The US's changing morals is a good thing

therealguyfawkes
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

My point is: Anything the social engineers push upon us, we should resist. Any way in which they try to shape and control our behavior is never for our benefit--or the benefit of humanity. It's merely to oppress, to divide, to repress and conquer.

So because of these nefarious motives underlying the change in moral, no... the changing morals pressed upon us by social engineers are NOT good things.

That is a blanket statement derived from your innate paranoia. First off, besides fringe conspiracy sites, there is no direct proof of anything you said. Second off, just because it is something different, doesn't automatically make it bad. Third off, just because it is pushed by people with more power than you doesn't make it bad either.

I'd like to see a point by point breakdown from you on why things like women's rights, homosexuality, redefinition of marriage, redefinition of family, sexualization, and other things that you are eluding to are bad for society. You can't just lump all these things together, post some goofy conspiracy that all these changes are bad then expect to be correct. First you have to demonstrate that these changes are even bad for society to begin with.

reply to post by MystikMushroom


Well said. This is exactly the kind of thing I was getting at. Sexuality and all the shame that goes with it, are products of control, are silly, and completely outdated.

reply to post by MystikMushroom

Rise of a male-dominated culture that things like personal possessions became the new norm

Male dominated "culture" existed during caveman era as well. Women were protected and men would fight for productive rights.

Materialistic greed which gave to Male-Dominated culture not the other way around.

Hundreds of thousands of years ago, upon the plains of Africa man slept with whatever woman he found attractive. Mankind wasn't aware of exactly how a female got pregnant, and everyone pretty much slept with everyone else. There was no such thing as monogamy -- and we as a species lived like this for tens of thousands of years. and no one belonged to anything.

Orgies were very common.

So were health defects, accidental incest, death during pregnancy and overall life expectancy.

It's interesting to note that monogamy...

As the culture changed, laws established, Monogamy was needed to ensure food/shelter, nurture and the survivability of the genes. Similar to other changes that made us evolve.

So, in short -- for all our taboos about sex (the guilt, shame, embarrassment, ect) -- these are all very recent man-made constructs, designed to dominate and control the weaker sex and populations at large.

I agree those are man made concepts, however i believe some are there for good reasons. Though i do not mind living naked from now on. I disagree with these are a concept to make a weaker sex, the weaker sex was an outcome of such change.

reply to post by Krazysh0t


I admire your willingness to start a thread on this topic and defend your position. Here’s where you’re going wrong…if I may.

None of the things that people use as evidence of our declining morals are really declining morals. Just changes in how we view the world as well as what is and isn't socially acceptable.

If the way we view the world has changed (as you note) and we’re now lowering our standards to accommodate our new found enlightenment ( ) that is a moral decline, no? Your post is simply trying to justify the decline that is obviously happening.

Since we’re on the subject, the most offense part of your argument is when people compare the horrible treatment of blacks in US one hundred and fifty years ago to the gay rights struggle today; how absolutely insulting to the memory of those who suffered under slavery.

Krazysh0t
So I see many threads these days decrying America's falling morals and how we are on some sort of trip to hell for things like gay marriage, over-sexualization on television, drugs, crime, guns, homosexuality in general, etc.

Yeah ... extremist and some are really obnoxious. Sure, some of the changes in America aren't good. But at the same time, many of the changes ARE good. I'd rather have an America in which we all have free choice, for better or worse, rather than have an America where Old Testament/Quran laws are stuffed down our throats with the threat of jail and hellfire if we don't 'behave' according to those archaic laws.

Changes in America bring us crap like Miley Cyrus. Sure.
But the changes also bring us women being able to be college educated doctors and chemists etc etc.
In order to get the good changes, sometimes you have to put up with the crap changes as well.

seabag
reply to post by Krazysh0t

 

If the way we view the world has changed (as you note) and we’re now lowering our standards to accommodate our new found enlightenment (

) that is a moral decline, no? Your post is simply trying to justify the decline that is obviously happening.

