Sex is Overrated

[WeiWenDi]

We won becuase we have the best song about it

Sorry, that just reminded me of this song:

Remember the war against Franco?
That's the kind where each of us belongs:
Though he may have won all the battles,
... We had all the good songs!

[Bush Leagues]

We won becuase we have the best song about it

YOU'RE CANADIAN?!??!?!

Seriously, I thought you were British, Dong.

I accept you have the best comedy song regarding the war. But I prefer true classics that will stand forever - things like the greatest rendition of our national anthem ever.

And just to put the nail in the coffin - you put the queen on your money. You might as well be an English vassal.

[LiuBeiwasGreat]

As an American I must say....the British kinda kicked our tails during the War of 1812, the fact that we won a battle after the war was technically over doesn't mean we won the war

According to Wikipedia, the war ended with what is effectively a white peace, except the Native American allies of the Great Britain were defeated and surrendered. We even took a bit of land from Spain (Mobile District). You probably can't call it a victory, since we did declare war on the Commonwealth, but many of the issues that were the cause of the war ended soon after with Napoleon's defeat, and relations improved considerably with Great Britain after this.

Julius Pratt in the book A History of the United States Foreign Policy (1955) wrote..."Thus indirectly the War of 1812 brought about the acquisition of Florida.... To both the Northwest and the South, therefore, the War of 1812 brought substantial benefits. It broke the power of the Creek Confederacy and opened to settlement a great province of the future Cotton Kingdom."

So calling it a loss would be incorrect, too. It's true we took many more losses in terms of human life and battles during the war, but that alone does not determine victory or defeat. The Soviet Union lost more lives than any other nation in WW2, but you really cannot call the outcome of the war anything but a resounding victory for them.

EDIT: This may account for the fact that everyone has their own take on the "outcome".

During the 19th century the popular image of the war in the United States was of an American victory, and in Canada, of a Canadian victory. Each young country saw its self-perceived victory as an important foundation of its growing nationhood. The British, on the other hand, who had been preoccupied by Napoleon's challenge in Europe, paid little attention to what was to them a peripheral and secondary dispute, a distraction from the principal task at hand.

Yeah indirectly the US got quite a bit, but battlewise we got our arses handed to us. We lost the war but we gained also. Mainly because everyone was having so much trouble with the French that we were able to buy land for cheap.
So we did gain things so you can count that as a victory, however we lost most of the battles and had our capital burned down. I count that as a loss, any claim to victory was simply to preserve moral.

[Sun Fin]

...I don't understand how a conversation about romantic relationships got here...

[Dong Zhou]

...I don't understand how a conversation about romantic relationships got here...

By magic.

I would love to hear more peoples thoughts on

I should have named this thread "society is in decadency" or "kids nowadays are despicable" because that was my point not sex itself, the other day some kids were killing a cat in the neighborhood...future serial killers

Watching the responses of this post, i have noticed that i was right, in fact i'm outdated. Rip 90s generation

Bush, I am English/British, don't worry you were right first time.

[SunXia]

...I don't understand how a conversation about romantic relationships got here...

I originally wanted to link it to the Virginity Thread....

I'm not convinced by the "society hitting the pits" arguments because yes you see people doing things in the streets but there's a lot of people, of teens, of kids that you are not seeing in their homes or in their clubs or libraries doing other activities.

Sure some teens get pregnant but there's also a bunch of teens who don't get pregnant.

Sure there's some who turn to a life of crime but there's also a bunch who don't and try to live their own lives in a fulfilling manner.

There will always be problems and those problems will take on new appearances but instead of "society is hitting the pits" or "in my day people didn't do this" arguments why not focus on the positive things people are doing, the positive ways young people are using social media to promote and raise money for causes. Or even tackle problems by helping to open other options for the future generations. If we only focus on the negative then the negative spreads and comes full circle on itself.

And Sex is overrated in terms of how the media presents it I honestly think it should be discussed openly instead of with blushes or whispers and hush hushes!! When kids and teens are told not to do something an then society and media makes it look cool despite what is being taught then it becomes "forbidden fruit".

Also hand-holding in public, hand slapping away hands trying to do that is more like it. I'm nobody's property and I certainly don't have the desire or need to promote to the world "this person is mine". I keep my affection private in that regard. I've seen too many people stand in public like that or with their hand in each others back pockets and looking around for attention. I know its not the only reason for some but I've seen many do it out of insecurity and like "this public display validates my lack of singlehood" or something. I much prefer a private tension so that when the door closes to the world it all come toppling out!!

