Thread: Politics of Sex

We use our politics to asses right and wrong, we don't use are principles or right and wrong to assess or politics. I'm not speaking of ever single individual on earth I'm generalizing from a sociological perspective, and observation of mine about contemporary times.

If say... I'm liberal and my enemy the conservative opposes liberal views of sexual activity including consenting adults negotiating prices for a day or even tryst, I'll mock my enemy and dismiss any presumption of immorality, impropriety, or lack of ethics involved in such negotiations and sexual activity.

If a 14 year old can decide to abort their children - as liberals suggest - the a 17 year old or 28 year old woman ought be able to decide if she will sleep with a politician her senior in rank and age.





Two examples below, and why I dislike contemporary politics and much of the news media. Agree or disagree?

Full Story: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/20/bu...OOHSLWvHQ/j2eg

A Racy Show With Teenagers Steps Back From a Boundary

By BRIAN STELTER

Published: January 19, 2011

MTV executives have a new hit drama on their hands, featuring the sexual and drug-fueled exploits of misfit teenagers. They also have something else — a fear that coming episodes of the show may break the law.

They are particularly concerned about the third episode of the series, which is to be broadcast Jan. 31. In an early version, a naked 17-year-old actor is shown from behind as he runs down a street. The actor, Jesse Carere, plays Chris, a high school student whose erection — assisted by erectile dysfunction pills — is a punch line throughout the episode.

Those reality shows have generally involved adults, but for “Skins,” the producers purposefully cast actors ages 15 to 19, most of whom had never acted before.

MTV’s president and other executives declined interview requests on Wednesday. An MTV spokeswoman, Jeannie Kedas, insisted that the future episodes of “Skins” were still works in progress. She would not confirm that MTV executives were fearful of running afoul of child pornography laws.

“ ‘Skins’ is a show that addresses real-world issues confronting teens in a frank way,” she said in a statement.

Then there is this. I personally think these left-wing women and men are making a mountain out of a mole hill. A grown man has as much right to privately engage in sex with a woman - young or old - as teenagers have to sex, nudity on TV, and aborting their children after they don't care for the inconvenient results of their sexual activity. Not to mention why is it okay for me and other adult men to look at naked boys rear ends, listen to erotic comments about their erections, but wrong for a Catholic Priest to do the same behind closed doors?

2K Italian women tell Berlusconi 'Enough' - Yahoo! News

ROME – More than 2,000 Italian women — mothers and daughters, politicians, artists and others_ have signed an online petition.. that not all women in Italy are prostitutes or showgirls, in response to his encounters with a teenage Moroccan girl.

The campaign, entitled "Basta!" or "Enough!" is being coordinated by the leftist L'Unita newspaper, which is close to... center-left opposition. It was announced Thursday as criticism mounted against the premier over the scandal, including from the Catholic Church.

Prosecutors have placed Berlusconi and three associates under investigation, alleging he paid for sex with the 17-year-old girl and used his office to cover it up. Prosecutors have said Berlusconi had sex with several prostitutes during parties at his Milan estate.

The teen, nicknamed Ruby, has begun a... of her own to deny they ever had sex. On Wednesday she appeared on one of Berlusconi's television stations to refute reports, contained in wiretapped conversations published in Italian newspapers, that she asked Berlusconi for euro5 million to keep quiet.

"I could do something exaggerated, but I could never arrive at a statement like that," she said. She admitted though that he gave her euro7,000 to help her out financially but said he "never put a finger on me."

Not to mention why is it okay for me and other adult men to look at naked boys rear ends, listen to erotic comments about their erections, but wrong for...

It's not okay for you to do that!

The pendulum swings back and forth in wide arcs. In the 1970's, before child pornography was outlawed, it was big business. That was the pendulum at one end. Today, we're at the other end of the arc, where people are super sensitive about any depiction of teen sexuality.

In 1980, the movie Fast Times at Ridgemont High was filmed. Thirty years later, it's still the truest depiction of life inside an American High School. You couldn't make that movie today. Why ? The two lead actresses, both barely 18 years old, had nude scenes in a sexual context-while their characters were 15 years old. You try shooting that today and people will go to jail. A law was specifically written on the matter because two porn actresses, both of age, but looking very much younger, played twelve year olds in a porn movie. The law was passed so fast that the movie was banned two weeks after it came out.

