Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 87 (8891 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 02-19-2019 5:55 PM
160 online now:
AZPaul3, RAZD, Tangle, Theodoric (4 members, 156 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 847,698 Year: 2,735/19,786 Month: 817/1,918 Week: 104/301 Day: 22/54 Hour: 0/3


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev12
3
456Next
Author Topic:   Any comment on this? (The evil of television?)
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 31 of 82 (43530)
06-21-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by truthlover
06-06-2003 3:34 PM


quote:
That is not the same, however, as exposing them to nude photos or letting them watch humans mate.

But what about nude art that is beautiful and meaningful, like the famous engravings depicting Adam and Eve in the garden of eden?

And "nude" doesn't always mean "sexual", you know.

...unless you teach the kids it does.

quote:
In fact, I have some problems with the 2nd grade sex education books that I saw while I was in Germany.

I'm curious; what was so objectionable? I mean, at age 7 or 8 kids are well-aware that they have genitals and that boys and girls are different, even without the books.

quote:
That may be no more than my upbringing, but my upbringing says you don't expose kids to sex prematurely, but a certain amount of violence is okay.

Eeew, I think that's backwards.

How can early exposure to violence be a good thing? All we know about early exposure to violence indicates that it makes people desensitized to it and tends to cause people to more easily dehumanize others and decrease their ability to empathize.

Violence is scary. Really scary.

I am not saying that little children should be exposed to hardcore porn or anything, but seeing nude bodies is not the same thing as seeing overtly sexualized images. I think that second grade is a good time to start talking to kids about sex.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by truthlover, posted 06-06-2003 3:34 PM truthlover has not yet responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 32 of 82 (43565)
06-21-2003 11:58 PM
Reply to: Message 28 by nator
06-16-2003 11:15 PM


Schrafinator,

My children don't have their own Bibles, although a couple of them have at one time or another. I think we have two in the house. That serves us pretty well, especially since I'm almost as likely to read mine on the computer as off the bookshelf.

As for the rock and nudity, I don't think I live as frightened of that as you picture. I have been to a couple rock concerts as an adult, and there are situations I could picture allowing my children to go to one. On the other hand, the saying is "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" and while the circle of drug users and the circle of hard rock concert attenders are not the same circle, they do intersect way too much for my comfort.

Besides, it's not really an issue. We live in a village. None of my children's friends go to rock concerts or listen to rock music. My children barely know what rock music is, and it probably rarely comes up in a discussion.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you get anywhere with a discussion on nudity or hard rock. There's not like some authority to appeal to. I think it's bad for kids, and I don't think people live as "free and natural" as they think they do. Maybe that's our culture and not our nature, as I would say it is, but either way I do not think people in general are as unaffected by nudity as they wish they were.

And no, I am not talking about the Michelangelo's David or pictures of Adam in religious art, although, no, I wouldn't have paintings of Adam enjoying the garden in my house.

Those are value systems, and I think ours are working great. I have happy, well-adjusted kids, and I don't see the need for rock and roll or nudity in their lives, and because I've rubbed off on them, they feel that way, too, probably stronger than me. We've found that as our kids grow, we have to teach them how to keep their nose out of the air and enjoy things quite as often as we have to urge them to avoid things.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 28 by nator, posted 06-16-2003 11:15 PM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 06-22-2003 12:27 AM truthlover has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 33 of 82 (43570)
06-22-2003 12:27 AM
Reply to: Message 32 by truthlover
06-21-2003 11:58 PM


quote:
As for the rock and nudity, I don't think I live as frightened of that as you picture.

Well, I'm still trying to figure that out, actually. I give a lot of leeway for people to explain themselves and for me to understand their meaning properly in these written forums.

quote:
I have been to a couple rock concerts as an adult, and there are situations I could picture allowing my children to go to one. On the other hand, the saying is "sex, drugs, and rock and roll" and while the circle of drug users and the circle of hard rock concert attenders are not the same circle, they do intersect way too much for my comfort.

Like I said, it isn't the rock music that makes kids take drugs. Not even close. The values they are taught and the information they are given will let kids make healthy choices, and their positive sense of self, too.

quote:
Besides, it's not really an issue. We live in a village. None of my children's friends go to rock concerts or listen to rock music. My children barely know what rock music is, and it probably rarely comes up in a discussion.

