Why is Sex as recreation seen as more taboo then violence? Especially in Media?
- Thread starter Samtemdo8
- Start date
Way too many people are offended by a penis
Even more people are offended by an erect penis
It also a way to dominate women.
It’s called the patriarchy and it’s been damaging men and women for thousands of years
Even more people are offended by an erect penis
It also a way to dominate women.
It’s called the patriarchy and it’s been damaging men and women for thousands of years
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,493
- 3,443
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
But I've already adressed this in the past, and you yourself admit that I've never called for these things. And anyone whose seen me speak about lgbt or black lives matter issues knows my stances are very liberal. You can't feign ignorance. Do explain yourself, please.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,493
- 3,443
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
I never said you did either. At least not directly. But that is besides the point, you do tend to seem to have a very judgmental view of various things and you have used coded language in the past. Like just in this thread you judged porn as bad (at least you did have some reasoning behind it) you also judged furries as bad with some kinda just baffling reasoning. Previously you have also been very judgmental of anime in general before you clarified more for hentai. You say you are liberal with your beliefs and ok sure, but you also seem to be very quick to judge things, which is something I find more conservative people tend to do. This isn't to say you are a conservative, just that you can come off as conservative with that judgement nature you seem to have.
I mean, until relatively recently, recreational sex tended to have a whole lot of risk factors that either resulted in death by disease, death by childbirth, and entire other human being to take care of, and/or political complications due to inheritance.
It's only in the modern era that we can, theoretically, have a decent chance at controlling all of those risk factors
It's only in the modern era that we can, theoretically, have a decent chance at controlling all of those risk factors
It depends on what country you are in. There are countries where putting mild sexual humour in childrens cartoons is considered okay and countries where that would be considered some horrific plot to groom children for pedophillia or something. Different places have different values.
Perhaps one big difference is that sex is something we all do? Either we do it or if we are still virgins we feel the urges to do and still masturbate. But violence? Violence to the point of murder isn't nearly as real or familiar to many people, they don't experience it every day. Aside from very unfortunate people, such violence only tends to be what you experience in the worst of days. So maybe we view it differently?
And honestly theres a huge difference between real and simulated violence in feel and how disturbing it is, Jim Sterling made that point in a controversial video where he said he could show you loads of Call of Duty violence no problem, but then he showed a video where a senator shot theirself on camera and it was a pretty crazy thing for Jim to do even with trigger warnings and all but it made a point that real violence is different.
Perhaps one big difference is that sex is something we all do? Either we do it or if we are still virgins we feel the urges to do and still masturbate. But violence? Violence to the point of murder isn't nearly as real or familiar to many people, they don't experience it every day. Aside from very unfortunate people, such violence only tends to be what you experience in the worst of days. So maybe we view it differently?
And honestly theres a huge difference between real and simulated violence in feel and how disturbing it is, Jim Sterling made that point in a controversial video where he said he could show you loads of Call of Duty violence no problem, but then he showed a video where a senator shot theirself on camera and it was a pretty crazy thing for Jim to do even with trigger warnings and all but it made a point that real violence is different.
Yes, but you're taking criticism of things, like anime, hentai, and porn, and trying to claim that I'm criticizing people, such as african americans, lgbt people, jews, ect. You're not stupid, worgen. You know as well as I do that criticizing hentai has never been a dog whistle for hating african americans.
- Apr 1, 2009
- 14,493
- 3,443
- 118
- Gender
- Whatever, just wash your hands.
No, I'm not, I'm really not, or at least not trying too, aside from saying that you are using at least accidental coded language. I'm not talking about what you actually believe, my main point has always been how it sounds. Let me put it this way, if you can at least qualify when you are judgmental of something it would make things clearer and easier to argue against your argument instead of having to try and figure out what your angle is on the subject.
For instance:
"I think recreational sex is awesome. I think watching other people have recreational sex is sad."
There isn't really much reasoning here, but you come off as being not only anti porn, but also anti cuckolding fetish or even 3some fetish since when you get more then 2 people involved, someone is probably going to have to sit out a bit. You would need to add information here to be clearer, cause right now it comes across as you just not liking people who like to watch.
Please don't use him as an example of the rest of us. And yes yes, I know, I'm weird too, but my brand of weirdness as well as most Christians is different from his.
People that like ponies?
On topic. I think there's really just a very basic and primal reason we feel hesitant to talk about sex which is the same reason we're shy about talking about bowel movements. Both acts are compromising and leave us vulnerable. I've heard the theory that the reason why lust exists in animals and people is because you need some kind of feeling like that in order to get animals to let their guard down and perform and act that leaves them vulnerable to predators in the time it takes and energy it uses.
Last edited:
- Nov 27, 2009
- 5,792
- 712
- 118
- Country
- The Dreamlands
- Gender
- Lose 1d20 sanity points.
Not much to add here, I just want to say I 100% agree with this statement, it will be safer for everyone involved and will reduce organised crime, since prostitutes would no longer be at risk of being arrested when they report crimes of pimping, that being said I'm not sure if it would have much of an effect on kidnapping and sex slavery but nonetheless it's definitely the correct thing to do.
That's a bit much. I think you guys are too hard on Worgen, he's not that bad. It's starting to look a little like bullying.
He's calling my boyfriend a bigot against gays just cuz he doesn't like hentai, and *we're* the bullies?
