned upon (these women are considered "exotic.") The double standard, I think, is related to racial purity in a way that's analogous to women's chastity in honor cultures.


Lol, beat me to it.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Promethea said:


> Though completely ridiculous, I grew up in the south and witnessed people getting worked up over it a lot. There were some very colorful terms tossed around also. *smh*


This.

My stand partner in orchestra was a black football player who would drop me off at home after school sometimes. My father, rather bluntly, asked me one day, "Are you fucking that ******?" It was extremely shocking to me, because I'd never heard my father use a racial slur before.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

koalaroo said:


> People still get worked up over it. You might as well have a scarlet N on your chest in the South if you're a white woman with a black boyfriend or husband. If you're a white woman dating an Asian man, you're looked down upon. The thing is, white men can date or marry black women or Asian women here without it being frowned upon (these women are considered "exotic.") The double standard, I think, is related to racial purity in a way that's analogous to women's chastity in honor cultures.


Its a reason why I don't concern myself with the expectations of other people. No matter who I get involved with the relationship would never be monoracial, can't do anything about that and I'm not going to waste time trying to find a small niche that'll accept me. A waste of effort is what it would be. 

I think a lot of women don't realize they're still a "minority" in America and still have a lot of societal roadblocks to overcome in order to be seen as "equals."


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

koalaroo said:


> This.
> 
> My stand partner in orchestra was a black football player who would drop me off at home after school sometimes. My father, rather bluntly, asked me one day, "Are you fucking that ******?" It was extremely shocking to me, because I'd never heard my father use a racial slur before.


I'll have to PM you something my dad said once. Its not safe for forum.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Promethea said:


> I'll have to PM you something my dad said once. Its not safe for forum.


Mine's almost forum inappropriate, but I figured it told the tale of interracial relationships and friendships in the South. The stuff I heard from my senile grandmother before her second stroke was appalling, though.


----------



## hauntology (Feb 12, 2012)

And swords, this is why I've always loved you.
Smart, funny and creative.
*glomps*
KYAAAH!


----------



## MegaTuxRacer (Sep 7, 2011)

Guys, why is America so sexually closed off? *ignores the Middle East*


----------



## hauntology (Feb 12, 2012)

But to put something meaningful into this post, sex is something wonderful and passionate and creative. Don't get closed in by others. Be YOU! The same rule that applies to everything in life.

/thoughts from a crazy ENFP 7w6


----------



## Verthani (May 8, 2012)

koalaroo said:


> Mine's almost forum inappropriate, but I figured it told the tale of interracial relationships and friendships in the South. The stuff I heard from my senile grandmother before her second stroke was appalling, though.


Oh god, When I finally met my father's mother I almost could not believe how blindly racist she was. She literally did the whole shtick up to and including being apologist for slavery. I could barely handle it. The weirdest thing is that my dad's family isn't even that white, they all have olive skin and black curly hair due to a mixed-race background. I guess it's just how you're raised.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Miscegenation fear makes me die laughing. 

White men were raping black female slaves for hundreds of years, had who-knows-how-many illegitimate children and yet when a white woman dates a black man, suddenly the KKK gets called in. 

Doesn't seem to be just an issue of honor cultures. 

It seems to be an issue of "women are property" cultures.

I find it to be absurdly stupid. Blood line is meaningless. 
The actions of our ancestors or are group are meaningless. 

Only _*our actions*_ define who we are.


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

_- people are so homophobic. I'm not just talking about liking/disliking gays, but it's really annoying when people assume that any intimacy between a pair of friends of the same gender is gay. it's such an ignorant assumption and scares people away from having any kind of close, non-sexual friendships with people_

This is especially true for actions or ideas that may not be remotely romantic, like two girls walking together holding hands.
This might be just cultural though, since Japanese girls can walk down the street (and do) while holding hands without a problem. But in America? WOOOOOWEEEE WOOOWEEEE WOOOWEEE LESBIAN ALERT! LESBIAN ALERT!

Or, you know, it's the (North, not necessarily including Canada since I don't know their 'customs') American public just being a bunch of twats.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Promethea said:


> It seems to be more of a visceral reaction to these images. In that experiment they were merely shown photos, and asked to rate themselves -- not to objectively analyze what it means to be thin in this culture. To further the damage, like someone else demonstrated in that other thread, men have also developed crazy ideas of whats an acceptable body type - and the bottom line here is that women don't want to be lonely. It hits on a very base drive - sexuality. The message is clear: be thin, or be lonely. And then you have all of the body shamers objectifying everyone and cheering it on.
> 
> I think its very idealistic to think that people can just decide not to be affected by something as pervasive as this. And theres nothing wrong with that. It would be great, but I don't think its very realistic until there is enough of a cultural change.
> 
> ...


While I agree with @_android654_ 's assessment (that individuals are responsible for not allowing culture to distort their reality), I also know that the pervasiveness of these things is actually incredible. 

Subconscious bias tests when it comes to subconscious racism, classism, sexism, etc etc all come back showing that even many who claim to believe in total egalitarianism, and who claim to hate labels and racism often harbor those very attitudes on a deeply subconscious level.

We're pack animals. Even the iconoclasts.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Funny. Normally when I come into these threads, so many pages in, I tend to find someone somehow has already mentioned my views on the matter. This time around, that hasn't quite happened. I think there was one poster who almost touched upon my views but they didn't say exactly what I believe.

And, so. Here's how I see it.

While many like to claim America as founded on freedom, America was founded on religion. Must we go over how many religious groups fled to America in order to escape persecution? Therefor, a lot of American ideologies are rooted in religious morality. To most religions, sex is a sin, a very dirty sin. 

However, the constraints of this ideology were rarely seen before the Industrial revolution. How come? Because people lived in small towns with big families. This kind of setting generally ensures congruence with the given morality. Also, there wasn't too many people to sleep with besides your family. (Now, a bunch of other social aspects at this point could be analyzed like kissing cousins, but that is not overly relevant to the topic at hand.)

After the Industrial Revolution, urban cities began to spring up. This caused several different shifts in American culture. The most obvious one for anyone who has taken an introductory course into sociology would be anomie or normlessness. Emilie Durkheim said when people feel detached as they did living in the huge cities with smaller families as well as personal relations, they often feel less compelled to stick to social norms. This means things once considered immoral such as sex would be explored on a greater level. However since people also came into contact with other people on a more regular basis, the chance to have sex also increased. 