Anyway, I'm not sure how you get anywhere with a discussion on nudity or hard rock. There's not like some authority to appeal to. I think it's bad for kids, and I don't think people live as "free and natural" as they think they do. Maybe that's our culture and not our nature, as I would say it is, but either way I do not think people in general are as unaffected by nudity as they wish they were.


Do you think that breasts are a sexual signal? If you do, that means you agree with the vast majority of Americans, and probably most of the West.

However, there are several large cultural groups, such as several in Africa, where breasts are not considered sexual at all. They are strictly considered "mommy parts".

Additionally, many native cultures (where it's warm, of course) live most of their lives nude or nearly nude. Nudity is not sexualized for them at all.

So, I think it can safely be said that one's attitude towards nudity, and if one considers nudity to be always sexual or generally damaging to children, is completely cultural and learned, not "natural" or intrinsic.

On the other hand, what's wrong with having sexual feelings? I mean, do you think that sexual feelings are bad or something, and need to be denied or avoided? I mean, come on, we're human. We have evolved as one of the rare species in which the female not only derives gratification from intercourse, but is also capable and interested in intercourse at all times during her cycle, not just during estrus.

This is a powerful evolutionary indication that sexual activity is important for social reasons, not just reproductive.

Now, I am certainly NOT saying that young kids or even many teenagers aught to actually have sex. But I am wondering how healthy it is to remove nearly ALL references to sex or anything associated with it to a child's environment. It's a part of life, after all.

It seems to be your fear that exposing kids to rock and roll would make them immediately run out and start doing drugs, or that exposing them to even the most beautiful and artistic paintings or sculpture which also happen to depict the human body will make them start sleeping around.

To me, it is overkill. It would be like removing all references to death from the life of a child for fear they might commit suicide.

quote:
And no, I am not talking about the Michelangelo's David or pictures of Adam in religious art, although, no, I wouldn't have paintings of Adam enjoying the garden in my house.

Those are value systems, and I think ours are working great. I have happy, well-adjusted kids, and I don't see the need for rock and roll or nudity in their lives, and because I've rubbed off on them, they feel that way, too, probably stronger than me. We've found that as our kids grow, we have to teach them how to keep their nose out of the air and enjoy things quite as often as we have to urge them to avoid things.


Hmmm. Well, you didn't say anything about the violence you say that it's OK for them to be exposed to. (not trying to be snotty, really, just pointing out that this was kind of a major part of our last exchange...)

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-21-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 32 by truthlover, posted 06-21-2003 11:58 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 34 by truthlover, posted 06-22-2003 3:43 PM nator has responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 34 of 82 (43651)
06-22-2003 3:43 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by nator
06-22-2003 12:27 AM


I don't really have time right now to give you a good response, and I probably won't for a couple days. I did want to get to a couple things, though.

quote:
This is a powerful evolutionary indication that sexual activity is important for social reasons, not just reproductive.

I have read some things about this. I have trouble seeing how it applies to our culture very well. I've read about sexual activity among tribes, where there are definite lines drawn where it is acceptable and unacceptable. It isn't the same as Judeo/Christian morals, but there are lines, and they apply because of what is good and useful to the society.

Our society is made up mostly of strangers and acquaintances, with very few people living in close, daily contact. I'm curious how you see any of that applying to us.

The other thing I wanted to mention is that I never saw your paragraph on violence in your previous post. I could have sworn I read your whole post. I have no idea how I didn't see that part. I was totally stunned you mentioned violence in this last one, thinking I'd only talked to someone else about it.

Anyway, I'll get back to you on all that.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by nator, posted 06-22-2003 12:27 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 06-24-2003 12:31 AM truthlover has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 35 of 82 (43865)
06-24-2003 12:31 AM
Reply to: Message 34 by truthlover
06-22-2003 3:43 PM


quote:
A: This is a powerful evolutionary indication that sexual activity is important for social reasons, not just reproductive.

quote:
I have read some things about this. I have trouble seeing how it applies to our culture very well. I've read about sexual activity among tribes, where there are definite lines drawn where it is acceptable and unacceptable. It isn't the same as Judeo/Christian morals, but there are lines, and they apply because of what is good and useful to the society.

That human females are one of the rare "higher" mammals on Earth that are able (and generally willing ) to engage in sexual activity while not in estrus has little to do with current culture. It is simply a fact of our evolution.

