| abstract
| - Sex is an intrinsic part of human nature. Violence however, is not necessarily so. Why is violence, the more unnatural of the two, considered more acceptable in media? Does it have to do with being "kid friendly"? Does that mean that given the choice our society wants kids to gravitate towards violence than sex?
* Perhaps it's because violence is seen as less natural. There may be some subconscious acceptance that people will be less likely to engage in violence than sex, so it's better to show violence because while both have consequences, you're more likely to encounter consequences of sex than of violence. But this is a theory waxing philosophically, so it may be complete bullshit.
* But violence is an intrinsic part of human nature; new generations are spawned first and foremost by those who actually fight for their survival and their chances to pass on their genes as the occasion demands. Even as humans cooperate with each other because we can accomplish more together, we still compete both within our chosen group and against everybody and everything that isn't part of it; the fact that many modern first-world humans sit pretty in the lap of luxury compared to their stone age ancestors and fight with different weapons today hasn't changed that. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the whole "sex is evil" trope turned out to be rooted in the pragmatic (if thoroughly unromantic) notion of "there are only so many women to go around and we can't afford to tear apart the tribe over the question of who gets to breed with whom".
* Except it has been proven time and again that a healthy sex life dampens aggressiveness in humans beings. Do the maths.
* Really? A healthy sex life dampens aggression? I don't think so. I know plenty of people that sleep around regularly, that aren't remotely phased with thoughts of sex being immoral in any way, who will still act violent and aggressive when they feel like it. This notion that plenty of sex leads to a cause and effect of dampening aggression, implies that you aren't aware of the concept of cereal sexual assault. Also, you're showing great naivety about human nature and sociology. What you'll actually find is that with an increased sex life, there's a correlation (not causation) between those having regular sex with those that can hide their aggression from public eye, it doesn't mean the violence is gone. I really think you need to have some awareness on domestic violence and marital rape.
* Could you stop with the Ad Hominems please? Sleeping around regularly and not thinking of sex as immoral doesn't mean your sex life is healthy and satisfying (quantity vs quality, anyone?). Cereal sexual assault? Don't you mean SERIAL sexual assault? Because that would be the first time I'd hear sexual assault among cereals... Serial sexual assault is the fact of a minority. Rapists are a minority among men since most men aren't rapists, you've got to keep this logic. Marital rape is also the fact of a minority. Does it need to be adressed to? Yes. Does it invalid the whole theory? No because it's a minority, the exception that confirms the rule. QED.
* Religious reasons.
* Mind being more specific?
* This isn't the OP, but what I gather is that they mean how the Bible portrays sex and sexuality in a negative light, while it glorifies violence at times.
* Well, yes and no. It certainly does speak volumes about Lust and the consequences and it does glorify violence when done in the name of the Lord but the latter is mostly in the Old Testament (The New Testament is a little more about "Turning the other check" and such) while the Song of Songs (in the Old Testament no less) is pretty much Sex is really cool between a married man and a woman. Basically, I'm just saying that it's true the Moral Guardians tend to focus on the negative aspects of sex while ignoring the postive portrayls of violence while simultaneously forgetting any parts that speaks positively about sex and negatively about violence.
* When you said sex is an intrinsic part of human nature, did you mean all humans? Because I know some people who would love to meet you and discuss that.
* It's an intrinsic part to all animals. Heck, it's the reason we exist, if there is one. Asexuals are the exceptions to the rule. They're not any better or worse than anyone else, but they're not "normal".
* Geez, "normal" is a dangerous word to use in this context. If it's abnormal because it deviates from an evolutionary standpoint where humans live to procreate, that has some touchy implications for the LGBT community. Yet, people don't really get to choose their sexualities, otherwise people would have very little reason to deviate from social norms, and literally risk their lives doing so. If people don't get to choose, wouldn't that be a result of nature, much like it's a part of nature for animals to procreate?
* Hey, "abnormal" doesn't have to mean "less than normal". It just means different.
* Safer to say that very few living people have asexual ancestors... however far-fetched that may seem.
