Soviet-Empire.com U.S.S.R. and communism historical discussion.
[ Active ]
[ Login ]
Log-in to remove these advertisements.

Loose attitudes towards sex

POST REPLY

Are attitudes towards sex too loose?

Yes, it should be tightened
10
29%
No, it's just right
4
12%
No, it should it be relaxed
13
38%
Other
7
21%
 
Total votes : 34
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 1782
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2009, 20:08
Resident Artist
Post 27 Jun 2012, 14:07
We live in an era where sex is sold in advertisement, where promiscuity is open and not stigmatised, where one can minimise the negative consequences of sexual intercourse by buying condoms and pills, and where hedonism is encouraged instead of suppressed. Are attitudes towards sex too loose and should we take action, do nothing, or even encourage more loose attitudes towards sex?
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 27 Jun 2012, 17:29
We shouldn't be in the business of encouraging either. If someone wants to have as much sex as they can, whatever, if they want to be prudish that's fine too. Being judgmental of either choice is reactionary to the extreme.
Image
Soviet cogitations: 2051
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 24 Jun 2011, 08:37
Party Bureaucrat
Post 27 Jun 2012, 17:42
Prudish attitudes is why hyper-sexualized material sells so well.

If everyone saw gender and sex relations as natural and not a big deal, there wouldn't be a mass market for it.
Soviet America is Free America!

Under communism, there is no freedom; you are not free to live in poverty, be homeless, to be without an education, to starve, or to be without a job
Soviet cogitations: 1533
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Oct 2007, 15:55
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Party Member
Post 27 Jun 2012, 17:53
Voted other.

I feel that attitudes toward sex depends on the individual regardless of what one might see in the media. Western society thrives on sex along with status symbols such as wealth and fame. That's why there are Hugh Hefners, Kim Kardashians, Paris Hiltons. Some view these people and things associated with them negatively. While others, usually the most airheaded people admire these people and things associated with them. But like I said it all depends on the individual's idea of what is too "loose".
We have beaten you to the moon, but you have beaten us in sausage making.- Nikita Khrushchev
Loz
[+-]
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 11879
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 06 Dec 2009, 23:17
Philosophized
Post 27 Jun 2012, 18:14
Other, a lot of these deviations we have today, i guess, come from the commodification of sex, so to speak, profanization and trivialization and so on...
It should be, IMO, first and foremost a private issue between two persons.

Also, for those that haven't seen this before, i made a thread about what Lenin wrote on sexuality and morals:
viewtopic.php?f=107&t=49674
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 27 Jun 2012, 20:43
Is this entire poll some sort of awkward double entendre?

I voted "Yes" for multiple reasons.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4418
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 28 Jun 2012, 01:22
I voted "Yes", although without political power I wonder how much action we can take (apart from writing essays and talking to already like-minded people about these matters to make them think about them more). With power, the choice "do nothing" is not really an option, even if we would like it to be one, because the void created by a lack of corporate media would necessitate the state having some sort of position from which media, arts, and academia could work. The reason I wrote "Yes" was because I believe that sex without love is impersonal. It turns people (one partner, the other, or both, depending on their attitudes and expectations) into commodities to be used to fulfill a primal need. It seems that even when people mean to hook up casually, someone almost always develops feelings and then feels used because the other person doesn't reciprocate. I think that if media and the arts promoted sex more within the rubric of love, much of the mindless promiscuity which occurs between young people influenced by those forces today would disappear. To make sure everyone understands, my answer "Yes" does not mean that I believe that there should be any sort of new laws or anything like that. Positive influences and models of thinking about this issue at the mass media level would be enough for most people.

khlib wrote:
Is this entire poll some sort of awkward double entendre?


Oh grow up khlib.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 02:12
I don't see any reason whatsoever to clamp down on the sexuality of people who've freed themselves from Victorianism. Sex has many uses, and the good ones aren't just those that are a product of love. Breeding does not require love yet is essential. Rape is performed sometimes as an act of obsession (love's crazier side). The idea that we should treat anyone negatively, or try to restrain them, because they enjoy sex outside of formal relationships is nonsensical to the extreme.

Let's add the hijab to our revolutionary demands while we're at it.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 28 Jun 2012, 03:20
I agree completely with soviet78 that there should be no laws or things like that restricting sexuality. I would just like to see the norm change, or at least viable alternatives to the current norm of hookup culture to emerge in the mainstream (that aren't connected with Christian morality). In college, amongst my "sex-positive" progressive friends, I felt much more external pressure on my sexual behavior than I ever felt before, even in Catholic school. I've seen so many of my friends hurt by the sexual norms (ending up hurt by people they liked, with STD's). Women, more often than men, end up being the victims of hookup culture. On a biological level, vaginas are mucous membranes, so it's much easier for women to contract STD's (such as herpes or HIV) from a single casual encounter, and they are the only ones who really suffer the ill-effects of HPV (which cannot be prevented with condoms). Many men really do expect sex after a few dates, and women are labeled as prudes or teases if they do not comply.

Also, sex is just better when there are lines. There is something almost clinical and boring when anything is allowed. That's why teasing is so hot. Some of the most intensely sexual experiences I had were before I had sex at all, approaching the line but never crossing it.