The reason such a thing is so rare is that it is both very dangerous (predator/rival-wise) and very expensive (from a calorie standpoint) to have sex all the time and not just for the few days out of the month that a female is fertile. From a reproductive viewpoint also, this is extremely wasteful, yet our species does it anyway. A lot.

The best explanation is that it evolved to be very important in social and pair bonding, and this is strengthened by the similar behavior of our closest relatives, the Bonobo chimpanzees.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-23-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 34 by truthlover, posted 06-22-2003 3:43 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 36 by truthlover, posted 06-24-2003 4:40 PM nator has responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 36 of 82 (43970)
06-24-2003 4:40 PM
Reply to: Message 35 by nator
06-24-2003 12:31 AM


First, a quick comment on the Dvorak keyboard. What they tell you is that the Dvorak keyboard can reduce hand movement something like 75% when you are typing, thus helping to prevent Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. What they don't tell you is that the W is right next to the V, so when you hit ctrl-v in order to paste in a quote, you face a great risk of hitting ctrl-w, thus CLOSING YOUR WINDOW AND LOSING YOUR ENTIRE POST!!!

Sigh...

That's a lousy way to find out you can close a window with ctrl-w.

Ok, now that the griping is over:

violence

Sorry for the phrase "a certain amount of violence." I'm sure that can conjure up thoughts of 40-hour-per-week television episodes. We don't have TV where I am. (Literally, until recently we couldn't get cable, satellite, and only one station with any normal antenna. We still can't get cable.)

What I meant was several movies (literally, several) like the Lord of the Rings, 13th Warrior, and just a couple others, plus war stories they have heard, whether tales from the Bible, from modern events, or a few books they've read.

Maybe that bothers you, too, I don't know.

nudity

I'm not sure what to say. I don't see the point in nude paintings or sculptures. I'm sure Michelangelo's David is awesome, although I don't think I've seen the real thing, but I'm also sure that there are other awesome sculptures of men or women with clothes on.

In my culture, we wear clothes. Admittedly, in my culture we also consider breasts as possibly a sexual signal, as you pointed out. "Consider," though, or "think," which is what you used, are the wrong words. In the US, breasts affect men. Women know they affect men. That's not because anyone considers or thinks it ought to be so. It just is so. I won't argue that's cultural. I'm sure nudity has a much different or maybe no effect on Amazon tribes that live naked. We don't, and nudity affects us Americans.

Sex in the City

Did I get the name of that TV show right here? I've been seeing it advertised on hotmail.

You mentioned human women being able to engage in sexual activity outside of estrus (new word for me). That is evidence that it has social significance, and I probably asked for that specifically. However, when we were evolving, we were "pack" animals, living in packs or villages. The social significance there is not the same as the social significance in the city; not nearly the same.

I am under the impression that our restrictions on sexual activity have evolved as our society evolved. I don't think appealing to our evolutionary past offers any application for our evolutionary present. Yes, there is social significance, but there would be social significance even if sex was limited to marriage and all marriages were unbreakable. (I'm not for passing such laws, by the way. We're discussing personal choices, and the reasons for them, not politics.)

It is hard for humans to put limits on their behavior, unless society pushes those limits on them. Like the lab mouse that will die of malnourishment while continually choosing sugar over needed food, humans are severely limited in their self-control. I don't think the experiment of releasing the societal limitations on sexual activity is going so well that I care to concede it's a good idea.

Rock and roll

I am very against the whole rock concert scene and lifestyle. No, rock doesn't create drug use, nor does drug use create Rock 'n Roll. The circles overlap greatly, though, because the drug culture and the rock culture bear a lot of similarities, enough to let them work together. I like neither culture at all; I think both are destructive.

I don't know what to say here. There is a life I live, and that my children live, complete with a culture, and a "feel" to that culture. A rock concert is the diametric opposite of our culture.

Shoot, I took our young teenagers, about a dozen of them, to a skating rink on a Friday night (last year) that was packed full of kids from the local high school. Most of the kids skated, but none of them found the atmosphere even tolerable, and a couple hated the place so much they saw no reason to skate. They just wanted to leave.

There's peace and light, and there's darkness, confusion and noise. Our life is one, and a rock concert, which is an amplified version of that loud, dark skating rink, is the other.

If I've missed anything, Schraf, I'm sorry. I'm only 41, but my mind has been a lot of places and had a lot of experiences, and I guess my mental hard drive is overloaded.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by nator, posted 06-24-2003 12:31 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 06-25-2003 10:15 AM truthlover has responded

  
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 37 of 82 (44129)
06-25-2003 10:15 AM
Reply to: Message 36 by truthlover
06-24-2003 4:40 PM


Don't you just want to lose your mind when you lose a post like that?