I'd call it a paradigm shift due to changing standards as opposed to a decline. Decline implies a negative connotation which as evidenced by my stance on this subject, I'd like to avoid.

Since we’re on the subject, the most offense part of your argument is when people compare the horrible treatment of blacks in US one hundred and fifty years ago to the gay rights struggle today; how absolutely insulting to the memory of those who suffered under slavery.

edit on 26-2-2014 by seabag because: (no reason given)

Why? Are you trying to suggest that it is ok to treat homosexuals as less than human because we never enslaved them in the past? In fact, what does slavery issues of the past have anything to do with social inequality of the present? Couldn't I say that learning from our past mistakes due to slavery and later inequality of blacks, we shouldn't tread down the same path for homosexuals? But apparently according to you, homosexuals don't deserve my sympathy since they were never enslaved and forced to work against their will (of course they most certainly were, gays exist in all races of people. They just weren't enslaved because they were gay)

reply to post by Krazysh0t

I'd call it a paradigm shift due to changing standards as opposed to a decline. Decline implies a negative connotation which as evidenced by my stance on this subject, I'd like to avoid.

You can call it what you wish but it’s just a veiled attempt at sugar coating the decline in morals. It’s liberating to say what you mean and mean what you say.

Why? Are you trying to suggest that it is ok to treat homosexuals as less than human because we never enslaved them in the past?

No…I’m saying it’s insulting to the memory (and to the descendents) of slaves who suffered incredible horrors to compare their suffering to the inconvenience of not being able to legally marry your gay partner.

That's like comparing working at the US Post Office to service in the military. Just because both are government employers doesn't mean the sacrifice is the same. It's just a lame comparison.

reply to post by seabag


I don't care about any slaves since I haven't met any and their descendants mean even less to me. You don't earn my respect for just being related to someone who suffered in the past. You earn it by being a good person and not harming others. What I DO care about is inequality. If someone or someones are being treated unfairly, then that is wrong. There is no disrespect towards any previous groups of people, it just is. All inequality is wrong. In fact, to hold one form of inequality up on a pedestal as more important than another form of inequality just because that group of people suffered more is showing intolerance.

By the way, what about all the homosexual hate that has been put forth by religious types? Do these people not suffer when their friends and loved ones are being abducted in the night, tortured and killed just because they like people of the same sex? Some old civilizations used to stone homosexuals to death. Is that not suffering? Just because slavery is a recent transgression against a minority, doesn't mean that other minorities haven't suffered either.

It's not about being naked. It's about being sexual.

I'll go back to being an athlete again. We spent a lot of time being nearly naked, and it was not remotely sexual. I had no problem with it. My mother felt we were dressed too skimpy, but she didn't understand the mindset. Our bodies were tools, not sex objects.

The thing about this society is that we aren't just dressing skimpy for comfort. We're doing it to make ourselves sex objects. Women do it to look attractive. We aren't like the ancient Minoans who may have gone everywhere with one or both breasts bared as naturally as breathing and no one batted an eye. If someone does it here, they're doing it to bring up sex.

That's the problem and decline in morals.

I wouldn't have a problem with the skimpy clothing or no clothing if it wasn't all about sex.

Much like art where there is a clear difference between this and this when it comes to the emotions and feelings they are meant to evoke in the viewer and yet both feature nudity. If you ask me what the difference is, I'd say that clearly one is all about the sex even though both are nude.

reply to post by ketsuko


But the sexual aspect of it is derived from prudish nature. Back in the early 1900's women used to cover just about every part of their body. When they went to the beach, they used to swim in some strange portable outhouse type thing. No Joke. It's only natural that as we have stripped more and more clothing from what we wore, that we'd equate it to sex. However the more that is exposed, the more natural it becomes to look at. Back in the early 1900's, a woman exposing her calf used to get men aroused. Now, if we look at a woman's calf, we wouldn't think twice about it. It all boils down to a forbidden fruit thing. Men use their imagination when it is normally covered up, which tends to create more excitement for the men. This is because our imagination is always more exciting than reality. So when there isn't anything left to the imagination and it becomes a natural part of life, we stop equating it with sex. THAT is why in you example you can talk about women walking around bare breasted and men not equate it with sex, but we can only reach that point by passing through the point we are at now.

reply to post by Krazysh0t

Can one not grow smarter and hornier at the same time? Is there something wrong with enjoying something in your old age that you enjoyed when you are younger? I didn't know that being horny made you dumber. 

