Sexual repression in America
Offline Is sexual repression an American thing or is it a Christian American thing?
It seems like America is disgusted by sex, mainstream America links sex to immorality and social decay. America also has a huge problem with alternative lifestyles like homosexuality. I want to know if this is purely an American thing or if it is an American theist thing?
Also what is the general atheist consensus on sex?
Personally I think sex is perfectly natural and a normal part of human life. I also think homosexuality is natural, homosexuality can be traced back almost as far as we can trace back human history.
In America sexual repression runs rampant. The way I see it the repression of an urge so fundamental and so ingrained to/in our being is nothing short of dangerous. I actually think (and many studies I have seen agree) that sexual repression leads to a host of social problems. It can lead to lack of self-confidence, low self-esteem, aggression, violence, sexual abuse and suicide. Other studies show that sexual relief is effective in countering anxiety, depression, and stress.
I bring this up because I saw on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart a few days ago a video of presidential candidate Mitt Romney. In his speech he went on to say that sex was immoral and the Europe is in crisis because they have given up their God and are having sex. Since when is Europe in crisis? I go to Europe often and it seems to me that it is doing much better than America. I am going to avoid getting into all the statistics suffice to say the Europe as a whole has lower teen pregnancy, STD, Aids, suicide and crime rates. What crisis is Europe facing? Maybe he meant a spiritual one.
Even American television is sexually repressed, people being shot, beheaded, and tortured is the norm and while extreme violence does get high ratings for the most part its acceptable. However if you have a sex scene with a little thrusting then the sky is falling. Movies like Sin City get R’s, movies with a few sex scenes get NC-17, in Europe it is they do the opposite and rightly so. Doesn’t it make more sense to shield young children from watching people being beheaded than to shield them from seeing the perfectly natural act of sex?
What the hell is wrong with America?
Also for all you theist, can you justify your religions views towards sex? Can you explain why sexual openess is Europe actully leads to an overall healthier society?
P.S. I am from Australia
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
- Login to post comments
For these studies, the unit of happiness is the RTGIQ -- The RhadTheGizmoIgnoreQuotient, which is a direct measure of their ability to ignore people who are asking stupid questions based on their ignorance of methodology in sociological studies, and the erection of philosophical and semantic objections which do not apply to the issue at hand.
I'm approximately 57% unhappy on the RTGIQ scale because I feel compelled to respond to you, even though I know it's not going to end well, and nothing will get accomplished.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Hamby.. sorry I made you unhappy on the RTGIQ scale, was not my intention. I'm just really cynical when it comes to these sorts of studies. I've followed politics for to long.. and the skepticism with regards to those types of statistics, which can be skewed based upon one's bias, the way the question is asked, the temporary/passing feeling of an individual, that it sort of has spilled over into other statistical studies.
What was it that Mark Twain said? There are three types of lies.. lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Something like that.
You appear to be well studied in many areas.. and I don' t mean to diminish that quality. I realize, of course, that these sorts of scientific studies have merit. Yet, I'm not sure that merit is directly related to their statistical accuracy as opposed to the scientists/sociologists ability to make generally applicable observations and others abilities to narrowly apply the observations.
For instance, if a study shows that 80% of people think they are unhappy yet stay together for the kids. That's great. The sociologist well present the study, people will then try to create solutions to this problem. Whether or not true number is 80% doesn't really matter. I have no doubt that some of those people are self-aware enough to know how "happy" they are and why they are staying together. For those people, hopefully the "solutions" well prove helpful.
So.. there is my serious answer. Why you gotta be mean to me Hamby? Saying I'm ignorant and stuff.. I'm hurt, about 62% on the RTGIQ scale.. although, it is an improper scale for this sort of unhappiness.
I respect sociology, psychology, athropology, etc.. I'm just skeptical of them is all.
Rhad, as usual, I mean this in the nicest possible way, but I honestly don't have time right now to give you an in depth explanation of the way sociological studies quantify their results, the controls that they use, or the methods they use for error correction. I definitely don't have time to explain how they design their tests to take cultural bias, relative terminology, and 'social definitions' into account.
If you're interested, there are some great books available. Your best bet would be to go to the nearest university and find a textbook on research methods.
Also, Rhad, you need to recognize the difference between statistics and data collection. You're absolutely right to say that statistics can lie. The way they do that is by misrepresenting the interpretation of data that has been collected. Scientists go to extraordinary lengths to eliminate confounding variables from their interpretation of data. That's the whole point of research methodology -- to eliminate the effect of statistical misrepresentation as much as possible.
Rhad, in America, more than fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. This is not up for interpretation. It's a piece of accurate data. Now, if I say, "Studies show that we are less faithful now than we used to be, because the divorce rate has increased since the 50s," I would be lying to you by using statistics, since I haven't demonstrated a clear causal link between divorce rates and fidelity.
I don't ask you to believe what I say because I quote facts. If you want to research those studies, have at it. I gave you my sources, and all of them have detailed bibliographies.
The thing is, Rhad, you don't get to be right just because you recognize the potential for slanted studies. If you want to be the one to discredit all of those eminent scientists I quoted, have at it. Enjoy your quarter century of data collecting. If you'd rather trust that scholars the world over have analyzed and verified the data, and conditionally accept the findings as true, that would be awesome.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Alright.. some things I have to address. Just to point out, I don't make "semantical" or "philosophical" arguments just for the sake of argument Hamby--at least not all the time. I do, many a time, just because I feel that so many "arguments" could just be avoided if people just understood each other--one step to reach that understanding is "semantical" and "philosophical" clarification.