[Bush Leagues]

Yeah indirectly the US got quite a bit, but battlewise we got our arses handed to us. We lost the war but we gained also. Mainly because everyone was having so much trouble with the French that we were able to buy land for cheap. So we did gain things so you can count that as a victory, however we lost most of the battles and had our capital burned down. I count that as a loss, any claim to victory was simply to preserve moral.

That's a reasonable stance, I can't really fault anyone for saying it wasn't a "win". Just to iterate my final point - I personally consider the war and its effects as a net positive (as much as a war can be positive, anyway), but calling it a loss is almost certainly strictly wrong - we conceded nothing in the peace deal, had a militia numbering 600,000 at war's end, and the reasons we went to war in the first place quickly became irrelevant shortly after war's end.

By magic.

Don't forget cat vids.

Bush, I am English/British, don't worry you were right first time.

Ah, good. In that case, enjoy your many vassals in the Commonwealth!

I would love to hear more peoples thoughts [about decadence]

Since you asked nicely...

I will not apologize for writing a ton, but I will spoiler tag it

OK. I hate to pull my political beliefs into this, but I think it's relevant, so I kinda have to. Let's address two separate ideas that have a lot to do with each other - the idea of individual responsibility and social responsibility. I've touched on this in other threads, but this is a bit different of an idea.

First off, let me state right away that this is mostly feeling on my part. I have no evidence to present, no anecdotes to support my case, nothing. The best I can offer is a Nobel Prize winning economist who expressed a similar thought in his speeches and the like on occasion. If anyone is interested, I'll direct you to some of his talks on Youtube. Also, I will consistently say "he" but this applies equally to women, so don't take this as anything sexist on my part; it's just easier this way.

Second, let's define what I mean, exactly, so we're all on the same page. I define individual responsibility as someone who takes it upon himself to do the things important to him. This means many things. He is responsible for his own well-being and health. He is responsible for earning income to support himself and those he wishes to support. He is responsible for deciding what his values are, and upholding them in the way he feels is best. I define social responsibility as the idea that a central power (government) has responsibilities to its citizens, and in return, citizens have responsibility to the government. In the simplest case, this central power provides the minimums necessary for living in a society - protection from crimes by other citizens, providing for national defense, and adjudicating disputes. More complex (and modern) versions of this includes a set of morals provided by the government for people to have - these morals take the form of laws that effective coerce people into acting a certain way, regardless of their personal views. And make no mistake that it is coercion, and understand that it is coercion - that is central to the premise.

Individual responsibility and social responsibility (hereafter referred to as "IR" and "SR", respectively) are not mutually exclusive. I suspect most of us on these boards feel both of these responsibilities at least some of the time. For example, as an individual, I feel part of my IR includes providing for my family (my girlfriend and future children), upholding my personal values, and acting a certain way towards other people. I believe my SR includes paying taxes (even ones I disagree with), helping those in need when I am able and choose to do so, and not committing crimes against my peers. I feel both IR and SR together, and both combined help to shape my overall outlook on life in general and my life in particular.

I feel that in earlier times (specifically the 19th and early 20th centuries here in America), IR was through the roof as compared to now. When you look at what the situation was like at this time, you can see why. Total government spending at all levels was about 10% of the national income. Government spending at the federal level was only 3% of the national income, and most of that was for the military. Regardless of if you think that's desirable or not, the fact of the matter was that you could not count on the federal government to bail you out. There was no welfare, no Medicare/Medicaid, no food stamps, nothing like that in terms of programs for helping the poor. But likewise there were no programs helping the rich either; those who earned wealth had to truly work for it.

In conditions like this, people have to rely on themselves. You could not count on someone to bail you out if you got in trouble. As a result, individual responsibility was high, because that was the only way to succeed - you had to put your life in your own hands and do the best you could. Charities and the like would of course help you, and many extended families continued to stick together, so most people had a safety net; if you didn't want to rely on others, though, you had to make it work for yourself.