Still today, though, one of the most profitable sectors of porn is where barely legal porn actresses, who look very much underage, will pretend to be underage, without saying things like "I'm twelve", or "I go to middle school". Instead, they'll let the stranger in the house and say "My parents aren't home. They won't be here for hours." Sometimes, they'll have sex in a room that looks like it belongs to a young girl, with dolls on the shelves, a dollhouse in the corner, and she's in pigtails and a school girl outfit. There's even a few strip clubs out there with a "VIP Room" set up like that-which rents for 600 to 1,000 an hour + fee for the bottle + whatever you're paying the stripper.

why is it okay for me and other adult men to look at naked boys rear ends, listen to erotic comments about their erections, but wrong for a Catholic Priest to do the same behind closed doors?

Does anyone really need to answer this?

Still today, though, one of the most profitable sectors of porn is where barely legal porn actresses, who look very much underage, will pretend to be underage, without saying things like "I'm twelve", or "I go to middle school". Instead, they'll let the stranger in the house and say "My parents aren't home. They won't be here for hours." Sometimes, they'll have sex in a room that looks like it belongs to a young girl, with dolls on the shelves, a dollhouse in the corner, and she's in pigtails and a school girl outfit. There's even a few strip clubs out there with a "VIP Room" set up like that-which rents for 600 to 1,000 an hour + fee for the bottle + whatever you're paying the stripper.

There always has been and always will be a portion of the population that is composed of very sick puppies. Pathetic men who fear a real, full grown woman and have doubts about their sexual abilities to please such a woman. A woman who has other men to compare them to, to stack them up against. For example, a guy that I worked with was making love to a woman and she asked, "Am I tight enough?" He said, "Yes, why?" She answered, "Well, my first husband was really big, but my second husband was huge." Talk about an erection killer...

Just because it is profitable, doesn't justify it or make it anywhere near the right thing to do. Hell, there's profit in private clubs where men go and masturbate in front of each other. One memorable quote was from Al Goldstein during an interview. He was asked about who the "King of Porn" was and how his magazine compared to the others, he referred to just such a club.

He said, "I'm sure down at The Anvil there is a guy who thinks that he is the king of the fist f@ckers."

Originally Posted by Writ-with-Hand

We use our politics to asses right and wrong, we don't use are principles or right and wrong to assess or politics. I'm not speaking of ever single individual on earth I'm generalizing from a sociological perspective, and observation of mine about contemporary times.

If say... I'm liberal and my enemy the conservative opposes liberal views of sexual activity including consenting adults negotiating prices for a day or even tryst, I'll mock my enemy and dismiss any presumption of immorality, impropriety, or lack of ethics involved in such negotiations and sexual activity.

If a 14 year old can decide to abort their children - as liberals suggest - the a 17 year old or 28 year old woman ought be able to decide if she will sleep with a politician her senior in rank and age.





Two examples below, and why I dislike contemporary politics and much of the news media. Agree or disagree?

i don't see where you're going with this. would you care to expound on the message you're trying to get through here?

I think most people should decide for themselves, provided they are mature enough (not based on age) to handle things.

An interesting thing that's coming out of psychological research lately is that children who are molested do not suffer from the event until they are told it was a bad thing. Don't mistake my meaning here, I mean molested in a 'caring' manner, and I'm not at all suggesting that any such activities should be allowed. The point is that people don't often react negatively to the events until everyone around them makes a big deal about it. It's only later in life when they come to terms with public perceptions of their past that they reevaluate the upbringing they've had (turning it into a bad thing).

In short, the severe bias against under-aged sex is as much of a problem as the act itself.

----

I'm of a mind where no one has any right to decide what's fair for other people. I may think 17 is an appropriate age for consensual sex, other people may say 21, while another may insist that 13 is appropriate (as is the law in some places). It's much the same with prostitutes and abortions. Each person should decide for themselves what they're comfortable doing with their body.

I don't often get angry, but social injustice is one of the (very) few things that bothers me. For someone to proclaim that 'no one should be allowed to have an abortion', rings of social injustice to me. I feel like shouting back at them saying 'no one should be allowed to eat meat' (based on the concept of 'thou shalt not kill'). Sadly, my message would be lost. I'm not saying 'don't eat meat', I'm saying 'don't dictate what other people can do based on your beliefs'.

I should clarify that I'm against abortions. My belief is that the soul attaches (loosely) to the embryo at the moment of conception. But I'm not about to force others to abide by my beliefs, like so many others do to me.

How very pompous, self-righteous, peremptory, and conceited of them to believe their views dominate all others.

(In the hopes of preventing the above from offending people: I know that public opinion is what forms our laws, and that people vote on such things. I just get carried away with things like this. And my comments aren't directed any anyone in particular, I'm just expressing an opinion that I want to display as strongly as I feel it.)