I don't know, I see you guys calling out Worgen pretty often. I didn't like it when people were singled out in WW, and I don't like to see it now.
I'm not trying to pick a side here, though, but the way you guys have been responding to him is getting dangerously close to mod wrath in my opinion, and I wouldn't like to see that either.
Yeah, no, sorry. He's now called me racist, homophobic, ect, multiple times. After being asked to stop. If he does't want to get called out, he should probably consider his words more carefully.
This problem isn't going to go away as long as he continues to behave in this manner.
Nobody has ever been genuinely offended by kink-shaming. It's just liberal posturing. Open and detailed discussion of fetishes belongs to sex forums and not somewhere more akin to a simulated coffee table conversation. Sure, there could be some ultra-rare case in which a person equates sex to some fetish and thus takes personal offence, but that's bordering on disorder and they should be doing a little introspection at the very least. So I'd say this is why multiple qualifications and "not all X" isn't necessary.
Anyway, it loops back to the main (sort of) question about what kind of sexuality can be considered healthy to which the liberal answer is "anything between consenting adults". That's a low bar to pass.
OT: Violence can be made too cool. Even pretending sex can be as cool as violence is rather silly. Also the privacy of sex is culturally ingrained to us. Evolution-wise it's silly once again: bigger breasts and penises (compared to other apes) have little to do with actual procreation, but it's clear that these assets got people laid back then and still give you the edge.
You forgot about cleaning up your room.
I still need to watch that movie. Is it actually so bad it's funny, or just plain bad?
Last edited:
Back in the before times, there was a movie review show, "Siskel and Ebert" that pondered this some. Why was Nightmare on Elm Street, hacking young people to bits R rated, while "Boys Don't Cry" NC 13 because you see Hillary Swank wipe her mouth after simulating oral sex with another girl?
A theory on why from a stringent Catholic game reviewer. I can game or watch violence and not feel violent myself. I do get a sense of vicarious catharsis seeing the bad guys getting their due but it is very different from feeling murderous myself.
Sex is different. You show a woman nude and I'm going to get aroused. For real. (Kind of why Freud says sexual response is what he wanted to study: that humans have genuine, physiological responses to sexual attraction, sometimes with no real stimulus. Read a good p#$n story sometimes and you're not even seeing anything: just thinking about it. )
To that staunch Catholic, that kind of attraction is, by itself, sinful. I'm not married to that lady, how dare I experience REAL feelings such as that? Others in power may have similar issues with this.
Why is male nudity showing penis so much more rare than showing a female nude? The woman's genitals are typically still hidden while the guy's penis IS his genitals. I do not know if Tinto Brass movies were R rated or not. They weren't typically actual p#$n ... but that women's genitals thing? Yeah. He went there.
Also, are you writing that the penis is used to dominate women, so therefore we won't see them in media?
Another thing: many are writing of seeing plenty of nudity in today's movies. My own observation is, we're not seeing as much in the mainstream as we used to. I've read that with p#$n being so easily available, it has less and less impact on movie sales. You typically have to pay an actress more for her to appear nude in a movie, so, if that nudity won't sell tickets, why bother? (Halle Berry in "Swordfish" being the most extereme example of which I can think) 50 Shades not withstanding. That was a weird one that I'm betting disproportionately benefited from women wanting to see it. But yeah, I grew up in the 1970s and movies like "Carrie" were blowing us away. The new "Carrie". I think it was PG 13. EDIT: Nope. IMDB says it is R as well. I guess it is for violence rather than nudity as I'm pretty sure, in it, there is 0.
A theory on why from a stringent Catholic game reviewer. I can game or watch violence and not feel violent myself. I do get a sense of vicarious catharsis seeing the bad guys getting their due but it is very different from feeling murderous myself.
Sex is different. You show a woman nude and I'm going to get aroused. For real. (Kind of why Freud says sexual response is what he wanted to study: that humans have genuine, physiological responses to sexual attraction, sometimes with no real stimulus. Read a good p#$n story sometimes and you're not even seeing anything: just thinking about it. )
To that staunch Catholic, that kind of attraction is, by itself, sinful. I'm not married to that lady, how dare I experience REAL feelings such as that? Others in power may have similar issues with this.
Why is male nudity showing penis so much more rare than showing a female nude? The woman's genitals are typically still hidden while the guy's penis IS his genitals. I do not know if Tinto Brass movies were R rated or not. They weren't typically actual p#$n ... but that women's genitals thing? Yeah. He went there.
I think we so seldom see one for reasons referenced above.
Also, are you writing that the penis is used to dominate women, so therefore we won't see them in media?
Another thing: many are writing of seeing plenty of nudity in today's movies. My own observation is, we're not seeing as much in the mainstream as we used to. I've read that with p#$n being so easily available, it has less and less impact on movie sales. You typically have to pay an actress more for her to appear nude in a movie, so, if that nudity won't sell tickets, why bother? (Halle Berry in "Swordfish" being the most extereme example of which I can think) 50 Shades not withstanding. That was a weird one that I'm betting disproportionately benefited from women wanting to see it. But yeah, I grew up in the 1970s and movies like "Carrie" were blowing us away. The new "Carrie". I think it was PG 13. EDIT: Nope. IMDB says it is R as well. I guess it is for violence rather than nudity as I'm pretty sure, in it, there is 0.
Last edited: