|
| Thread: Nudity exposed xxx |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 3 · «PREV / NEXT» |
|
khayman
Promising
Famous Hero
Underachiever
|
posted April 02, 2004 03:36 AM |
|
|
aft er seein those xxx pic s...
im findi ng it verr y difficul tto type with 1 handd 
____________
"You must gather your party before venturing forth."
|
|
KittenAngel
Supreme Hero
Lee's wifey
|
|
posted April 02, 2004 10:54 AM |
|
|
LMAO Khay
____________
Never wear anything that panics
the cat.
|
|
doomnezeu
Supreme Hero
Miaumiaumiau
|
posted April 02, 2004 10:58 AM |
|
|
@consis
About nude women vs. nude children
You know, there is a certain category of people (witch, in my opinion, should be tortured to deah), witch would not agree with you saying that showing a picture of a baby is not sexual related
____________
|
|
bort
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Discarded foreskin of morality
|
|
posted April 02, 2004 04:12 PM |
|
Edited By: bort on 2 Apr 2004
|
Vampire was finished in 1894 (Munch, by the way, was also the artist that painted the famous "The Scream")
Olympia was finished in 1863 (this painting caused quite a scandal when it was released.)
____________
Drive by posting.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 02, 2004 06:40 PM |
|
|
I have no comment on anything of what Consis wrote. In order to have, I gotta have something to talk about, not a bunch of outbreaks of uncontrolled anger and shock. If you are “disgusted” by something, you might as well explain why. It is sad to see people locked in their codes of “morality” and “decent behavior”, without knowing why they hate something and denying themselves the right to live freely.
I hope that in the light of the following discussion, you’ll come to sense, like you always do in threads, after the initial outburst of negative emotions.
@ Khaelo
Quote:
However, I don't understand how liberalizing attitudes about sex will decrease the occurance of abuse in the first place.
What do you mean you don’t understand how will liberalization of sex decrease abuse? There, you just said it better than I ever could in your previous paragraph. Separating traumatic experience from the general idea of sex, will lead to a lot less frustrated wackos, who do those terrible things subconsciously motivated by their past traumas. Most abusers have been sexually molested in their childhood.
I knew that “mission” and “fight” were inappropriate there. But couldn’t think of any better ones in the moment of typing. Anyway, what I meant there was, in order for someone achieve true happiness, i.e. be in harmony with his inner nature, they mustn’t follow the society’s rules that contradict their natural needs. The ”internal feelings are society's norms and pre-set patterns” attitude is something that is often not true, as I mentioned. I can perfectly understand that some people feel comfortable the way they comply with society’s demands even against their will, but they lead imho, an unhappy life. Or relating to the subject, how can you achieve happiness through self-denial? How can you be happy, without indulging yourself without feeling guilt? Not to be misunderstood here, I do not hold a hedonist philosophy, but I still think pleasure is an important part of achieving true happiness.
As to the “what can we do about it” issue, I certainly do not think we have to push hard for sexuality’s recognition in society (put nude men and women on every billboard in town). I think the best governments/individuals can do, is to stop censoring nudity in every chance they have and talk freely about it, and then wait for the positive change in the collective mind altogether. How close is that to “gradual change”?
Quote:
Myself, I don't think of entire categories as lesser art but rather make judgments based on particular pieces. A really well-done commercial is quality art, while a dull, mediocre painting is not, IMHO. Maybe most porn isn't good art -- most commercials certainly aren't. For me, that doesn't exclude the possibility that a piece of porn or an ad could be great art. If it both accomplishes and transcends its utilitarian purpose, it qualifies as quality art no matter what the original purpose was.
I fully, completely, 100%, absolutely agree with this. But sometimes generalization is necessary in discussion. Now imagine me saying “most porn, except those porn pieces that transcend their primary purpose and are so well done, that they qualify as quality art, is…”, wouldn’t be much fun to read it, would it?
And, relating to what you just said, in the same way, I find that “Olympia” picture reasonably mediocre, without the interesting story bort attaches to it. But later on that.
Quote:
About the horny 14-year-olds...children want a lot of things before they're ready for them. Even if they are physically mature, are they emotionally ready and prepared for the consequences of sex?