Hehehe..........
Have you ever been REALLY horny?
It sure has made me do a couple of "dumb" things in my life.
Just saying......
I don't see women haveing this problem as much as men.
There is an old saying......
Women could very easily rule the world. They have half the money and all of the ........well you know.
Quad

Krazysh0t
Yet time and again I see people lamenting how much of a shame it is that children are supposedly growing up quicker and quicker every year. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe we've defined the length of childhood to be too long? Sure we aren't FULLY developed until later, but the government's age of adulthood is also years before a person has reached full development. It is clearly not based on body development. In fact, it looks more like some random age that the people in charge just decided was the best fit.

What is wrong with becoming a "man" or "woman" at 15 or 16?

Wow, first of all your calling people prudish while engaging such activity yourself.

Second, your views on sexuality are based in extreme ignorance. I would suggest you actually go and look at the data collected in regards to the likely activity of those exposed to sexuality at a young age.

I doubt you even associate with the fragmented homosexual community enough to even comment on what life is like for those "oppressed" in said community.

Most of your argument is just the typical whiny complaints of people who can't stand the fact that there are consequences to your actions.

If you want to prove your point, go find a historical account of an extremely hedonistic society (which you are advocating for) which has truly bettered the world for themselves and those around them.

-FBB

FriedBabelBroccoli

Krazysh0t
Yet time and again I see people lamenting how much of a shame it is that children are supposedly growing up quicker and quicker every year. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe we've defined the length of childhood to be too long? Sure we aren't FULLY developed until later, but the government's age of adulthood is also years before a person has reached full development. It is clearly not based on body development. In fact, it looks more like some random age that the people in charge just decided was the best fit.

What is wrong with becoming a "man" or "woman" at 15 or 16?

Wow, first of all your calling people prudish while engaging such activity yourself.

Explain yourself. I'm seriously at a loss here how I'm being prudish, I don't recall being squeamish about sexuality or trying to repress things. I recall advocating less restrictions and more knowledge at a younger age, if you think that is prudish, you need to go read a dictionary.

Second, your views on sexuality are based in extreme ignorance. I would suggest you actually go and look at the data collected in regards to the likely activity of those exposed to sexuality at a young age.

Care to educate? Or are you just going to derisively talk down on my argument and not back up your position at all?

I doubt you even associate with the fragmented homosexual community enough to even comment on what life is like for those "oppressed" in said community.

I never claimed to associate with any communities. This thread also isn't just about homosexuals, please don't derail it with irrelevant comparisons and accusations.

Most of your argument is just the typical whiny complaints of people who can't stand the fact that there are consequences to your actions.

Like what? What are the consequences for the things I'm advocating? Last I checked, I had a very wordy OP that outlined my reasons for my thinking. All I got from you is a derisive opinion with nothing backing up why you thought that way.

If you want to prove your point, go find a historical account of an extremely hedonistic society (which you are advocating for) which has truly bettered the world for themselves and those around them.

-FBB

They don't exist. Every society since ever has restricted freedoms of some sort for some class of people. But just because they haven't existed yet, doesn't mean they are doomed to failure.

For your follow up post, I'd appreciate it if you elaborated on your opinions a bit more, leave the ad hominem attacks at the door, and don't present your opinions as facts. I mean your whole post reads like I personally offended you and you are lashing back at me for it. Be more civil. Thank you in advance.

What's wrong with liking sex?

We know now that sexual urges aren't the "devil trying to lead you astray" -- but are based on hormones in the body. It's silly to fight against natural urges to want sex, or want to feel sexy.

