Messages

How would they go about telling countless writers that worked on that show that the secret symbolism behind the show is that americans are afraid of losing culture and having them all go "Good idea!"

Outwardly, most people these days abhor the thought of prejudice. Yet, evidence has shown that many people in our culture tend to show signs of unconscious discrimination. For example, taking an implicit association test may reveal that a person who consciously says that racism is bad actually has an easier time associating positive character traits with white people and negative character traits with black people than vice versa.

The point is, you don't necessarily have to be outwardly prejudiced to hold prejudiced attitudes. In fact, I'd wager that if it really were the case that the X-Files had racist symbolism, it would most likely be of the unconscious variety. After all, American culture does have a long history of fearing strangers, as evidenced in that cute cartoon in the middle of Bowling for Columbine. I'd say it's quite plausible that despite minorities and women being treated better than before, some of that residual fear still exists in 2006.

That being said, I don't watch the X-Files, and despite having written at least one detective adventure game, haven't seen all that many film noir movies. Therefore, I can't comment specifically on those cases.

Or you could use stuff from Discworld Noir...

Helm: Oh dear, my head hurts.

I'm one of those people who liked it a lot.

I know! With skid marks and everything? Gross!

Fair enough.

I do watch a fair share of movies that contain violence in them, but I don't really watch them for the violence. Slapstick humour and stuff doesn't bother me, but I'm pretty squeamish at the sight of blood and realistic violence.

On that token, I do think graphic depictions of violence are wrong (and the more tasteless and disgusting it is, the more wrong I think it is, as with porn).

Can I, however, clarify that throughout this thread, whenever I've said that I think something is wrong, it doesn't mean that I'm judging the people who disagree with me? It means I, personally, don't like it, and despite thinking the world would be a better place without it, I recognize that people are free to make their own choices about what they like and dislike.

Oh Squinky, you're so fine, you're so fine you blow my mind?

Yeah, seems that it's our only hope, but that may not work well if you don't know the original message address.

Yeah... interestingly enough, I managed to find my old EzBoard quite easily, because I was redirecting to it with a shorter URL.

Although we can't really simulate touch, as a player we are still engrossed in two of the main senses, sight and sound. Like a movie, sound is 50% of the picture - sounds explain what is happening just as much as visuals, and sound can even mix with odd visuals to give a much clearer impression of whats going on. Sound is essential! In fact, I'd say sound effects are more essential than music - music is merely for pleasure, but very pleasureable it is too Especially if in MIDI

Can't music serve the role of explaining what's going on? Why is it merely for pleasure?

If I were the Devil, I would start a powerful worldwide religious organization and rule men's hearts and mind through it.

Actually, most of the founders of the world's major religions weren't looking to rule anything. If they were, then they would have escaped persecution, which they, for the most part, didn't. Look at Jesus for example. If He wanted to rule men's hearts and mind, wouldn't He have tried to work his way up amongst the current "religious" leaders instead of denouncing them?

If I were the Devil, I would have that world religion take most of its inspiration from pagan and heathen origin and disguise it as religious iconolatry.

That's not the work of the founder itself; it's the work of the people who adopted the religion but didn't want to do away with their old rites and celebrations, so they found a way of integrating them into the religion.

If I were the devil, I would take all the attention off God and put it on light, fluffy things like being nice to everybody and overmoralizing things to the point where I balk at outhouses being displayed on television.

What? I thought being nice to everybody was a good thing! (To the point where you don't annoy people, of course.) And why does it take all the attention off God?

The rest of the post was pretty much spot-on, though.

I think I agree completely with your take on porn and, in general, taking pleasure in life's beauty. If I see someone and find them attractive (btw, I don't neccessarily mean good physical appearance, it has something to do with personality, with what ther person projects outside), and perhaps fantasize about them, is this objectifying?

No. Is it possible to love the personality of a pornographic image, though?

Maybe I'm not in the place to judge, as I'm a teenager, but I find myself more mature than most teenagers.

Been there. Done that.

Your sex ed class sounds pretty cool.

[guilt by association]

Here's the guilt by association again. Indeed, some pornographic works reduce a human into something whose only use is the pleasure of others, but to establish this as an essential trait of pornography is completely groundless. You're making very specific statements about a very broad concept. I really don't understand why the depiction of erotic behaviour would inevitably lead to depiction of a human being as something whose only use is the pleasure of others. It's a connection that just doesn't make any sense.

Okay, then, I think that porn that reduces a human to a thing used by others is wrong. The rest of it, I just don't find appealing.

I never thought I'd say this, but I'm actually starting to get sick of this thread...

Stranger: A woman (or man) has a choice whether or not to pose for a nude photo shoot. If he or she opts to go even further, and star in a porn movie, it is still their own choice. Well, hopefully. But assuming it is, how can it be a bad thing to objectify someone if they've chosen to be seen as an object in the first place?

If you allow yourself to be photographed in the nude, you gotta bear the consequences. It's kind of backwards to blame the viewers for doing something the person being viewed knew could happen.

That is true. I, personally, think that the conditions in which one would have to make that choice should be eliminated (i.e. I don't think anyone should want to be an object for anyone else), but then again, I can't make choices for other people.

Are you telling me, TIS (and I don't expect you to answer this, I don't want you to divulge personal things here) that you've never gotten a little hot and bothered by seeing a boy you have a severe crush on in high school or something? In that case, you could claim you're still thinking of him as a person. So, coming away from that, have you ever just seen a guy (sorry, I'm assuming heterosexuality here, if not, just change the 'he's to 'her's) you thought was really good looking and gotten a little red in the cheeks?

I'm odd. I'll admit it. I never get hot and bothered over just looking at someone. I see millions of guys every day, many of whom can be construed as good-looking. I don't notice any of them unless I know something about them. If I actually meet a guy and can hold an interesting conversation with him, and he seems to be the type I'd have something in common with, that's when attraction starts to happen. I'm dead serious.

To be honest, I think it's because I grew up with low self-esteem and spent most of my life believing I was physically unattractive, therefore causing me to gradually not care about looks so much. It's gotten to the point where I don't even want people to see me as physically attractive at all; I'd rather be recognized for my intelligence, creativity, and attempts at humour.

There are exceptions, though: sometimes, I'll notice a person's looks if they physically resemble someone I know and like. Also, if I come across two people engaged in a public display of affection, I'll admittedly have a mix of "oooh..." and "get a room!" in my head...

But I also know what it's like to be where I am now, and where I've been in many periods of my life like now. That is to say, I LOVE sex. I think about it more times during the day than is probably normal ^_^ But I certainly don't feel dirty (in a bad way) or wrong in any way whatsoever. It makes me happy.

A lot of the time, I'm thinking about how much I love my fiance and the amazing times we've shared together (we live apart temporarilly now so it's just thinking about it for the time being). That's what I would call making love and that's the most fulfilling and wonderful things in the world because the act goes beyond the physical enjoyment and is just a very intense expression of our love and bond.

I have to admit, I'm envious.

I dated this guy for two years. During that time, I felt a lot like you do now regarding the physical aspect of our relationship; however, in the past nine months following the breakup, I've felt nothing but regret. Today, I feel that it was all dirty and wrong, and that I should have waited for someone who was more worth it.

Most people take a situation like this and move on, maybe go "yay, I'm more sexually experienced" or something like that. I can't do that. I can move on saying that I'll be more careful with whom I open my heart to, but I can't have an attitude of no regrets. It's just not me.

I'm not always thinking about that though Sometimes it's just sex - in general. We all have bodies that enjoy (immensely!) physical pleasure, and that is never just physical, we always enjoy it mentally too. Those endorphines alone shoot to the brain, as well.

I'd rather just eat lots and lots of chocolate, but like I said, I'm odd.

So don't be hating porn ^_^ It has a place in a healthy society just like many controversial things, when you understand it properly and know that it can have many good points too.

Well, that doesn't change the fact that I get nothing out of porn, and therefore don't like it. But I respect that many people disagree with me.

Passion is what keeps me going in life, and I think most people get depressed or sad when they go for long periods without it.

Ah, that explains why I'm so depressed and sad all the time, then!

1. You suggested that consent arises 'a lot of times' from a person being pressured into having sex, or from a heat-of-the-moment impulsive response. Perhaps this may be a relevent point to make if we were discussing 14 year olds having sex, or High School romances, but Becky specifically worded her sentence as "consensual, safe sex between two non-married adults" which suggests maturity towards sexual feelings and a knowledge of what you do and don't want sexually. This seemed to me to be a moot point and does not go towards any concrete reason why sex in any non-married relationship is wrong.

