A disturbing trend?

[OpenMind5]

I to was once preceved "GAY" Mostly because I am a Metro.

 

As for sex insociety now. It use to be a hudge deal. I mean look a fashion in itself. it us to be long dresses for women and now...hell...somtimes i wonder if it is just a piece of cloth. Sex is a great thing, but it should not be promoted to a young age group. pregnet Teens is not a good thing.

 

So hand out the condoms for sure! And birth control.

[Queso]

a metro? what's that?

i saw a southpark episode where they (the metrosexuals) acted gay, dressed gay, but weren't gay. is that what you are?

[Southtown]

Not just picking on gays, but there will be a point where the selfish pursuit of personal fulfillment will clash with the obligations of each of us to reproduce and cultivate offspring for the survival of our species. (Which has thus far been carried out by the traditional family unit.)

[OpenMind5]

a metro? what's that?

i saw a southpark episode where they (the metrosexuals) acted gay, dressed gay, but weren't gay. is that what you are?

 

 

South Park does a great job at making fun of people. A metrosexual is a male that dresses nice and cares about how he looks. (Look at my pick on my profile)

Because Metros dress nice...they are sometimes confused with gays.

 

But trust me...My taste is strickly for...well...girl...LOl

*No details here :)*

 

Op5

[Buffy]

I mean look a fashion in itself. it us to be long dresses for women and now...hell...somtimes i wonder if it is just a piece of cloth.

And you call yourself a Metro? I will admit that standard wear for girls in my daughter's 5th grade class is jeans and t-shirts, but we spend *hours* hunting the perfect dress, and she can spend just as much time as me trying dozens on before we decide what "works." Unless its going to a Nascar race or the amusement park or a Beth Lisick event, any date I go on calls for a dress in my book...and no one would call *me* old fashioned! And BTW, hemlines are on their way down folks...

 

Also, sexy clothes have nothing to do with showing skin: As Bill Theiss (famous designer and wardrobe director for Star Trek) used to say, "The more it looks like its about to fall off, the sexier it is."

 

Clothes-horse,

Buffy

[OpenMind5]

LOL very nice!

I understand very much about the trends and how the look. I will admit that they are very sexy. But thats just the thing. Sex itself is almost become a "fashion," as this thread points out with teh stars. How many celebrs. have sex videos out....I mean really! Sex has always sold things...but it has become almost a revolution now. Sex is now comign out of teh closet from the once secret thing to a full blown thing that all kids know about. MY BROTHER IS IN KINDERGARDEN AND HE KNOWS ABOUT IT. Where do we draw the line. thats the question at hand.

 

Op5

[Buffy]

Where do we draw the line. thats the question at hand.

Radical notion: *Don't* draw the line! We are going through a period where its still outrageous. Soon it will no longer be.

 

Here's the principle we *really* need to be worried about: Taboo is the most powerful motivator in human nature. You tell *any* 16 year old he can't do something and what happens? He goes OUT OF HIS WAY to do it! You're young enough to remember that! You wanna know why pot smoking was something that *everyone including the marching band* did in the late 70s and early 80s? "Just say no." Least effective campaign ever.

 

Stop making a big deal about it. Kids have babies because they can't get birth control because the conservatives think that the threat of getting pregnant and getting STDs is the best way to keep kids from having sex. As Uncle Al explains so well above, *that ain't possible*. There was virtually no sex in popular culture until the 70s, but were kids boinking any less then? I don't think so. When everyone starts to realize that sex is a lot less fun without the love to go along with it, there will be a lot less indiscriminant boinking (although I doubt less boinking over all), and a lot more intelligent usage of measures that protect against unwanted pregnancies and STDs...

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

Not just picking on gays, but there will be a point where the selfish pursuit of personal fulfillment will clash with the obligations of each of us to reproduce and cultivate offspring for the survival of our species. (Which has thus far been carried out by the traditional family unit.)

Selfish pursuit of personal fulfillment? You mean like Ken Lay and Bernie Ebbers? I don't know, but I believe they are not gay. Although I guess its cool that Bush almost nominated a gay guy to the supreme court, but this Roberts dude is a guy who insisted on adopting kids from a weak gene pool rather than procreating his superior dna. For shame! Its his job to impregnate as many women as possible! THAT will strengthen the gene pool.

 

Oh-my-she's-starting-to-sound-like-Uncle-Al,

Buffy

[alxian]

:) WOW, er.. where to start :)

 

according to popular opinion then, sex > violence.

 

in gaming, being a gamer, i think allowing children to play violent games rather than physically expressing those most primal human urges by way of a virtual outlet.

 

allowing children to be sexually active early though may corrupt them. not given them enough time develop proper healthy relationship builging skills with other people.

