Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Grizzly on November 15, 2011, 11:13:01 am
-
Although you probably should not ask me personally, as I have no experience in it. But it is also more about the American and Dutch cultural differences in general -- And I am quite sure the 'Dutch' sex culture can also be found in the countries in close proximity to it.
But it is still an interesting article (http://healthland.time.com/2011/11/14/mind-reading-what-we-can-learn-from-the-dutch-about-teen-sex/).
-
What the **** are they thinking, being so balanced and reasonable?
-
It is my belief that a person should have first-hand experience with a subject before they can offer useful opinions on that subject.
So I'm staying out of this one.
-
The truth is, religion is responsible for a lot of unreasonable behaviors, especially in matters of sexuality and pregnancy. For a few hundred years, the Church considered a natural act of sexual reproduction evil and strongly linked exposed skin with sexuality. This is all, of course, completely idiotic when you think about it. Why exactly being nude is not acceptable, what should people cover certain parts of their bodies when it's not cold? And why shouldn't media depict people doing so? It turns out, it's been caused by Christianity and it's association that "any nudity=temptation". In their eyes, when thinking about sex, you're not thinking about God. So it's the Church's fault that sex was taboo for so long, they essentially tried to make people stop thinking about it, or (since eliminating sex is impossible) consider it solely as an act of reproduction (which is not really a good idea). If it wasn't for the Church, people wouldn't object about somebody being nude when it's approbate (and being depicted doing so in media), and we'd be talking about sex much more openly.
And of course, that's not mentioning their ridiculous stances on things like abortion or in vitro, in other words scientific (heck, sometimes even medical) interference in human reproduction. Blame the Greeks and Romans :P Christianity's extreme prudishness about sex is a reaction to the levels of debauchery of the old Empires.
This might be useful for explaining why exactly Christianity has the stances it does on sexuality. Most stupid ideas started out, in fact, quite valid, but that was 2000 years ago. Church is unable to adapt to the modern world, so I hope that it'll someday be laughed at as ridiculous by most people. Since ancient times, influence of gods and supernatural beings steadily decreased, which can clearly be seen in literature. The sooner this process arrives at it's logical conclusion, the better.
-
Suburbia, and an increasingly ignorant middle class living in it. That's my diagnosis.
-
U guise. In civics&economics class last year, I was told then in Europe, there are condom dispensers on the walls in high schools. And Europe is much more liberal than the US about teen sex. Whereas the US basically preaches "Abstinence, abstinence, abstinence"
-
Thus why I lay the blame squarely on an increasingly ignorant (and sheltered and media swamped) middle class.
-
*snip*
Suburbia, and an increasingly ignorant middle class living in it. That's my diagnosis.
How has suburbia and an ignorant middle class led to that?
Ignorance allows the media the freedom to push all kinds of misleading information out to masses of people with very little objective criticism placed against it.
Sure, you could start referencing things back to mindsets brought on by various religions, theologies, even just blatant nostalgia glasses looking back to times that the person/persons in question believed were more 'wholesome' due to the way in which things were presented at the the time. But the fact remains that most of the present animosity towards any kind of reasonable sex education in the US comes down to a lack of critical thinking on the subject amongst the people with the power to make changes to the system.
No. It is not a lack of reasonable thinking on the part of the people with the power. The people in power just want to keep their job.
Okay, poorly worded. I was trying to imply that the people with the power to make the changes are in truth the ones with the power to decide who has the direct power, i.e. the people voting/the populace, and in large part the middle class.
Also, Suburbia. More than anything I associate it with a sense of insularity and forced conformity. Both major road blocks to critical thinking.
-
*snip*
Suburbia, and an increasingly ignorant middle class living in it. That's my diagnosis.
How has suburbia and an ignorant middle class led to that?
Ignorance allows the media the freedom to push all kinds of misleading information out to masses of people with very little objective criticism placed against it.
Sure, you could start referencing things back to mindsets brought on by various religions, theologies, even just blatant nostalgia glasses looking back to times that the person/persons in question believed were more 'wholesome' due to the way in which things were presented at the the time. But the fact remains that most of the present animosity towards any kind of reasonable sex education in the US comes down to a lack of critical thinking on the subject amongst the people with the power to make changes to the system.
No. It is not a lack of reasonable thinking on the part of the people with the power. The people in power just want to keep their job.
EDIT: I think. I'm not trying to say I'm right. That's just my opinion.
-
Oops. Managed a post paradox. See previous page to see reply to above post.
-
I blame parents for sheltering their kids. I also blame our educational system for giving parents too much control. It is the parents (actually just soccer moms) that demanded interweb censorship and demanded that such and such not be taught in schools because they did not want their little baby to be exposed to it.
