The War on Sex is Awful

I also wanted to expand on the war on sex idea.
Did you ever notice how woman are taught to treat men as animals only out for sex? In other words, exploit the male drive to have sex as evil while making the girl feel like promiscuity is also evil. I see this scenario in pop media all the time.
Just like the overprotective fathers of their teenage daughters. What? Teen woman don't have urges? So demented that fathers even get involved or have an opinion on their freaking daughters Sex Life. Why not sew them shut at birth? Oh but that'd be cruel right

Hi everyone...I just have to direct you all...to a thread posted on ATS last year....In Japan every year they have vagina and penis festivals....they celebrate....here is the ATS link....

www.abovetopsecret.com...

There was a thread a few weeks ago which linked to a photograph of a family, Dad, Mum and three kids, stacked one on top of each other. All nude. Almost every response to the thread found it 'disgusting'. I have no idea what it was that they were seeing, but for me, sex never entered into my mental equation when I looked at the picture. It couldn't have been less sexual.

There doesn't appear to be so much a war on sex, as one on sensuality and physical affection that isn't sex. Sex in almost in any shape, size or form seems to be perfectly acceptable. Non-sexual, sensual social interaction...tender, loving care, cuddles and kisses are becoming the real taboos it seems. Children who are not touched, held or kissed, regularly, through their primary development will become withdrawn and may experience social or psychologically problems as an adult. Monkeys kept in isolation, in cages immediately next to others in their group, able to interact, but not participate in grooming, will eventually sit rocking back and forth in complete distress.

The hyper-sexuality of the media puts sex on everyone's mind, those minds seemingly project it onto everything they see, innocent or otherwise. The MSM then over inflates horror stories of child sexual abuse, often in a way designed to titilate. As a society we are becoming ever more fearful of sensuality and how it can be misconstrued. Particularly towards children, where it is taboo to even speak to a child that you do not know, however public the place, or how close to your vicinity the parent is.

No wonder some kids are jumping into bed at the earliest opportunity, they are desperate for some physical contact and sex seems to be the only way they are allowed it, just in case someone gets the wrong idea because they have a dirty mind.

This is a very interesting article that I often refer to, it is almost as old as I am, but I find that such ideas are often picked up on by social engineers. Plus it acknowledges the role of tactile deprivation in creating martial cultures, these methods have been used since prehistory. Worth a read in it's entirety.

The reciprocal relationship of pleasure and violence is highly significant because certain sensory experiences during the formative periods of development will create a neuropsychological predisposition for either violence-seeking or pleasure-seeking behaviors later in life. I am convinced that various abnormal social and emotional behaviors resulting from what psychologists call 'maternal-social' deprivation, that is, a lack of tender, loving care, are caused by a unique type of sensory deprivation, somatosensory deprivation. Derived from the Greek word for 'body,' the term refers to the sensations of touch and body movement which differ from the senses of light, hearing, smell and taste. I believe that the deprivation of body touch, contact, and movement are the basic causes of a number of emotional disturbances which include depressive and autistic behaviors, hyperactivity, sexual aberration, drug abuse, violence, and aggression.

rtain variables which reflect physical affection (such as fondling, caressing, and playing with infants) were related to other variables which measure crime and violence (frequency of theft, killing, etc.). The important relationships are displayed in the tables. The percent figures reflect the relationships among the variables, for example, high affection/low violence plus low affection/high violence. This procedure is followed for all tables.

Societies ranking high or low on the Infant Physical Affection Scale were examined for degree of violence. The results (Table 1) clearly indicated that those societies which give their infants the greatest amount of physical affection were characterized by low theft, low infant physical pain, low religious activity, and negligible or absent killing, mutilating, or torturing of the enemy. These data directly confirm that the deprivation of body pleasure during infancy is significantly linked to a high rate of crime and violence.

Some societies physically punish their infants as a matter of discipline, while others do not. We can determine whether this punishment reflects a general concern for the infant's welfare by matching it against child nurturant care. The results (Table 2) indicate that societies which inflict pain and discomfort upon their infants tend to neglect them as well. These data provide no support for the prescription from Proverbs (23: 13-14): "Withhold not chastisement from a boy; if you beat him with the rod, he will not die. Beat him with the rod, and you will save him from the nether world."