Hey, a lot of adults act like teenagers. And a lot of teenagers think they're mature enough to be considered consenting adults. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the line between maturity and immaturity is quite blurry. Where would you say it's drawn?

2. You provided a very pedantic 'argument' that safe sex isn't safe sex at all. I'm not sure where this fits into the marriage argument as there's no shift in contraceptive responsibilities from being an unmarried couple to a married couple, it just seemed like you wanted to throw that in there to try and (quite poorly) 'negate' every aspect of the original sentence.

You're kind of right about that, and admittedly, I just kind of threw that in there for a bit of tongue-in-cheek fun. Sorry about that.

3. You make massive assumptions that people who have sex in an unmarried relationship don't know each other very well, which is a ridiculous thing to say. If you have statistics to back this "chances are" statement up, I'll be happy to retract my opinion that it is a ridiculous thing to say.

That was speculation. Sorry for not phrasing it as such. I'd be happy to be proven wrong. Unfortunately, I haven't been able to find any statistics anywhere that pertain to how much people in relationships know one another; I assume that it's a hard variable to accurately measure.

You also mention "The most underestimated consequence of having sex too early is the emotional scarring it gives you" without defining when "too early" actually is. In the context of you presenting a case against sex outside of marriage I can only assume that you mean that having sex before the wedding night is emotionally scarring. If you said at 11 or some equally silly pre-consentual/pre-legal age then I'd totally agree, but we're specifically talking about "adult relationships" here.

Like I said, the line between maturity and immaturity is a foggy one; not everyone crosses it at the same time. A 21-year-old could potentially be as immature as a 14-year-old, in which case, yes, they would be having sex too early. It's a very "it depends" thing. I don't know if there's a definite answer.

Admittedly, though, it's possible to get married too early, and it happens.

Before that line you state that a relationship can't be sustained purely on love. Can you define for me what you believe love to be? Is it less than a mental, emotional, spiritual and commited bond? Do you really, really believe that love ISN'T the whole purpose of a relationship, or did you muddle up what you meant by that sentence?

I said "you need to be compatible with one another", and you seem to have missed that. Love is precisely what you said: a bond. While bonding often results from compatibility, it doesn't always imply it. My ex-boyfriend and I loved each other and were committed to each other, but in some very important areas in our beliefs, we weren't compatible.

I personally find the idea that you cannot fully 'examine' a person's character because your judgement is impared with sexual thoughts extremely patronising. I can't elaborate any further than 'balderdash', and if you can't see why then no amount of arm waving will help explain.

Sorry for the patronising sentiment. The reason I threw out this point was because it happened to me personally. If you and most other people are smarter than I am, well, good for you.

If you're trying to say here that getting married is the most emotionally protective way of 'testing the waters of relationships' then I'm not quite sure what to say. I don't think you've quite looked at every possible angle before coming to this conclusion. Ã, 

Nah, I'd actually say it's one emotionally-protective way. There are other ways as well.

If I have inferred incorretly, you might want to revise the way you present your opinions on such things - I have no personal knowledge of you so I can only react to the words you type (and not the extra words you meant to say that I would pick up on if I knew you personally).

Well, that's the last time I'll type replies to heated discussions while taking notes in a lecture at the same time, then...

And I'm not willing to go any further than this, because I'm ultimatly happy in my unmarried relationship and I plan to go on being in the same happily unmarried relationship for the rest of my life. My original post was not intended to be a rebuttal, or insulting, or counter-argumentative, I just felt stirred strongly enough to follow up your post in a blunt manner because your opinions dismissed my own relationship and I felt slightly annoyed by the conclusions you had drawn. An easy trap to fall into of course, I should have avoided hitting the 'reply' button altogether. I usually avoid topics such as these because I'm too lazy to type out complex replies and give detailed cross-references

Well, that's wonderful for you. Again, I'm envious that you've apparently found happiness. I hope it does, in fact, last for the rest of your life.

I'm sorry I offended you. In fact, I'm sorry if I offended anyone else. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to sulk in my ever-present loneliness.