At least you figured out why it happened. Most of the time I can't figure ot how I screwed up, of if it wasn't me. I'm glad it almost never happens to me for some reason.

No, the exposure to violence you mention doesn't bother me, as you might have expected.

quote:
I'm not sure what to say. I don't see the point in nude paintings or sculptures.

They can and do reveal and comment upon our vulnerability, beauty, power, grace, mysticism, sexuality, capacity for love, place in nature, culture, etc. etc. Just like all other art.

quote:
I'm sure Michelangelo's David is awesome, although I don't think I've seen the real thing, but I'm also sure that there are other awesome sculptures of men or women with clothes on.

Yes, of course, but clothed figures convey other things that nude figures are not able to, and vice versa.

quote:
In my culture, we wear clothes.

Mine too.

quote:
Admittedly, in my culture we also consider breasts as possibly a sexual signal, as you pointed out. "Consider," though, or "think," which is what you used, are the wrong words. In the US, breasts affect men. Women know they affect men. That's not because anyone considers or thinks it ought to be so. It just is so.

No, it is not "just so." That's what my point about certain African cultures NOT seeing breasts as sexual signals at all was about.

The fact that breasts are a sexual signal in the West is deeply ingrained in almost everyone by the time they reach adulthood is not the same as it being intrinsically so that breasts are a sexual signal. It is completely arbitrary whether breasts are considered a sexual signal. It all depends upon the culture you are in.

quote:
I won't argue that's cultural.

But when you say "It's just so that breasts are a sexual signal" then you are contradicting the cultural argument.

It's like saying "It's just so that very tiny feet are a very attractive sign of femininity in a woman.", or "It is just so that no man wants to marry a woman who hasn't had her clitoris removed and her vagina sewed almost shut."

quote:
I'm sure nudity has a much different or maybe no effect on Amazon tribes that live naked. We don't, and nudity affects us Americans.

It affects us Americans differently depending (mainly) upon how we are raised, and this is my whole point.

It is arbitrary. If you teach your kids that nude paintings are dirty or pointless, that's what they will grow up thinking. If you teach your kids that nude art is beautiful and meaningful, then that's what they will believe. Most people have to battle the outside culture, but you don't, as there doesn't seem to be much influence from "outside culture" where you are. So, you can teach your kids that nude art is always inappropriate and pointless.

Of course, I am talking about age appropriateness and not forcing anything on them.

My sister and brother in law have a wonderful victorian home in which they have always had a lot of art, as both of them are artists. They have quite a few 18th century prints, some Deco lamps and various sculptures, quite a few of which depict nude or barely clad figures. None of them are in any way of an erotic tone; mostly they are of cherubs or wispy goddesses or Greek-type neoclassic figures.

Their daughter is 12 and has always lived with these things in her house. She doesn't really notice them. I have never heard her talk about them. They are normal things to her, and going to a museum with nude figures would likely elicit a similar non-response.

In addition, even if she did get an erotic thought, what's so terrible about that? We all have them, and we all start having them at a pretty young age. It's how we do or don't act on them, or how we feel about ourselves for having them, in which our upbringing and the values our parents taught us comes into play.

See, my upbringing taught me to not act on my sexual feelings, but it also taught me to feel ashamed and frightened of even having sexual thoughts at all.

quote:
The circles overlap greatly, though, because the drug culture and the rock culture bear a lot of similarities, enough to let them work together. I like neither culture at all; I think both are destructive.

Well, by this reasoning, the work culture and the drug culture bear a lot of similarities, plenty to let them work together. Can I tell you how many cokeheads wear Italian suits? Do you how much abuse of alcohol goes on in country music bars? In people's living rooms? At sporting events? In the rural Midwest? Prescription drug abuse is there, too. I could go on...

The point is, drugs and the abuse of them are nearly everywhere in our culture, and singling out rock music as somehow "most compatible" with the drug culture is just not true.

quote:
Shoot, I took our young teenagers, about a dozen of them, to a skating rink on a Friday night (last year) that was packed full of kids from the local high school. Most of the kids skated, but none of them found the atmosphere even tolerable, and a couple hated the place so much they saw no reason to skate. They just wanted to leave.