This is when America started to become sexualized. However, there was a push back against America becoming sexualized as there was a push back against other parts of its changing culture. The religious people started to crack down more on immorality. However, they only succeeded in making people feel ashamed about sex and having them internalize the notion that sex is wrong. People still had sex, they just either felt bad about it felt rebellious for having it. This was the starting point for America's currently convoluted views on sex. 

The more and more sex started to be presented as taboo, the more and more people wanted to have sex and the more and more it became a titillating subject. Sex sells because it is a basic, strong human desire, but it's also something forbidden. Since sex sells so well, people started to market sex and so cue the current face of media. However the more sex sells, the more religious people (and other kinds of people since I have to be fair) will fight against. The more they fight against it, the more they make us feel wrong for wanting to have sex. The more that happens, the more it sells and the more boobs you see on every other magazine page.

It's a never-ending cycle that has left America conflicted and confused. 

So, America is in fact over-sexed, but that doesn't mean we have open views on sex or are comfortable with the topic. We want it, but we don't want to admit it. 

If we were a healthier society, we would enjoy sex but not necessary crave it. We could talk about sex but not necessarily feel the need to insert it into every dialogue.

For the reasons I have started above, there have been valid points by multiple people even if they stand on different sides of the fence. The issue is that these people don't understand that they are only looking at half the picture rather than the full thing.


----------



## koalaroo (Nov 25, 2011)

Btmangan said:


> Miscegenation fear makes me die laughing.
> 
> White men were raping black female slaves for hundreds of years, had who-knows-how-many illegitimate children and yet when a white woman dates a black man, suddenly the KKK gets called in.
> 
> ...


On the whole, I totally agree with your post. I relate it to honor culture only for the fact that it's the purity of the women's sexuality and sexual intentions that seems to matter in small Southern towns that are majority white. You'll hear jokes between guys about a friend having "jungle fever" or "yellow fever", but when a white woman in one of these settings dates a black man or an Asian man, these labels or jokes become pejoratives.


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

theorycraft said:


> godamn this thread makes me horny


----------



## theorycraft (Feb 27, 2012)

not that horny


----------



## castigat (Aug 26, 2012)

theorycraft said:


> not that horny


Okay, these are slightly less horny: 









Unless you mean _this _kind of horny:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Iseoxe said:


>


that's not horny, THIS is horny 










:blushed::blushed::kitteh:


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Btmangan said:


> However, just as important as the effects of the environment are on the actor, I think it is vital never to forget the effects that an actor can have on the environment.


Okay, I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with are the various people making statements that imply they consider themselves immune to marketing and adopting cultural ideas from mass media. Even if you are "on your own path" there's still no escaping this and much of what you think and believe and how you act is influenced by culture and mass media. So just don't try to claim that you or anyone else are somehow above its influence. If you want me to even begin to take such an idea seriously you better live like the Unabomber, and even then I still probably wouldn't be totally convinced.


Btmangan said:


> If enough people renounce the influence, maybe the ripple can turn into a wave.


The idea that people can simply will themselves to resist cultural influence, particularly in a mass media culture, is ludicrous. It's good to focus on self-improvement and such but you're not going to affect massive social change by having a bunch of people spontaneously decide that advertising doesn't work anymore. If you don't like the messages and ideas that are pushed in the mass media culture then you have to actually change the culture on a social level, but most people aren't too interested in that because despite what they say they generally approve of a mass media dominated culture and participate in it willingly and happily despite their rhetorical objections. I mean, you and android are two of the most vociferous opponents in this thread to the idea that we're so influenced by mass media. Judging by your signatures, one of you personally identities with an anime or video game character (I can't tell which) and the other has a strong personal identification with the lyrics of pop music acts. The actions just don't match the rhetoric. Don't get me wrong, I like video games and pop music too, I'm just not up here saying that I'm immune to the messages of mass media while brandishing mass media products in my signature.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

@Btmangan - Your words remind me of something I once wrote regarding racism, particurlarly implicit and underhanded racism. 

I don't think anywhere I stated that we can't resist the effects nor should we even try. I think you, android654, shahada, and me seem to agree on the basic prinicples. We just disagree on what should be emphasized more. 

I am just particurlarly wary of the media because it never goes away which includes its effects. We have to consciousl look the other way when presented with it, but even when we succeed in doing that it has still affected our lives. Though more importantly, not everyone is like you or recognize what you do. Therefore, we need to treat those people as being played by the media. Of course, they need to learn to think on their own, but that is somethig we must teach them. We must call ou media on its negative effects if we wish to counter them. Scoffing at people's inability to do so is not only judgemental but overlooks that people who are uneducated are often that way due to an institutional flaw rather than a personal one---or at least in America with their approach and opinion on being educated. 

That's the crux of my concern here. The individual needs to take control, but they probably won't do it on their own.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Shahada said:


> Okay, I don't have a problem with that. What I do have a problem with are the various people making statements that imply they consider themselves immune to marketing and adopting cultural ideas from mass media. Even if you are "on your own path" there's still no escaping this and much of what you think and believe and how you act is influenced by culture and mass media. So just don't try to claim that you or anyone else are somehow above its influence. If you want me to even begin to take such an idea seriously you better live like the Unabomber, and even then I still probably wouldn't be totally convinced.The idea that people can simply will themselves to resist cultural influence, particularly in a mass media culture, is ludicrous. It's good to focus on self-improvement and such but you're not going to affect massive social change by having a bunch of people spontaneously decide that advertising doesn't work anymore. If you don't like the messages and ideas that are pushed in the mass media culture then you have to actually change the culture on a social level, but most people aren't too interested in that because despite what they say they generally approve of a mass media


I don't disapprove with media in general. I disapprove with people who are effected by every media that's thrown in their face, no matter how damaging or absurd. 

Images and symbols hold power. Just as advertisers can put forward images to create a sense of inadequacy and need in others, other symbols can create other emotional effects, or stir passion for certain values and ideals. 

I chose to stand behind certain media because I believe they teach worthy lessons. . . drawing upon the power of media when it comes to some lessons or standards of behavior can, I believe, help me be a better man. 



> Judging by your signatures, one of you personally identities with an anime or video game character (I can't tell which) and the other has a strong personal identification with the lyrics of pop music acts. The actions just don't match the rhetoric. Don't get me wrong, I like video games and pop music too, I'm just not up here saying that I'm immune to the messages of mass media while brandishing mass media products in my signature.


The image comes from the anime _Claymore_. 