Adult physical violence was accurately predicted in 36 of 49 cultures (73 percent) from the infant physical affection variable. The probability that a 73 percent rate of accuracy could occur by chance is only four times out of a thousand.

Of the 49 societies studied, 13 cultures seemed to be exceptions to the theory that a lack of somatosensory pleasure makes people physically violent (see Table 3). It was expected that cultures which placed a high value upon physical pleasure during infancy and childhood would maintain such values into adulthood. This is not the case. Child rearing practices do not predict patterns of later sexual behavior. This initial surprise and presumed discrepancy, however, becomes advantageous for further prediction.

Two variables that are highly correlated are not as useful for predicting a third variable as two variables that are uncorrelated. Consequently, it is meaningful to examine the sexual behaviors of the 13 cultures whose adult violence was not predictable from physical pleasure during infancy.

Apparently, the social customs which influence and determine the behaviors of sexual affection are different from those which underlie the expression of physical affection toward infants.

When the six societies characterized by both high infant affection and high violence are compared in terms of their premarital sexual behavior, it is surprising to find that five of them exhibit premarital sexual repression, where virginity is a high value of these cultures. It appears that the beneficial effects of infant physical affection can be negated by the repression of physical pleasure (premarital sex) later in life.

The seven societies characterized by both low infant physical affection and low adult physical violence were all found to be characterized by permissive premarital sexual behaviors. Thus, the detrimental effects of infant physical affectional deprivation seem to be compensated for later in life by sexual body pleasure experiences during adolescence. These findings have led to a revision of the somatosensory pleasure deprivation theory from a one-stage to a two-stage developmental theory where the physical violence in 48 of the 49 cultures could be accurately classified.

In short, violence may stem from deprivation of somatosensory pleasure either in infancy or in adolescence. The only true exception in this culture sample is the headhunting Jivaro tribe of South America. Clearly, this society requires detailed study to determine the causes of its violence. The Jivaro belief system may play an important role, for as anthropologist Michael Harner notes in Jivaro Souls [6], these Indians have a "deep-seated belief that killing leads to the acquisition of souls which provide a supernatural power conferring immunity from death."

www.violence.de...

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


You have expressed some very powerful viewpoints and thoughts. I agree with you... when I was hired as a temporary backup singer in a band (the other singer was sick)....one of the gigs was at a nudist camp.....it was family oriented...these people were naked and not ashamed....and there was nothing sexual going on at all.....(by the way the band and I kept our clothes on)....

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


Interesting viewpoint and I agree with it. You have covered sexual depravity in the physical sense and I think the same must hold true for the visual, imaginative side.
Kids should be able to flip on the TV and see porno. My friend lives in Bulgaria for half the year and I always ask him if he liked having the 2 porno channels that come with basic cable. Of course he does, who wouldnt? But thats the joke.
Kids need an outlet. Take care of the job and move on with some more important aspects of your life. If our bellies grumble, we eat right?
If we had porno available as part of basic cable, other shows wouldn't need to skirt around the issue with high schoolers dressed in teasing outfits (Im sure no parent likes this right?). It would loose its novelty and we could possibly go back to quality programming where all mainstream plots aren't based around sex or dating. Save the love stuff for your actual soul mate/partner/spouse maybe?

Basically as a population, we need to be mature enough to be able to admit there is fun sex and then loving sex. Its up to the individual if they enjoy one or both but for heavens sakes stop making laws and health classes about it.

First step: Make it legal to be nude in public (my word of all the archaic, nonsensical laws on the books.. its about time this one and ones like it are taken off)

reply to post by Salamandy


there will never be a law to allow public nudity. That is just gross and i hope you are just being funny by saying that! And no, i am not prudish and it has nothing to do with being ashamed of nudity or the human form. I am just a bit germaphobic, and if everyone - or even just a random few - were going about the world naked i would never leave my house again! Because not everyone has the same levels of hygeine. Every seat i sit on in public could be smeared with wet farts, vaginal secretions, dribbles of urine.