Well, that sounds kind of anti-social to me. Could it be that your kids felt uncomfortable and scared because they were never exposed to large groups of people before? If so, then that's simly a problem of lack of socialization, not that large groups of people or skating rinks are inherently bad. They just didn't have the skills to deal with it because they weren't taught them.

Could it also be that they saw that you didn't like it, or possibly that they weren't supposed to like it, so they didn't like it in order to gain approval from the adults?

(I have a sister that did this her whole time in our parent's house, so don't tell me that it wouldn't occur.)

Were they also feeling uncomfortable because there was this big group of other kids and they felt like they were being stared at or they felt like outsiders?

quote:
There's peace and light, and there's darkness, confusion and noise.

There's also high-energy, excitement, and fun! Just because it's peaceful doesn't mean it's good, and just because it's raucous doesn't mean it's bad.

quote:
Our life is one, and a rock concert, which is an amplified version of that loud, dark skating rink, is the other.

Well, I'm sorry that you think that high-energy, exciting things are inherently bad. They are not.

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-25-2003]

[This message has been edited by schrafinator, 06-25-2003]


This message is a reply to:
 Message 36 by truthlover, posted 06-24-2003 4:40 PM truthlover has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 38 by truthlover, posted 06-25-2003 11:59 AM nator has not yet responded
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2003 6:58 AM nator has responded
 Message 82 by Peter, posted 07-23-2003 8:47 AM nator has not yet responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 38 of 82 (44151)
06-25-2003 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
06-25-2003 10:15 AM


I'm going to take a little time and answer while I'm here at work, because I never dreamed such a complex, value-based discussion could get to the point it would seem simple to me. I expected this discussion to wind out of hand, grow in the number of subjects covered, and lead nowhere.

quote:
But when you say "It's just so that breasts are a sexual signal" then you are contradicting the cultural argument.

No, we're just not meaning the same thing by "It's just so." By "It's just so," I meant "The fact that breasts are a sexual signal in the West is deeply ingrained in almost everyone by the time they reach adulthood" (which you said), and by "I admit it's cultural" I meant, "[that's] not the same as it being intrinsically so" (also what you said.

Where we were disagreeing was:

quote:
Most people have to battle the outside culture, but you don't, as there doesn't seem to be much influence from "outside culture" where you are. So, you can teach your kids that nude art is always inappropriate and pointless.

I was saying that the culture influences me, too, and there's not a whole lot I can do about that in this case. I concede, though, that on this point, you're obviously right. My kids' cultural influence will have mostly to do with how we (I, my wife, our village) influence them.

I simply cannot imagine having a nude piece of art in my house, nor do I care to imagine the discussion that would elicit with my friends, lol! If you're right, and there's some point to be gotten from nude paintings or sculptures, it will take a much longer time than this discussion for any of us to get comfortable with that.

On the other hand, our ladies all wore head coverings and long skirts or dresses just four years ago. Our culture is pretty young, so it goes through pretty rapid transformation as we learn how to love, not just be religious.

quote:
In addition, even if she did get an erotic thought, what's so terrible about that? We all have them, and we all start having them at a pretty young age. It's how we do or don't act on them, or how we feel about ourselves for having them, in which our upbringing and the values our parents taught us comes into play.

You've mentioned something along these lines a couple times. I haven't remembered to quote or comment on it. I agree with this.

quote:
The point is, drugs and the abuse of them are nearly everywhere in our culture, and singling out rock music as somehow "most compatible" with the drug culture is just not true.

I pretty much stayed stoned from the time I turned 18 until a few months before my 21st birthday. I don't agree with this statement of yours. The saying is "sex, drugs, and rock-n-roll," not something else, and my experience says there are good reasons for that.

quote:
Can I tell you how many cokeheads wear Italian suits? Do you how much abuse of alcohol goes on in country music bars? In people's living rooms? At sporting events? In the rural Midwest? Prescription drug abuse is there, too.

Sure, all those things happen. I went to a hippie gathering at Tennessee's "The Farm" a couple years ago. I was in no way surprised that when I got out of my bus a young lady was there to greet us and offer to sell us whatever we might need to get high. I have worked with drug users before, but I would be shocked to be greeted at the door of my workplace with an offer to buy drugs.

And I chuckled when I read the Country Music bar reference. Bars are for the specific purpose of using alcohol, so it's no surprise that abuse is common there. I wouldn't let my kids go to a Country Music bar, and neither would the local law enforcement agency.