 

violence in its most extreme for, war, is a tool usually used to control/reduce whole populations, classically also to spread the winners genetics amoung that of the dominated. where the outcome of few wars couldn't be predicted (the winners knew they were going to win).

 

question, are soldiers in iraq raping the women of iraq?

 

takes a second to think about that, what would be the ramifications of such headlines?

 

anyways.

 

i have to agree with uncle al, that youth is are becoming sexually prepared simply because their bodies are ready for it much earlier. they are developing at a much more rapid pace then ever before.

 

 

but

 

what can we do about education? the reason that children must be kept innocent longer is that the common preconception is that when children lose their innocence they become adults. no longer playing games, but devising ways to furthering their sexual betterment.

 

they become far more interested in each other after sexual awakening than bettering themselves intellectually.

 

where college used to be the time of sexual awakening highschools are becoming hotbeds of the politic of sexual activity. highschool kids thus have sex with each other and force kids who otherwise wouldn't to consider it. if they refuse they are branded, if they accept they are branded. either way their attention is driven further and further away from study.

 

in this way i personally think society has the right idea.

 

we can't allow children to become sexaully active before 16-18 because at least for now it takes that long for the education system to turn them into rational intelligent members of society.

 

what if we could create a fully rational thinking adult, with 135 IQ and equivelant EQ, such that the 12-14 year old sexually ready human is able to live in a productive adult society.

 

they would be adults responsible onto themselves.

 

biologicaly of course their brains would have some development left to do, and it would be unfair to them to assume that being intellectually equivalent to adults that their childhood is forfeit, they are still children, learning to be adult. how much of that childishness can be attributed to our "treating them like kids" "because thats what they are" by our arbritrary definitions?

 

how many of us know 13 year olds so precocious that we could swear they were 17-18 year olds? by physical size or mental acuity some "children" are far more adult than their parents.

 

by comparison there are vrey childish 16-17 year olds. childish meaning they coldn't take care of themselves as an adult would be expected to. bad parenting or lack of sufficient mental development?

 

again they are more than likely sexually active in both examples.

 

is it time that we reformed our view of children as being unprepared for casual sex and instead educate them both in the consequences and prevention as well as educating them intellectually to become productive members of society?

 

the problem would be how to reconcile living with sexually active young adults (for parents), they do it now but turn a blind eye to it, or much worse kick the children out of their houses altogether.

 

being in my early twenties and very old school, still a virgin, and with zero sexual experience, i have very little affinity with the "hand them a box of condoms" and educate them about consequences. and am of a firm belief that our society IS going to hell.

 

that mentality though not flawed, i don't want to totally disagree with buffy and uncle al, at an earlier age we are teaching youth that its ok to f* for fun, how can they then be expected to later in life from creating lasting pair bonds.

 

on the other hand, why pair bond if it will only take 15 years to create another productive well-adjusted adult fulfilling your role in society? if we are living longer through technology better living and education, we can be expected to have many cycles overlapping. in that a sexually active 15 year old male can have 55 years making babies while he can convince a woman to do so. the girl child on the other hand has less to look forward to sexually, in that she can only safely deliver a small number of young per term, cycling yearly she could from the age of 15 to her mid 40s or even later continue making babies. very few cultures though have women who have such massive legacies or men so charismatic that they can impregnate hundreds of willing women who'll risk carrying children to term.

 

then the idea would be to allow kids to copulate but educate them about why they are destroying themselves as adults by doing so. the problem remaining, are kids that start out their lives being sexually active able to become succesful members of society? or by wasting those precious years playing "the game" are they only setting themselves up to be failures in adulthood?

 

whatever might be the truth, society isn't likely to change its outlook on sex being an adults only affair because of its self-destructive nature in unprepared children. educating children early, developing infallible methods of contraception and curing our bodies of those diseases that exploit our eproductive system, would be some things we could do to keep our children safe. but then if adults are so well adjusted why do such problems even exist? sexually active non reproductive adults are self-destructive. asking asking sexually active children to be non reproductive and NOT be selfdestructive is insane. they will fight with their own morales and with each other for something they have no right handling nor any ability to handle adult situations and relationships. if they can then develop into successful productive/reproductive members of society later on can only be guessed at.

[alxian]

the problem

 

 

violence

 

people have for ages proven that overt violence = power

 

people in modern societies understand that we can virtualize violence while keeping that fine line of real and virtual viscerally distinct. by means of real consequences easily enforcable by authority.

 

sex

 

people for ages have proven sex to be a subtle and overt method to gain and maintain power.

 

modern societies however cannot as easily enforce rules of sex which is a personal matter.

