...but part of the equation nonetheless. I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Printable View
...but part of the equation nonetheless. I see.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
That is exactly why it needs to be discussed by parents with children in an open atmosphere. It IS an underlying constant in their everyday life there is no reason that another underlying constant (their parents) shouldn’t crossover. :bow:Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Be a good parent. Much easier to say than to do. :baby:Quote:
What to do about it is the 64k question....
Interesting that everyone is addressing moral standards. I never even considered this in writing my last post; in fact, I really don't give a damn about that side of the argument.
What I was addressing is what I see as the loss of meaning behind sex. To me, the big problem with modern society is not some explosion of lewd and promiscuous sexuality; the problem is the exploitation of sex, hence why I addressed Capitalism. I am honestly worries that sex is losing far too much of its greater meaning nowadays. Granted, some bad is lost along with good; the perverse unspoken immorality of Victorian England is a perfect example, where upper-class men would commonly purchase child prostitutes as young as 11 or 12. But at the same time, it is losing its status as something meaningful, and is instead becoming a grossly commercialized and exploited pastime. People are having sex just to have sex; not because you feel anything for the other person, or as an act of rebellion, or even because it's fun. There is an entire subculture of girls at my college whose weekend usually consists entirely of getting as drunk as possible and finding a guy to have sex with them in their semi-conscious stupor; that's a very perverse activity that requires two very perverse people (honestly, it's the next worst thing to necrophilia) and what's more, it lacks any real meaning whatsoever.
And that is the problem as I see it. And no, I'm not inclined to blame a "loosening of moral standards." I really think it's the fault of a commercial culture that has so over-exploited sexuality in its marketing that it has damn near killed all the meaning in it. That's a sad state of affairs.
Sooo.... where would this College be? :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Reverend Joe
Every college every where...except those christian ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by CountArach
No you don't.Quote:
...but part of the equation nonetheless. I see.
:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I want to note I'm not blaming democrats, but the advancement of socially liberal views, especially in regards to marriage, sex, abortion, etc. Heaven knows its not a Republican vs democrat issue.
Just a general loosening of morals, and the goods being peddled are a response to that. Sort of like a trickle down effect, in that first the morals changed for adults, and then teens, and now we have this continuance. And because of that change we have parents actually buying this crap, because they don't see it like their own parents would have.
I agree that this is troubling.Quote:
I am honestly worries that sex is losing far too much of its greater meaning nowadays.
...
People are having sex just to have sex; not because you feel anything for the other person, or as an act of rebellion, or even because it's fun.
How is commercialism making those girls go out to have sex every weekend? Certainly people selling certain items have pushed this along, but its been the change in morals among society that causes people to buy what they wouldn't have ten years before.Quote:
And that is the problem as I see it. And no, I'm not inclined to blame a "loosening of moral standards." I really think it's the fault of a commercial culture that has so over-exploited sexuality in its marketing that it has damn near killed all the meaning in it. That's a sad state of affairs.
CR
After reading some of the responses, I'm still failing to see how most of the issues mentioned can't be tackled with proper parenting. Looking at how my parents raised me, I think that the simple reward punishment route works in its own way. I've seen how parents tend to spoil their kids and fail to punish them when the really need a good grounding. Point being, I think the problem mentioned by the OP is only a branch extending from the greater issue.
I stand by my original point that, in a capitalist society, goods are only made if they are going to be purchased. In this instance, I think that the solution is simple: Stop purchasing slutty clothing and overly suggestive material for children.
*Scribbles on notepad*Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
I will agree wholeheartedly. You don't have consequences for sex, so its easier and means less.Quote:
But at the same time, it is losing its status as something meaningful, and is instead becoming a grossly commercialized and exploited pastime.
Hey, I've been exposed to sexuality since I was 10 (I watched my first porn movie back then and it was good). I didn't jump on my first female coleague at school I got my "hands" on. Of course I overused the dial-up and got my parents a 30 $ bill and such for watching Internet porn but overall I don't think it has so much negative impact on the youth.
The issue here is teens/children owadays have too much free timeon their hands to start with and many parents usually keep their children locked at home (For safety purposes\I don't want him joining a dubious crowd).So middle-classkids have no other entertainment that TV/Internet...you name it. And all that is full of Porn. So kids watch porn not for sexual fulfillment (heck...little boys can't even ejaculate properly), but boredom.