That’s the same dilemma I had. It’s unlikely in my country that a 14-year-old girl will ever be emotionally ready. Heck, it’s even unlikely for 18-year-olds here. 
Unlike boys, which seem to be more emotionally ready, which is why I suggested that there’s nothing wrong in younger people having sex, as long as they are both physically and emotionally ready for it and age isn’t a factor here.
I believe that man is an animal in disguise. With animals, physical and emotional readiness happens simultaneously. In humans it doesn’t. Imo, human emotional readiness for sex= hormones + cultural influence and up-bringing. 14-year-olds got the first one, but it depends about the second one. But what if society’s like that, that it lets children grow mature earlier. Then, what would be wrong with it?
Quote:
You want to have a discussion on art, so let's have one.
Not in this thread, mind you. This is about nudity and sexuality. Here, I opened another thread for discussing non-nudity art.
Anyway, I very much enjoyed your art criticism. It sure did give a lighter note in here, although I can’t say I agreed with it.
You convincingly discredited the art that the demon pic represents. And I liked the way you did it, honestly. But…
It’s easy to post “academic” paintings and defend the art they represent, since many people a priori value this art. Not good. To be honest, I liked these two paintings, but they are pretty average compared to other paintings, and taken out of their historical context and titles they have, they don’t offer strong emotions.
Unlike them, this demon pic is not just “an ass attached to a woman” because:
Firstly, it’s a “nice ass attached to a woman”.
And secondly, realistic representation of objects, doesn’t mean they are of lesser value. Let me tell you how I look at it. The woman clearly represents the human ideal in the painting, so pure, innocent and perfect. But she’s willingly in the embrace of that ghastly creature. Why does she do that? Is it possible that it’s her embodiment of all her secret “sinful” desires? Will she finally turn herself in to all that was forbidden to her? That demon is the dark side of her nature, and she feels so protected in his wings, like she wants to stay there forever.
And last but not the least, it “disturbs” my emotional stillness, more than those two other pics.
Look, this pic’s far from the best thing I’ve got, but it certainly has its art value, and not all of you have to like it.
It’s not a commercialized “cliché”, but a decent mix of surrealism and symbolism.
Quote:
However, this is Valeriy's site and if he personally doesn't want nudity posted, that's his perogative.
Just reminded me. When Val gets back from his mysterious one-month disappearance, we’ll all gonna get penalties for this. 
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 02, 2004 07:03 PM |
|
|
Sorry, Consis. You poem came a little too late.
It diserves a short comment, though.
Unplanned pregnancy can happen to anyone. It's not dependent on age, it's dependent on responsibity.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted April 02, 2004 08:00 PM |
|
Edited By: Khaelo on 2 Apr 2004
|
Quote:
Separating traumatic experience from the general idea of sex, will lead to a lot less frustrated wackos, who do those terrible things subconsciously motivated by their past traumas. Most abusers have been sexually molested in their childhood.
I was talking about the victims, not the perpetrators. My knowledge/perspective comes from the testimony of females victimized by males, in which case I don't think the past experience of the offender is a factor. Rape happened even in societies where sex was normalized, therefore I don't believe normalizing sex in our society will cause a decrease in the incidence of rape.
This may be a point to agree to disagree. Neither of us seem to have any real figures (statistics, studies, etc), and opinions don't mean much when it comes to establishing a causal relationship.
Quote:
I can perfectly understand that some people feel comfortable the way they comply with society’s demands even against their will, but they lead imho, an unhappy life.
Sorry to put this so bluntly, but...who are you to determine whether or not someone else's life is unhappy? Just because you have something which makes you happy does not imply that someone who lacks that something is necessarily unhappy.
A personal relationship with Jesus Christ makes a lot of people happy. Some of these people assume that others who lack such a relationship with Christ must be unhappy. In their mind, anyone who does not have Christ in their life is lacking something critical to true happiness. Would you agree that this is a faulty assumption?
Also, the "something" under discussion here is sexual freedom, not sex itself. Society does not completely deny sex to people -- behold the proliferation of new people. Society channels an instinct; it doesn't deny it. So, this discussion is about the narrowness of the channel. Furthermore, for an individual, the natural drive for sex is not at the same level as the drive for food or shelter. One does not die if one does not get laid.