Originally Posted by KrisMunro

I think most people should decide for themselves, provided they are mature enough (not based on age) to handle things.

An interesting thing that's coming out of psychological research lately is that children who are molested do not suffer from the event until they are told it was a bad thing. Don't mistake my meaning here, I mean molested in a 'caring' manner, and I'm not at all suggesting that any such activities should be allowed. The point is that people don't often react negatively to the events until everyone around them makes a big deal about it. It's only later in life when they come to terms with public perceptions of their past that they reevaluate the upbringing they've had (turning it into a bad thing).

In short, the severe bias against under-aged sex is as much of a problem as the act itself.

----

I'm of a mind where no one has any right to decide what's fair for other people. I may think 17 is an appropriate age for consensual sex, other people may say 21, while another may insist that 13 is appropriate (as is the law in some places). It's much the same with prostitutes and abortions. Each person should decide for themselves what they're comfortable doing with their body.

I don't often get angry, but social injustice is one of the (very) few things that bothers me. For someone to proclaim that 'no one should be allowed to have an abortion', rings of social injustice to me. I feel like shouting back at them saying 'no one should be allowed to eat meat' (based on the concept of 'thou shalt not kill'). Sadly, my message would be lost. I'm not saying 'don't eat meat', I'm saying 'don't dictate what other people can do based on your beliefs'.

I should clarify that I'm against abortions. My belief is that the soul attaches (loosely) to the embryo at the moment of conception. But I'm not about to force others to abide by my beliefs, like so many others do to me.

How very pompous, self-righteous, peremptory, and conceited of them to believe their views dominate all others.

(In the hopes of preventing the above from offending people: I know that public opinion is what forms our laws, and that people vote on such things. I just get carried away with things like this. And my comments aren't directed any anyone in particular, I'm just expressing an opinion that I want to display as strongly as I feel it.)

Age of consent is arbitrary, but what is more the issue is consensual sex versus casual sex. Only a slim margin of females, any age, are emotionally equipped to deal with casual sex. I'm just about to turn fifty and I find casual relationships work best for me. I'm not alone in saying that females often renege on their "We'll keep emotion out of it" aspect. Myself, several times in the past decade I had a sex buddy with the agreement that it's casual only, but somewhere around six months, they want more than just sex.

We set an age of consent law (usually 1 because we say "You're an adult now-you should make adult decisions", knowing fully well minors aren't equipped to deal with the consequences of sex. With that said though, there are a very small number of thirteen year olds who are equpiied, emotionally and physically with a loving sexual relationship, but there are also thirty one year olds ill equipped to deal with any kind of sexual relationship.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Age of consent is arbitrary, but what is more the issue is consensual sex versus casual sex. Only a slim margin of females, any age, are emotionally equipped to deal with casual sex. I'm just about to turn fifty and I find casual relationships work best for me. I'm not alone in saying that females often renege on their "We'll keep emotion out of it" aspect. Myself, several times in the past decade I had a sex buddy with the agreement that it's casual only, but somewhere around six months, they want more than just sex.

We set an age of consent law (usually 1 because we say "You're an adult now-you should make adult decisions", knowing fully well minors aren't equipped to deal with the consequences of sex. With that said though, there are a very small number of thirteen year olds who are equpiied, emotionally and physically with a loving sexual relationship, but there are also thirty one year olds ill equipped to deal with any kind of sexual relationship.

Seems like you're saying that it's ok for younger females to engage in sex, only as long as they're in a relationship with the guy. But, I know where you're coming from in some respects. If I could get someone into a casual sex arrangement, I know I could get her into a proper relationship; which was usually my goal. But this emotional response to sexual gratification isn't limited to females. Everyone has a need to be with others, and the act of making love tightens this feeling and ties it around one person (generally speaking).

I think most people (you and I included) would agree that an age of consent should be removed, and changed into something more akin to a level of maturity needed to give consent. I know some 16 year olds that rival the emotional intelligence of many 30 year olds. I find little wrong with two mature 16 year olds having at it. But it becomes an issue when older people engage in activities with much younger.

I believe there's something of a socially acceptable rule with age differences; half plus seven. If the other person's age is less than that number, it's inappropriate.

Interesting observation and analysis, Dudester. I was a child during the 80's and a teenager during the late 80's. Back when no one wore seat belts and playgrounds were made out of steal, wood, and concrete. In today's world you would think we all would have been dead.

Originally Posted by Ditch

why is it okay for me and other adult men to look at naked boys rear ends, listen to erotic comments about their erections, but wrong for a Catholic Priest to do the same behind closed doors?

Does anyone really need to answer this?

