[HR][/HR]In the western culture, anything related to sex is more or less considered a taboo in the public. Christianity was one of the big factors when it introduced sins.
Even though "liberty" has become a favored topic, we have still kept the unusual taboo involving sex. Come to think of it, human nature (as well as all animals) is quite the opposite. A million years ago, sex wouldn't be less normal than any other activity we consider socially acceptable. Humanity has somehow developed a fear of this, so much that even violence is overshadowed as a taboo in the media.
What does Facepunch think?
I think the only taboos that make sense are having sex with children and animals and that sort of that thing.
Other than that, it's free game to me.
I'd rather not have images of penises on billboards thrown at me all day, but it'd merely annoy me rather than offend me.
I wouldn't call it taboo. The fact that you see girls walking around flaunting their goods shows that people accept sex. It's when people openly talk about their own sex experiences that people get uncomfortable, so I see it more as an etiquette not to do so.
i like it when boobies
[QUOTE=Speedstream;32977557]I wouldn't call it taboo. The fact that you see girls walking around flaunting their goods shows that people accept sex. It's when people openly talk about their own sex experiences that people get uncomfortable, so I see it more as an etiquette not to do so.[/QUOTE]
Violence doesn't make a game 18+ rated, but nudity does.
It's not necessarily taboo, it's just that it's seen as proper etiquette to keep those kind of things out of the business of the general public.
I think the OP really needs to go more in depth on the subject matter. Give some examples of taboos and different perspectives- pros and cons- of each. You've got incest, bestiality, pedophilia, necrophilia, intermarriages, etc. None of which are remotely mentioned. Give both sides of the argument and give examples. You should be raising questions that we have to determine for ourselves as to whether they are right or not. Questions like: are these natural parts of human nature we shouldn't shy from? Or are they distortions of human nature and psychological oddities? To what extent do we consider any sexual act taboo? Who determines what is taboo? Furthermore, go into the origins of these taboos, talk about why these things are considered wrong to the mainstream rather than just 'Christianity was a big factor introducing sins'. Then propose your opinion at the end.
This is a long and tough subject that you've barely scratched the surface of for discussion.
I apologize to the mods [b]if[/b] this is back seat moderation, or [b]if[/b] I should have just reported this (or the many other threads) and [b]if[/b] I get banned for it, I understand.
As for my contribution though: It truly depends on what form of taboo we are discussing. As I said there are many different factors. Personally, sex- in general- should be a private act and not flaunted about as it is on MTV or in casual media. However, that being said it should not be shunned by parents and teachers to discuss. We shy away from the subject too easily because we're embarrassed to talk about it even for educational purposes. To me, this leads to a lot of what we see today in the youth (it seems- I say that because I have not taken the time to check statistics and am referring to personal experiences- more and more people are becoming sexually involved for the wrong reasons and at young ages).
As far as I know, the general reason that a sexual taboo exist is because of their nature. Incest, for instance, is considered wrong because of the potential for inbreeding and a larger possibility of deformed or handicapped children. This puts a strain on the families financially, psychologically, and emotionally. Therefore, I see incestuous inbreeding wrong. However, I am fairly lenient when it comes to casual incestuous encounters (mostly between consenting siblings or cousins; when it comes to parents and their children- even if the child is appropriate age and consenting- then I get kind of unsettled).
Something like necrophilia or bestiality however, I think is wrong straight off the bat. Necrophilia because I see it as disrespectful for the dead. I don't think it is right that someone can use a dead body as a sex toy. Bestiality is taboo because animal rights activists see it as animal abuse. Which I agree. In such an encounter there is only the person who is making the decision to have sex with the animal and dominates the creature against its will.
In the end, I think most sexual taboos are justified- in the sense that it is right to consider them wrong- and are unappealing to the general public. Some however, do enter a grey area of psychological examinations and that illusive thing we call 'love'.
and this is why Canada is a nice place, although this is more of an equality thing, both men and women can walk around shirtless in public, at least I'm quite sure of this, you just never see it exploited :P
[QUOTE=FreeHat;32977971]i like it when boobies[/QUOTE]
Dan
Mostly because its just polite/etiquette not to talk about it in public.
Rape & snuff are absolutely unacceptable as there is a victim. Those are the only two sex taboos that really disturb me. (Molestation of a child counts as rape of course.)
Incest doesn't cause genetic defects in the short term unless both parties carry the same defect, though most incestuous relationships begin with some sort of manipulation (as in between parent & child or brother & sister).
With bestiality, if someone spreads peanut butter on their sack for a dog to lick off I don't see any harm. Forcing sex on a struggling animal however does result in harm, as again there is a victim.
I, for one, don't like hearing about people's sex or seeing them flaunt things. If I want to get off, I'll go home and look at porn or something, but I don't want to see someone walking around on the street in clothes that practically aren't there. I know that's rather extreme, but imagine if there was someone walking around in something that they think is sexy but is actually really unflattering and kind of disgusting.
It's because we're more civilized.
It's the rules we made up ourselves.
Whether it should be taboo is questionable, however I'm certainly not going to complain about it not being in the general media
[QUOTE=Silikone;32976985][HR][/HR]In the western culture, anything related to sex is more or less considered a taboo in the public.[/QUOTE]
in america maybe, not so much europe
[editline]26th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;32978174]Something like necrophilia or bestiality however, I think is wrong straight off the bat. Necrophilia because I see it as disrespectful for the dead. I don't think it is right that someone can use a dead body as a sex toy.[/quote]
what if the dead person gave permission for someone to fuck their corpse, back when they were still alive?
[editline]26th October 2011[/editline]
[QUOTE=BlueChihuahua;32979180]Incest doesn't cause genetic defects in the short term unless both parties carry the same defect[/QUOTE]
yeah but some defects are more common than others, and what's more you can never actually know whether both have the same defect unless you do a time-consuming and expensive test. it's better to err on the side of caution
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32979987]
what if the dead person gave permission for someone to fuck their corpse, back when they were still alive?[/QUOTE]
Then that's one odd couple. I don't know, to me, I think it is wrong to have sex with a corpse in any sense (no matter how fresh the body is). I can see how it can be 'justified' given permission and all, but I still think it is a disgusting and disrespectful thing to do.
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32979987]
yeah but some defects are more common than others, and what's more you can never actually know whether both have the same defect unless you do a time-consuming and expensive test. it's better to err on the side of caution[/QUOTE]
I've thought of this before, but seeing as people diagnosed with schizophrenia or bipolarity or diabetes or etc are allowed to breed freely I don't think you can use that argument against incest too effectively.
Discussing rape and molestation in this topic is a bit nonsensical to do in this topic as the focus here is more on societal taboos. Really, each social taboo is different and needs to be addressed differently. Certainly they fit under the class of taboo, and the subclass of socially justified, yet it makes no sense to address the issue as a whole unless you argue against social justification.
Many of the arguments being made here fall under a fallacy. To quote an article (I suggest reading all of it).
[quote][B]Appeal to Beauty...[/B]
Another objection to a sexual act is the fact that its thought may be disturbing. Some people may find it disgusting that two people can consent to things which they find abominable. Although it is true that there may be no suffering exchanging in such a sexual act, they detest it on the grounds that it is grosteque -- at least, it is grosteque to them. The fallacy of this objection can quite clearly be seen: an action being ugly does not mean that it is immoral, just as an action being beautiful does not mean it is moral. If someone were to make the appeal that they detested a particular action because it was disgusting, it would best for them to imagine if someone wanted to limit them in their favorite action because it was thought to be disgusting.
Suffering is suffering and misery is misery. Whether it is surrounded by the veil of beauty or the sheet of wretchedness, it is still contaminated with the same fact that such an action is painful, full of the things that make up the negative parts of life. Similarly, happiness is happiness and pleasure is pleasure. Whether with the label of "beautiful" or "ugly," such actions still exist to lift our hearts and to put new meaning into our lives. On no appeal to beauty can any action be condemned, otherwise we would find that we are censoring the pages in the book of humanity, depriving ourselves and others of the pleasure and happiness that can ease worries and pains.
[B]Appeal to Obscurity...[/B]
Similar to the Appeal to Beauty, the Appeal to Obscurity is based not on contaminating an action with the title of "ugly" or "harmful to the eye," but rather, it makes the claim that such an action is obscure, odd, misplaced, and therefore should not be committed, in public or in private. This Appeal, though, just like the Appeal to Beauty, is flawed on the same grounds: whether or not an individual's actions are obscure and incomprehensible, or easily understood and simple, it has no grounds on determining whether or not such an action is ethical or unethical.