[only]

Now if I may ask, why a picture of a nude woman (and there are more pictures of nude women than donkeys (<-creatures), fortunately), objectifies her? And why is it wrong for something, or someone to be there only for the pleasure of others. Like clowns, or funny pics, or comics, or sex? Would it be because sexual pleasure is a baaaaad thing? Cause I still don't get why you are allowed to have pleasure with your wife (and by doing so, you are not sinning, thus having pleasure is not sin, and anyway because sin is not the idea here, you don't object to that), but when doing it with a pic and your handfull then you are wrong because you take pleasure for something, and thus you objectify it...

I never said sexual pleasure was a bad thing in and of itself. If you are using the image of a person solely for your pleasure, you are denying their humanity. You are essentially denying the fact that they are intelligent, rational (and spiritual, if you believe in that) creatures. With your wife, however, I'd imagine that it's different; obviously, you love her for more than just her body. You also respect her right to choose when she wants to have sex with you, and it's not only your pleasure you're concerned about, but hers as well. Does that make more sense?

Entertainment forms such as comics, funny pictures, and yes, even adventure games don't really objectify anyone (they can, but don't have to). Clowns are just plain scary. As for whether cartoon porn is okay, well, I wonder, who gets turned on by cartoon porn, anyway?

[fallacious]

First of all, Adamski, I'm very well aware that not all of what I've said is always true in all cases. Our beliefs are coloured by our own personal experiences, and we all have very different personal experiences. Bias is inevitable; it is lessened by looking at the different views of different people, but can never be avoided completely. My goal in this discussion is not to convince anyone that I'm right; it is to learn from others and hopefully have people learn something from me as well. I have not learned anything from your rebuttals to the points I have made; in fact, they are not even rebuttals, but insults. It would be a lot more help to me if you provided some actual well-thought-out counterarguments. I always welcome them. (Unless, of course, you consider your own personal experience to be an appropriate counterargument, in which case, why should I take someone else's personal experience over my own?)

Also, might I ask what makes you think you know exactly what "experiences everyone else in the world is having"? I highly doubt that you know exactly what goes on in the heads of every denizen of the world...

Now, time for some more fun...

Also, I'd like to throw in a couple of words on the topic of pornography. Merriam-Webster Online (sorry, I don't have access to the OED right now) tells me that it means the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement. I see no reason why this in itself would be wrong. The argument that usually comes up, about it degrading women and so forth, is fallacious, as pornography in itself is a much broader concept, and not by definition degrading. This is a textbook example of an association fallacy.

Let me clarify, then: Pornography, by its very nature, objectifies something. Whatever is depicted to cause sexual excitement serves the sole purpose of exciting someone: this is objectification. I shall rephrase my previous statements to say that the object is not always a woman; however, this does not erase the fact that women are significantly more present in pornography than other creatures are. (This is a problem having to do with the general status of women and the concept of femininity in our society, not necessarily an argument against pornography itself.)

Objectification is a form of degradation; it reduces a human being into something whose only use is the pleasure of others. This is why I find it wrong. Sorry for making unclear statements before; I was in class and trying to take notes and reply to this thread at the same time. Uck.

I'm not sure that's entirely correct. I think the ever-increasing obsession with sex in the Western world is just a more direct symptom of sexual repression, not the cause. The way we portray sex in the media nowadays, is grossly out of whack, but not in the way you might think.

Repression is a form of obsession. Why would you go through such pain to suppress something if you didn't care about it so much? Read "The History of Sexuality" by Michel Foucault for more on this.

I think the the predominant view we have on sexuality these days is pretty adolescent, but sex is something to be celebrated. It's the act of creation.

I celebrate the act of creation. I don't celebrate the predominant adolescent view. Does that clarify things?

Safe walking down the street doesn't exist. There's risk in everything we do. Often, the riskier something is, the more worthwhile it is.

It's a matter of deciding whether or not something is worth the risk, then, isn't it?

Well, depending on how early somebody has sex, the possibility of emotional scarring over a positive experience is dependent on many other factors. Sex would only be the catalyst to the reaction. The possibility of breaking up may be greater, but it's not necessarily a bad thing. We learn from and intigrate bad experiences. It's the only thing that really makes us stronger.

