1
   

Is sex too prevalent in the media?

 
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2003 09:20 am
Phoenix32890 wrote:
Quote:
Do you think plumbing has anything to do with how people view this "problem?"


Yup! I think that when sex is compartmentalized, with an emphasis exclusively on the physical part of sex, something very important is lost. It becomes depersonalized, with interchangable organ systems.

Beautiful love stories, IMO, can be far more sensual, and sexy, than some bimbette gyrating on a stage!


Yeah, it's gotta be the plumbing.

Some of the best sex I've ever had has been very "compartmentalized" and has focused almost "exclusively on the physical part of sex."

Don't get me wrong. I've had lots of very, very satisfying, indeed outstanding, sex of the other variety -- the beautiful, loving kind. But don't for a second think that people of the male persuasion cannot engage in the purely physical aspects of the endeavor -- and come away completely satisfied and fulfilled.

Put it down as something inferior to whatever turns you on personally, if you choose, but I think you are unnecessarily selling it short.

And as for finding things sensual and sexy -- I have no problem finding some "bimbette gyrating on a stage" -- much, much, much, much, much, much, much more sensual and sexy than many, perhaps most, of the so-called "loving stories."

But never forget the influence of the plumbing. I may have very little choice in this matter.
0 Replies
 
Phoenix32890
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2003 09:32 am
Frank- Don't get ME wrong. I have nothing against compartmentalized sex.........in its place.

What I am objecting to is the PREVALENCE of it, in the media. I think that it is sending a bad message to kids. What they are observing, is sex in a very one dimensional fashion.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2003 09:53 am
Quote:
I have nothing against compartmentalized sex.........in its place.


Ain't that redundant? (Just playing, mind you.)

Entertaining reading. Just would like to add to the discussion that I think we (as in, American society; sory, other folks, many of whom are well ahead of us on this issue) are headed in a positive direction and moving through a very chaotic stage. I fully agree that sex needs to be a subject of mature public discussion, but before we get there we've got to move through a stage of adolescent, sophomoric discussion -- centered around, say, the utterly mysterious phenomena that are Britney Spears and her ilk.

Do I dig sex the way its portrayed on television? Not particularly. But I think it's improved uite a bit over how it was absolutely not portrayed a few decades ago, when they couldn't say the word "pregnant" on "I Love Lucy."
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2003 06:05 pm
Good points Thomas.
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Dec, 2003 11:37 pm
Thomas-
I did some research on bed-sharing and found out a few neat things. Most people in the world still share their beds with their children and do not have sex with their children in the bed. They find other places while the children are asleep and so on. Also, children that share beds with their parents (even up to 18 years old!) have a tendency to have less of a sexual drive as they get older and are peaceful as a result (sex=violence). Even if the papers didn't say anything about not having sex with the children present, the diminished sex drive and increased harmony are the exact opposite of someone who was sexually abused.

That is all information about present day. However, I do doubt that our ancestors had a different look on the issue of having sex with a child in bed with them. That's just speculation though.
0 Replies
 
Thomas
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2003 02:51 am
Individual wrote:
Most people in the world still share their beds with their children and do not have sex with their children in the bed.

You researched that? Wow! (Sorry, couldn't resist Wink ) Seriously though, I'd be interested in your source.

Individual wrote:
Even if the papers didn't say anything about not having sex with the children present, the diminished sex drive and increased harmony are the exact opposite of someone who was sexually abused.

Maybe their sex drive is reduced, and their harmony increased, because they know they're not missing out on anything secret, dirty, and forbidden? My purely anecdotal impression from travelling around in Europe is that porn magazines at news stands are especially tasteless in prudish countries like England and Scandinavia. In relatively open countries -- romantic countries in particular -- they just have lots of tasteful statues of naked people standing around in public parks. This seems to suggest that tasteless porn is a consequence of prudishness rather than a cause of moral decline.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2003 08:45 am
Quote:
My purely anecdotal impression from travelling around in Europe is that porn magazines at news stands are especially tasteless in prudish countries like England and Scandinavia.


Bizarre porn in Germany. But maybe that's just my cultural standard speaking.

Quote:
Also, children that share beds with their parents (even up to 18 years old!) have a tendency to have less of a sexual drive as they get older and are peaceful as a result (sex=violence).


Er, so who did this study? If this is the case, why are fertility rates still so high in developing nations? And why are brutal civil wars so rampant? I'd be very curious to know exactly how they reached these conclusions.