As long as someone isn't hurting anyone else, who cares? People need "anti-sensitivity training" IMO. People need a serious lesson in how to "not take things personally". Nothing someone else says or does is because of them. "Arugh but they're shoving it in my face!" Ok, look away and move on. You can still be who you are, hold your own personal morals and let other people have theirs.

Krazysh0t

FriedBabelBroccoli

Krazysh0t
Yet time and again I see people lamenting how much of a shame it is that children are supposedly growing up quicker and quicker every year. Did it ever occur to anyone that maybe we've defined the length of childhood to be too long? Sure we aren't FULLY developed until later, but the government's age of adulthood is also years before a person has reached full development. It is clearly not based on body development. In fact, it looks more like some random age that the people in charge just decided was the best fit.

What is wrong with becoming a "man" or "woman" at 15 or 16?

Wow, first of all your calling people prudish while engaging such activity yourself.

Explain yourself. I'm seriously at a loss here how I'm being prudish, I don't recall being squeamish about sexuality or trying to repress things. I recall advocating less restrictions and more knowledge at a younger age, if you think that is prudish, you need to go read a dictionary.

Second, your views on sexuality are based in extreme ignorance. I would suggest you actually go and look at the data collected in regards to the likely activity of those exposed to sexuality at a young age.

Care to educate? Or are you just going to derisively talk down on my argument and not back up your position at all?

I doubt you even associate with the fragmented homosexual community enough to even comment on what life is like for those "oppressed" in said community.

I never claimed to associate with any communities. This thread also isn't just about homosexuals, please don't derail it with irrelevant comparisons and accusations.

Wow . . . . kiddo you do realize you dedicated an entire paragraph in your OP to homosexuality right? This is most certainly on topic and you just are looking for an excuse to feel offended.

Most of your argument is just the typical whiny complaints of people who can't stand the fact that there are consequences to your actions.

Like what? What are the consequences for the things I'm advocating? Last I checked, I had a very wordy OP that outlined my reasons for my thinking. All I got from you is a derisive opinion with nothing backing up why you thought that way.

If you want to prove your point, go find a historical account of an extremely hedonistic society (which you are advocating for) which has truly bettered the world for themselves and those around them.

-FBB

They don't exist. Every society since ever has restricted freedoms of some sort for some class of people. But just because they haven't existed yet, doesn't mean they are doomed to failure.

For your follow up post, I'd appreciate it if you elaborated on your opinions a bit more, leave the ad hominem attacks at the door, and don't present your opinions as facts. I mean your whole post reads like I personally offended you and you are lashing back at me for it. Be more civil. Thank you in advance.

edit on 27-2-2014 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)

You are right about not being prudish, arrogant would be a far better term.

ar·ro·gant
adjective ˈer-ə-gənt, ˈa-rə-

: having or showing the insulting attitude of people who believe that they are better, smarter, or more important than other people : having or showing arrogance

Early sexualization of children;
www.psychologytoday.com...

High-Risk Sex. The earlier a child is exposed to sexual content and begins having sex, the likelier they are to engage in high-risk sex. Research shows that children who have sex by age 13 are more likely to have multiple sexual partners, engage in frequent intercourse, have unprotected sex and use drugs or alcohol before sex. In a study by researcher Dr. Jennings Bryant, more than 66 percent of boys and 40 percent of girls reported wanting to try some of the sexual behaviors they saw in the media (and by high school, many had done so), which increases the risk of sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnancies.

Sex, Love and Relationship Addictions. Not every child who is exposed to sexual content will struggle with a mental health disorder, but research shows that early exposure to pornography is a risk factor for sex addictions and other intimacy disorders. In one study of 932 sex addicts, 90 percent of men and 77 percent of women reported that pornography was a factor in their addiction. With the widespread availability of explicit material on the Internet, these problems are becoming more prevalent and are surfacing at younger ages.

Sexual Violence. According to some studies, early exposure (by age 14) to pornography and other explicit material may increase the risk of a child becoming a victim of sexual violence or acting out sexually against another child. For some people, habitual use of pornography may prompt a desire for more violent or deviant material, including depictions of rape, torture or humiliation. If people seek to act out what they see, they may be more likely to commit sexual assault, rape or child molestation.