If it were an issue, I would discourage my kids from listening to country music, too. Way too high a percentage of drinking, cheating, and leaving my wife songs. Although I have to admit I really like that song about Joe changing the tire for the lady who tips his pregnant wife a hundred dollars. (Country music is played all over the place in this area, even on speakers at the gas station and in WalMart. I do flip through the dial to see what's playing on various stations now and again when I'm driving as well.)

I think the rock concert scene is a bad one, but let's address your specific statements:

quote:
Could it be that your kids felt uncomfortable and scared because they were never exposed to large groups of people before?There's also high-energy, excitement, and fun! Just because it's peaceful doesn't mean it's good, and just because it's raucous doesn't mean it's bad.

No, not always.

quote:
Well, I'm sorry that you think that high-energy, exciting things are inherently bad. They are not.

I don't, but I do think that when high-energy and exciting means the dark hall and incredible noise level of a rock concert that it is inherently bad.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 06-25-2003 10:15 AM nator has not yet responded

  
contracycle
Inactive Member


Message 39 of 82 (44273)
06-26-2003 5:15 AM


Truthlover,

Your posting above is something that, when it comes right down to it, is why religion has to be destroyed. I find it a terrible, terrible thing that you would be so abusive to your children as to impose these meaningless and pointless restrictions on their lived experience.

Your children are sexual. How are you benefitting them by hiding sexuality from them? You are failing in your parental duty to equip them for the real world - no, worse, you are deliberately crippling them for your own ideological comfort. This, in my opinion, is a form of child abuse - you children are defenceless victims and trust you implicitly, so you can tell them any old lie and get away with it.

Just as perhaps you have done with rock and roll. It is hard to understand how someone can hold such a perverse opinion of music. We dance - we have always danced. We sang before we had words to sing, and made music on stones and logs when that was all we had to hand. And when we do this, most of us experience Joy and a sense of union and togetherness.

From my perspective, you are making your children into emotionally broken robots, loaded with a value system that is totally anti-thetical to human behaviour. You are crushing their capacity to relate to a whole range of entirely normal human behaviours; indeed, cruchsing out of them a huge chunk of the joy that is to be had in human existance. Why do you seek to so distort the sexuality and the emotional maturity of your offspring? Is it just so they will be an ever-present fan base who will sing your praises in your dotage, and go on to inflict the same cyclical tragedy and their own kids?

Of all the evils perpetrated by religion, this private, small-time abuse is amongst the worst. Nothing strengthens me in my opposition to your faith more than to see the damage you have wreaked upon the very people you should be protecting and caring for.


Replies to this message:
 Message 42 by truthlover, posted 06-26-2003 7:44 PM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 40 of 82 (44298)
06-26-2003 6:58 AM
Reply to: Message 37 by nator
06-25-2003 10:15 AM


schrafinator writes:

quote:
The fact that breasts are a sexual signal in the West is deeply ingrained in almost everyone by the time they reach adulthood is not the same as it being intrinsically so that breasts are a sexual signal. It is completely arbitrary whether breasts are considered a sexual signal. It all depends upon the culture you are in.

OK, I'm going to quibble.

Breasts on a woman are, indeed, a sexual signal. They indicate maturity. Similarly, beard growth on men, axillary hair in both sexes, etc. are all signs of sexual maturity and thus are inherent sexual signs.

Now, how much significance we place on those signs is where the culture comes in. We don't place nearly as much signficance on the appearance of hair as we do on breasts.

These culturally significant indicators of sexuality change over time, too. I took a class in Costume, Movement, and Manners where we were specifically looking at the sexual displays put in throughout the ages as signified by clothing. What you cover up and what you leave exposed, what you emphasize and what you hide tells you a lot about what you think is sexy.

Take a look at Victorian period. Women's breasts were front and center (covered, yes, but prominently supported and displayed), but they were not considered the most ribald. That was for the limbs. There was a reason the skirts were so long, the sleeves shaped so, the wearing of gloves, etc. They were all in order to control the sexual display.

So I'm saying your both right: Breasts are a sexual display, but culture defines just how much significance to attach to them.