Quote:
As to the “what can we do about it” issue, I certainly do not think we have to push hard for sexuality’s recognition in society (put nude men and women on every billboard in town). I think the best governments/individuals can do, is to stop censoring nudity in every chance they have and talk freely about it, and then wait for the positive change in the collective mind altogether. How close is that to “gradual change”?
Yup.  Basically, I think we're in agreement here. Actually, we seem to agree on most of this; only the details are quibble-able. (Try finding that word in the dictionary! )
Quote:
I suggested that there’s nothing wrong in younger people having sex, as long as they are both physically and emotionally ready for it and age isn’t a factor here...But what if society’s like that, that it lets children grow mature earlier. Then, what would be wrong with it?
I agree, except insofar as age is a factor in functioning in the larger society. A person can be the most mature 14-year-old in the world, but can they get a job to support themselves, never mind an infant? One of the biggest factors in supporting oneself and a family in the modern world is education. In ancient Greece, the average age of a bride was 15. All the girls needed to know was how to run a household, and they were prepared to do that at 15. Gender issues aside, I don't see anything wrong with that for the time. Boys needed far more training, since they were the ones who had to support the family and interact in public society. As a result, an average groom was around 30. Today, in the US, everyone needs education. You can't get a half-decent job without a high-school diploma, and that requires schooling until at least 18. As education levels rise, so does the age of marriage and childbearing. Unless you want to downplay the importance of education, you can't get people out and reproducing until later in life.
You are correct in that unplanned pregnancy can happen to anyone at (almost) any age. However, I would argue that 1) young teens are less responsible about things in general, and that includes STD protection and birth control and 2) young teens are less capable of handling an unplanned pregnancy should it occur. They simply aren't equipped or empowered to raise a child. That is why I object to 14-year-olds having sex.
Art: In case it wasn't obvious, I analyze things for fun even if there is little inherant meaning, and that includes pulp art and pop music. (Anyone wanna hear my theological interpretation of Savage Garden's Truly Madly Deeply? ) Bort's critique is a refreshing breath of actual taste. From a laywoman's point of view, Olympia is a beautiful piece not only for its symbolic/interpretive value, but also because it shows a REAL, not idealized, woman-shape as desireable.
____________
 Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted April 03, 2004 02:29 AM |
|
|
Have you seen Southpark the Movie?
The line where Kyle's mom says - TV can be as violent as it wants, as long as theres no swearing or nudity?
That seems such a turnaround to television here in UK/Ireland.
During the day until 9pm, there is no nudity and swearing. After 9pm, programs here can swear to their heart delight, and show boobs all night long. The only thing we can't show is an erect penis and vaginal/anal penetration. And this is on the national networks, not cable or satellite.
This is all just a bit of background when I say that to most Europeans, this is a bit of a non-issue. UK/Ireland are probably the most strict in their broadcasting rules. You aren't gonna convince any Italians - one of their members of parliament is an ex porn star. Spanish TV more or less invented the topless gameshow. Germany and Holland have legal prostitution! When a strip club opened in my town there were Eastern European dancers brought over to 'train' local girls in the 'art' of poledancing!
The European attitude to sex is much more laid back when it comes to public expression. That's why we have all the marble statues.
Most people here can't believe the way the US reacted over Janets nipple. We thought it was a great laugh.
One of our lowgrade celebrities is a guy who streaks at football/tennis matches - or anywhere where there are TV cameras.
Personally pornography is no big deal.
Under age sex is no big deal - I had plenty
So while this debate will go round in a circle, I don't think there'll be any sort of mutual satisfaction or consensus. There are just 2 fundamentally polarised factions. Those that see it as a problem and those that don't.
While violence/S&M porn is not my thing - it is some peoples. And let's face it - the people that pose for those kinds of pictures wouldn't be doing it unless they wanted to. They would do regular porn instead.
And even better if it's just a drawing, that way you can say to yourself 'well at least no-ones actually in pain'.
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Vadskye91
Promising
Supreme Hero
Back again
|
posted April 03, 2004 03:08 AM |
|
|
Wow, big posts.