Well now it's time to wake up. They'll figure out these things sooner or later and if they don't know how to deal with it/approach it {sex, etc.} properly the consequences can be lifelong and are generally unwanted.
I also blame drugs, alcohol, parties, rap music, and facebook for causing the middle class to become increasingly ignorant. And "political correctness." Although I may just be making myself look bad because I am an ignorant teenager who is also a virgin.
I also blame religion.
When you take a closer look at it, this all, especially parents sheltering and "protecting" their kids from sex and all that "political correctness" originally came, in fact, from the Church.
Parental control would less of an issue if these parents were well educated.
Drugs, parties and all that do contribute to the issue, but they're a secondary cause, and should also be dealt with using proper education and, in many cases, simply talking about it.
A large problem is that people seem to think that forbidding things is going to work. It's not. The forbidden fruit always tastes best.
-
*snip*
Suburbia, and an increasingly ignorant middle class living in it. That's my diagnosis.
How has suburbia and an ignorant middle class led to that?
Ignorance allows the media the freedom to push all kinds of misleading information out to masses of people with very little objective criticism placed against it.
Sure, you could start referencing things back to mindsets brought on by various religions, theologies, even just blatant nostalgia glasses looking back to times that the person/persons in question believed were more 'wholesome' due to the way in which things were presented at the the time. But the fact remains that most of the present animosity towards any kind of reasonable sex education in the US comes down to a lack of critical thinking on the subject amongst the people with the power to make changes to the system.
No. It is not a lack of reasonable thinking on the part of the people with the power. The people in power just want to keep their job.
Okay, poorly worded. I was trying to imply that the people with the power to make the changes are in truth the ones with the power to decide who has the direct power, i.e. the people voting/the populace, and in large part the middle class.
Also, Suburbia. More than anything I associate it with a sense of insularity and forced conformity. Both major road blocks to critical thinking.
I cannot blame suburbia, since I have never lived in the suburbs. I used to want to, but now it is my desire to have a small apartment in the city. :blah I don't really know a lot about suburban life since I live in the sticks.
I changed my mind about the cause of increasing ignorance among the middle class. I think a large part of it has to do with the increasing popularity of social networking websites. I also blame Twitter, which is the worst thing man ever created. The fact that the media tends to focus on what celebrities are up to doesn't really help things either.
The other major part is probably the educational system. There is supposed to be a separation of church and state, but I guess no one remembers that. The school board doesn't want to offend anybody, so they pretty much avoid the subject of sex education altogether by preaching abstinence. They don't really tell kids anything else, so kids just disregard it and "experiment."
-snip-
When you take a closer look at it, this all, especially parents sheltering and "protecting" their kids from sex and all that "political correctness" originally came, in fact, from the Church.
Parental control would less of an issue if these parents were well educated.
Drugs, parties and all that do contribute to the issue, but they're a secondary cause, and should also be dealt with using proper education and, in many cases, simply talking about it.
A large problem is that people seem to think that forbidding things is going to work. It's not. The forbidden fruit always tastes best.
Goddamnit. You posted before me. Nonetheless, my reply to LNH91 is also a good response to your post.
-
I blame parents for sheltering their kids. I also blame our educational system for giving parents too much control. It is the parents (actually just soccer moms) that demanded interweb censorship and demanded that such and such not be taught in schools because they did not want their little baby to be exposed to it.
Well now it's time to wake up. They'll figure out these things sooner or later and if they don't know how to deal with it/approach it {sex, etc.} properly the consequences can be lifelong and are generally unwanted.
I also blame drugs, alcohol, parties, rap music, and facebook for causing the middle class to become increasingly ignorant. And "political correctness." Although I may just be making myself look bad because I am an ignorant teenager who is also a virgin.
I also blame religion.
When you take a closer look at it, this all, especially parents sheltering and "protecting" their kids from sex and all that "political correctness" originally came, in fact, from the Church.
Parental control would less of an issue if these parents were well educated.
Drugs, parties and all that do contribute to the issue, but they're a secondary cause, and should also be dealt with using proper education and, in many cases, simply talking about it.
A large problem is that people seem to think that forbidding things is going to work. It's not. The forbidden fruit always tastes best.
Fair, but at the same time there is little point to trying to go back to any one source. It's not just the Church that's held the view of "forbidding things prevents things". And I would argue that that thought is no longer intrinsically linked to the church, but is an intrinsic viewpoint of the majority of the American middle class.
If you look past the Church to the human reasons for why this is such an easy state for a majority of people's thoughts to enter, all you have to do is look at human nature. Ignorance is a far easier state to be in than awareness.