I put it on my signature because Claymore is an artistic piece that speaks to me, inspires me, and I consider it to be, as with the best art, a vehicle for certain world truths which are important to me, namely integrity, loyalty, and resilience in the face of overwhelming despair.

@_saintless_ 

Why not spread our message, find like minds, and confront our biases together? Media is just the sharing of ideas. Get enough people sharing an idea, and you've created a medium. 

The scoffing judgmental part is true. It's incredibly hard to explain something to someone if you subconsciously don't respect them. . . 

The area of visual bias which I find most interesting, I admit, is sexual attraction. What images do I like? Which don't I like? And most importantly, why? :laughing:

I think we all do agree on the core principles. Shad and I often do. We still find room to argue though. . .


----------



## Shahada (Apr 26, 2010)

Btmangan said:


> I chose to stand behind certain media because I believe they teach worthy lessons. . . drawing upon the power of media when it comes to some lessons or standards of behavior can, I believe, help me be a better man.


This to me just sounds like another ego massaging exercise - other people are unwittingly duped by mass media, and these poor sheep just go on watching their shallow TV and reading their dumb Twilight novels. I, however, have made a principled decision to stand by media that speaks to the unique snowflake that I am. You're still branding yourself with mass media symbols and making them a part of your personal identity, all while claiming that you have, to some degree, thwarted mass media cultural programming. It just doesn't ring true. I'm not saying you can't like stuff, but you should maybe think more critically about _why_ you like certain things before you start talking about how only dumb people are influenced by mass media. And I'm sure a lot of what I like is the result of various ways mass media has influenced me as well, I am not claiming to be special.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Shahada said:


> This to me just sounds like another ego massaging exercise - other people are unwittingly duped by mass media, and these poor sheep just go on watching their shallow TV and reading their dumb Twilight novels. I, however, have made a principled decision to stand by media that speaks to the unique snowflake that I am. You're still branding yourself with mass media symbols and making them a part of your personal identity, all while claiming that you have, to some degree, thwarted mass media cultural programming. It just doesn't ring true. I'm not saying you can't like stuff, but you should maybe think more critically about _why_ you like certain things before you start talking about how only dumb people are influenced by mass media.


I've always believed art to be a force of manipulation. I believe Alan Moore explains it in a unique and interesting way. 






"In latter times, I think that artists and writers have allowed themselves to be sold down the river. They have accepted the prevailing belief that art and writing are merely forms of entertainment. They are not seen as transformative forces that can change a human being, that can change a society. They are seen as simple entertainment, things that can fill 20 minutes, half an hour while we're waiting to die." 

-Alan Moore, author of V for Vendetta/Watchmen/Etc 

Alan Moore is a master manipulator. Look at the effect he's had on the anti-establishment protests in the U.S. for example. In V for Vendetta, he's created a _powerful symbol of resistance_. I not only embrace artists that I believe share important values for society, but I hope to become a writer who can affect the world in a similar way someday. 

Before my races as a swimmer, I used to whisper to myself "I'm going to die. I'm going to die. I'm going to die. I'm going to die. I'm going to die. . ." The adrenaline would burn like a wildfire and it gave me an edge. An actor can _choose _to be manipulated, and even to manipulate themselves. 

By wearing a uniform, an actor can fight more fiercely for a cause. By whispering a phrase of power, a person can draw upon more strength, more will, and more conviction when needed. Self-manipulation can easily cross from something nonsensical to something powerful. 

I don't doubt that I have been manipulated (in ways I wouldn't like) by art. . . but in general I don't dislike the manipulation on principle. I just wish to be manipulated in a way that coincides with my values. Art can unleash passion. It can be a fuel for us.

So it a bit of an ego-massage, sure. But through my ego and my desire to be immune from influences that I find objectionable, my ego actually benefits me in helping me improve myself in the way I wish.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

@Btmangan - I kind of have to agree with Shahada that you do sound rather egotistical. I really don't think you can rightfully hold the individual strictly accountable in this regard. Well, you can but not with good intentions---which is something we should all strive for. 

Yeh, we need to send out our messages, but saying the media is not detrimental is counteractive to this message. We need to accept that, embrace that, and then grow from it rather than knocking it aside because that is not an effective method of overcoming anything.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

saintless said:


> @_Btmangan_ - I kind of have to agree with Shahada that you do sound rather egotistical.


I'd rather take responsibility for my actions. 

If you don't want to, that's fine. Obey.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Btmangan said:


> I'd rather take responsibility for my actions.
> 
> If you don't want to, that's fine. Obey.


Oversimplifying the matter. 

Though who is suppose to take responsibility for what kids are taught? As I said before, a lot of this comes down to education and encouraged critical thinking skills.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

saintless said:


> Oversimplifying the matter.
> 
> Though who is suppose to take responsibility for what kids are taught? As I said before, a lot of this comes down to education and encouraged critical thinking skills.


If you think my taking responsibility for myself is egoism, you are correct. If you think that's blameworthy, then I vehemently disagree. If I fuck up, it's my fault. Period. It doesn't matter who influenced what. I'm not going to point my fingers at the media or my parents, or make any other set of excuses. 

Trying to force any parents or teachers to teach "acceptable" life-lessons is a slippery slope. 

I know that I'd do my best with my kids. . . the most effective way to shift these issues is to raise awareness and create alternative media that entertains, and carries alternative ideas. . .


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Btmangan said:


> Oh, I'm powerless to advertising?
> K.
> I better go out and buy some Tide detergent, a Toyota, and find a hot, dumb blond with big boobs to marry.
> . . . see my point?


hahaha!

I do think @Shahada had a point though, what we're attracted to is definitely not a choice and stuff we grow up with can shape it (for instance, I think anime has fucked up my sex life because I'm attracted to guys who look like anime characters, and there aren't many of those in real life lol)


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> hahaha!
> 
> I do think @_Shahada_ had a point though, what we're attracted to is definitely not a choice and stuff we grow up with can shape it (for instance, I think anime has fucked up my sex life because I'm attracted to guys who look like anime characters, and there aren't many of those in real life lol)


I believe that we generally seek out things with positive associations. 

For example. . . girls with short cut hair tend to be more artistic, more individualistic, and more into female empowerment, so sometimes find myself developing a slight preference for short hair as being sexy itself. 

But that's a false association. The act of having short hair doesn't automatically give a girl these traits. I think a lot of the quirks in attractiveness besides the instinctual ones are based on false associations.

Another false association I developed when I was younger. . . I would be turned off by girls with bleached hair. Zero interest. 