____________
Knowledge is power...
|
|
drakemaster2
Adventuring Hero
known as goshimasta
|
posted April 04, 2004 12:58 AM |
|
|
Whoa!
____________
You wanna dragon? Then talk to the drakemaster2
Known as Goshimasta
|
|
Dyrvom
Adventuring Hero
|
posted April 04, 2004 04:49 AM |
|
|
That image shouldn't be offensive by some logic, but similar arguments can be used to justify racial slurs as totally acceptable. This issue is far too complex to try and solve on a HOMM Message board... Perception is in the deep-seated psychologies of the beholder 
____________
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 05, 2004 08:19 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Sorry to put this so bluntly, but...who are you to determine whether or not someone else's life is unhappy?
Hold your horses, Khaelo. Damn, I should stop using those abbreviations. I recall I said imho. (Even if I hadn’t, I hate putting “in my opinion”/”I think” in every sentence I say) But here it is again: In my humble opinion, the suppressing of the “dark side” of the human nature (man’s essential needs not accepted by society) leads to frustrations, complex of inferiority and a general emotionally-sexual immatureness. Thus, it doesn’t bring happiness. It’s not rocket science at all, is it?
It’s not extremely wise either, since almost all the philosophers, starting form Socrates up till now, have claimed that a man can’t be happy, if he has his true deep needs unfulfilled. Now, the point of clash is: Is sex one of them?
I say, sure it is. And I believe all people feel so, since it’s in our genes. But those who deny it as “a shameful act” are the ones with the problem.
Now, the comparison you make with Christ is inappropriate because “Christ” by himself is not an inherent need, an instinct. Yeah, sure, a man may be in need of love, or confidence, or faith, whatever, and I think that “religion” is just a concept of fulfilling those needs, but not a need itself. I have other ways of fulfilling those needs myself. So yes, it’s a faulty assumption.
Quote:
Also, the "something" under discussion here is sexual freedom, not sex itself. Society does not completely deny sex to people -- behold the proliferation of new people. Society channels an instinct; it doesn't deny it. So, this discussion is about the narrowness of the channel. Furthermore, for an individual, the natural drive for sex is not at the same level as the drive for food or shelter. One does not die if one does not get laid.
Of course society doesn’t deny sex. If it did, we wouldn’t exist. But some cultures (very conservative) see it as “necessary evil”. More open, “morality cultures” (say US, my country etc.) depict sexuality as a shameful topic, that is not appropriate for public, make people feel guilt if they have “alternative” sexuality of some kind, simply alienate people from their natural urge and I can go on forever this way. This “channeling” as you call it, is actually a “ruthless suppression” in my eyes, and cannot possibly bring any good.
Instead, if sexuality is accepted and glorified, imo, it will lead to enormous amounts of creative energy, personal independence and charisma.
I could also argue that sexual drive is even more important than food, since there’re some organisms whose only purpose in life is to reproduce, after which they die. Consequently their sex urge is superior to their hunger. Same might go for humans, but we are too aware to notice it. So, “getting laid” is hell one important stuff.
Quote:
A person can be the most mature 14-year-old in the world, but can they get a job to support themselves, never mind an infant?....Unless you want to downplay the importance of education, you can't get people out and reproducing until later in life.
Hey, did I ever mention having a baby. I’m talking about a pure, exciting, fun-doing, just-for-pleasure, good ol’ sex!
Quote:
You are correct in that unplanned pregnancy can happen to anyone at (almost) any age. However, I would argue that 1) young teens are less responsible about things in general, and that would include birth control and 2) young teens are less capable of handling an unplanned pregnancy should it occur. They simply aren't equipped or empowered to raise a child. That is why I object to 14-year-olds having sex.
There’s always the risk factor. Even when crossing the street! So now what? You’d advice “less responsible” young teens not to do it?
The point I’m trying to make here is that even a 14-year-old has an urge, but the real issue is whether his/her surrounding has prepared them for it. If yes (like in ancient Greece), then I see absolutely no problem why not to enjoy sex.