So the only proper way to "protect" the young from porn is to persuade them endorse outdoor recreational activities such as sports, skating and trekking. It worked for me when I was 12......I got involved in an enviromentalist mountaineering club and since then the overall hours of pornsurfing have reduced drastically...though sometimes I still watch 15 min. of :daisy: tube
I put the capitalism bit in there because I knew it would draw a reaction ("lawl, trolled" and all that). But the fact of the matter remains that exploitation of sexuality to minors has become almost the norm as of late. Bratz dolls, while not single-handedly the cause of the frustration, is never-the-less a frightening outcome of such an exploitation. Barbie dolls are more along the lines of beautification of children, whereas Bratz lends a hand in saying "It's all right to wear fishnet stockings and miniskirts at age 8."
And I've seen plenty of "Christian college" girls party harder than "normal college" girls. :tongueg:
That's because normal girls have been exposed to sexuality throughout their lives. Instead of having been unnaturally sheltered from it like Christian girls. One can't have too much discrepancy between a teenager's natural physical curiousity and a demand to not be a physical being. If the gap is too big, they'll explode once they are set free.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
Ah..Christian girls. :2thumbsup:
I say the world can't have enough fathers who try to repress their daughter's sexuality. All the better once they grow up and have a few years to make up for. ~;p
And that's the other problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
Rabbit, what I am saying is that those women are having so much sex because it no longer has any special meaning aside from the cheapest of thrills. It's exactly the opposite problem as what you have with Catholic School girls, and the Victorian and post-Victorian generations. Because sex was so suppressed for them, they couldn't handle it when it hit them. A lot of people were messed up because their sexuality was so suppressed.
With kids who are growing up today, on the other hand, sexuality is everywhere in the worst way possible. It isn't a normal, healthy part of life for them any more than those who are suppressed. It is used as part of the overall marketing strategy of "You have to do X, Y and Z to be cool." And honestly, please don't deny that doesn't exist; it's the very foundation of frivolous spending, and young people are particularly susceptible. When sex is used in this manner, it certainly works to sell the product; but it also devalues sex to the point of being no more important than a cell phone.
Now, it is true that the sexual revolution is the reason that this marketing is allowed to exist as it is. But at the same time, the sexual revolution was intended, ultimately, to normalize sex as, like I said before, a normal, healthy part of everyday life. By exploiting the newfound openness about sex and transforming it into a marketing tool, Commercialization has done the opposite to sex and turned it into a meaningless habit, something no better than suppressing and shunning it in the long run.
Now, of course the people being targeted and their parents are partly to blame; but that's a problem with everything. Most families and kids are screwed up in general. It's just a question of how normal you can make it, ad of course that means keeping the kids away from commercialized sex; but that's made much harder when hundreds of companies are spending millions apiece each year in an attempt to make you give up your money for that crap.
See the problem is you're putting the ~:flirt: on a pedestal.
Well, if it's not special, why do you want it?
I got out of college just 3 and a half years ago.....Quote:
Originally Posted by Sasaki Kojiro
is this that a recent development or are you telling me I was missing out???? ~:eek::evil:
Now, parents tend to look like young people, and young people tend to look like themselves. That is a part of the problem. If a mother uses miniskirts, why would her daughter not use it? Sometimes, parents don't give a damn what their sons do, and that is the real problem. Tell me .org fathers and mothers, do you care how do your children wear when they go to parties? You maybe care, but some won't.
Which would any of you rather have:
a. Slutty daughter.
b. Gay son.
Depends on how promiscuous the son would be.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
The gay son would be considered average.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
Can't really make a judgement from just those criteria. What if the slutty daughter is also a genius? What if the gay son is a nasty little disrespectful brat?
There are a lot more factors than sexuality that affect how you feel about your kids. And frankly, their sexuality isn't something you are going to be interfacing with, assuming you aren't some sort of depraved criminal.
Gay son. You can't influence a person's sexuality but you can influence sexual behavior.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Neither one would bother me much as long as they practiced safe sex, but....Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
Slutty Daughter FTW, because then at least i could have biological grandkids.
You aren't anti-capitalism. You're anti-marketing. Big difference. You should distinguish the two and seperate the benefits of free trade between free people from manipulative tactics in target market exploitation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kekvit Irae
Both would be crushing.Quote:
Originally Posted by CrossLOPER
The daughter demonstrates my failure in teaching ethics, personal responsibility, and self respect.
The gay son is a biological defeat.
I would rather have a gay son than a skank daughter.
Please define slut. I hate to be so obtuse but I would like to point out simply because someone has allot of sex does not designate a parents failure. As long as the child treats everyone with respect and has his or her on self respect.
Using sex to fill an emotional void is bad but having sex because it is fun and exciting is something else entirely.
REAL TALK:yes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Strike For The South
No, it doesn't. You could teach those things absolutely perfectly and she could still say "screw you i'm not gonna listen to you" and be a skank anyway.Quote:
The daughter demonstrates my failure in teaching ethics, personal responsibility, and self respect.
DA: that's actually a good point, and one that I failed on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Divinus Arma