-
It's not just the Church that's held the view of "forbidding things prevents things". And I would argue that that thought is no longer intrinsically linked to the church, but is an intrinsic viewpoint of the majority of the American middle class.
If you look past the Church to the human reasons for why this is such an easy state for a majority of people's thoughts to enter, all you have to do is look at human nature. Ignorance is a far easier state to be in than awareness.
The problem is, the Church still maintains viewpoints it had about 1500 years ago. If it changed it's approach, it could effect a lot of people. But I'm afraid it will not happen. John Paul I tried reforming the Church (radically, from what I've heard), so he got assassinated. John Paul II was better, as he managed to introduce many important changes, but that was not enough (if he lived for 200 more years, maybe). And now, Benedict XVI started reversing the changes.
That's why I'm against the Church and why people are moving away from it. It lingers in the past, unable to update it's views. This is hardly new though. Luther and other fathers of Protestantism thought exactly the same, and it was already true in renaissance from what I've gathered. Religion needs a major rework to work in today's world, but nobody's both willing and capable to do it. JPII started, but as I mentioned, his life was too short and it wasn't continued the way it should be.
If the Church started doing this right and started talking about sex, instead of condemning it ex cathedra, they could influence an enormous number of otherwise ignorant people. Ignorance is indeed easy, but people who don't think for themselves usually let the priest think for them. Not always (there are various "gurus" to who some people turn instead of to the Church), but in most cases.
-
Given that this is about teen abstinence in America I don't think you can blame the Catholic Church for this one. :p
And the problem isn't the church so much as the mindset that children shouldn't be having sex. The problem is that there's not really any point in history where hormonal teenagers have not had sex. It's like trying to hold back the tide.
-
Personally, I feel that the institution's stance on issues is a reflection of the populace's stance, not the other way around. I feel that abstinence only sex-ed only exists because ignorance is easier than awareness, and the general populace doesn't like being made aware. Even more so when there is a risk that their children will have more awareness than them.
-
Personally, I feel that the institution's stance on issues is a reflection of the populace's stance, not the other way around. I feel that abstinence only sex-ed only exists because ignorance is easier than awareness, and the general populace doesn't like being made aware. Even more so when there is a risk that their children will have more awareness than them.
Maybe we should brainwash our populace so that they thirst for knowledge :pimp:
-
John Paul I tried reforming the Church (radically, from what I've heard), so he got assassinated. John Paul II was better, as he managed to introduce many important changes, but that was not enough (if he lived for 200 more years, maybe). And now, Benedict XVI started reversing the changes.
That's a very gross oversimplification of things, not to mention factually inaccurate. John Paul I died of a heart attack; it was John Paul II who was shot, but that had nothing to do with his policies, as the shooter was significantly mentally ill. And as far as I know, Benedict hasn't done much in the way of reversing Catholic stances on sexuality. If anything, the trend has been toward a loosening of restrictions, more as a reflection of reality than anything else, and I think you'll see that continue as time goes on. Even as-is, said doctrine is quite a bit more nuanced than "Sex is horrible!", though one's opinion on it and its feasibility will obviously vary. Hell, I have my own issues with parts of it myself.
-
JPI is officially said to have died of heart attack, but this is somewhat dubious (I must have confused him with another Pope, I can't recall which one). JPII assassination attempt is another story entirely. While Benedict XVI didn't changed much regarding stances on sexuality (not much even started to change in this regard, it was too early for that), he did return to more conservative ways and it seems to me that he did slow down the progress. And anything short of an essay is an oversimplification, analysis of different popes and their achievements could take days.
Given that this is about teen abstinence in America I don't think you can blame the Catholic Church for this one.
I referred to Catholic Church, because it shaped the mindset of people back in the middle ages. This treatment of sex dates to before the colonization of Americas, and the Catholic Church was responsible for it. Though I agree that I did lapse into provincialism here. My statements would be true in Poland, but in mostly protestant US the Catholic Church can't do much about it. I just forgot about the "America" part for a while, thinking in European terms.
And the problem isn't the church so much as the mindset that children shouldn't be having sex.
Children shouldn't be having sex if they're not prepared for consequences. The problematic mindset is that children shouldn't know about sex. They should know about both sex and all it's consequences. Then, hopefully, they'd think twice before attempting it.
-
And the problematic mindset, in reference to the children knowing about sex and its consequences, is the mindset that forced ignorance works as a preventative measure, which study after study has shown is not the case; despite the initial attractiveness of it as an option.
-
JPI is officially said to have died of heart attack, but this is somewhat dubious (I must have confused him with another Pope, I can't recall which one).
Citation, right the **** now.