Asmodean put it simply. Sex is no big deal! It’s a great deal! Do it purely for pleasure, or from love with the one you love, if you feel ready for it, no matter your age. Cheers to Asmodean, who had plenty of sex underaged!
In order to accept and affirm sexuality, first you have to get to know it, without any moral prejudices. Hence, it’s the early age when I think people should have access to nudity. Practicing sex comes as the natural consequence of accepting it.
Quote:
That image shouldn't be offensive by some logic, but similar arguments can be used to justify racial slurs as totally acceptable.
I fail to see the connection here. There’s absolutely no harmful influence in nudity pics, or pics showing intercourse, unlike racial insults and the like.
Has anyone here seen the film “Dreamers” by Bernardo Bertolucci? (or the Mexican film “And your mother too”) They call these movies “controversial”. Not surprisingly for European film (as Asmodean said Europeans are much more “sex-freaks” than Yankees), it’s full of nudity and sex scenes. It even has a frontal shot of the actor’s penis! However, all scenes are so well incorporated in the general idea of the film, that it’s completely irrelevant that soomeone’s dick popped out of the pants! The theme is about the revolution, both of mind and society, about freedom and experimenting, and living your life.
Petty, not many of you will get to see it.
Quote:
From a laywoman's point of view, Olympia is a beautiful piece not only for its symbolic/interpretive value, but also because it shows a REAL, not idealized, woman-shape as desireable.
Yeah! We sure need more of those Greek-type depictions of natural female beauty. I’m already tired of blond, pinky, silicon-filled, Britney-type, dumb-ass chicks! Keep it coming bort! (But you know where)
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Khaelo
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Underwater
|
|
posted April 05, 2004 11:59 PM |
|
|
Yes, this is all opinion. You asked why people are offended by nudity and sexuality; I'm trying to answer. For a lot of this discussion, I feel like I'm playing devil's advocate.
Quote:
Now, the point of clash is: Is sex one of [human's true deep needs]?
I say, sure it is. And I believe all people feel so, since it’s in our genes.
I disagree. People live happy, celibate lives by choice. A lot of people may indeed have a deep need for sex, but not everyone does. Also, a lot of people's need for sex is satisfied by the current system, repressive as it may be for others. For those who don't feel oppressed, there is no reason to loosen things up.
Quote:
Now, the comparison you make with Christ is inappropriate because “Christ” by himself is not an inherent need...
The Christians in question think he is exactly that. They place as much importance on spiritual needs as you place on biological needs. They therefore conclude that people whose spiritual needs are not met by Christ are unhappy. But others don't fit into their scheme and don't feel the same needs they do, so their assumption is wrong. You are also making assumptions about other people's needs. These assumptions may be wrong as well. That was my point, and I think it's perfectly appropriate. There are people who are perfectly happy with the current system, who don't have need for more sexual freedom.
Quote:
This “channeling” as you call it, is actually a “ruthless suppression” in my eyes, and cannot possibly bring any good.
I'm pretty sure you have boundries of sexual behavior as well. Drawing the line at sexual behaviors that involve non-consenting parties, for example, creates a boundry. Some things need to be ruthlessly suppressed. The point here is that you (and I) disagree with conservative society on what those things are.
Quote:
I could also argue that sexual drive is even more important than food, since there’re some organisms whose only purpose in life is to reproduce, after which they die. Consequently their sex urge is superior to their hunger. Same might go for humans, but we are too aware to notice it. So, “getting laid” is hell one important stuff.
Need I point out that different organisms have different priorities? Humans are animals, true, but there's a lot of diversity in the animal kingdom. Why compare us to mayflies instead of bees (for which most of the population never gets to enjoy the special attention of a drone)? There's also the fact that a human deprived of food will die within two weeks or so whereas a human deprived of sex can survive for years. So, while you certainly could compose an argue that sex is more important than food, I think it an ill-advised project.
More relevantly, as I stated above, I don't think sex (or sexual freedom) is a true deep need of all humans. Biological desires are only part of the complex picture of human happiness, and I think the priority of sex as a biological function falls below the threshold of necessity -- unlike, say, eating or breathing.
Quote:
The point I’m trying to make here is that even a 14-year-old has an urge, but the real issue is whether his/her surrounding has prepared them for it. If yes (like in ancient Greece), then I see absolutely no problem why not to enjoy sex.