Need I post more?
www.psychologytoday.com...

www.aboutourkids.org...

Hedonism
en.wikipedia.org...
Plenty of societies referenced here to which you can further educate yourself on the outcomes of what you are proposing.

Having worked retail I have had a great deal of involvement in the homosexual community and very much of it in the modern (under 35) crowd, at large they are emotionally unstable, greatly so. It is not a result of society "oppressing" them it is part of the culture. All you have to do is look at domestic violence statistics among the community for further evidence of it.

I asked you if you are involved because you seem to spout this nonsense as if you are familiar with what you are talking about until it is revealed you are just regurgitating rhetoric that makes you feel good.

Your response just shows that you are the one who presented your opinions as proof and then got upset when someone responds with their own opinions, which happen to be backed up by empirical data.

You will find time and time again that the goal of utopian ideals like yours is the hedonistic pursuit of pleasure or destruction of being uncomfortable which is ultimately linked to the reality of consequences.

-FBB

reply to post by InverseLookingGlass


Or you could just live in the fake Chinese Paris www.youtube.com...

reply to post by Krazysh0t


Not necessarily. I gave you an example where that's not the case. Athletes don't do it when they're at work and trust me, they're going all over in skimpy stuff. No one has time to think much about sex on the track. Usually, we're too busy trying not to puke.

But it's a different culture and one where sex isn't immediately the most important thing. There it's freedom of movement and physical comfort. (Of the track ... well, it's the same culture as everywhere else.)

If all of this sexuality came from our prudish nature, we wouldn't have been able to get away from it there, either, and yet we did.

I think all the drive to teach everyone about sex and keep sex going is what perpetuates it more than anything. It's just like racism. We keep teaching it and reiterating it, and it will keep being a central theme of the culture. Stop equating nudity with sex and it will end.

FriedBabelBroccoli

If you want to prove your point, go find a historical account of an extremely hedonistic society (which you are advocating for) which has truly bettered the world for themselves and those around them.

-FBB

I looked at the same Wiki you did. I'd say the Greeks and Romans were both pretty hedonistic societies. They left us with a plethora of great things. When societies become wealthy/comfortable, they begin to ease some of precepts because they can look inwardly at an issue and decide whether it was really necessary to shun the value or accept the value. Morals change and attitudes change. Fluctuation in societal thought is ever occurring. Equality is tricky business and I find it odd that one of the tenants of American society is that "All men are created equal," and yet here we are some 250 years later and we can't live up to the original declaration. I did look up stats for domestic violence. It's not a part of the LGBT culture any more than it is in the mainstream. The age is slightly higher, but LGBT are falling right in line with the rest of society. The ideals of freedom don't seem to be utopian at all. Just really difficult to get to.

The puritans did not go looking for religious freedoms, they sought to create a society of no religious freedom.

trumpet
I did look up stats for domestic violence. It's not a part of the LGBT culture any more than it is in the mainstream. The age is slightly higher, but LGBT are falling right in line with the rest of society. The ideals of freedom don't seem to be utopian at all. Just really difficult to get to.

I doubt you really looked up the stats . . .
www.theatlantic.com...

In 2013, the CDC released the results of a 2010 study on victimization by sexual orientation, and admitted that “little is known about the national prevalence of intimate partner violence, sexual violence, and stalking among lesbian, gay, and bisexual women and men in the United States.”

The report found that bisexual women had an overwhelming prevalence of violent partners in their lives: 75 percent had been with a violent partner, as opposed to 46 percent of lesbian women and 43 percent of straight women. For bisexual men, that number was 47 percent. For gay men, it was 40 percent, and 21 percent for straight men.

They are clearly NOT in line with the rest of society, I wonder what stats you were looking at though . . . probably focused on the lesbian vs straight women.

Bisexual women 75% vs 43% straight women
Bisexual men 47% vs 21% straight men
Homosexual men 40% vs 21% straight men

If that is your idea of roughly in line you should go try trading stocks on the market . . . .

-FBB