In contrast, SR was quite low. There was nothing given by the government but the bare essentials I listed above. So people expected little of the government, but the government also asked little in return. There were few laws passed on the basis of their morality. You would not find, for instance, a law forcing motorcycle riders to wear helmets. Freedom was exceptionally high in this time, and people were free to have their own values and practice them. People came to this nation from all over the world, from different walks of life, with completely different views, opinions, and beliefs. At that time, this was a nation where the Shinto Japanese immigrant, the Catholic Irishman, and Lutheran German could all get together and work together, and not one of them would be persecuted by the government because of their beliefs. Consider how many places in the world there was like this at this time - it wasn't many, although there were a few.

So what happened over time? As time passed - it started in the Civil War, but particularly in the time of the Great Depression and beyond - things shifted. There became a shift to where government took a larger role in public policy - suddenly, laws regarding moral issues were passed. Drugs became illegal. Laws regarding what you could say or show on a broadcast appeared. It became that the majority of values the people held became the government's official position. This has the effect of forcing that value upon the minority. There's only a few options for the government when they wish to disallow something, and all of them involve coercion. It's either "wear a helmet on a motorcycle or pay a fine", or "if you disseminate communist propaganda, you go to prison", or "if you take marijuana, you will have your assets seized and be sent to prison".

Today, there are a plethora of such laws. Whether you agree with them or not, the fact is that everyone born nowadays expects it. "Of course drugs are illegal. Of course you can't discriminate if you run a business. Obviously you have to be part of socialized healthcare." I, personally, have never known any different. And in so doing, SR has gone through the roof. We expect government to do many different and varied things for us, and so we feel like we have less IR as a result. If someone witnesses an injustice, the common cry isn't "Let's get together and let people know this isn't OK!" It's more like "Let's get our city councilman/state representative/congressman to pass a law so this won't happen anymore!" Most people's gut reaction to an injustice is "that should be against the law." It is stunningly easy to automatically think that this is something that belongs in the realm of SR. I'm just as guilty as anyone sometimes.

By making SR the order of the day, we remove the pressure on individuals to feel responsible for themselves; to let people feel like they have a set of values that they are entitled to pass on; to let people decide what is important and what isn't for themselves. If someone decided that taking LSD in the safety of his own home is acceptable, they're not allowed to uphold that value unless they wish to risk prison. If a pastor decided that two gay individuals should be allowed to marry, he cannot perform that service in the state of Louisiana. If a women dedicates her life to assisting others that wish to commit suicide, she is doing so under the threat of extreme penalty by the government.

And this is where we get to the current decadence. It took a long time, but we're here. The youth of today, in general, probably do not understand/support/agree with many of these morality laws. They weren't around when it was a big issue, and now so many things are conflicting and confusing, that most people probably cannot make heads or tails of it. Feeling like they're unable to decide their values for themselves and pressured by their SR to such a degree that they think they are unable to even make use of any sense of IR they might have, they lash out. They fight back against the system. They have sex at too young an age. They murder others' pets. They vandalize and steal. They use drugs. They completely toss out any sense of SR they might have, and actively fight against it, just to express themselves. And, having no sense of IR because all they have ever known or been taught is SR, they lack the moral clarity to make proper choices for their life.

I believe a strong return to IR will help the issue, but I doubt that it's everything. There will of course be issues still, and you can't fix everything; remember, Nirvana is not for this world. There are so many other factors, I can't possible think it would cure even a majority of issues. But I think this would be a strong step in the right direction that could return us to a time of more moral fiber throughout society.

SunXia, I want to get to your stuff too, but it'll have to wait for another post. Got work now.

[Bush Leagues]

Apologies for the double.

There will always be problems and those problems will take on new appearances but instead of "society is hitting the pits" or "in my day people didn't do this" arguments why not focus on the positive things people are doing, the positive ways young people are using social media to promote and raise money for causes. Or even tackle problems by helping to open other options for the future generations. If we only focus on the negative then the negative spreads and comes full circle on itself.

Yeah, it's far too easy to focus on the negative. I remember asking my brother, when he was on leave while serving in Iraq, if there was any good going on there, because all I ever saw in the news was negative. He told me there was plenty going on that was positive, in fact, he thought far more positive than negative. But positive doesn't get you news headlines, so all we heard about back home was the bad stuff.

I try and do little things to promote positive stuff. I thank people for their time and effort. I make sure to show affection to people I care about, especially close friends. I don't try to argue down people if they take reasonable positions on things, even if I disagree - this is why you see me say "OK, that's a reasonable position" or what-have-you. Do a little act of kindness here and there. Be sincere; humans detect falseness really well. One should also be willing to accept the generosity of others. How do you feel when you give? We usually feel good. Well, other people want to feel good, too. The best thing to do when offered a gift is to accept it graciously. There's plenty good to be found, you just have to look, and be willing to give as well as get.

