IWETHEY v. 0.3.0 | TODO
1,095 registered users | 0 active users | 0 LpH | Statistics
Login | Create New User
IWETHEY Banner

Welcome to IWETHEY!

New Re: Confusing sex with marriage
I apparently don't communicate very well :)

Actually I started these threads because I have had a vague sense that feminism has done a lot of unanticipated societal damage. I see the damage all around me and want to understand it.

It's very difficult to communicate intuitions, particularly when they are emotionally charged.

(Biologically, individuals who aren't getting any *are* failures, but I never claimed that applied to humans. Of course it *is* in a sense a sad thing to be "out of the life loop" by having no family, as I can personally attest.)
-drl
New I suspect you're looking at the wrong cause.
I'd put a lot more damage of the type you're talking about at the feet of the advertising industry and at the gigantic change in the distribution of income/assets that have happened over the last forty years or so.

For example, if you read texts dating from the Great Depression and the Gilded Age, it's very apparent that the family was in pretty poor shape back then, too.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Re: I suspect you're looking at the wrong cause.
The key factor is divorce rates and "divorce shame". It's hard for us to believe, but divorce used to be a very shameful thing. An act that carries a lot of shame, gets that way by being actually bad for society.
-drl
New Yeah,
'course, in the old days, they'd just take off. This happened a lot, esp. in the lower classes.
--\n-------------------------------------------------------------------\n* Jack Troughton                            jake at consultron.ca *\n* [link|http://consultron.ca|http://consultron.ca]                   [link|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca|irc://irc.ecomstation.ca] *\n* Kingston Ontario Canada               [link|news://news.consultron.ca|news://news.consultron.ca] *\n-------------------------------------------------------------------
New Bad for society?
Sexuality in humans is extremely powerful. Evolution has changed and expanded its roll far beyond the simple reproductive function it formerly had. Sexuality has developed into a major cohesive factor in our society.

The power of sexuality is instinctively recognized by every repressive regime, whether church or state, and their first move is to harness that power by controlling sexuality. To this end "social norms" are created that yield control of sexuality to the state or to the church. These norms are enforced by regime instituded "shame", and by laws.

Repressive regimes have gone so far as to be the main provider of sex to important populations (military and police). Note the brothels run by both the Nazi and Japanese governments as recent examples. This gives the state ultimate control over this most powerful social factor.

Note the reluctance of the population to support war during the sexually permissive '60s. That is why every repressive regime, whether church or state, fears a liberalizing of sexuality above all else and will move to maximize the "shame" of stepping out of it's control.

"Feminism" is a movement that breaks sexual repression for a huge and formerly heavily repressed population, thus is feared by church, state, and others who benefit by the status quo - or who are simply unaware of the repression under which they live.

Does "feminism" cause social disruption? Yes it does. So did the fall of kings (which began when people started taking their meals in their private (family) quarters rather than at their lord's long table - a practice loudly decried as destructive to society).

For those who do not care for repression this is not a problem, we can work it out just fine. The functions of "family" will survive, perhaps in greatly altered form, but will survive. The "family" is a fairly recent concept anyway (see "kings" above).

For those more comfortable with repression, the liberation of "feminism" is disruptive and uncomfortable. Too fsck'n bad.
[link|http://www.aaxnet.com|AAx]
New +5 Thought provoking. Thanks.
New Re: Bad for society?
Depsite your assumption, sex was never regarded as shameful - talking about it was in poor taste. Obviously people have been humping away forever. The Victorians were, I'm sure, inveterate humpers. Pay close attention, for example, to an old movie, say, one from the 40s when the censors were most active - you'll hear all kinds of sexual innuendo but no cussing and no explicit humping. The women of that day exert a powerful sexuality that need not be discussed because it is so obvious.

I mean shameful in the Japanese sense - that certain behaviors would damage your honor and this injury would be as permanent as losing an arm.

Also - despite their reputation for liberation, the 60s were nothing compared to the 40s. The apparent "sex revolution" of the 60s was simply the lifting of the ban on discussion combined with available, effective contraception for women. The 20s were wild in comparison, and the 40s were dripping (no pun intended) with sex from every possible direction - possibly any era coming after a great catastrophe like the first War and the Depression is charged with sexual energy.