But having bleached hair doesn't diminish one's intelligence or individualism in of itself. 

A big societal thing I've noticed is a negative judgment towards girls who have visible muscles, or broad backs. I've always found these traits attractive (probably because I associated it with female empowerment and individualism) while most men seem to hate them. 

So I kind of want to swear off of all of it. . . to be honest. 

The one association I've never really tried to analyze has been my preference for girls who are in good shape. That one has always struck me as reasonable.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> hahaha!
> 
> I do think @_Shahada_ had a point though, what we're attracted to is definitely not a choice and stuff we grow up with can shape it (for instance, I think anime has fucked up my sex life because I'm attracted to guys who look like anime characters, and there aren't many of those in real life lol)


Then perhaps I'm the exception to the rule since what I would consider the sexual ideal isn't represented in the media. I'm not even exaggerating, it's quite literally not there.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Btmangan said:


> If you think my taking responsibility for myself is egoism, you are correct. If you think that's blameworthy, then I vehemently disagree. If I fuck up, it's my fault. Period. It doesn't matter who influenced what. I'm not going to point my fingers at the media or my parents, or make any other set of excuses.
> 
> Trying to force any parents or teachers to teach "acceptable" life-lessons is a slippery slope.
> 
> I know that I'd do my best with my kids. . . the most effective way to shift these issues is to raise awareness and create alternative media that entertains, and carries alternative ideas. . .


You misunderstand me, and you are contradicting yourself (as I see it). 

Raising awareness is a form of education. I am not talking indoctrinating kids with ideals. I am talking about encouraging critical thinking skills that allow people analyze and dissect many of life's complexities so they don't get fooled by stereotypes presented in the media and so they can understand true human nature. America, as an example, doesn't do this. Most forms of education in America are centered around memorizing facts and data. It rarely ever encourages kids to actual apply theoretical and abstract concepts and think outside of themselves or even the box society presents them with. In some classes it happens, but is not the mode of education nor what most people tend to emphasize. There is a shift (thankfully) towards this kind of education in certain alternative settings, but there needs to be a greater push.

If you're taught that... oh, a women's body has a natural defense against rape and will terminate any pregnancy due to rape, then it's not necessarily you're fault that you later become a politician who takes much flame for his ignorant comment. Of course, you could say the man had the responsibility to research sex and maternal health in order to find the right answer. However, why should a person feel inclined to research something once he has been told it's true (by a possible authority figure) especially when it doesn't seem immediately important to his predicted job (politics)? 

But more importantly and succinctly, you are not a product of your willpower. You are a product of your biology and environment. Your will shapes what you do with yourself as a product of these external conditions, but you cannot change the product of who you are. You certainly can't do much about this during the early stages of life when our formal and abstract cognitive abilities have yet to be developed. It is then when we are most susceptible to the media. It is then we start to internalize erroneous concepts, and it when we are young that I am most concerned about. 

If a twenty girl doesn't understand all black people aren't criminals due to the media's portrayal of them, she needs to grow up. However, I met a twenty-year girl like that this summer out in the Midwest. Everyone in the Midwest essentially believes this. She sees it in the media, she hears it at home, and her teachers probably help to reinforce this idea. Why should she think differently? She doesn't know Black people or anything like that. 

Her environment is to blame.


----------



## heylena (Aug 30, 2012)

It would be interesting what countries you are comparing American culture with, in this theory of yours. I don't think this has to do with just Americans, but every country. It also has to do with people, individually, and how comfortable they are with their own sexuality. This uncomfortability with one's sex or sexuality might stem from their culture or their childhood environment as well as parenting techniques of the subject. Then again, men and women have different rules and setbacks to their sexuality. Women have always been told to be ashamed of their sexuality while men are encouraged to do the complete opposites. This is only one way of looking at it though, as men's sexuality is also demeaned concerning their sexual status or even characteristics of what makes a "man".


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

android654 said:


> Then perhaps I'm the exception to the rule since what I would consider the sexual ideal isn't represented in the media. I'm not even exaggerating, it's quite literally not there.


Quite literally not even there.. thats interesting. Now I'm curious.



Btmangan said:


> The one association I've never really tried to analyze has been my preference for girls who are in good shape. That one has always struck me as reasonable.


Culturally what "in good shape" means has changed a lot, to be associated more with aesthetics than actual health.


----------



## Resolution (Feb 8, 2010)

android654 said:


> Then perhaps I'm the exception to the rule since what I would consider the sexual ideal isn't represented in the media. I'm not even exaggerating, it's quite literally not there.


Ha, same. 

Ronda Rousey? 



Promethea said:


> Culturally what "in good shape" means has changed a lot, to be associated more with aesthetics than actual health.


I mean it in terms of athletics, including strength, to a degree. My previous girlfriend was a College swimmer and quite strong.

I value that kind of physical power in myself and in women (What I value in myself and in women I'm attracted to is pretty much fairly similar, because I don't see women as being objects separate from men, but rather independent actors.)

Namely, if I want it for myself, I am attracted to it in a woman.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Promethea said:


> Quite literally not even there.. thats interesting. Now I'm curious.


Here's an example of what I mean. According to Askmen.com 
#1 sexiest woman of 2012 is Sofia Vergara, who reminds me of my aunt,
#2 is Kate Upton who's pretty but my interest kind of starts and stops there
#3 is Rooney Mara who's pretty in a sort of conservative Puritan way, but did really catch my eye as Lisbeth, but that's more from loving the character from reading the novel several times.

All three women, fine looking and attractive in their own way, but I see a dozen of each of them every day walking down the street. I don't lose my mind over that kind of representation the way most men do.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

heylena said:


> It would be interesting what countries you are comparing American culture with, in this theory of yours. I don't think this has to do with just Americans, but every country. It also has to do with people, individually, and how comfortable they are with their own sexuality. This uncomfortability with one's sex or sexuality might stem from their culture or their childhood environment as well as parenting techniques of the subject. Then again, men and women have different rules and setbacks to their sexuality. Women have always been told to be ashamed of their sexuality while men are encouraged to do the complete opposites. This is only one way of looking at it though, as men's sexuality is also demeaned concerning their sexual status or even characteristics of what makes a "man".