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 37 by nator, posted 06-25-2003 10:15 AM nator has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 06-26-2003 6:15 PM Rrhain has responded

    
nator
Member (Idle past 216 days)
Posts: 12961
From: Ann Arbor
Joined: 12-09-2001


Message 41 of 82 (44376)
06-26-2003 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 40 by Rrhain
06-26-2003 6:58 AM


quote:
Breasts on a woman are, indeed, a sexual signal. They indicate maturity. Similarly, beard growth on men, axillary hair in both sexes, etc. are all signs of sexual maturity and thus are inherent sexual signs.

A sign of "sexual maturity" is not the same as a "sexual signal". According to this logic, beards would be universally erotic to women, and menstrual blood would be universally erotic to men.

A "sexual signal" is something that turns you on. A sign of "sexual maturity" is simply perceivable evidence that the person is sexually mature.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2003 6:58 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2003 11:59 PM nator has not yet responded

    
truthlover
Member (Idle past 2105 days)
Posts: 1548
From: Selmer, TN
Joined: 02-12-2003


Message 42 of 82 (44389)
06-26-2003 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 39 by contracycle
06-26-2003 5:15 AM


Contra,

As far as I can see, you may not like religion, and you may want to get rid of it, but, as far as I can see, your post is proof that the atheist can be just as religious as any theist.

quote:
I find it a terrible, terrible thing that you would be so abusive to your children as to impose these meaningless and pointless restrictions on their lived experience.

So, your opinion of what is meaningless and pointless is so accurate and so reliable that anyone who doesn't agree with it is being abused?

That's what you're saying. You're saying that if my children grow up with my religious convicitions and my choice of values, instead of yours, then thay are abused and shortchanged in their life.

That, my friend, is exactly the arrogance that makes people not like religion. It is exactly the arrogance that makes me not like religion. It doesn't allow anyone to explore or experiment, but demands that they aquiesce just because you're so insightful and knowledgeable about human nature, life, and the spiritual realm.

Sorry, I don't trust you that much.

Your children are sexual. How are you benefitting them by hiding sexuality from them?

By sticking around to raise them. I can go to jail for not hiding certain aspects of sexuality from them.

Three of my seven children are sexual, and one of those three is young enough that he won't admit it. The other four are not sexual, although I know they will be.

The three that are sexual are able and have talked to us about sexual things. Life is not hidden from them. They have seen dogs and horses mating, and they know that human children are produced by mating as well.

So basically, I don't know what you're talking about. Should I encourage my 13-year-old to go have sex now that he's got underarm hair and a rumble in his voice?

Just as perhaps you have done with rock and roll. It is hard to understand how someone can hold such a perverse opinion of music. We dance - we have always danced. We sang before we had words to sing, and made music on stones and logs when that was all we had to hand. And when we do this, most of us experience Joy and a sense of union and togetherness.

My children not only dance, but they have danced publicly and brought joy to a whole lot more people than themselves. My boys have danced with girls, and my girls have danced with boys. We have waltz nights here, performed by our young celtic group (called Rivendell) that are participated in by the elegantly graceful 60 and 70 year olds and the hopping, too fast 6 and 7 year olds.

I don't think Ozzy Osbourne plays music. I think he plays loud noises to crowds that are mostly not sober.

Since my children are used to music, and they are used to dancing, I am not surprised when such loud noise is aggravating to them, not entertaining. (Although I have to admit that I am surprised that some of the Celtic music they play and listen to appeals to them, it's so horribly repetitive that it's only nice for a short time.)

From my perspective, you are making your children into emotionally broken robots, loaded with a value system that is totally anti-thetical to human behaviour. You are crushing their capacity to relate to a whole range of entirely normal human behaviours; indeed, cruchsing out of them a huge chunk of the joy that is to be had in human existance

From the perspective of those who have met our children, our children are the most joyous and outgoing they have ever met.

Frightened, religious southerners made up a lot of stuff about us when we moved to Buford Pusser's county. Some of them believed it and told the Department of Child Services we were being too sexual with our children (the opposite of what you accused us of). Fortunately (IMO, by the hand of God), we had already met the sherrif, and DCS was told by him to ask questions first and take children later, not take children first and ask questions later, as was their plan.

Fourteen DCS agents from all over the state interviewed every last one of our children and some of the adults. Their final comment was, "Everyone ought to raise their children this way. We wish we could send some to you."

One young man who lives with us (and who just has his own son, only about seven months old now) had his very worried parents come to visit. They wondered if he had joined a cult. I had personally talked to his dad about our beliefs, and I'd even talked to the mom's pastor, in a meeting she arranged.