And Sex is overrated in terms of how the media presents it I honestly think it should be discussed openly instead of with blushes or whispers and hush hushes!! When kids and teens are told not to do something an then society and media makes it look cool despite what is being taught then it becomes "forbidden fruit".

So much this. Sensationalize something in movies and TV and the like, but then also act like it's something we shouldn't be talking about in public? I'm not in favor of throwing sexuality out there all the time for people to see, but we shouldn't hide it, either. Part of being human is being sexual. I can live without ever seeing another chainmail bikini, but we shouldn't be afraid to discuss sexuality or even have hints of sexuality in how we handle ourselves.

Also hand-holding in public, hand slapping away hands trying to do that is more like it. I'm nobody's property and I certainly don't have the desire or need to promote to the world "this person is mine". I keep my affection private in that regard. I've seen too many people stand in public like that or with their hand in each others back pockets and looking around for attention. I know its not the only reason for some but I've seen many do it out of insecurity and like "this public display validates my lack of singlehood" or something.

I never really considered it like that. I realize a lot of people do that sort of thing, but it's not anything I thought deeply about. I do occasionally want to hold hands in public with my girlfriend, but that's more of an affection thing. We don't normally do it for a few seconds. If it goes longer, one of us will complain about our hand being at a weird angle or something. The minor PDA - a quick peck when parting, or a hand squeeze - has never really bothered me. I usually get uncomfortable with any serious PDA beyond that, and won't engage in it myself, but I get that maybe people don't mind doing that in public. Interestingly enough, we didn't want to see Fifty Shades of Grey in theatres for that reason - seemed like too public a forum for a movie that's probably best watched privately.

I much prefer a private tension so that when the door closes to the world it all come toppling out!!

Nice. That's what I'm talking about. SunXia knows what's up.

[WeiWenDi]

There will always be problems and those problems will take on new appearances but instead of "society is hitting the pits" or "in my day people didn't do this" arguments why not focus on the positive things people are doing, the positive ways young people are using social media to promote and raise money for causes. Or even tackle problems by helping to open other options for the future generations. If we only focus on the negative then the negative spreads and comes full circle on itself.

I don't try to argue down people if they take reasonable positions on things, even if I disagree - this is why you see me say "OK, that's a reasonable position" or what-have-you. Do a little act of kindness here and there. Be sincere; humans detect falseness really well. One should also be willing to accept the generosity of others. How do you feel when you give? We usually feel good. Well, other people want to feel good, too. The best thing to do when offered a gift is to accept it graciously. There's plenty good to be found, you just have to look, and be willing to give as well as get.

Speaking of this topic, I recently read Daniel Schwindt's new book. He comes at a lot of these questions in a way neither of you will likely agree with, but he does see a lot of good things coming out of the present generation of young people; he thinks we're a lot less fake and are willing to put up a lot less with things that strike us as hypocritical or self-defeating. That's a strength, and although he laments the social and economic situation young people find themselves in nowadays he seems to have a lot of faith in our potential to renovate our economy and society, even if he thinks it's unlikely that we'll complete the job by ourselves.

And Sex is overrated in terms of how the media presents it I honestly think it should be discussed openly instead of with blushes or whispers and hush hushes!! When kids and teens are told not to do something an then society and media makes it look cool despite what is being taught then it becomes "forbidden fruit".

You're right on one level, I think - the media does present sex in an immensely skewed way. (I was discussing this earlier with regard to how sex is used as an enticement to consume; as the ultimate reward promised in advertising to the 'successful' consumer.) The problem is that sex has been 'discussed openly' since at least the '70's, and our attitudes toward sex are more messed up than ever.

No matter how much the social engineers try, no matter how many technical contraptions and contraceptive methods and STD prevention measures they come up with, they're never going to actually make sex 100% safe, especially on an emotional level. Sex neurochemically wires us to procreate and to recreate, and to create new bonds with a partner; trying to artificially break up those bonds is only going to make the vast majority of young people (who in particular want and crave human connexion) even more confused and miserable than they already are. More than anything else, on both political sides of the aisle, a truly 'open discussion' means that we stop pretending sex is something which only exists for pleasure. Liberals need to stop promoting the creepy, falsely-transhumanistic lie of 'safe sex'. And conservatives really need to stop shaming and scaring young women who have sex.