[url]http://www.ipce.info/library_3/files/taboos.htm#Society[/url][/quote]
This whole discussion about "I don't want to hear about it" is irrelevant and has no impact on whether or not an act immoral or moral. To go further, the only possible way to enforce a way of these things being discussed is through unjustified force which is clearly immoral.
As for my view: no sexual taboo is justified on the grounds of social norms. The fact that everyone believed the sun revolved around the earth did not have any effect on the truth of the matter. If someone where to think that 2+2 was 5, that would have no bearing on the truth of the matter. It's a fallacy in that opinion does not affect actuality. It is vital to understand that though there is a societal disgust of rape, it's ban is not justified through societal norms but rather the non aggression axiom.
The tricky ones deal with animals and children because it is difficult to make arguments about voluntary action. But rather than focusing on that, it is better to ask if the child or animal can make and understand a contract, and if not, it is immoral as they cannot claim right to their body. The homesteaders (caretakers) handle all issues of contracts for a reason, because what they are homesteading cannot. The issue with the current system is that for some reason it is assumed that anyone below age 18 can't understand contracts, and once you turn 18, you magically can. It's not very practical at all. Addressing animals, none can make or understand contracts as of yet. If sometime in the future cows gain that ability, it would be moral. But until then, it is immoral. With children, if they can understand and form a contract, they are not a child.
[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;32978174]I apologize to the mods [b]if[/b] this is back seat moderation, or [b]if[/b] I should have just reported this (or the many other threads) and [b]if[/b] I get banned for it, I understand.[/QUOTE]
It wouldn't be back seat moderation, but rather a criticism of a terrible OP.
As i've said before (in a different thread), this sex taboo is bad for society. It's creating sexists, it feeds revealing clothing to the point youngsters wear clothing not even whores would wear and brings about too much hesitation when it comes to sex and protection.
Sex ed needs to be standard for every kid starting from the age of 5 all the way to 18.
If people saw sex as a normal social thing, there wouldn't be as much rapists, AIDS, whoring and a bunch of other things.
I worded this really badly, i hope i got the point across.
[QUOTE=sami-elite;32980895]As i've said before (in a different thread), this sex taboo is bad for society. It's creating sexists, it feeds revealing clothing to the point youngsters wear clothing not even whores would wear and brings about too much hesitation when it comes to sex and protection.
Sex ed needs to be standard for every kid starting from the age of 5 all the way to 18.
If people saw sex as a normal social thing, there wouldn't be as much rapists, AIDS, whoring and a bunch of other things.
I worded this really badly, i hope i got the point across.[/QUOTE]
Aye, you got your point across just fine. I agree with you, there would probably be less trouble with teen pregnancies and such if sex was considered normal and taught properly. It's never made sense to me how bloody violence isn't offensive, yet a naked woman is.
I think sex in billboards or most media is just not needed. Most of the time it adds nothing at all, and usually just ruins the experience. Imagine you're watching a cool movie and then BAM a sex scene out of nowhere for no real reason that does not develop story. WHY? Same goes for some games. Sex fits in witcher but I don't know if it would in something like skyrim for example. It just seems unneeded there.
Though putting +18 for sex only is silly. Murder and violence is okay, but a titty is not? But lately games have been more and more relaxed about sex as you can see a titty more often now. But as I said, often it's not needed there.
[QUOTE=sami-elite;32980895]As i've said before (in a different thread), this sex taboo is bad for society. It's creating sexists, it feeds revealing clothing to the point youngsters wear clothing not even whores would wear and brings about too much hesitation when it comes to sex and protection.
Sex ed needs to be standard for every kid starting from the age of 5 all the way to 18.
If people saw sex as a normal social thing, there wouldn't be as much rapists, AIDS, whoring and a bunch of other things.
I worded this really badly, i hope i got the point across.[/QUOTE]
Something like that would need to be done slowly and not all in one big go, otherwise you'll cause culture shock
[QUOTE=DainBramageStudios;32979987]in america maybe, not so much europe
[/QUOTE]
There's a difference in the cultural views, but the prohibitions generally apply in Europe too.
[QUOTE=Pepin;32980559]Addressing animals, none can make or understand contracts as of yet. If sometime in the future cows gain that ability, it would be moral. But until then, it is immoral.[/QUOTE]
I would agree with you, but as someone who eats cows, I have no right to judge those who fuck them.
But yeah, fucking hyper-intelligent cows from the future = definitely OK.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;32981681]Something like that would need to be done slowly and not all in one big go, otherwise you'll cause culture shock[/QUOTE]
Yeah sure, no problem in my opinion. Better have it take 10 years than not change at all.
[QUOTE=sami-elite;32982021]Yeah sure, no problem in my opinion. Better have it take 10 years than not change at all.[/QUOTE]
It would probably take longer than that, hell look how long it has taken to get female equality. Things like this always take a long time, especially when it is a deeply ingrained cultural thing like sexuality. In the end it will come about when it's ready to.
[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;32978174]Personally, sex- in general- should be a private act and not flaunted about as it is on MTV or in casual media.[/QUOTE]
Why should sex be a private act? You made a bold statement without providing any reasoning.
[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;32978174]Necrophilia because I see it as disrespectful for the dead.[/QUOTE]
Why is it disrespectful? You didn't give proper reasoning for the only point your argument balances on.
[QUOTE=-Ben_Wolfe-;32978174]In such an encounter there is only the person who is making the decision to have sex with the animal and dominates the creature against its will.[/QUOTE]
Using that logic, we also shouldn't kill animals or forcibly cage them because it's against their will. Besides pleasuring them, sex doesn't affect larger animals that are the target of beastiality, unless intentional harm is caused.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32982797]
Using that logic, we also shouldn't kill animals or forcibly cage them because it's against their will. Besides pleasuring them, sex doesn't affect larger animals that are the target of beastiality, unless intentional harm is caused.[/QUOTE]
It's animal abuse, I don't see why people refuse to see this.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32982797]Why should sex be a private act? [/QUOTE]
To me, sex is a deeply personal thing to do with someone. An act that shows that the people involved trust each other with their bodies. It does not have to be love, but I think it should be between people who at least care for each other in some way. I disagree with the notions that some people have today of 'getting as much pussy as I can', it just seems wrong to treat sex like a game where you keep scores or whatnot. I do not like seeing media exploit these acts as something that makes you 'cool', 'popular', or a better person in some way. However, this is only my perspective. I've grown up traveling and as such I only know people for at most five years. I try not to take people for granted and I see these relationships- short as they may be- as significant bonds.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32982797]
Why is it disrespectful?
[/QUOTE]
The way I see it, a person who is dead should be given the liberties of a burial, cremation, or liquefaction. Not be kept around as a sex toy or fuck-dummy for one's personal pleasures.
[QUOTE=Rubs10;32982797]
Using that logic, we also shouldn't kill animals or forcibly cage them because it's against their will. Besides pleasuring them, sex doesn't affect larger animals that are the target of beastiality, unless intentional harm is caused.[/QUOTE]
With the first sentence you're deviating into a different subject, one that deserves its own argument altogether as it has its own ethical pros and cons. In what sense are we talking about killing an animal? Are we talking about boiling a cat for fun? or poaching elephants for profits? or animal husbandry and farm animals?
The first is wrong as it is animal abuse; what right do you have to brutally kill an animal that cannot defend itself, in the name of 'fun'?
The second, it depends: if the poaching endangers the species and the rest of the carcass is left to rot- that's bad. Hunting has at least seasonal control to it. People are able to hunt freely for a designated amount time in designated areas and typically do not waste much of the animal carcass. The meat is sold, the antlers, bones, and hooves are made into furniture, trinkets and trophies or even tools.
Thirdly, animal husbandry is a controlled environment. It does not damage the species' population as they have them continually bred and supplied. Eating them gives us humans a new range of proteins and materials that benefit our bodies (however, chemicals and supplements can deter this).
But more on topic, how can you be sure you're pleasuring the animal? It's not like it breathes a sigh and says "Oh yeah". In such a case, you're doing what you want with only assumptions of the animal's notions. People have sex through desire and for pleasure among other reasons. As of yet (and as far as I know...) we do not know whether an animal wants to humped by a person. And a person has no place making that decision for the animal
Most animals can't feel sexual pleasure, and considering human genitalia are not supposed to work with animals, it more than likely hurts the animal (especially in the case of smaller animals)
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