We are agreed on that. My secondary assertion is that modern society does not prepare 14-year-olds for sex. A demographic of people who regularly forget to bring their textbooks to class and neglect to wear helmets while riding their bikes are not, in my opinion, likely to use condoms with the diligence and care needed to prevent STDs and/or pregnancy. It's kind of like learning to drive a car...kids feel they're ready to do it before the rest of the world is ready to let them.
____________
Cleverly
disguised as a responsible adult
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted April 06, 2004 05:46 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Asmodean put it simply. Sex is no big deal! It’s a great deal! Do it purely for pleasure, or from love with the one you love, if you feel ready for it, no matter your age. Cheers to Asmodean, who had plenty of sex underaged!
Rock on Svarog!
Back on topic.
As well as some animals who have diverse sexual 'needs', ALL humans have diverse sexual needs too.
Those that choose to live celibately (imho - nutjobs!) obviously find some other thing in their life that replaces that need.
For those that are oversexed, compulsive masturbators and hooker-junkies (as well as 14 yr old boys ) that need is obviously real. Otherwise they'd just stop.
The rest of us fall in-between at vaious points. Those closer to the celibate life, or prudish and disapproving often feel the need to judge those that enjoy sex and aren't afraid to be seen enjoying sex. Those, like me, who see sex as fun can't understand why people like that would choose to miss out on said fun.
The problem is that I see this as a form of repression. Those sons of mothers are painting me as a dirty person and some kind of misfit (and don't get me started on the gay issue or I'll be here all night!).
They would say that I'm distressing them by flaunting sexual behaviour by speaking about it and not being ashamed of myself.
Like I've said before, there's no one answer to this debate, I'm certainly not going to change my behaviour to suit them.
But you can't teach an old dog new tricks and we're going to have to wait until they have mid-life crises before they start bonking their secretaries and learn that sex is fun.
As for the underage sex issue. I agree partly with Khaelo, partly with myself. Northern Ireland has the worst statistics in Europe for underage pregnancy, but I don't see this as a fault of society as a whole - condoms and the pill are available from any doctor's surgery for free. Schools teach sex education from age 10 up. TV constantly shows dramas about the horrible lives teenage parents have, and the tragedy of AIDS and other STI's, so no fault there.
What it comes down to I think is the attitude of your parents towards sex. If your parents don't talk to you openly about sex, or are overprotective about exposing you to films/books that deal with sexual issues then you'll grow up over-curious and just want to do it.
My parents, while not prancing through the house naked like a pair of hippies, never censored any film or TV show when we were growing up. That people grow up and have sex was never denied in my house. We were all made aware the importance of condoms to avoid pregnancy. (And also told how my mum would personally skin alive the first one of us to start a family without finishing school first ).
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 10, 2004 04:27 PM |
|
|
Quote:
You asked why people are offended by nudity and sexuality; I'm trying to answer. For a lot of this discussion, I feel like I'm playing devil's advocate.
And I must look like the devil in some people’s eyes.
I don’t know what this expression means, but I feel like you’re saying I’m pushing too hard. Sorry for that, I can be persistent at times if I don’t agree about something. Anyway, you’re much more open-minded than other people about this and I like that.
Quote:
I disagree. People live happy, celibate lives by choice. A lot of people may indeed have a deep need for sex, but not everyone does.
HA! That’s it - our point of disagreement. IMO, all people have a deep need for sex, even monks. Some try to deny it and look in religion (in fact faith makes them deny it) or society’s perceptions for an excuse and support. Yet others are open and accept it.
Even those who are supposedly “satisfied” with society’s treatment of sex, are deep down oppressed, but give their best to adjust and are in fact fervor against-sex/nudity activists when looking from the outside. (I know, I know: “Who are you to determine whether someone’s oppressed?!”, but that’s MY OPINION.)
Perhaps most of them would be unwilling or unable to cope with even the idealistic situation of complete openness about sex. Years of socialization and brain-nurture have played their part. But, I think that always the human nature is there. Nobody can escape it. Even your cute old grandma has it!