That is true. However, one also shouldn't seek bad experiences for the sake of having bad experiences.

That is a bit baseless, tbh. Sex is when we are at our most unguarded, but that gives it equal potential to be an empowering experience and imprint positively on personality. Somebody with sexual confidence extends that confidence into all areas of life, because so much of our unconcious processing when dealing with either gender, is, at the root, determined by sex. It's just a fact of being an animal. No getting round it. Much as you can get on top of it, you can't really control smells and instinct.

I don't want to be protected. Let it shine when it wants to and rain when I least expect.

Well, good for you. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, then. In the meantime, though, thank you for your constructive insights.

As mentioned before life is not black and white. It is grey. And people that don't seem to understand that are probably dumb.

So... is life only one shade of grey, or varying shades of grey?

Of course it's fun to indicate your beliefs, while trying to nail down all the wrong points of another member, but heck, I am certain that noone will change their minds over this thread.

Agreed. I'm definitely doing this all for fun, and I'm definitely not trying to change people's minds. I hope everyone knows that.

Like I said earlier, I do enjoy learning from other people, but learning from others does not necessarily mean agreeing with them.

And btw, why has everyhting got to do with sex? I'm innocent, and 10 years ago I was sinless (and a virgin!)! Heck, what does sex got to do with things. And Stranger, I'm in love with my wife and make love with her, not sex (just because you think that people confusse love and sex...)

Huh? We're talking about sex because rharpe brought it up. I think. As for why everything in general has to do with sex, we're already discussing that. I think. As for your last point, are "love" and "making love" the same things?

You never know. Nobody expects the other to. But good discussion is offering up opposing viewpoints, so that people can see how others look at the same situation. No one is attacking anyone.

Again we agree...

As do I!

A lot of the arguments against sex out of marriage I see could just as easily take place inside the confines of a marriage situation.Ã,  If a couple are devoted to each other and compatible in every way, why is it still immoral for them to have sex even though they do not have the legal status of marriage?

Remember: I'm talking about marriage in the religious sense, not in the legal sense. Legal marriage doesn't really mean much, as Britney Spears would attest. As for your questions, I've already addressed them in my post. Read it over again if you want answers. I hate repeating myself.

If you're not religious, I should probably mention that none of what I say on marriage applies; there's no significant reason to get married if you're not religious and don't hold the same system of beliefs that most religious people do. In this case, I'd still advise trying to get to know your significant other as well as possible before sex0ring them.

Now, it's question-answering time!

1) Do you think abortion is wrong?
2) Do you think swearing is wrong?
3) Do you think physical violence is wrong?
4) Do you think jealousy (coveting what another person has or does) is wrong, and should someone be punished for it if it's impossible to control? Do you think it can be controlled?
5) Do you think lying for your personal gain is wrong? What about lying to help someone else? What if the lie will prevent the person you are lying to from being hurt, physically?
6) Do you believe people should be allowed to express their beliefs and thoughts freely (free speech) ?

1) Not necessarily in circumstances involving life or death. However, the vast majority of abortions are a result of people having sex before they're ready to deal with its consequences; like I said in response to Paul Harvey, it's not a matter of stopping abortions, but a matter of stopping careless sex.
2) I think swearing is uncreative. Punctuation marks and censor bleeps are way funnier.
3) I think all kinds of violence are wrong. Sticks and stones only break bones; words have the power to shatter the soul.
4) Eh, just try to make the best of what you have.
5) I guess it depends on the situation, as well as the person. Some people will rather hear a lie that brings a smile than the truth that hurts. I'd rather have the truth that hurts, in all circumstances. However, there are many different ways you can tell the truth, and some are easier to take than others.
6) Only to the extent that you aren't deliberately trying to hurt, insult, or slander anyone.

While I'm at it, I think I should share my views on pornography as well. I, personally, think it's wrong because it degrades and objectifies women. "But what about pr0n made for women?" you ask. Well, that bothers me too because no matter what, the woman is almost always the object, the beautiful, vulnerable one trying to pleasure her big, powerful man. Even in regular old magazines you see this happening; both the women's magazines and the men's magazines have a scantily-clad woman on the cover; the women's magazines have tips on how to please your guy, and the men's magazines have tips on how to get what you want. Grr.