I am not saying that I am clear.. in fact, my language and writing skills probably are very un clear.. that's just a fault of mine--but I'm definitely trying. Now.. with that aim.
Nor do you have to.. I know this is what they claim they do. Isn't the whole purpose of being skeptical to be skeptical? I don't discount the studies.. in fact, I probably take advantage of them many a time. Does that mean I still can't be skeptical about their validity? Of course not.. that is all I was saying.. I'm skeptical on the issue. I don't see why this should be a point of contention to think that their methodology is not beyond reproach, error, or even discount the possibility that it might be fatally flawed.
My knowledge is by no means exhausted... but it might be awhile before I choose to pick up another sociology or anthropology textbook again.
Understood.
I know.. this is why I stated before and again before that, that divorce is a unique instance, a piece of information that I don't doubt in the least as to its relative accuracy because "divorce" is governmentally defined and objectively observable.
Understood.
I know you did.. and I thank you for them, since many times people don't take the time to give a bibliography. I still don't understand what your contention is with my statement that while that I believe it is a fact that studies report these numbers that I merely hold a bit of skepticism with regards to whether it is a fact that numbers are accurate with regards to what they claim they are a record of (e.g. happiness, unfaithfulness, etc.) or with their application (e.g. anaylsis, as you have said).
It doesn't mean that I throw them out out-of-hand, nor that I do not believe they have some relevance.
I never claimed I was right I was merely sharing my feelings on the subject. My personal feelings and thoughts on the matter. No one else has to take them or think they are right. I would never use "hey you wanna know what, sociology is just stupid because X and Y, therefore believe me, that has nothing else, or believe me with regard to what I said about sociology."
I mean look at my previous posts.. I used data collection, "statistics," but made sure to follow them up by saying suggesting people take them with a grain of salt.
For the sake of argument? I will accept their findings as true. Intellectually fulfilling, etc. I never claimed I would do otherwise with you. I really was just mixing my residual skepticism with something I thought was humorous. You turned it around and hurt my feelings.. deeply. The RTGIQ.. psh.
Hurt. Heh. But seriously, if this was an actual debate we were having.. or just a conversation.. I would have accepted them as true.
I would think that many people who are not happily married tick that happily married box anyway. I think it all comes back to a person’s reluctance to admit he/she is wrong.
Also it would be interesting to see how happiness progresses throughout the years. I am sure if you surveyed people who have been married 1 year and then resurveyed them after they have been married 5 years the results would be drastically different.
I cannot stay intersted in the same girl for more than a month let alone being locked in a marriage with the same girl for 5 years.
If Jesus was born today he would be institutionalized as a schizophrenic with delusions of grandeur.
(First comment on the new forum, by the way)
I don't know off the top of my head, and I'm not near my library, but I do know that the seven year itch (actually, between 3 and 4 year in reality) is real.
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism
Puritans ruined America.
I don't believe that homosexuality is a particularly big issue, or even a small one. I know for a fact that it's been around for God knows how many years (since in theory he created man that way? pfft).
When I was in Greece in 2005, I picked up a deck of playing cards that was called "Sex of Ancient Greece" or something to that effect. You recall the old saying "Be cautious of a Greek bearing gifts"? He wasn't necessarily aiming his peter piper at your daughter ... or wife. There are pictures on the cards of men in sex acts, pictures taken directly from pottery dating back several thousand years.
Doesn't seem that this was a problem then. Bring in the church and boom. Problem. As humans, we are promiscuous creatures. That's simply a fact. When you remove that promiscuity from the pecking order, what happens?
Sexual repression causes more heinous sexual acts. The act of Incest increases, and dramatically so. Irony? The last I read up on it, those particular acts occurred more in religious families than otherwise. I apologize for not sourcing that, but I've got a 102degree fever and really don't feel like doing the grunt work.
But, seeing as Puritans also made America, we're kind of in a pickle, aren't we? I don't mind homosexuality, but there's a piece of me that still has a problem with the homosexuals adopting children. It's not because of the homosexuality itself, it's because of the increased element in the homosexual community to abuse young boys. More likely because of groups like NAMBLA.
Before you argue my point down, I understand that it's a biased observation and opinion, and maybe some day I'll get over it. But for the time being, that is my opinion.
- Mr. Atheist says, "Find faith in truth, not truth in faith"
- Leuthesius the Theist says, "I agree."
- Leuthesius the Theist also says, "A blind follower of a religion might as well be a blind follower of nothing."
There is a monumentally huge difference between homosexuality and pedophilia.
NAMBLA has only ever been interested in molesting children.
Respectfully,
Lenny
"The righteous rise, With burning eyes, Of hatred and ill-will
Madmen fed on fear and lies, To beat and burn and kill"
Witch Hunt from the album Moving Pictures. Neal Pert, Rush
Pussys and Cocks like stimulation. Are there rules ? Says who ?
Increased from what to what? Data collected by whom? Peer reviewed by whom?
I'm not aware of any studies indicating that there is an increased tendency among homosexuals to abuse young boys. Where'd you get this information?
[edit: On reflection, I think maybe you mean that the homosexual community is more likely to abuse young boys than young girls. Well, duh. That's the gender homosexuals prefer. Stepfathers are also the most common abusers of young girls, because they are usually heterosexual. As far as I know, there is no evidence that the homosexual population is more likely to abuse children. In fact, if I remember correctly, I think it's the heterosexual community that commits more child sexual abuse percentage-wise. Does someone have a source for this?]
Atheism isn't a lot like religion at all. Unless by "religion" you mean "not religion". --Ciarin
http://hambydammit.wordpress.com/
Books about atheism