The dad and mom finally came to visit. They were here all day, and when I came home from work, he met me on the porch, saying, in his Jewish accent, "You told me about your theology, but you should have just told me about the children. They're wonderful. As soon as I met the children, I knew, everything's okay."

That's a typical reaction. I'll place our children next to any anywhere in the world, because they're the happiest, most well-adjusted children I've ever met, too. They're not without problems, they're not perfect, and a couple of them have typical personality problems. On the whole, though, it would be hard to find a happier batch of children.

At this point, you'd have to take my word for it. We have plenty of people who wonder about this "group that lives together." There are two major things that cause them to lose their ability to make up or pass on stories about us. They meet our children, or they eat at our cafe and meet the ladies who work there. No one who's done either finds it easy to slander us anymore.

Come and see! We're very proud of our kids. We don't think it's exceptional parents, either, but an exceptional way of life, and, of course, an exceptional God :-).


This message is a reply to:
 Message 39 by contracycle, posted 06-26-2003 5:15 AM contracycle has not yet responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 43 of 82 (44398)
06-26-2003 11:59 PM
Reply to: Message 41 by nator
06-26-2003 6:15 PM


schrafinator responds to me:

quote:
quote:
Breasts on a woman are, indeed, a sexual signal. They indicate maturity. Similarly, beard growth on men, axillary hair in both sexes, etc. are all signs of sexual maturity and thus are inherent sexual signs.

A sign of "sexual maturity" is not the same as a "sexual signal".


Yes it is...for precisely the reason you stated. It is evidence that the person is sexually mature and thus is available for sexual interaction.

Again, the significance of this sign depends upon culture.

quote:
According to this logic, beards would be universally erotic to women,

Not really. It would depend upon the men, too. Facial hair on men has always been manipulated by the culture in sexual ways and that is something that is connected to the entire culture.

However, appearance of the beard is another sign that the person is sexually mature and thus available for sexual interaction.

Thus, that is a sexual signal. After all, a person doesn't shave unless he needs to so even a clean-shaven appearance is connected to the appearance of the beard.

quote:
and menstrual blood would be universally erotic to men.

No, sexual signals are not necessarily erotic. Have you heard of the hanky code? It originated in gay male culture but has since extended out to the kink world. It consists of wearing a colored handkerchief, the color determining the type of sex desired and the location determining top/bottom (left for top, right for bottom).

Now, the person wearing the hanky is definitely sending out a sexual signal, but that does not mean that everyone is going to be attracted. But, all those in the culture understand the signal, even those who don't put much stock in the hanky code...and even people who don't know it would come to think that something was up were they to walk into a room filled with people flagging.

quote:
A "sexual signal" is something that turns you on.

No, that's an erotic reaction. A sexual signal is a sign of sex. The most basic of such signs is the physical ability to engage in the process which comes at sexual maturity.

quote:
A sign of "sexual maturity" is simply perceivable evidence that the person is sexually mature.

And thus is available for sex.

------------------
Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!


This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by nator, posted 06-26-2003 6:15 PM nator has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by crashfrog, posted 06-27-2003 12:11 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 45 by Autocatalysis, posted 06-27-2003 12:29 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 44 of 82 (44400)
06-27-2003 12:11 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rrhain
06-26-2003 11:59 PM


And thus is available for sex.

No offense, but the way you put this makes it sound like rapist's logic. No matter the size of her breasts, or what she's wearing, or whatever, she's not avaliable for sex unless she says she is.

I'm hoping you meant something else by "avaliable for sex." The way I see it, there's a difference between being physically sexually mature and avaliable for sexual intercourse. I mean, surely it's possible to have a sexually mature body and yet not be avaliable for sex?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2003 11:59 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by Rrhain, posted 06-27-2003 1:35 AM crashfrog has responded

  
Autocatalysis
Inactive Member


Message 45 of 82 (44402)
06-27-2003 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 43 by Rrhain
06-26-2003 11:59 PM


There are remanets of our sexual past that we have today that are not necessarily involved in sexual display. I am under the impression that pubic hair has the function of holding and distributing scent. Ie sexually important pheromones. My dog has indicated to me (not directly) that this smell is very important LOL. My point, development of traits which indicate sexual maturity are different from traits which say “in heat”. As eluded to by crashfrog in post 44.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 43 by Rrhain, posted 06-26-2003 11:59 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
Prev12
3
456Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019