Benedict has not changed the Church's stance on sexuality a bit, so it would be difficult to sustain a charge that this progress has been hindered. (Indeed the real hindrance was done before Vatican II when Pius XII, or his predecessor I'm not entirely sure, went rogue and declared contraceptives immoral in contravention of what had been expected.)
For that matter there are large, very large, portions of Europe that are wholly or partially Protestant. Are the Swiss noticeably more prudish from the influence of John Calvin? Baptist practice was born in Amsterdam, but it doesn't seem to have done much to affect their morals in the modern age. It's simple to blame the churches but these are things so remote in time and indirect or ineffective in practice as to make the assertion laughable.
-
THIS TOPIC WAS SPLIT SO THE DISCUSSION ON RELIGION WOULD NOT CONTINUE.
-
THIS TOPIC WAS SPLIT SO THE DISCUSSION ON RELIGION WOULD NOT CONTINUE.
YOU ARE NOT A MOD. FURTHER, IT WAS SPLIT SO THAT THE BADLY DONE DISCUSSION OF RELIGION WOULD NOT CONTINUE.
And **** your giant font.
-
THIS TOPIC WAS SPLIT SO THE DISCUSSION ON RELIGION WOULD NOT CONTINUE.
THIS TOPIC WAS SPLIT SO THE DISCUSSION ON RELIGION WOULD NOT CONTINUE.
YOU ARE NOT A MOD. FURTHER, IT WAS SPLIT SO THAT THE BADLY DONE DISCUSSION OF RELIGION WOULD NOT CONTINUE.
And **** your giant font.
Neither of you are moderators. Do not try to do our job for us.
FlamingCobra: NGTM1R was responding to a specific point raised by Dragon. As such, while it is slightly off-topic, it was perfectly valid. It was not an attempt to derail the thread onto a "religion is evil" track. So no cause for concern.
-
JPI is officially said to have died of heart attack, but this is somewhat dubious (I must have confused him with another Pope, I can't recall which one).
Citation, right the **** now.
John Paul I was found dead sitting up in his bed shortly before dawn on 29 September 1978, just 33 days into his papacy. The Vatican reported that the near-66-year-old Pope most likely died the previous night of a heart attack. It has been claimed that the Vatican altered some of the details of the discovery of the death to avoid possible unseemliness in that he was discovered by Sister Vincenza, a nun.
An autopsy was not performed, as is customary. This, along with inconsistent statements made following the Pope's death, led to a number of conspiracy theories concerning it. These statements relate to who found the Pope's body, the time when he was found, and what papers were in his hand.
Too lazy to look up a more reliable source, but it's right there. As I said, I might have confused him with another Pope who died for being too progressive.
Benedict has not changed the Church's stance on sexuality a bit, so it would be difficult to sustain a charge that this progress has been hindered. (Indeed the real hindrance was done before Vatican II when Pius XII, or his predecessor I'm not entirely sure, went rogue and declared contraceptives immoral in contravention of what had been expected.)
When I was talking about influence of different Popes on the Church, I wasn't talking specifically about views on sexuality (and even mentioned this didn't changed and didn't even had a chance to), but about general progressive tendencies in Catholic Church. I agree about Pius XII and his ban on contraceptives being a setback, but allowing contraceptives wouldn't necessarily change how the Church views sex.
For that matter there are large, very large, portions of Europe that are wholly or partially Protestant. Are the Swiss noticeably more prudish from the influence of John Calvin? Baptist practice was born in Amsterdam, but it doesn't seem to have done much to affect their morals in the modern age. It's simple to blame the churches but these are things so remote in time and indirect or ineffective in practice as to make the assertion laughable.
Most are partially protestant. UK is a major exception, but there are few other countries like that. Switzerland is also a separate issue, due to Calvin's influence (Calvinism wasn't very progressive compared to other protestant religions).
Perhaps I should have said that all major churches should update their approach to sexuality, or at least most of them. The "sex is evil" approach is older than all schisms Christian church went through. Far eastern religions, of course, don't count (they're a completely separate matter and I don't really know much about them, so I won't be including them in any statement about western religions).
THIS TOPIC WAS SPLIT SO THE DISCUSSION ON RELIGION WOULD NOT CONTINUE.
This topic was split so such post wouldn't continue. Calm down. Ironic fact: if you look at the posts that's been split off, a lot of them sound a lot like yours (only quieter :)).
-
-snip-
FlamingCobra: NGTM1R was responding to a specific point raised by Dragon. As such, while it is slightly off-topic, it was perfectly valid. It was not an attempt to derail the thread onto a "religion is evil" track. So no cause for concern.
I sorry. :shaking:
*cowers before the wrath of the mighty E*