Post #135,967
1/15/04 7:30:44 PM
|
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
|
Post #135,969
1/15/04 7:34:40 PM
|
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-------------------------------------------------------------------
|
Post #136,132
1/16/04 12:56:56 PM
|
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]
|
Post #136,137
1/16/04 1:04:13 PM
|
+5 Thought provoking. Thanks.
|
Post #136,140
1/16/04 1:12:45 PM
|
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
|
Post #136,146
1/16/04 1:19:32 PM
|
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..."
|
Post #136,156
1/16/04 1:30:36 PM
|
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
|
Post #136,160
1/16/04 1:36:11 PM
|
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..."
|
Post #136,161
1/16/04 1:41:47 PM
|
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
|
Post #136,163
1/16/04 1:46:22 PM
|
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..."
|
Post #136,166
1/16/04 1:57:47 PM
|
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
|
Post #136,167
1/16/04 1:59:50 PM
|
For the men, not the women.
Regards,
-scott anderson
"Welcome to Rivendell, Mr. Anderson..."
|
Post #136,170
1/16/04 2:10:57 PM
|
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
|
Post #136,168
1/16/04 2:03:31 PM
|
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
|
Post #136,259
1/17/04 4:03:00 AM
|
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
|
Post #136,261
1/17/04 4:41:41 AM
|
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
|