 

if someone was to be raped chances are they would not report it

 

as a matter of levity and to further my point rape by a woman on a man is seldom ever reported, people for the most part don't acknowledge it as a problem, makes good movie though.

 

 

so, people think sex for youth is better than violence (virtual or not), thus popular belief is,

 

sex>violence

 

but it cannot, and should not be argued that teaching children to f* for fun is better for society than virtualizing violence. if a person commits a violent crime its very unlikely that they won't report it and the perp be brought to justice, but if a person commits a crime with a sexual nature its more likely than not for the perp to get off.

[Queso]

are the soldiers in iraq raping the women?

yes.

as for the rest of your post...im packing, and only could skim the headlines.

so, back to packing.

meh

[Buffy]

in gaming, being a gamer, i think allowing children to play violent games rather than physically expressing those most primal human urges by way of a virtual outlet.

So porn would be better for kids then: keep them from boinking right? I'm not sure I'd argue against that...

allowing children to be sexually active early though may corrupt them. not given them enough time develop proper healthy relationship builging skills with other people.

Lemme tellya, there's a "too early" for anyone, and irresponsibility can happen when you're 40 or 50. Age is not the issue, sex is not the issue, responsible behavior is. I'm all for trying to slow down those libidos, but its darn near impossible no matter what, and some of these approaches are down right stupid, given the way that kids think. More below.

they become far more interested in each other after sexual awakening than bettering themselves intellectually.

Huh? Now one thing that girls have a *really* hard time getting over is the notion that the very first guy you get a crush on is not Prince Charming and you'll die if you lose him and if you just had sex with him like he's demanding that he'll be yours forever. This becomes an obsession up until the point where you start to find out that 1) Most of them seem to dump you as soon as you demand the reciprocation you're expecting from putting out, and 2) Its a lot more enjoyable when its an extension of an actual relationship. Now I for one started paying much more attention in school after I'd lost my virginity, so I'm at least a counter example of your concept here, if not proof that you don't know what you're talking about:

where college used to be the time of sexual awakening highschools are becoming hotbeds of the politic of sexual activity.

Since when? 1) more have always said they do it than actually do it and 2) we've all been doing it for a very long time. Its arguable that up until the Victorian era, kids had more sex than they do now!

how many of us know 13 year olds so precocious that we could swear they were 17-18 year olds? by comparison there are vrey childish 16-17 year olds. childish meaning they coldn't take care of themselves as an adult would be expected to. bad parenting or lack of sufficient mental development?

 

again they are more than likely sexually active in both examples.

Horse hooey, in my high school, the girls who had the most sex did not look it, and it was the wannabees that dressed like sluts...

is it time that we reformed our view of children as being unprepared for casual sex and instead educate them both in the consequences and prevention as well as educating them intellectually to become productive members of society?

Yep!

the problem would be how to reconcile living with sexually active young adults (for parents), they do it now but turn a blind eye to it, or much worse kick the children out of their houses altogether.

Uh, those the only two alternatives? Hows about talking about it constantly? Its the best way to get them to do it safely and even better--and I'm agreeing with you here--getting them to put it off until they *are* responsible (which could be at any age). But just don't think that making a mantra of "its an evil, should be put off until marriage and is only for procreation" is a good way to teach your kids that adults lie and its okay to lie too. Don't do it.

being in my early twenties and very old school, still a virgin, and with zero sexual experience, .... and am of a firm belief that our society IS going to hell.

Oh my! Well *there's* your problem pal! How come you're the expert on what happens to people when they have sex?

but then if adults are so well adjusted why do such problems even exist? sexually active non reproductive adults are self-destructive. asking asking sexually active children to be non reproductive and NOT be selfdestructive is insane.

Of course, this has everything to do with social interactions and psychological problems, and nothing to do with sex. Sex only provides a good excuse because of our currently horridly prudish attitudes towards it tie people up in knots. Its the power of Taboo I describe above.

 

Honest, go out and find someone to date and have sex with, and maybe even marry and procreate with. You'll be much happier!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[OpenMind5]

This is what I have gotten so far from your lengthy posts.

 

Sex=good

violence=bad

 

My thoughts

Sex=very good but not for younger folks who abuse it (So promote sex ed.)

Violence= very bad and worse when younger kids do it (so tell parents to spank!)

 

:)

Op5

[alxian]

So porn would be better for kids then: keep them from boinking right? I'm not sure I'd argue against that...

 

ok.. um.. thats just attractive right there.. stop it

 

after your saying something to the effect of dating earlier i'm thinking the door might be open..

 

 

an NO, for the love of god NO

 

porn is a band aid solution for adults, who should be seeking real sex with other real humans. exposing children... omg.. could there be anything worse?