- my assessment was not comparative at all. though I think "why is the world so sexually repressed" is a worthy subject for debate as well. 
- actually, men are also taught to be ashamed of their sexuality (ie, people kind of have the impression that men are all secretly these cavemen rapists who only care about using a woman as a whole to masturbate inside of. lots of men in turn think this about themselves and I'd be willing to bet most are a little ashamed of it) but simultaneously told that they are worthless if they don't partake in it. women are told to be ashamed of their sexuality and refrain from doing it as often as possible.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

android654 said:


> Here's an example of what I mean. According to Askmen.com
> #1 sexiest woman of 2012 is Sofia Vergara, who reminds me of my aunt,
> #2 is Kate Upton who's pretty but my interest kind of starts and stops there
> #3 is Rooney Mara who's pretty in a sort of conservative Puritan way, but did really catch my eye as Lisbeth, but that's more from loving the character from reading the novel several times.
> ...


I have lived all over the east coast, and I noticed something interesting, being a people-watcher. In large cities where there are plenty of women who have the typical tall slender modely look - I didn't observe the guys in general making a fuss about it. I didn't notice any stirring or radical response. However in more suburban, or rural places -- outside of a metro, I would see heads turn, or guys nudge and bro each other about it. I have compared changes in conventional attractiveness to changes in fashion before, and it changes first in metro areas - I think, when people get bored of the same thing for a long enough time. The change is slower outside of metro areas. In the south, for example - for a long time a more zaftig figure was preferred by many and then in the last couple of decades that started to change. Its like they got the memo late that the very slender look was in - and maybe its on its way out in more progressive areas.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I have lived all over the east coast, and I noticed something interesting, being a people-watcher. In large cities where there are plenty of women who have the typical tall slender modely look - I didn't observe the guys in general making a fuss about it. I didn't notice any stirring or radical response. However in more suburban, or rural places -- outside of a metro, I would see heads turn, or guys nudge and bro each other about it. I have compared changes in conventional attractiveness to changes in fashion before, and it changes first in metro areas - I think, when people get bored of the same thing for a long enough time. The change is slower outside of metro areas. In the south, for example - for a long time a more zaftig figure was preferred by many and then in the last couple of decades that started to change. Its like they got the memo late that the very slender look was in - and maybe its on its way out in more progressive areas.


I'm from a large city and all of the cat calls, neck breaking turns, and eye fucking happens all over on a daily basis. I'm pretty sure the tanned guitar shape is still the ideal since, like you've pointed out a few times, is promoted everywhere. It just doesn't capture my attention that strongly. I recognize that it's attractive, but it doesn't have the same degree of pull over me like it does the average guy. Does that make sense?


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

android654 said:


> I'm from a large city and all of the cat calls, neck breaking turns, and eye fucking happens all over on a daily basis. I'm pretty sure the tanned guitar shape is still the ideal since, like you've pointed out a few times, is promoted everywhere. It just doesn't capture my attention that strongly. I recognize that it's attractive, but it doesn't have the same degree of pull over me like it does the average guy. Does that make sense?


My observation has been a lot different -- that theres a great disparity between the two metro/non-metro, and the degree to which people have reactions. I'm not saying I have never seen it happen in a metro area - but not nearly as much as I have observed it in say, sc, nc, va. When that look is not the norm, theres more reaction of course. I think its simple saturation and desensitization in places where its more common. 

I'm not sure if it makes sense to me. Why do you think that it has less of a pull over you than it does the "average guy" -- what makes you different? And I'm not picking at you here for the record -- male sexuality has fascinated me ever since I was a child, and I ask a ton of questions that are probably none of my business routinely.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

Promethea said:


> I'm not sure if it makes sense to me. Why do you think that it has less of a pull over you than it does the "average guy" -- what makes you different? And I'm not picking at you here for the record -- male sexuality has fascinated me ever since I was a child, and I ask a ton of questions that are probably none of my business routinely.


I think there is a better direction in which you could take this curiosity. I mean android654 is only one person, one woman. It would be interesting how the media's standard of beauty affects heterosexual males versus homosexual women versus bisexual women. I believe the preference for the different genders/sexes would certainly affect how a person views beauty.

Taking myself as example, one of the reasons it took me many years to realize I was bisexual and not simply heterosexual is because I don't care for conventional beauty seen in models and movie stars. When I saw some half-naked girl on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swim edition or some other magazine, I would just shrug. While I admit those girls tend to have wonderful symmetry and pleasant features, they always seemed empty and hollow to me, essentially unintriguing. They were also too perfect to a point of being bland and just another paper dool cutout. 

Though at the same time, I am not attracted to high levels of femininity. I will admit it can be lovely such as with Charlize Theron (though it's her eyes that get me), however I like girls who have a hard-edge to them. Some may call it masculinity, but it's not quite that. I mean when I look at "manly men" I appreciate their beauty (generally more than feminine women), but I am not incredibly attracted to them. I think I just like the gray area between the genders with a slight tilt towards the "masculine" side, but the person must have some passion or strength or edge trapped inside of them. Also, I wouldn't call this a genderless interest but rather a mixed interest. 

As a prime example, I personally believe Kiyomi Mccloskey is the hottest woman alive despite rumors of her being a total ass.

So while I am bisexual, I don't distinctively like the two genders/sexes. There is potential in everyone to be beautiful and attractive, but I prefer a certain mix of the two (technically erroneous) sides. 

However, I was also raised to question society's standards. 

I am sure I have said this before, but it's the product that attracts---looks, personality, and all. Looks, however, are greatly affected by personality in my opinion.

This post may or may not be helpful to you, but I certainly encourage looking into what my first paragraph was getting at.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Promethea said:


> My observation has been a lot different -- that theres a great disparity between the two metro/non-metro, and the degree to which people have reactions. I'm not saying I have never seen it happen in a metro area - but not nearly as much as I have observed it in say, sc, nc, va. When that look is not the norm, theres more reaction of course. I think its simple saturation and desensitization in places where its more common.
> 
> I'm not sure if it makes sense to me. Why do you think that it has less of a pull over you than it does the "average guy" -- what makes you different? And I'm not picking at you here for the record -- male sexuality has fascinated me ever since I was a child, and I ask a ton of questions that are probably none of my business routinely.


If it were simply desensitization, wouldn't the expectations be more driven to the extremes where it already is?