About the 60s - the thing that in my mind really distinguishes them - the rise of vanity in men as an indication of the rejection of the Actual Masculine for "wrestling masculine". The classical "virtues" (vir = man) were suddenly less important. Thus the sex revolution of the 60s is really one that took place in men, not women. Women had their sex revolution in the 40s.
-drl
New What are you smoking?
"Virgin at marriage" is an explicit shame-inducing state (set up and controlled by religion, as Andrew pointed out). If you were female and weren't a virgin when you were married, you were considered unclean.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Re: What are you smoking?
This was never actually a virtue - I asked my Dad about the attitudes of his day. He said there were always loose girls, but even "nice" girls would "put out", and this was in a small Georgia town. During his war experience as a 19-23 year old in the states (E. St. Louis, Florida, Nevada) and later England, having a fling was as easy as the asking. The old saw for a successful liberty was "stewed, screwed, and tatooed". The key thing was secrecy. Very little has changed other than the age at which people become sexualized and the ease with which it is discussed. You can pretty much discard all religious banter as this was just as ignored in the past as it is now, only people are far more willing to admit it.

[link|http://www.jackinworld.com/library/articles/kinsey.html|http://www.jackinwor...icles/kinsey.html]

50 percent of women and 67 percent of men had premarital sex in the 40s - and this was based on who would admit it.

Even less talked about than POMWS (plain old man-woman sex) is chicken-choking, a nearly universal behavior that did not even come up in movies.

-drl
New Re: What are you smoking?
The key thing was secrecy.
Because if you weren't secret about it, you were given to feel shame. Thanks for making my point.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Re: What are you smoking?
It wasn't "shame" - it was something that you didn't talk about, like picking your nose (the Kinsey report has small print that states "97% of men have dug for gold, and most succeeded"). That's not shame, it's "good manners". Among friends, I'm sure that my Dad and his pals talked about nothing more than nailing girls. Well, maybe fishing and hunting.
-drl
New No, you're wrong.
Maybe by the 50s/60s, but back in Victorian days (and before) it was shame. If you were discovered to be less than virginal, you were an outcast and not considered to be marriage material.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Re: No, you're wrong.
Then why were the streets of London and Paris crawling with prostitutes, who were mainly ignored by the law, unless it was to regulate them the same way as the Queen's Pint? The idea of a staid, uptight Victorian age is a complete myth. Cocaine and opium use were widespread among the upper classes (who could afford the leisure time to enjoy them). Free, non-binding sex was everywhere - most likely including pedophilia and other "perversions".

[link|http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/charweb/zablocki3.htm|http://www.umd.umich...web/zablocki3.htm]

[link|http://www.umd.umich.edu/casl/hum/eng/classes/434/charweb/zablocki1.htm|http://www.umd.umich...web/zablocki1.htm]

A female unescorted immigrant to the US was tacitly assumed to be a prostitute.
-drl
New For the men, not the women.
Regards,

-scott anderson

"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
New Exactly!
In the Victorian Age, you were either considered a proper virgin or a loose woman. The loose women were all over, granted, but the prostitutes of that day were still looked down upon with shame. In fact, IF I remember correctly, there were even establishments which wouldn't allow prostitutes to enter or be served there, or frequent the place of business.

However, the men never viewed the prostitutes with a shameful-view, other than when questioned about it by wives or other upright abiding citizens. So they essentially looked down on the loose women only when it suited their needs. BUT, if one of THEIR daughters behaved as such, the men were deeply ashamed of their child and looked down on them.

Nightowl >8#


"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
New Re: No, you're wrong.
I agree. Even in my day, the 70's/80's, having premarital sex was considered to be a shameful act, by just about everyone I knew that was older. Now, the kids themselves, well that was different, but the adults in that age, considered it shameful and that you had "ruined" yourself for marriage, and all sorts of things.

Nightowl >8#


"It is understanding that gives us an ability to have peace. When we understand the other fellow's viewpoint, and he understands ours, then we can sit down and work out our differences." Harry S. Truman

"Whenever you're in conflict with someone, there is one factor that can make the difference between damaging your relationship and deepening it. That factor is attitude." Timothy Bentley
New Don't skip so fast over The Pill
- the true emancipator, because whatever one's personal view of exchanging precious bodily fluids - THAT was the palpable (burpable) Damocles over every pleasurable event. Population pressures decree that: desire for children shall be ameliorated, perhaps replaced with eXtreme Segway Sports. 'Til there are fewer huddled masses, but about the same number of bundled pairs.

And that genie ain't Never goin back into the bottle, whatever the morphing conception of 'family' becomes (many now find they prefer to select their own family; screw the accident of birth and weird Uncle Porky and his brood). 'Course the Mormons and a few are obsessed with genealogy; such shall always be with us.

Millenium: when everyone finally acknowledges that, we are *all* Mongrels.