Also hand-holding in public, hand slapping away hands trying to do that is more like it. I'm nobody's property and I certainly don't have the desire or need to promote to the world "this person is mine". I keep my affection private in that regard. I've seen too many people stand in public like that or with their hand in each others back pockets and looking around for attention. I know its not the only reason for some but I've seen many do it out of insecurity and like "this public display validates my lack of singlehood" or something. I much prefer a private tension so that when the door closes to the world it all come toppling out!!

Mmkay. I've got no objection to this - Chinese people don't generally do PDA either, for cultural reasons, and that's completely cool - but just remember that different people are different.

PDA and 'I own you' are two very different things; there's a world of difference between hugging someone and grabbing them. I know that there are people who can't tell the difference, and those are usually people who have difficulty understanding all kinds of relationships with other people generally. And there's also a difference between self-conscious status-affirming PDA and people just genuinely enjoying each other's company and not caring what other people think. Both kinds of people do exist. Also, speaking as I've found, frequency of PDA has very little correlation with bedroom performance.

I feel that in earlier times (specifically the 19th and early 20th centuries here in America), IR was through the roof as compared to now. When you look at what the situation was like at this time, you can see why. Total government spending at all levels was about 10% of the national income. Government spending at the federal level was only 3% of the national income, and most of that was for the military. Regardless of if you think that's desirable or not, the fact of the matter was that you could not count on the federal government to bail you out. There was no welfare, no Medicare/Medicaid, no food stamps, nothing like that in terms of programs for helping the poor. But likewise there were no programs helping the rich either; those who earned wealth had to truly work for it. [...]

So what happened over time? As time passed - it started in the Civil War, but particularly in the time of the Great Depression and beyond - things shifted. There became a shift to where government took a larger role in public policy - suddenly, laws regarding moral issues were passed. Drugs became illegal. Laws regarding what you could say or show on a broadcast appeared. It became that the majority of values the people held became the government's official position. This has the effect of forcing that value upon the minority. There's only a few options for the government when they wish to disallow something, and all of them involve coercion. It's either "wear a helmet on a motorcycle or pay a fine", or "if you disseminate communist propaganda, you go to prison", or "if you take marijuana, you will have your assets seized and be sent to prison".

Yeah. That deregulated setup got us into a Depression. And then, of course, it didn't matter how hard you worked, if you could even manage to find work at all. You were generally well and truly screwed. Of course, before then, children who worked hard in factories didn't make that much at all, and usually ended up losing more than just money: fingers, feet, limbs, social skills, educational opportunities. So, do you really think ending child labour laws was 'coercion', that it decreased their individual responsibility, and that they are decadent and antisocial as a result? And of course, before the Civil War people could own slaves. Do you really think that ending slavery was 'coercion', that it decreased black people's individual responsibility, and that they are now decadent and antisocial as a result?

I grant you, if children were sent to work in sweatshops, they probably wouldn't have sex at young ages, vandalise or steal. They might still use drugs, because that's what people in desperate situations do as a means of escape. But I highly doubt most people in the US would highly desire to return to Upton Sinclair's world. But the historical facts indicate, though, that individual responsibility and social morality among black people drastically improved when slavery ended and when the '40 acres and a mule' policy was passed. And I can guarantee you that the vast, vast majority of black people don't want a return to legalised slavery.

Be very careful when you talk about history, Bush Leagues. For most people the past isn't over. It isn't even past.

[Dong Zhou]

At no point did I read Bush Leagues advocating child labour or slavery in that post. Wondering quite the post got so hostile.

You do the first two segments of your post WWD in a pleasant, amiable debate which is you at your friendliest, then a few aggressive taking a point directly which is perfectly good and then it just gets... an unpleasant tone. First the equivalent of "you clearly advocate child labour and slavery you monster" (if your saying that wasn't a moral time and such light touch regulation led to horrors, there are less hostile ways of doing it but done it myself) and then the bit that concerned me:

Be very careful when you talk about history, Bush Leagues. For most people the past isn't over. It isn't even past.

So a bolding for some reason (which I doubt was to highlight you love the username) plus sentences that feel like your carrying a metaphorical club and shutting down the debate.