Also, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Repressive_desublimation
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4418
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 07 Oct 2004, 22:04
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Resident Soviet
Post 28 Jun 2012, 03:36
Dagoth Ur wrote:
The idea that we should treat anyone negatively, or try to restrain them, because they enjoy sex outside of formal relationships is nonsensical to the extreme.


To make clear, I agree. In this sphere people should be able to do whatever they want, so long as they don't harm anyone. My idea is not about constructing laws or values that make people look down on others' 'socially deviant' sexual activities, but simply one whose norms at the mass media and mass art levels promotes sex in relation to love, rather than apart from it. The individual is a product of his or her society. If mass media changed to reflect the norms I'm talking about and a number of people continued to be promiscuous, 'hedonistic', etc. (which I'm sure there would be), all power to them. Still, there would be fewer of them, and they would know with more certainty what they want and what they are doing. For the rest, there would be less negative influences and pressures that create the problems I alluded to and khlib expanded upon.
"The thing about capitalism is that it sounds awful on paper and is horrendous in practice. Communism sounds wonderful on paper and when it was put into practice it was done pretty well for what they had to work with." -MiG
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 03:40
I don't think using the media to promote/display conservative sexual attitudes is really something we need to do. I'm all for not promoting promiscuity too but a balance has to be made, or better yet whatever the synthesis of promiscuity and prudishness is.
Image
[+-]
Soviet cogitations: 1020
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 20 Jul 2011, 15:17
Party Member
Post 28 Jun 2012, 03:46
I agree, Dags, and that's one of the main reasons that I was so opposed to the Slut Walks. They seem to support the binary slut/prude.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Jun 2012, 09:25
I think attitudes are certainly too "loose", but it seem to me that there's a bigger picture which is easy to overlook...
Loz wrote:
Other, a lot of these deviations we have today, i guess, come from the commodification of sex, so to speak, profanization and trivialization and so on...
As with many other things it's the capitalist system which has basically commodified and perverted a very basic human function.

(voted other)
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 09:29
Sex wasn't any more pure before capitalism either. If anything commodification was progressive compared to what preceeded it.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Jun 2012, 09:36
No but they had other stupid things like the church running the place and that had a lot to do with why it was just as bad (in the opposite direction of course).

The current hyper-sexualized culture we see today is a product of the combination of capitalism with a post-religious society where a sexual liberation movement has occurred.
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 14448
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 10 Sep 2006, 22:05
Ideology: Marxism-Leninism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 09:49
No it's a product of needing more workers. All of that other shit is just how it manifested. Much like the church whom you give far too much importance to. It was just the agent of repression not the origin of it. It seems many here cling to a fairly romanticized view of sex, wherein something is lost in it being "casual".

Hyper-sexualization is simple nonsense. Sounds like something a conservative would foam at the bit about. Openness towards sex is a positive development.
Image
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Jun 2012, 10:14
Dagoth Ur wrote:
Openness towards sex is a positive development.
I agree that openness is, but I'm far from happy with the commodification of it. I think society is rapidly crossing that threshold

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Hyper-sexualization is simple nonsense. Sounds like something a conservative would foam at the bit about.
Surely I don't need to translate everything into Marxist jargon for you to understand what I mean. Conservatives might foam about it, but they don't see how they are producing it through their values and economic system.

Dagoth Ur wrote:
No it's a product of needing more workers.
Sorry... what is? How does the development and proliferation of contraceptives fit into that?

Dagoth Ur wrote:
Much like the church whom you give far too much importance to. It was just the agent of repression not the origin of it.
So what would you consider to be the origin of the sexual arch-conservatism which often seems to accompany eras of strong religious movements?

Dagoth Ur wrote:
It seems many here cling to a fairly romanticized view of sex, wherein something is lost in it being "casual".
So you don't think it's gotten at all out of hand then? Personally, I feel reducing it to a mere functional thing robs it of much of its "specialness" (for lack of a better word).
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 10:31
Voted other.

Quote:
If someone wants to have as much sex as they can, whatever, if they want to be prudish that's fine too. Being judgmental of either choice is reactionary to the extreme.


thisthisthis

Quote:
If everyone saw gender and sex relations as natural and not a big deal, there wouldn't be a mass market for it.


There's a mass market for food. And another mass market for drugs. Porn is somewhere between food and drugs, it satisfies natural impulses but it is used pretty much like a drug. So of course there is a mass market for porn, but that's not because people like to transgress prudish attitudes, I don't think so.

Quote:
Rape is performed sometimes as an act of obsession (love's crazier side).


I think there is a difference between love and obsession. I could never rape somebody I love because I want them to be happy. Obsession happens when you treat people like objects, which seems antithetical to love because I think love is a feeling of intense appreciation of others as entire people, with personality and body and behavior patterns and everything. When you're obsessed with somebody, you only appreciate abstract parts of them; you definitely ignore the parts of their personality that you don't want to see (such as, in your example, the wish not to be bothered by you in a sexual way). So it's like when you're obsessed with somebody, you love an abstract, censored, idealized picture of them that exists in your head, but when you love them, you love them, including the parts that you dislike.