I have these conversations with my friends/their friends/strangers* all the time*. If the t.v.'s playing in the background, a song being played or the name of some celebrity pops up in conversation, it's only a few seconds until one of my friends asks the whole group, "hey would you fuck _____?" While everyone takes a turn verbalizing their agreement or disagreement and adorning their answers with colorful explanations to elucidate why they would/wouldn't, everyone gives me the stink eye when I simply go "yeah," or "nah." This happens with celebrities, people we know, girls on the street etc. Now, on the rare ocassions I ask my peers if someone's attractive (if it's a musician which it often turns out to be and I'm done explaining who they are) I'm only met with silence and awkward stares since they're quite often the antithesis of everything that makes their tongue wag. So my years of experience has pretty much displayed to me that I'm not like the majority of people in what they deem sexually attractive


----------



## dagnytaggart (Jun 6, 2010)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> America is oversexed.


No. It's sexually objectified. There's a difference. It's apparently OK to suggestively condone sexual degradation (particularly towards women and gay men), but if you actually enjoy sex itself? Good grief! -_-

You're not supposed to enjoy it, you filthy animal you. But you should still just deal with being pumped and dumped so that the alpha dude can feel superior to you and/or get a nice, testosterony ego boost. So get fucked, slut, but hate it.

{{EDIT BEFORE I GET BANNED}} : 2nd paragraph not directed to Aphrodite.


----------



## Promethea (Aug 24, 2009)

saintless said:


> I think there is a better direction in which you could take this curiosity. I mean android654 is only one person, one woman. It would be interesting how the media's standard of beauty affects heterosexual males versus homosexual women versus bisexual women. I believe the preference for the different genders/sexes would certainly affect how a person views beauty.
> 
> Taking myself as example, one of the reasons it took me many years to realize I was bisexual and not simply heterosexual is because I don't care for conventional beauty seen in models and movie stars. When I saw some half-naked girl on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swim edition or some other magazine, I would just shrug. While I admit those girls tend to have wonderful symmetry and pleasant features, they always seemed empty and hollow to me, essentially unintriguing. They were also too perfect to a point of being bland and just another paper dool cutout.
> 
> ...


The world is full of people who are only one. I have enough energy to ask anyone whos opinion confuses me a little bit. Many I don't ask too much - because from observation I can see what they're getting at. Observation, research, and lots of asking questions.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> ...fixed :dry:


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Shinji Mimura said:


>


if I let ignorance and baseless use of people as scapegoats make me angry, I would not be the happy, carefree person I am today


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> if I let ignorance and *baseless* use of people as scapegoats make me angry, I would not be the happy, carefree person I am today


History books.

Read one.


----------



## Swordsman of Mana (Jan 7, 2011)

Shinji Mimura said:


> History books.
> Read one.


I've read several and watched a plethora or historical documentaries in my spare time. I could just as easy tell you "race science, look it up" if you said I was scapegoating black people (see how it works?)


----------



## killerB (Jan 14, 2010)

I would have to agree that America is sexually repressed, and this is why:

1) Sex sells. Want to see anything at all, even life insurance, you just frame it with a sexy woman or man.....
2) Because everyone was SO upset about Clinton getting his dick sucked in the Whitehouse that we had to appoint a special commitee to prove he was having an affair and lied about it. Like who really cares? Why is it our business? Why did we have to spend billions on finding out?
3) People assume a breasfeeding mother is a thing that should be hidden in the bathroom. Because if you nurse your child over a year(like many other cultures do) you are automatically a Pedophile and their is something wrong with you. Because people actually freak out over a bit of breast showing while a child nurses, and people say "OMG! What will we tell the children if we see this in public?" 
4) We don't hug our male children after a certain age, because it suddenly is not appropriate.
5) Because we really think it is ok to legislate Sexuality and who people love. 

I could go on and on forever on this.


----------



## Spades (Aug 31, 2011)

Because sex is dirty, except when the media does it.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

saintless said:


> I think there is a better direction in which you could take this curiosity. I mean android654 is only one person, one woman. It would be interesting how the media's standard of beauty affects heterosexual males versus homosexual women versus bisexual women. I believe the preference for the different genders/sexes would certainly affect how a person views beauty.
> 
> Taking myself as example, one of the reasons it took me many years to realize I was bisexual and not simply heterosexual is because I don't care for conventional beauty seen in models and movie stars. When I saw some half-naked girl on the cover of the Sports Illustrated swim edition or some other magazine, I would just shrug. While I admit those girls tend to have wonderful symmetry and pleasant features, they always seemed empty and hollow to me, essentially unintriguing. They were also too perfect to a point of being bland and just another paper dool cutout.
> 
> ...


Sorry I missed this. You got the pronoun wrong, but the rest is spot on on how I finally came to the conclusion about what I do and don't find sexually attractive.


----------



## goastfarmer (Oct 20, 2010)

android654 said:


> Sorry I missed this. You got the pronoun wrong, but the rest is spot on on how I finally came to the conclusion about what I do and don't find sexually attractive.


Prounouns. Gotta love them. Though, I swore I thought I saw your gender listed as female once. I now see it is genderless, but it's not something I regularly look at in order to keep tabs on. But, I could be crazy, and that I apologize.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

saintless said:


> Prounouns. Gotta love them. Though, I swore I thought I saw your gender listed as female once. I now see it is genderless, but it's not something I regularly look at in order to keep tabs on. But, I could be crazy, and that I apologize.


Meh, don't be. I'm listed as genderless for a reason. Don't really fit in with "my group" and my writing has never come off as gender specific, at least I don't think it has been. Either way, it's nice to know I wasn't the only person who had to go through the same discovery and thought process to realize what it was that I did and did not like.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

Swordsman of Mana said:


> I've read several and watched a plethora or historical documentaries in my spare time. I could just as easy tell you "race science, look it up" if you said I was scapegoating black people (see how it works?)


I don't see where black people come into play, unless there's an argument that Americans are sexually closed-off because of black people :O

Also, this isn't about scapegoating; it's about culture. Tell me, who "settled" this nation? It was primarily England, yes? And they came here to practice which religion, again? Christianity, I believe.

Tell me, what has been the dominant religion in our nation since the English were in control of it? Christianity.

And, tell me, of the following religions and philsophies, which has, and still is, the most dominant:

Christianity, Judaism, Islam, atheism, agnosticism, Buddhism, Pastafarian, Didgeridoo

If you answered Christianity, you're right!

Now, okay, so Christians dominate our American culture, and while they are lessening, their HISTORICAL IMPACT is undeniable. But what does Christianity have to do with reversed sexuality? Let's see...