Atilla the Hunk
Arf
New True but overrated
..because it was not foolproof, had severe side effects including the dreaded fatness, was enjoined among Catholics, and in any case the Urge always found a Way. Again, men were the "beneficiaries" mostly, as now sport fucking was less likely to require an visit to an alley doctor.
-drl
New I think you communicate a certain sense
re the (more than just normal Machiavellian daily effects) of making Capitalism ones's raison d'etre. My intuition of that predicament isn't much different from what you have suggested.

Methinks though, that you are forgetting a (once demonstrated) deeper understanding of the pop-fantasy we (and, even many 'scientists') love to call Causality. Just like the String Boys do.

Assigning the current morass within the minds of those Ever Searching for --> MORE {material crap to 'own'} -- and the me-me-me whining, whilst grovelling for that-same-More, no matter what -- assigning that to 'feminism' as root cause? Red Herring #n. Surely, when well(-er) you can do better than that, despite your admitted relative-disconnect re 'social skills'.

But where we appear to ~agree: Murican culture reflects the hollowness of its Aims, the shallowness of its thinking about the repeatedly demonstrated consequences of crass materialism. (All abetted by the omnipresent Noise on all channels and elevators, natch)

This root-cause (IMO) is now into crisis mode, as this National solipsism alienates ex-friend and foe alike, via the machinations of a certifiably-loony band of (yes - Narcissists ;-) who are directing the vacuous puppet they -but especially Rove- groomed precisely for the task.

Want a single-point-of failure to affix personal blame? nee 'causality'?
I nominate one Karl Rove, the Svengali who successfully kept the brain-dead Shrub pretending to be Governor (of a state which -fortunately- gives little power to its Executive.) Without Rove, the PNAC would still be stewing in its visceral juices, subverting.. subverting.. pining and masturbating (for such folk: that's Thinking Political Coups Yet-to-come).

Never mind 'feminists' for now: these Troglodytes have no slightest acquaintance with theirs (or anyone's) emotional center. They are marlowes, but with very much more manipulative skill, and well-honed scripted dissemination of daily blab-words (though their rhetoric betrays their inhumanity, their abject unacquaintance with Heart). Words of feeling ever stick hollowly in their craws; are seen to be caricatures of "heart-felt". Dead eyes.

This last incompetence - even to Fake That: I expect to be the final undoing of this sordid chapter in Murican profligacy. Expect is too strong; no one has ever fully plumbed the depths of Murican group-naivete; so call it - Hope.

(Then we can return to.. The Proper Roles for Men and Women in a culture cleansed of resistant-strains of toxic Puritanism: in another decade, mayhap?)


Ashton anti-Causality,
in most non-physics, non-material masques of speech
     Fundamental Units - (deSitter) - (30)
         Yesterday's Denver Post - (tuberculosis) - (3)
             Re: Yesterday's Denver Post - (deSitter) - (2)
                 A question for you... - (danreck) - (1)
                     Never mind... - (danreck)
         Re: Fundamental Units - (jb4) - (1)
             Tribe _is_ a society -NT - (Arkadiy)
         Fundamental Units - (Andrew Grygus) - (23)
             Re: Fundamental Units - (deSitter) - (22)
                 Not used to so much hand-waving from you - (FuManChu) - (21)
                     Re: Not used to so much hand-waving from you - (deSitter) - (20)
                         Confusing sex with marriage - (FuManChu) - (19)
                             Re: Confusing sex with marriage - (deSitter) - (18)
                                 I suspect you're looking at the wrong cause. - (jake123) - (16)
                                     Re: I suspect you're looking at the wrong cause. - (deSitter) - (15)
                                         Yeah, - (jake123)
                                         Bad for society? - (Andrew Grygus) - (13)
                                             +5 Thought provoking. Thanks. -NT - (Another Scott)
                                             Re: Bad for society? - (deSitter) - (11)
                                                 What are you smoking? - (admin) - (8)
                                                     Re: What are you smoking? - (deSitter) - (7)
                                                         Re: What are you smoking? - (admin) - (6)
                                                             Re: What are you smoking? - (deSitter) - (5)
                                                                 No, you're wrong. - (admin) - (4)
                                                                     Re: No, you're wrong. - (deSitter) - (2)
                                                                         For the men, not the women. -NT - (admin) - (1)
                                                                             Exactly! - (Nightowl)
                                                                     Re: No, you're wrong. - (Nightowl)
                                                 Don't skip so fast over The Pill - (Ashton) - (1)
                                                     True but overrated - (deSitter)
                                 I think you communicate a certain sense - (Ashton)

Incidentally, my Liege, this is how we know the world to be banana-shaped.
90 ms