Okay, Ditch, I get your point but I think you miss mine. In Catholicism many things are wrong or not advisable (e.g., viewing horror films, porn, masturbation, corrupting children) that are tolerated if not approved of in the secular world.

Divorce or looking at the naked butts of teenage boys is an example of tolerated or even possibly approved things within the secular world.

So, I still ask why is alright for me but wrong for a Catholic Priest.

I don't understand the secular mind that encourages promiscuity and premarital sex or "alternative family models" but aggressively criticizes past Popes or clergy that have produces children with women they had sex with, breaking their vows. What the secular world applauds as logically good, they turn around and condemn as evil. That's a form of hypocrisy itself.

Originally Posted by Lamperoux

i don't see where you're going with this. would you care to expound on the message you're trying to get through here?

Well... it goes to conditioning of mind. I'm partly influenced by Catholicism and the Catholic tradition of thinking. Which is a much different way of thinking than contemporary Democrats and Republicans (in my mind Catholics that place allegiance to political parties before Catholicism... skirt heresy).



Principles before politics.

I find that many conservatives and liberals don't do this today. Hence, all the online comments one can read by Republicans under online new sources today... blaming President Obama for everything in the world (a purse snatching in Peru or Moscow).

Sex and comes with a lot of politics today revolving around the actors involved (e.g., Priest, under aged girl, homosexuals). I think many liberals would be quick to deny they play politics involving sexual issues as well.

In New York recently some 21 year old many murdered his 65 year old gay lover. The 65 year old man was a celebrity in Portugal if I recall correctly. Was struck me about the whole sociological thing was that society at large seemed to regard this sexual relation between a 65 year old man and a 21 year old man as natural. But the same U.S. society would be quick to express the idea that a 21 year old man having sex with a 16 year old girl is unnatural. Regardless this having everything to do with politics and nothing at all to do with right or wrong, fairness, or biological science.

If liberals really, deep down in their hearts, view it is wrong for adults to look at the naked butts of teenage boys, then they should be outraged over MTV.

Imagine if the Catholic Church set up a website for its clergy to view Skins and only Catholic clergy were allowed access. If we our honest we know liberals would be acting outraged, speaking about "immorality," and child abuse and pedophilia.

Originally Posted by KrisMunro

I think most people (you and I included) would agree that an age of consent should be removed, and changed into something more akin to a level of maturity needed to give consent. I know some 16 year olds that rival the emotional intelligence of many 30 year olds. I find little wrong with two mature 16 year olds having at it. But it becomes an issue when older people engage in activities with much younger.

This makes no sense to me.

Originally Posted by KrisMunro

An interesting thing that's coming out of psychological research lately is that children who are molested do not suffer from the event until they are told it was a bad thing. Don't mistake my meaning here, I mean molested in a 'caring' manner, and I'm not at all suggesting that any such activities should be allowed. The point is that people don't often react negatively to the events until everyone around them makes a big deal about it. It's only later in life when they come to terms with public perceptions of their past that they reevaluate the upbringing they've had (turning it into a bad thing).

Interesting, that's the conclusion I came to long ago, and I'm no psychologist. I just used a bit of common sense.

It's like the baby that falls but is smiling until he sees the reaction of his mother that acts as if the world is about to come to and end, sensing something greatly wrong the child begins to cry.

This all seems like a rather unstructured attempt to paint secularists with a single brush, imply we all follow a set of beliefs, and then to say we're picking on religious people using evidence that is purely based on people's personal opinions and has nothing to do with secularism. Perhaps I'm wrong.

Originally Posted by InsanityStrickenWriter

This all seems like a rather unstructured attempt to paint secularists with a single brush, imply we all follow a set of beliefs, and then to say we're picking on religious people using evidence that is purely based on people's personal opinions and has nothing to do with secularism. Perhaps I'm wrong.

I think you're wrong.

What is striking and telling about our time is the degree to which armies of people only object against those things they regard as threatening to their politics.


If murder is wrong it is wrong no matter what political party one belongs to. Most people will at least accept this even in our politically polarized era.

I would say the same should apply to sex.

I just see a lot of contradictions. And those contradictions come in how one applies "ethics" and science to an equation. And from a stand point of the science of biology... I see no reason to regard it as "unnatural" for a 14 or 17 year old girl to be impregnated. I also see no reason if a 14 year old is old enough to have sex why the person being over the age of 17 should matter?

People fear intuitively adults corrupting minors by engaging in sexual activity with them. But no one objects to adults sharing a meal with minors. Apparently there is something about sexual activity we intuitively regard as either corrupting or potentially corrupting.