1 Corinthians 7:2 - We learn that premarital sex (or sex in general) is immoral, and thus marriage is required to purify the act. This, of course, becomes problematic for the new age of "Christian" Americans who wish to engage in premarital sex, knowing that it conflicts with their views. This furthermore conflicts with Christians who have closeted feelings, that is, that they WISH to be sexual but BECAUSE of their religion they don't do it. As we all know, keeping desires repressed is GREAT for mental health -_-

James 1:12-14 - We learn that temptation (AKA lust) is AGAINST GOD, and that the man who offsets his temptation will reap greater rewards. This, of course, goes against a person's sexual and physical attraction impulses. Furthermore, this creates a SENSE OF GUILT when somebody FEELS lust in their body, as they rightfully should if they have any sexual inclination.

Leviticus 18:22 - Ah yes, the famous verse that condemns homosexuality (it can be debated whether or not this means male homosexuality). This once again is a case of sexual repression and guilt for closeted-homosexuals, and is the base for such lovely places as the turn-you-straight churches.

I think that's a good number of verses that support why Christianity is against open sexuality. For one, it's stated in the bible the premarital sex is immoral, and, perhaps most importantly, it is AGANIST GOD!

Oh, and one last thing that suggests some sexual...worry...

Genesis 19:31-36 - Ooh, look, two daughters sleep with their father. Great message. But I suppose it makes sense since the religion was created and spread by penis-glorifying patriarchs.



android654 said:


> and my writing has never come off as gender specific


Bull shit. 'cant fool me. Your writing is female as FUCK.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Shinji Mimura said:


> Bull shit. 'cant fool me. Your writing is female as FUCK.


Is it really? I didn't try to make it so. I guess since I spent most of my time with women it must've influenced the way I write as I developed. I also think it could be one of those weird thibgs influenced by my type *shrugs* Can't do anything about it now.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

android654 said:


> Is it really? I didn't try to make it so. I guess since I spent most of my time with women it must've influenced the way I write as I developed. I also think it could be one of those weird thibgs influenced by my type *shrugs* Can't do anything about it now.


Hey man, I've got no problem adding you to my harem. It's quite clear that you and I get on like a house on fire.

Mm...well, I'm a writer first and a social psychologist second. I am definitely not a great portrait of a male, and I can only gather you don't really reflect the female stereotype very well. However, we _are _still our respective genders, and I feel that's something that can, honestly, be picked up in writing. Writing comes with it mindsets, and if I can see your writing I can see your mind.

And yes, this is one case where stereotypes wind up being true and predictable as fuck.


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Shinji Mimura said:


> Hey man, I've got no problem adding you to my harem. It's quite clear that you and I get on like a house on fire.
> 
> Mm...well, I'm a writer first and a social psychologist second. I am definitely not a great portrait of a male, and I can only gather you don't really reflect the female stereotype very well. However, we _are _still our respective genders, and I feel that's something that can, honestly, be picked up in writing. Writing comes with it mindsets, and if I can see your writing I can see your mind.
> 
> And yes, this is one case where stereotypes wind up being true and predictable as fuck.


Lol, you should reread the post you originally quoted, methinks you are confused.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

android654 said:


> Lol, you should reread the post you originally quoted, methinks you are confused.


Well, I am officially far too embarrassed to post here :/


----------



## android654 (Jan 19, 2010)

Shinji Mimura said:


> Well, I am officially far too embarrassed to post here :/


Damn... It's hard to embarrass yourself on the Internet. Good job!

If it makes you feel better, I only use "Lol" when I actually laugh at what people write, which is rare. So, you know, there's that.


----------



## Shinji Mimura (Aug 1, 2012)

La Li Lu Le Lo said:


> Right well we probably disagree as to the degree of openness we find responsible or healthy.


As a person who is super sexually open, I can say that it has zero impact on one's health. It's one thing to be overly sexually ACTIVE, as in having lots of sex and/or sexual partners, and it's another to be OPEN. OPEN is just saying, "Yeah I like sex." ACTIVE is the actual sexual activity.

Of course, I'm also super sexually active, and, again, health? Tip top shape.

As for responsibility, 's all about tact. Just don't talk about sex when around people who don't want to hear it, I 'spose


----------



## WickerDeer (Aug 1, 2012)

Shinji Mimura said:


> As a person who is super sexually open, I can say that it has zero impact on one's health. It's one thing to be overly sexually ACTIVE, as in having lots of sex and/or sexual partners, and it's another to be OPEN. OPEN is just saying, "Yeah I like sex." ACTIVE is the actual sexual activity.
> 
> Of course, I'm also super sexually active, and, again, health? Tip top shape.
> 
> As for responsibility, 's all about tact. Just don't talk about sex when around people who don't want to hear it, I 'spose


Well--Shinji Mimura doesn't experience illogical thoughts--but for those of us who do experience illogical thoughts and their accompanying illogical feelings--I think being sexually open is actually A LOT healthier than the alternative.

And by being sexually open, I mean open to discussing and talking about it. Also, open to accepting that we cannot absolutely control our sexuality, and being open and accepting of others' sexualities. Having dealt with intrusive thoughts (the ultimate of irrational thinking (though people with intrusive thoughts recognize that they are irrational), I am really glad I don't have huge issues with my sexual preference or I would probably be constantly worrying I was homosexual, like so many other people with Pure O. In that case, IMO, it's way healthier to be sexually open.

I don't know how many times I thought there was something "wrong" with me for having certain fantasies--and once, when I was a kid, and when I had my first sexual fantasy--I was afraid enough of my sexuality that I thought I might have become pregnant by my sexual fantasy. Right--those are unhealthy states, and I think those states were exacerbated by my lack of acceptance or understanding of my own sexuality then.

Aside from this--I think that Christianity does have an effect on our collective sexual repression, and am interested in hearing about it and Mastermind's research. 

I have thought about that subject, but have focused more on Medieval and Renaissance misogyny--and the witch hunts, and how Christianity was used in the Witch Trials in Europe and in the Witches Hammer. 

The other day I was thinking about how the women's suffrage movement and Feminism may have only been possible after the collective population embraced this idea that women are pure and free of sexuality (I don't know if it's Puritan--but it seems to have come about in the sentimental writings that were influenced by religion--Quakers). You can see it in a lot of the anti-slavery and prohibition writings. Because previously, during the Rennaisance, female sexuality was used as a reason to bar women from politics and intellectual pursuits...so it's like we had to embrace the image of the sexless woman in order to let her engage in voting and education.


----------



## Miss Scarlet (Jul 26, 2010)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> America is oversexed.


----------



## milti (Feb 8, 2012)

Sexually closed off?? Most of the rest of the world is taking its cues from America and Europe where sexual freedom, freedom of choice and changing mores are concerned. 
My country is about 500 years behind you guys. I think your people (women) are some of the luckiest in the world when it comes to not having to answer to society and have the freedom to choose their own relationships, conduct/annul their own marriages, wear what they want and basically not have to step so carefully when it comes to love or sex. That's just how it looks to one from the outside.