sweat, menstrual blood from the woman that got surprised by it. hey this is disgusting right? that is my point. a lot of people have a hard time even just sitting on a public toilet, imagine if people were allowed and welcome to be nude anywhere they went. simply yucky. we do not justw ear clothes to cover our sexual parts in a form of modesty, we also wear them as a protective barrier between us and the world and things we come into contact with. Do you want proof?? i have proof. what do y ou have on under your pants right now? really, check. It is a pair of underwear right? Why do you suppose people wear underwear? To protect their clothes from personal stains. So you get your skid mark on your underwear and not your nice jeans, or your car seat, or that chair in the restaurant. public nudity is offensive to me, not because of seeing a lot of saggy and pasty body parts - i could care less about that - it is offensive to me because i do not wish to have to worry about what i am sitting on.

reply to post by chrissiel123


Im not saying make it illegal to wear clothes. Using common sense about cleanliness would still apply to people if nudity was legal. Im saying if you or I or some fat old dude wants to walk down the street, or even sit on a germy park bench nude, it should be legal.
Personally I will wear clothes when it comes to sitting in public places and most would.
What we are talking about is forcing people to cover up when there is no harm done to anyone.. lets say a nude woman walking down a sidewalk with nothing but shoes to protect from stones. What in the world is wrong with that? Why do we have laws against nudity when the issue of germs is not a factor? So ridiculous!





I also wanted to remind you that we have many other orafices on our bodies that are not covered up by clothes. They also leak disgusting discretions. Just saw a guy on a bike blow a nice snot rocket in the street. Should we have him wear a mask?

reply to post by Salamandy


i dont care about snot rockets on the stret, as i wont be draggin my butt across it, or any other part of my body except for my shoes. I dont think nudity should be allowed is all. toplessness is one thing - but i hope to god they never let people go around with their rectums rubbing against public property. that is just gross, IMO. i do believe they tried allowing toplessness in toronto a few years ago, but it didnt take. As in no one did it. no one cared. like maybe one gal went topless just for the heck of it, but the fact was no one wanted it, at all. it just proves that people dont wear clothes because they have to, they wear them because they want to. clothes make a person in many ways, they cover up unsightly flaws, keep things from jiggling that we dont want jiggling, and they allow us to save our more enjoyable bits for the people we care to deem worthy to share them with. There is nothing wrong with any of that. if some people are hell bent on being nude, there are places for that. but it has been tried, and no one was interested really.

reply to post by chrissiel123


If no one cares, isnt that even more of a reason not to go around making laws about it?
Also, for the people who want to conceal there bodies, they also should have every single right to do so.

Realistically, people do way worse things to public property with their body parts and they dont use their bums. There are some very gross people right at this very moment that are getting germs on things you dont, and theyre fully clothed. Laws about nudity will not help to making anything cleaner.
In fact I think if the law stayed out of issues such as nudity, people would not really even care, just like in the Toronto example.

reply to post by chrissiel123


How many times have you seen a "No Skateboarding" sign at a public park? I have about 100 times. How about putting a sign on benches saying "Sitters Must Be Clothed". Why Not? Its better than flat out making illegal one of the most natural things in the world.

reply to post by Salamandy


no one is "making laws". the laws were made long ago, and no one cares to go through the time bother and expense of trying to change them. I mean, if it ain't broke why fix it? No one seems to be objecting to wearing clothes, so who really cares? Do you know how expensive it is to try to change a law. And there would be backlash from many people that do find it offensive to see adult nudity. Why are your wants or feelings or opinions any more valid than theirs? And in the end, a bunch of people walking around nude will not change anything, despite what you may think. All it could accomplish is that future generations will become so desensitized by the human form that the pleasures of experiencing their future mates' bodies will be diminished. There was a time when the sight of a woman's ankle could make a man blush with pleasure and desire. now things are different. not worse or better, but definately different. Children growing up in a world where nudity was a norm would never have the pleasures that young people coming of age now do. that would be a shame. why is the thought that some aspects of the opposite sex should be reserved for special people? Why does that thought threaten you so?

reply to post by chrissiel123


Flesh and nudity (more specifically - the showing of aeriolas, penises and vaginas) arent the same as sex between two responsible adults. Sex is more than just genitals. That is exactly the point in all this. We as people should become used to ourselves in the nude. So that our children do not think as sex as evil or something material that has to hide behind the latest stylistic piece of clothing. If attitudes changed so that people knew it was a god given right to walk around in the nude, I guarantee our children would have a much greater respect towards sex.