* Leaving aside the discussions of 'normality', it's perhaps fairer and safer to say that asexuality is an exception -- and a clear minority exception at that -- rather than the rule. While asexuality is clearly a thing and no better or worse than any other thing, it's hard not to argue that for probably 99.9% of humanity, one way or another sexual desires and urges is an intrinsic part of human nature. No amount of arguing is going to change that.
* The thing that REALLY piss me off is the excessive importance of sex in some stories, can´t writers just treat it like a normal thing? Bob and Alice are in love, they have sex, just like any normal couple, don´t make a great deal of it. Come on, sex is not good or evil by nature, it´s just a human activity like eat, sleep or walk, there are people who enjoy it and the ones who make a big and pointless issue about it (normally, people who don´t get much in my opinion).
* In certain cases, it can be a big deal. If Alice gets pregnant, or gets AIDS, she suddenly has some serious issues to deal with. But I agree that making a big deal out of sex itself is somewhat silly.
* Trivializing sex isn't exactly a good thing either. Besides, not every unmarried couple has sex. As hard as you may find it to believe, there are abstinent people out there.
* You have a point, trivializing sex is not okay (looking at the dangerous things about it like AIDS or pregnancy) , however, putting it as the most important thing in life, so you are "a misfit" if you don´t do it and the mindset of A Man Is Not a Virgin are equally wrong (and more stupid)
* Yes it is. Trivializing sex only, though. Eat, drink, sleep, fuck, kill, all the same. That's how it should be, anyway. The problem is, the danger level of getting laid has never come close to that of trying to espousing a violent lifestyle. So, the screwed-up minds of the Moral Guardians conclude that it's safer to show extreme violence, because who's going to be dumb enough to try that? But they abhor sexual content because because being promiscuous is much safer, and more accessible.
* You don't have to be told that being stabbed in the gut is going to do a lot of damage, but there are plenty of people out there who look at sex and go 'oh, that looks fun, and I know that I won't get hurt'.
* I think people are jumping the gun a little bit when they keep mentioning AIDS excessively. I mean yes, obviously sexual heatlh awareness is paramount in our liberal free-thinking environment, but AIDS is pretty rare if you're not in the third world. It's bacterial infections like Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea that are far, far, more common. While not life threatening, they can cause infertility, unusual discharge, agonizing urination, and groan/intercourse pain at a later stage if left untreated. The issue being that most of the time, it's symptomless, so you don't even know you have it. Hell, not even medical professionals can be certain you have it during the early stages (frustrating when you get told to check for it as soon as possible, and then leave thinking you're scott free, only to discover later you have it). If AIDS is the loud and impish douchebag of sexually transmitted diseases, Chlamydia and Gonorrhoea are like the silent crafty ninjas hiding a meme trollface behind their cloak.
* Maybe I'm stepping into the boundaries of a Nilihist, Social Constructivist or Existentialist stance, in regards to objectivity not existing, and all products of social context in society coming from the subjectivity of individuals, but how can anyone say what is or isn't part of human nature? That would imply a metanarrative, and a metanarrative presents a doctrine of knowledge that basically tells you how to think, and what if you don't want to be told what is or isn't objectivity? No one knows what human nature is, and we're kidding ourselves if we think we do.
* Just because you deny something doesn't mean it's not there. Pure objectivity or universality might not exist, true, but that doesn't necessarily mean we live in a purely subjective world either; it's possible to look at a large enough sample group and extrapolate probable fundamentals from that sample group, otherwise things like science and maths wouldn't exist at all. No matter who we are, there's certain traits and ways of observing and interacting with the world that we share with enough other humans to make it likely that it's part of some commonality we all share. 'Human nature' is just a short-hand for those various elements that, as members of this particular species, we more or less all have in common to varying degrees; we might not be entirely alike, but neither are we completely and wholly unalike or unknowable; you might not be exactly the same as every other human being on the planet, but if you were to pick another person on the planet entirely at random and compare notes with them there would still most likely be things and traits you would share with them whoever they are. And while every observation is going to be influenced to some degree by the subjectivity of the observer, if enough observers agree on something there's a good chance that it's something that is being accurately observed.
|
![[RDF Data]](/fct/images/sw-rdf-blue.png)