----------



## DouglasMl (Nov 3, 2009)

AphroditeGoneAwry said:


> What are you talking about?
> 
> America is oversexed.


For what my word is worth, _under-satisfied_ would be more accurate than _over-sexed_.
I know that remark may be controversial, but if people there get so 
little satisfaction from love-making--so little satisfaction from _life_--that
they feel the need to seek sexual pleasure in other, more deviant ways....

Some people there actually do believe that ignorance protects chastity
even as their children's actions suggest that ignorance ignites temptation.
Apparently, the last bits of the belief that a daughter's chastity is a
father's honour haven't died out in the USA. On the other hand, young
men in the USA are not expected to show maturity or ethical character
regarding their sexuality. Indeed, male chastity is something pitiable, or
laughable, in that part of the world.

If that means leaning toward the position offered by Swordsman of Mana
instead of AphroditeGoneAwry, so be it as far as this topic goes.

I could say more about the relation between the harsh Presbyterianism
of the Scottish Reformation and the contribution it makes to the current
unhappy state of sexuality in the US of A...but that is another story.


----------



## Kharyzmatiq (Nov 9, 2011)

android654 said:


> Even if they were, it's 2012. Who's really wasting time getting worked up over interracial couples?


Unfortunately, lots of people. People are often ashamed to admit it, but you may be surprised at how many people, of all races, are strongly opposed to dating, or having their children date, outside their own race. Case in point, I have an aunt who's always asking me, "you gotta girlfriend, you gotta girlfriend? She ain't white is she? You better not have no white girlfriend!" 

I think in Black American culture, it has a lot to do with still-sore cultural wounds from slavery and Jim Crow days; this idea of white people being "blue-eyed devils" still persists in some families. Some white people seem to rationalize that interracial couplings are a result of predatory black men lusting after the "forbidden fruit", as it was once customary to lynch black men if they were even suspected of making advances on a white woman. Others seem to think that if God made the different races, and everyone started intermixing with different cultures, then we would be corrupting his original purpose.lol

It actually depresses to think how very much alive racism still is...


----------



## fihe (Aug 30, 2012)

I think the United States' religious background, dating back to its founding, has a lot to do with the "sex shaming" in our society. from what I know, if a politician in a European nation has a personal scandal, it doesn't really change the voters' opinions of that person. but here in the US, if a politician were to cheat on his wife, for example, it's made into a big deal and their opponents use it to attempt to hurt their image, and possibly sabotage their political career. here in New Jersey, former governor Jim McGreevy resigned a few years ago. he had an extramarital affair with a gay man. supposedly his resignation had more to do with political corruption, but everyone believes it is because he was humiliated about his affair and his confession to being "a gay American".


----------



## Chimerical (Feb 28, 2009)

theorycraft said:


> Because most American are Christians that is why! I want sexy time but God shames me!


God watches you while you masturbate.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

Puritan roots. Pleasure of any sensory kind is sinful. This tended to manifest itself into some really ugly hate and violence; sexually repressed people seem to be quite fond of focusing their sex drive into things like "witch" burnings, public shamings, and the Fox News Network.


----------



## Thalassa (Jun 10, 2010)

milti girl said:


> Sexually closed off?? Most of the rest of the world is taking its cues from America and Europe where sexual freedom, freedom of choice and changing mores are concerned.
> My country is about 500 years behind you guys. I think your people (women) are some of the luckiest in the world when it comes to not having to answer to society and have the freedom to choose their own relationships, conduct/annul their own marriages, wear what they want and basically not have to step so carefully when it comes to love or sex. That's just how it looks to one from the outside.


I think Europeans are much more adult about sex and nudity, especially on the Continent, like in France, Italy, Russia, places like that.

Americans still have kind of an adolescent, "oh isn't this naughty!" overly pornographic approach to sex, and that's rebellion against the lingering repression.

Violence is more acceptable here than a mother breast feeding her child in public.

However, I would agree Americans are less repressed than some countries, they're still more so than others. I've noticed that English-speaking cultures in general (UK, U.S., Canada) seem less comfortable with sex than places where Romance or Slavic languages are spoken.


----------



## Brian1 (May 7, 2011)

What are we talking about? Alfred Kinsey, Hugh Hefner and Larry Flynt, are all outstanding American patriots. Saw People vs. Larry Flynt in theatres. Also saw Blow in theatres: George Jung. It is interesting whether its drugs or sex, there's been an American entrepreneur, feeding America's habits of stuff that is looked down upon. On top of that, I think America is fertile ground for businesses such as porn, because America is the land of oppurtunity. The Sexual Revolution is really an American thing. I think while yes there's an argument to made about how intolerant and closed minded of things like sex America is, there's also the facts of American Business success stories when looking at sex, and drugs and other stuff like that.


----------



## Chickadee (Oct 13, 2012)

I agree that our culture is more prude about sex than the English (I don't want to lump all Europeans in the same category, but I'd be willing to bet we are more prude than many of the other western European cultures.) I spent a little bit of time in England and I was frequently shocked. And what's funny is we tend to have this stereotype that we are crude about sex and that the English are very prude. It is definitely the other way around. 

That said, I think Americans are just starting to come out of their shells a little bit as a whole. I used to be incredibly prude, but I feel a lot more comfortable talking about sex and everything along with it. I think Americans are a bit more idealistic as a culture and very concerned with what other people think of them compared to other cultures where it's more of a live and let live and who cares who knows. 

This is just what I've observed anyway roud:


----------



## pinkrasputin (Apr 13, 2009)

Um, I just read through the "How Many Sexual Partners Have You Had?" thread. Wow.  AND I've also seen the term "slut" thrown around quite a bit here. 

My conclusion: Personality Cafe is sexually repressed and on average, needs to get laid more before expressing opinions.


----------



## electricky (Feb 18, 2011)

> Why is America so sexually _hypocritical_


Fixed. 

Well, it least it seems that way...... you see, repression of such a big thing just doesn't work... so when it's closed off one way, it comes out all warped the other way. Hence MTV, 90% of the internet, "that's what she said", and cheesy beer commercials.


----------



## HippoHunter94 (Jan 19, 2012)

America... fuck yeah, but talking about any copulation with yeah is very taboo.


----------