 

its like saying here timmy is a training manual for how to destroy your life and the lives of countless other children (god forbid they start thinking like adults then about adults and then sleeping with adults).

 

 

where would you draw the line? society thus only functions by limiting such things. as individuals we can't see there being a problem but to preserve itself society has to set limits that the individual doesn't agree with.

 

 

why do i feel like the only person in creation who agrees with the AI in sci-fi, resident evils computer and viki in i robot.

 

 

sure they draw the line in such a way that no humans can live healthy personal lives, but they would solves many of societies problems.

 

Honest, go out and find someone to date and have sex with, and maybe even marry and procreate with. You'll be much happier!

 

like i said elsewhere i'm old school. if i ever form a pair bond it'll be for procreation.

 

i'm not a dolphin, as much fun as sex might be i'd rather not use it as a tool.

 

i'd only marry for life and then if it doesn't work out well i hope i have something to focus my attention on.

 

as for being happy. why can't people be happy without sex? why must those who abstain be seen as "nuts" "depressed" "unhappy" etc? i'm content. just working and playing games and posting in forums. does that mean i'm unhealthy?

 

 

or are the people who f* for fun at the expense of their partners? whom they leave at the side of the road their hearts bleeding until theres nothing left?

 

yeah, its not like that in reality people aren't sexual predators like the media would have me believe, neither is abstenance and birginity a stigma.

 

actually i think you did help me somewhat, you said that in HS you paid more attention after the spell was broken. i'm left wondering then how many people see sex for what it is, a tool, and can return to prductive normalcy, or fall prey to sex even fruther mesmerized by it, focusing singularly on it as the only way to be "happy". nothing else makes them happy, and then whats left when sex starts losing its sting? are they unhealthy?

[Buffy]

porn is a band aid solution for adults, who should be seeking real sex with other real humans. exposing children... omg.. could there be anything worse?

99% of porn today is sucky, but bad-movie-sucky, and most of it totally objectifies women which is very sucky, but there is a lot of sex on film that does not.

its like saying here timmy is a training manual for how to destroy your life and the lives of countless other children....or are the people who f* for fun at the expense of their partners? whom they leave at the side of the road their hearts bleeding until theres nothing left? yeah, its not like that in reality people aren't sexual predators like the media would have me believe

This is the area I think you're missing the forest for the trees on: these bad "side effects" have *nothing* to do with sex, and everything to do with treating people like dirt. Sex in these cases are the *weapon* *not* the cause. So don't ban guns just because people misuse them.

like i said elsewhere i'm old school. if i ever form a pair bond it'll be for procreation.

That's fine: lots of people do, and with regard to the Taboo thing, you'll find more people do choose it who don't want to if the message changes from "Just Say No" to "Its okay to Say No." Just recognize that a lot of what you're saying *isn't* true or even related to sex, and it does have something to do with you unfamiliarity with the subject! :eek:

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Buffy]

This is what I have gotten so far from your lengthy posts.

Sex=good

violence=bad

 

My thoughts

Sex=very good but not for younger folks who abuse it (So promote sex ed.)

Violence= very bad and worse when younger kids do it (so tell parents to spank!)

Your brevity is remarkable! I almost agree with your view with only two changes:

"not for younger folks who abuse it" -> "not for folks who abuse it": age makes no difference and older folks screw up badly, mostly due to things that have nothing to do with sex (being a boor to your fellow man, has nothing to do with sex! honest!)

drop "tell parents to spank" whoa! spank for violence? I'm no Dr. Spock, but violence works best in the heat of immediate removal from danger. "you were bad to be violent, so now several hours later I am going to whip your *** raw with my belt" is really bad and reinforces violence. You can cause a much more reinforcing message to your teenager by embarrasing them in front of their friends too, if your point is to cause *pain*. Other than the death penalty, I find it amusing that many who advocate physical and mental torture for our kids still wouldn't sanction it for convicted felons, because they realize it would probably not have its intended effect, and worse "makes us just as bad as the criminals".... There are those who think criminals should be tortured, but thats for another thread...

 

Just to reinforce cuz you both seem to be missing it: my main thesis is that the "bad" stuff people associate with sex really has very little to do with sex itself: its used as a tool by people who like or don't care about being mean to their fellow man. If people would just do unto others, sex would never be seen as a problem other than its side effects of pregnancy and STDs!

 

Cheers,

Buffy

[Southtown]

This is the area I think you're missing the forest for the trees on: these bad "side effects" have *nothing* to do with sex, and everything to do with treating people like dirt. Sex in these cases are the *weapon* *not* the cause. So don't ban guns just because people misuse them.

Should we push holsters on gradeschoolers so they don't shoot themselves in the nuts?