I have to disagree with you about the leaving laws on the books because it aint broke. It is broken, it makes no sense, and most importantly to the average person, it wastes a ton of unnecessary tax payer dollar in legal fees (although fines from nudity related charges probably partially go to "Community Betterment" programs and I bet theyd hate to see that cash cow go away).




Something to ponder:
Lets say a young 11 year boy old sees a woman desecrate a park bench in the manner you described previously. Would this not make him a little more hesitant to consider the full possibilities of what sex is?
Would you rather that 11 year old have to look at done up packages with make up, wearing teasy little gift wrapped outfits his whole life? Gee, I wonder why there are sexual predators out there! We dangle pieces of meat in front of our youth (by encouraging stylistic clothing over modest to no clothing) and then tell them to not be curious about it.

Nature has its own way of controlling sex weirdos ,we just dont let nature do its job because clothing has become part of the human anatomy.

reply to post by Salamandy


we will have to agree to disagree on this entirely my friend. I see no harm in having some mysteries left in life as far as sex goes. Just because we cover in clothing does not necessarily mean we do it out of shame, and how our children perceive our bodies is closer related to how as pparents we educate them, than it is from seeing people wear clothing. I personally have no hang ups about seeing nudity, aside from the fact that people look nicer in clothes! Men especially. And i stand by what I said about how having that layer of fabric between a body and a chair making me feel better about being out in the world. call me crazy, but there is enough to worry about without having to wonder if every chair or bench i come across has STD riddle secretions stuck to it. i mean come on - you have a very idealistic image of a naked body, but drips and dribbles happen - better kept in your underwear i say.
and clothes serve more than just to hide sexual organs too. they serve other purposes. protection from UV rays, bras provide needed support which may be helpful in staving off cancer or at the very least the ravages of gravity, clothing serves as identification in the form of uniforms for all sorts of people, and also indicates a persons stature, it is easy to tell the executives from the laborors. you may argue that that is a negative - i am not saying it is negative or positive - just that it is another function of clothing. Clothing sheilds us from a chilly breeze or draft, or from a sprinkle of rain, it is used to help us regulate our temperature as weather changes. it provides pockets to keep things in, lets us express our style and creativity, absorbes sweat, and hides parts of our bodies we may not be thrilled with, like scars, stretch marks, wrinkles.
And the all important mystery. It need not be shameful - it can just be a mystery. like a christmas present. we wrap it, not because it is shameful and needs to be hidden, we wrap it so that when the time is appropriate, the one we choose to gice it to can have the thrill and excitement of unwrapping something wonderful that was given just to him/her.
Your views on linking modesty with shame is incorrect. one does not equal the other, unless in your mind you have made it so. You say i am cheapening sex by making it a shameful dirty thing - i say i am doing the opposite. I am increasing its value by saying it needs to involve more than just the act. it involves the intimacy that comes from seeing a person in ways no one else can, from letting another person see you in that way too. it is another aspect of sex, by removing the two, you just decerease the value that sex ultimately can have.

Originally posted by Salamandy

Just like the overprotective fathers of their teenage daughters. What? Teen woman don't have urges? So demented that fathers even get involved or have an opinion on their freaking daughters Sex Life.

WHA?! Now you are just talking loopy, lol. What kind of father or parent for that matter would not try to protect their daughters??? You do know that there are laws about teen/underage sex? Only a very negligent parent would not care what his teenaged daughter was up to. Teens are not capable of making sound decisions. scientific studies have been done on the teenage brain and have found that teens do not have the developed reasoning skills to determine outcomes to decisions. So a teenage girl may not be able to realize, despite having been told, that sex can lead to STD's or pregnancy. Teens live in the moment, not in the future, and as such still very much need parental guidance in matters that can have life altering repurcussions. We are not talking about getting ears pierced here, we are talking about aids, other STD's, unwanted pregnancies. These things can change the course of a promising young life forever. Why would you suggest that parents not be involved in making sure these teens are always aware, always conscious of what the outcomes can be. To trust a teen to do otherwise goes against what science has proven, that teens cannot be left to make these decisions. i will try to find the link to the study if i can, i read it in a magazine a year or two ago.