(Putting aside my initial flip comment that, "Yeah, sleeping with your mum and dad through puberty would put a damper on anyone's sex drive.")
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Wed 17 Dec, 2003 05:45 pm
Why are fertility rates still so high in developing nations? Because they have a lower life span, shorter life leads to more babies.

And why are brutal civil wars so rampant? The studies were on individuals, not groups of people.

Click here for the research paper
I think that's the right one...
If it isn't, just search using bed-sharing and sex as your keywords.
0 Replies
 
patiodog
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 08:48 am
My apologies. I thought the study was a cross-cultural one (i.e., comparing traditionally bed-sharing cultures with non-bed-sharing cultures). The contention that the sexual drive, in particular, was lower seemed absurd.

The meat and taters.

Quote:
In this first longitudinal study of correlates of infant and
early childhood bedsharing, 154 countercultural and 51
conventional two-parent families were followed from the
third trimester of the mother's first pregnancy in 1975 for
18 years. We found that many families in the sample
intentionally elected to bedshare as part of lifestyle and
value choices favoring free and expressive interpersonal
relationships, open emotional and bodily expression,
pronaturalism, and generally more liberal attitudes towards
sexuality. Many parents believed that these lifestyle and
value choices would have important salutary effects on
their children. With the single exception of significantly
elevated scores in cognitive competence at age 6 years, our
data suggest that bedsharing as a practice had no such
effects.
On the other hand, our data also do not support fears that
bedsharing would lead to psychosexually troubled relationships
later in childhood and adolescence, behavior problems
and difficulties in peer and intimate relationships, or early
childhood sleep problems. If anything, there are mildly
positive associations in early childhood and adolescence
between bedsharing and psychosexual and affect-related
variables, although effect sizes are small. Our lack of
findings of negative outcomes is in accord with previous
cross-sectional research from the cross-cultural literature,
and it fits with our expectations from theory.



Anyway, Table 5 shows that they found a very slight increase in sexual liberalness in the bed-sharing kids, though the correlation (less than 1%) can hardly be considered significant in a study of this size. The researchers themselves say they didn't find any substantial correlations between bedsharing and positive or negative effects.
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 09:10 am
It you search for "co-sleeping" there will be a lot of stuff (and probably more current.)
0 Replies
 
sozobe
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 09:15 am
Co-sleeping article (first Google result)

Quote:
If you share your bed with your children you are not alone. Surveys show that 25 to 30 percent of American parents routinely let their children sleep with them, either for part or all of the night. The United States is one of the few countries that has a cultural bias against parents sharing a bed with their children. It was a common tradition in the U.S. until the twentieth century when child-care experts began warning parents that they must teach their children to sleep alone or create psychological scars. It continues to be a common tradition in many other cultures and not just because of limited space. It is common in Japan, for example, where they emphasize the nurturing aspects of family life. Parents don't sleep alone, most people do not like sleeping alone, why would a baby?

-snip-
Marriage and Sex

Most parents throughout the world sleep with their infants with no such problems. A Swedish study looked at this issue and found that the parents' marital relations were not harmed by having a child sleep with them and that it did not cause a rise in the divorce rate. If both parents agree on it, sharing sleep usually does not contribute to marital conflict (however, it won't work if you don't want the child there). Many parents report that co-sleeping has lead to more creativity in their sex lives. They point out that there are many other rooms in the house. They may also move a sleeping child to the floor or another room temporarily.


My own take is that while people in cramped living quarters probably don't give up sex, it is probably more a matter of wiggling around under the covers in the dark than just doing whatever in full sight of the kids. So while the kids are probably exposed to the concept -- mom and dad wiggle under the covers and make funny noises -- I really doubt that it is or has ever been a global norm for parents to let it all hang out, so to speak, and show kids what is going on the way a porn video does.
0 Replies
 
Individual
 
  1  
Reply Thu 18 Dec, 2003 05:56 pm
Exactly what I was saying, Sozobe.

As for patiodog, the information about the lower sex drive must have been from some other source, I'll try to find it again for you if you want but I don't find it to be too incredibly necessary.

Sex is obviously not problematic in most homes, assuming that most parents have never sexually abused their children (if anyone finds otherwise, please tell me). But could sex on television, no matter how covered up, be harming children? I really haven't seen any proof that it would other than the idea that it would peer pressure children into thinking that they should be having sex.

Parents have a definite concern over what kind of sexual material their children are witnessing on a day to day basis. Could they be reacting to some instinctual urge to protect their children from the damaging forces of sex, or could their fear be completely irrational and an effect of society?
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.73 seconds on 04/28/2024 at 10:27:28