Again with my annoying movie examples, I think the best depiction of all this (and much more) is in the master-piece, extraordinary movie “American Beauty” (and imho, the only film beside LOTR that truly deserved its Oscar in the past 10 years). What a realistic and accurate representation of dealing with sexuality in people of all ages and profiles! How much of Lester (the dad), Carolyn (the hysterical wife) and the ex-marine (the strict father, who breaks inside completely in the end) is there in each and every one of us, caught in this web of society’s prejudices and moral dilemmas? (No point in further talking if nobody’s seen it)
Quote:
The Christians in question think he is exactly that. They place as much importance on spiritual needs as you place on biological needs. They therefore conclude that people whose spiritual needs are not met by Christ are unhappy.
But, I’m not denouncing spiritual needs (on the contrary, they are more important than biological), but their way of fulfillment is what is different between me and believers. But, it’s not the same if someone rejects their sexuality itself. Otherwise, it’s same to me whether they fulfill it with ordinary sex, masturbation, homosexual sex or anything which suits their fantasies. The important thing is not to get away from it.
Quote:
Why compare us to mayflies instead of bees (for which most of the population never gets to enjoy the special attention of a drone)?
Because it’s not in (all) the bees’ genetic code to mate, while all humans have the instinct to, and bringing the debate in a more philosophical level, you can’t say you live to eat or drink, while you live in order to pass on your genetic material makes more sense. Therefore, the intensity of sexual urge is extremely strong, and harmful to oppress. That was my point with the animals.
Quote:
What it comes down to I think is the attitude of your parents towards sex. If your parents don't talk to you openly about sex, or are overprotective about exposing you to films/books that deal with sexual issues then you'll grow up over-curious and just want to do it.
Yeah, but only if there’s the pressure from peers or popular urban culture. This is also not good, given that sometimes youngsters are emotionally not ready for it. (In more conservative cultures the same attitude makes you feel guilt or shame and it’s even more messed up!)
Oh, the hypocrisy of society! Now you’re practically torn by two diverging currents and completely confused. Only to grow up and leave the conservative side overpower the other. And all of this just because there isn’t a realistic and open representation of sexuality and nudity since the early age.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 10, 2004 07:04 PM |
|
|
"and imho, the only film beside LOTR that truly deserved its Oscar in the past 10 years)"
I fell kinda dissapointed in you
because of this statement
And now from Encyclopaedia Britannica 2003:
Main Entry: devil's advocate
Function: noun
Etymology: translation of New Latin advocatus diaboli
Date: 1760
1 : a Roman Catholic official whose duty is to examine critically the evidence on which a demand for beatification orcanonization rests
2 : a person who champions the less accepted cause for the sake of argument
|
|
Asmodean
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Heroine at the weekend.
|
|
posted April 10, 2004 07:22 PM |
|
|
Yes wiseman, but lets not get bogged down in semantics
And what's wrong w/American Beauty. The film blew me away when I first saw it. Svarog just put in words how the film made me think
____________
To err is human, to arr is pirate.
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2004 09:50 AM |
|
|
No, you misunderstood me.I relly liked American Beauty,
I was talking about LotR.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted April 11, 2004 06:05 PM |
|
Edited By: Svarog on 15 Apr 2004
|
Quote:
1 : a Roman Catholic official whose duty is to examine critically the evidence on which a demand for beatification orcanonization rests
What? Khaelo is a Roman Catholic official?! (Damn it, that's why she was connected with Vatican in that country thread. I knew there was something dirty in here all along.)
Wiseman,
You don't like LOTR?! Not even as a decent movie that deserved to win the Oscar in this year's poor (poop)competition?! Too bad.
Hey, I too think it's not the bestest movie ever, but it's a powerful, emotional, plain simple story about the battle between good and evil. It's nice to remember good ol' story-telling from time to time. (And PS, I know the book's better.)
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted April 11, 2004 07:12 PM |
|
|
I agree the competition was bad ,but 11 golden boys?Come on!
What pisses me of the most is not the movie itself(which was OK), but the reaction of some people like it`s the best movie ever made, and those same people didn`t even hear about Tolkien three years ago.
|
| |
|
|