Originally posted by Salamandy
Kids should be able to flip on the TV and see porno. My friend lives in Bulgaria for half the year and I always ask him if he liked having the 2 porno channels that come with basic cable. Of course he does, who wouldnt? But thats the joke.
Kids need an outlet. Take care of the job and move on with some more important aspects of your life. If our bellies grumble, we eat right?
If we had porno available as part of basic cable, other shows wouldn't need to skirt around the issue with high schoolers dressed in teasing outfits (Im sure no parent likes this right?). It would loose its novelty and we could possibly go back to quality programming where all mainstream plots aren't based around sex or dating. Save the love stuff for your actual soul mate/partner/spouse maybe?

It would depend very much on the porn, and the child's age. Some imagery can be disturbing to a child and can have lasting effects on their psycho-sexual development. I am happy for my child to see naked people, and would be surprised if they weren't curious about other people's bodies, but until puberty kicks in, very few children are even remotely interested in 'coupling', especially boys, girl's remain 'yuck' for quite some time. Post-pubescence is another matter, if a youth is interested in viewing pornography, they will find it without it having to be rammed in their faces. I certainly had no trouble and it was all top shelves and brown paper bags in those days, or the odd torn page you found in some odd random place, haha. All the boys I knew had their own collections of retrieved and purloined nudey pictures, it was almost a rite of passage. Besides there is more than enough porn freely available on the internet. How much more do you think their needs to be until we reach over-kill? I suspect the reality of the problem is that while some women may have a distorted or over romanticised view of sex via the MSM, some men are suffering a distortion via mainstream porn. Neither group seem to be getting whatever it is that they are expecting to get.

Originally posted by chrissiel123
i dont care about snot rockets on the stret.

I would personally have all people who gob in the street, strung up alongside a major thoroughfair and flogged. AND litterers, and people who don't clear up their dog's #. Since I have no intention of ever leaving the house, intentionally (I have been known to sleep walk on occasion, so far not in the nude though...), naked, I don't really care what secretions some people may or may not be leaving in their wake if they do. I will always have that barrier between me and it, and besides most of our orifices are self-cleaning or flushing, and do not 'take up' germs, that is what the mucous membranes are for, a barrier to infection. More importantly, most sexually transmitted diseases, as well as anal bacterias, can only live in those particular environments. They need warm, dark, moistness. AIDS in particular is dead practically as soon as it meets air. It's those that gob in the street that you want to worry about.

reply to post by chrissiel123


I don't see how being a germophobe is a valid argument as to why people should be forced to cover their natural bodies. Phobias are up to the person who suffers from them to deal with them. I am not trying to be insensitive. I have phobias of my own but I would NEVER insist a law be enforced due to my own psychological limitations.

As far as mystery substances being found on seats and such, I guess you've never sat on a bench before, or anywhere outside. I have sat on bird/squirrel droppings, chewed up gum, and other various things that grossed me out at the time. But I am still alive and completely healthy today.

But to put it simply, that stuff happens every day. A lack of public nudity isn't making anything cleaner. I have gone into stalls in public rest rooms that I walked right back out because other people turned it into a disgusting mess. And guess what, every person walked into that bathroom with clothes on. The people who make disgusting messes are disgusting people who don't have respect for their environment. Clothing has nothing to do with it. You can still sit on a bench with urine or feces on it with clothing enforced because some people go to the bathroom right in their clothing. Even kids have accidents on playgrounds and bus seats. The risk of sitting on (or touching) "germs" will always exist. You could sit at a table in a restaurant where someone might have decided to use the restroom then not wash their hands... then wipe their dirty hands all over that seat you're sitting on. Banning people from being able to go out in public without clothing is only an illusion of hygiene. Responsible people clean up after themselves, slobs do not. Clothing isn't a factor.