Quote:
In college, amongst my "sex-positive" progressive friends, I felt much more external pressure on my sexual behavior than I ever felt before, even in Catholic school.


This to the max! But that doesn't mean that people should be more conservative. It just means you should be more accepting of your being different. If more people did that, the average would become more conservative anyways. (Conservative is a stupid word to use, but you know what I mean).

Quote:
Many men really do expect sex after a few dates, and women are labeled as prudes or teases if they do not comply.


I know almost nothing about American date culture, but why would you date somebody if you don't want to have sex with them? Or is hanging out with a friend considered a date too?

Quote:
No it's a product of needing more workers.


No, because birth rates drop immensely in advanced hyper-sexual capitalism. In this regard, Europe is vastly more advanced than the US, where some people still talk about no sex before marriage, prostitution is illegal, sex ed and abortion are constantly endangered by stupid people, etc., and in Europe, were all these problems have long since been solved, we get less and less workers. In fact, the German government is already working really hard on an emergency demographic strategy because at the moment it looks like society is approaching a critical point of no return where a bunch of young people have to work for a huge mass of pensioners and society collapses under their weight. The population of Germany has dropped by 10 million people since 1990, and we get more immigrants than babies.

In advanced hyper-sexual capitalism, people don't want to have babies. Now that Germany is in a situation where we really need more workers, people suddenly get lots of propaganda about how the family is important, and it's the traditional basic unit of society (the same thing Engels said, lol) that needs to be supported by the state, and the state is going to do everything for families, blah blah. It's pretty disgusting actually because it becomes progressively more similar to Nazi rhetoric about producing children for the Führer, because it's essentially the exact same thing. But propagation of "family values" (or the European, non-religious version of them) is directly opposed to hypersexuality.

Quote:
Personally, I feel reducing it to a mere functional thing robs it of much of its "specialness" (for lack of a better word).


You know, this is interesting, because the only people I've ever heard talking about this mystical "specialness" of sex were older than 30. I really have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think other people my age would know, either. So can we assume that the "specialness" has already been eradicated from our Western culture? Because then it was only ever a cultural artifact to begin with, and nothing we should be too concerned about losing.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
User avatar
Soviet cogitations: 4465
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 30 Mar 2010, 01:20
Ideology: None
Forum Commissar
Post 28 Jun 2012, 10:47
Mabool wrote:
You know, this is interesting, because the only people I've ever heard talking about this mystical "specialness" of sex were older than 30.
Well I'm just a sentimental old codger.


Mabool wrote:
I really have no idea what you're talking about, and I don't think other people my age would know, either.
What do you mean? You have romantic/sentimental impulses - otherwise you wouldn't say things like this:
Mabool wrote:
I could never rape somebody I love because I want them to be happy.
If it's just a biological function why worry about that?

Mabool wrote:
So can we assume that the "specialness" has already been eradicated from our Western culture? Because then it was only ever a cultural artifact to begin with, and nothing we should be too concerned about losing.
There are other possible explanations ... namely that it might just be a change that occurs as people grow a little older.
We'll just have to wait and see I suppose though.
Soviet cogitations: 10005
Defected to the U.S.S.R.: 14 Jul 2008, 20:01
Ideology: Trotskyism
Philosophized
Post 28 Jun 2012, 11:02
Shigalyov wrote:
What do you mean? You have romantic/sentimental impulses - otherwise you wouldn't say things like this:

I could never rape somebody I love because I want them to be happy.

If it's just a biological function why worry about that?


I'm not quite sure what you mean. Empathy and sex are both biological functions. I want everybody to be happy because I'm a human being equipped with the neurological capacity for empathy. True, when I love somebody, I have a special interest in their happiness over the happiness of other people because of hormonal/neuronal systems that are supposed to promote family/tribal bonding, such as oxytocin and related hormones. So this would be where my romantic or sentimental impulses come from, but I really don't see how you can postulate a romance-biology dichotomy. In fact I don't see how you (of all people...) can postulate that any part of our behavior is more than biological functions.

But that's exactly what the thought of sex being something "special" seems to consist of, right? So wouldn't it then make sense to see this notion as a remnant of a religious culture? Because if sex is not "biological" sex, but the sacrament of matrimony, i.e. something that belongs to a higher sphere than the material/biological, of course that makes it "special", or transcendent. But that's a religious illusion, because there is no higher sphere. There is nothing to life that is not a biological function, because biology as the science of life by definition encompasses all parts of life. Sex is nothing special. As society overcomes religion, sex is "robbed" of its specialness, as you say, but I would vehemently disagree that "reducing" it to (recognizing it as) a "functional thing" makes it potentially less nice, because people also seem to have more fun with it than ever before.

Quote:
There are other possible explanations ... namely that it might just be a change that occurs as people grow a little older.


Haha, touché.
"Don't know why i'm still surprised with this shit anyway." - Loz
Alternative Display:
Mobile view
More Forums: The History Forum. The UK Politics Forum.
© 2000- Soviet-Empire.com. Privacy.
cron