Damn, this thread is growing faster than I can reply to it!

What is religion but the abuse of power?

It's easy to make this assertion, considering that all we see of religion today is the abuse of power. However, how many of us have seen Christianity in its heyday, during the time of the Roman empire? How many of us have seen Islam bringing knowledge and prosperity to the Persian empire? How many of us were there to see Judaism empower the Israelites to overcome slavery?

It wasn't always about power, at least I don't think it was. But I think we can all definitely agree that it shouldn't be about power.

And marriage has more to do with governmental laws than it does religion so I don't see how this applies to god.

To a religious person, marriage has a lot to do with religion and little or nothing to do with the government. To a non-religious person, marriage is pretty much meaningless.

I do find it rather odd how, when christian morals are brought into the discussion, the ones mentioned more than anything are the morals about sex.

Well it's almost always extreme sexual repression that creates fanatacism in the first place.

And might I add that contrary to popular belief, the sexual repression is not created by Christianity or any religion, but is a result of the ever-increasing obsession that Western society has had with sexuality since the industrial revolution.

Why is consensual, safe sex between two non-married adults wrong?

I typed up a long reply to this, but esper ended up beating me to many the points I tried to make. I'll leave what I had to say anyway.

First of all, consent isn't always as clear-cut as it may seem. A lot of times, someone will consent to sex in the heat of the moment, and come to regret it later. Other times, you may have someone who initially does not want to have sex, but after repeated coaxing from their partner, pressure from friends, and exposure to all the sexual imagery displayed in the media, they'll change their mind.

Second, safe sex doesn't exist. No method of birth control or STD protection is 100% effective. Duh.

However, safety is, comparatively, the least of my worries. The most underestimated consequence of having sex too early is the emotional scarring it gives you. Usually, when unmarried people have sex, chances are that they haven't gotten to know one another very well beforehand; spontenaiety is seen as romantic in our culture. As a result, there is more of a risk of breaking up. Sexual chemistry is not enough to sustain a relationship, after all. Neither is love. For a relationship to last, you need to be compatible with one another in a mental, emotional, and spiritual sense, and you also need to be committed to one another.

Some of you may ask "well, what about casual sex?" I have to admit that I wonder if casual sex even exists; more often than not, when I hear stories about it, one or more people get emotionally attached in the end. This leads me to believe that we are naturally inclined to love and care for those we are sexually intimate with. In the cases where casual sex works, I hypothesize that it is a result of a person's heart getting broken so many times that they just don't feel it anymore.

An alternate hypothesis is that casual sex is more beneficial to men than it is to women. This is supported by evolutionary theories as well as personal experience; it's usually the women who get emotionally attached. In this case, I would say that women who like casual sex are trying to be like men; in a patriarchal society such as ours, this is called "empowerment", and is seen as a good thing. Obviously, I have problems with this.

So, moving back to marriage. For religious people, marriage is a very serious thing to get into; you're stuck with the same person for the rest of your life, so to speak. As a result, it's imperative to really really get to know a person before you marry him or her. If you don't have sex during this time, then (given what I've said about being naturally inclined to love whoever you're having sex with) you'll presumably be able to examine the person's character without being clouded by desire. In my religion, we also have a law of parental consent to marriage. I find this useful (assuming that you have a good relationship with your parents and that they have your best interests at heart) because they provide additional objectivity as to whether your marriage would work.

If you can get married and stay married to the same person for life, then you'll undoubtedly be spared much of the emotional scarring that you'd get if you had sex with more than one person.

Going back to your question: does this mean that people who aren't married can't stay together for a long time and have fulfilling relationships? Not necessarily; Eric, you've been with Jess for what, five years? However, I'd say that forming good, non-heartbreaking relationships outside of marriage is mainly a game of chance; sometimes, you might get lucky and find someone who's perfect for you, but that's relatively rare. Marriage, at least, provides more protection, a way of "predicting the weather", so to speak.

That's because we're the same person. Duh!

Jesus hates religion, too....

Nah, I'd say He hates the abuse of power disguised as religion.

Plain vanilla Firefox is good as an IE replacement. I've installed it on the computers of various family members.

When it comes to awesome features, though, I prefer Opera, because it seems to handle them better.