Anyway..... if clothing became optional, most likely the majority would still want to wear clothing because that's what they are accustomed to, and it becomes necessary in colder climates. I wouldn't go out nude because I find my clothing comfortable and I'm just not interested in going outside nude. However, if nudity weren't treated like a bad thing, it would give psychological relief to the masses. I have been embarrassed at times in my life when the wind blows my skirt up to my chest or when my pants fall off my butt when I bend down to get something in the store. I instantly panicked about whether or not anyone was offended by those things. I would have been able to laugh about it like it wasn't a big deal if it were widely understood that naked bodies aren't a big deal. Also, people (in many cases women) wouldn't be so critical of themselves and desperately trying to perfect their bodies if they weren't raised to think their natural form is a shameful thing.

The day we are taught we HAVE to cover ourselves around others is the day we were taught to be ashamed of ourselves. It is reinforced and carried through our whole lives with nudity laws.

Imagine for a moment, in some alternate reality, if all crows made necklaces for themselves made of grass. Now imagine if we watched the crows punish any other crows they saw without the grass necklaces on? Would we not find that really silly yet hard to understand? Personally, I would wonder what made those creatures feel the need to put those on without function, then I would find it incomprehensible why they would care to punish the other crows for not following their own preferences.

Dictating what is right or wrong for others in areas that should be kept out of any sort of law/rule due to personal preference.
I feel that way in a very general sense about what humans do to others, and nudity fits right in.

reply to post by Angelaisaac


ahh, i think you are all a bit nutters then, anyway. I am not so worried about the "germs" as I am about the fact that I do not want to see white smears on an office chair, brown smudgy smears on a restaurant chair. If i am the only one hear that thinks that bodily secretions are better kept to one's self, then so be it.
But bear in mind. I am not on here demanding a law be "enforced" for such a silly reason as "germaphobia". I have already stated the numerous reasons as to why I feel clothing is important, so kindly refer back to my previous posts if you missed it. I think it was a good list. The truth is you are here complaining that a law as old as Adam and Eve be revoked, at great expense and general public discomfit, because you think the world would become sexually freer. So sorry, but i think you are the ones on the losing side here. Clothing will always be required, for both aesthetic and sanitary reasons. you might fight and see female toplessness, woohoo. i bet the first time you see a pair of lopsided breast leaking breast milk all over your favorite aisle at the grocery store you will realize there is nothing "wonderful adn beautiful" about nudity for the general population. Your view of nudity is idealistic, and just does not represent the thoguhts of the general population.
You want to be nude, do it in your house. If you want your children to feel comfortable around nudity, be nude around them. If you dont have children and you are just talking nonsense about trying to fix everyone else's children that arent in need of fixing, sorry it must be hard to be you guys on that side of the fence.
As for me and my children - they see me nude, they had their phase of laughing at my boobs and spanking my bare butt, and now could care less about my form. But they are also taught that nudity is for family, and clothing is out of respect for the people we meet everyday.
respect.
as in i respect the feelings and modesty of other people, and thus ensure my children have learned to keep their clothes on, and to refrain from pulling my pants down in walmart. (something they tried once )

go nuts in your war to free the willies. I suspect it will be a long, pointless battle that you will spend the rest of your lives losing. sorry - wish i didnt sound so rude at this point, but i have tired of trying to debate with people that seem to pick ridiculous viewpoints in life and seem hellbent on wasting precious time and energy fighting about them. I am here debating for the good of my children - i feel like you are here debating for the good of yourself and your own view. why not spend that energy tackling something the world can care about? i am outta here - another thread dead as far as i am concerned. as in nothing but flies left buzzing around.
peace all - keep your clothes on - oh wait, you have to. ok good.

reply to post by KilgoreTrout


I have to agree that its hard for the two groups to meet in the middle as far as preference is concerned. Still, there is a war on sex. Some groups found it so important to ban nudity and fine a TV company because a woman's nipple falls out. Someone is attacking our thought banks and our freedoms to enjoy real life. What gets me so flustered is that they are getting worked over skin. Skin shouldn't have anything to do with loving sex I think wed all agree.

Im currently running nude in my street yelling about how I am the king of the internet message board realm cuz yall suckas know its tru!!!

Just kidding but I should legally be able to do so minus any screaming that might break sound codes (but its not before ten here so F that)