Why Is Sex Still Considered Dirty/Perverted/Shameful?

[Laerod]

Thank you for being willing to take those point-by-point. It needed to be done.

Saw him post it yesterday, looked at the time, and realized "Gee, I have to wake up in less than six hours." And once I got out of math, it was still there waiting.

I'm more than willing to admit that being born into a family with two happily married parents can be great for a kid. It sure was great for me. But my partner was born into a family with two unhappily married parents, and he carries scars of it to this day. He and his sisters often remark that they wish their parents would have gotten a divorce years ago, and they're hoping that their parents will finally split as soon as the youngest is done with college and officially out of the house.

Indeed. Lessening the chances of your children to make it in life is hardly limited to promiscuity. What I found particularly telling is that apparently single moms are better for a kid than two parents that can't make it work out splitting up over time. Ergo shotgun weddings and the underlying "morals" that guide them are actually worse than getting knocked up and not knowing who the father is.

[Bottle]

Thank you for being willing to take those point-by-point. It needed to be done.

Saw him post it yesterday, looked at the time, and realized "Gee, I have to wake up in less than six hours." And once I got out of math, it was still there waiting.

I'm more than willing to admit that being born into a family with two happily married parents can be great for a kid. It sure was great for me. But my partner was born into a family with two unhappily married parents, and he carries scars of it to this day. He and his sisters often remark that they wish their parents would have gotten a divorce years ago, and they're hoping that their parents will finally split as soon as the youngest is done with college and officially out of the house.

Indeed. Lessening the chances of your children to make it in life is hardly limited to promiscuity. What I found particularly telling is that apparently single moms are better for a kid than two parents that can't make it work out splitting up over time. Ergo shotgun weddings and the underlying "morals" that guide them are actually worse than getting knocked up and not knowing who the father is.

I'm also, honestly, confused and disgusted by the mainstream American belief that we should ONLY expect a child to have two parents.

In my dad's family's culture, a child is raised by two parents + boatloads of relatives. In my partner's family, the same. Indeed, I think the reason that my partner and his sisters are still successful, generally-healthy, and very cool people is because they had such an extensive family network.

I never was very close to blood relatives, but I always had "aunts and uncles" who were as close as family. Hell, my atheist parents gave me THREE godmothers. A child needs more than just two adult role models. Settling for just two parents is silly, in my eyes, and demanding that all the child's parents be married to each other is likewise silly. Single moms are often quite capable of providing additional parents for their child, in the form of grandparents, aunts, uncles, close family friends, etc.

[Nobel Hobos]

How much are those lesbian separatists at Microsoft and Sony and Nintendo paying you to get this off the ground?

Huh, you know, I never realized the potential there. I mean, the whole diamond engagement ring deal is almost entirely due to the efforts of the diamond industry, and they've shaped an entire tradition to the point where most people probably think that men were giving women diamond rings back during the days of Jesus or something.

Oh, from long before that. Men have always been romantic, and whenever they found a lump of rock which twinkled a bit and was hard enough to cut any other stone, their first thought was always "hey, the wife would like this!"

[Maineiacs]

Yeah, that one makes even less sense. At least sex carries some actual risks that can be measured and tested. What the hell does "cursing" do in any way, shape, or form? Does a person get laid off from work every time a 5 year old hears the word "fuck" or something?

Everytime you say "fuck" God kills a kitten. Everytime you actually do it, God runs over 30 kittens, 25 puppies, a half dozen baby bunnies and three ducklings with a bulldozer.

[Bottle]

Because people are stuck in the old ways.

But the question is, why? People are okay with letting go of a lot of "old ways," so the issue here is why the "old way" of viewing sex remains so popular.

[Maineiacs]

Because people are stuck in the old ways.

But the question is, why? People are okay with letting go of a lot of "old ways," so the issue here is why the "old way" of viewing sex remains so popular.

It goes back to religion, and the relgion-supported notion that we are not put on this earth to be happy or enjoy life. Miserableness is next to Godliness.

[Nobel Hobos]

But the question is, why? People are okay with letting go of a lot of "old ways," so the issue here is why the "old way" of viewing sex remains so popular.

It goes back to religion, and the relgion-supported notion that we are not put on this earth to be happy or enjoy life. Miserableness is next to Godliness.

No, honestly I don't think it "goes back to religion." Religion is not a cause independent of society, unless you're a believer in that religion and hold it to be divinely inspired.

Religion does I think have advantages over other belief systems, in its ability to perpetrate itself over generations. But it is (unless you're a believer) a belief system and ultimately a human construct.

I think we'd do better to look at individual reasons to consider sex dirty/perverted/shameful, and how these wishes could have been generalized into social taboos with or without religion. If we are truly rationalists we should be able to explain the phenomenon of religion, not see it as a root cause of anything.

To blame it on "religion" is hardly any better than to blame it on "god".

[Bottle]

But the question is, why? People are okay with letting go of a lot of "old ways," so the issue here is why the "old way" of viewing sex remains so popular.

It goes back to religion, and the relgion-supported notion that we are not put on this earth to be happy or enjoy life. Miserableness is next to Godliness.

I'd be more likely to accept that explanation, if I hadn't had to personally deal with so many sexist, sex-hating atheists.

[Nobel Hobos]

Why Is Sex Still Considered Dirty/Perverted/Shameful?

Because it is inappropriate to talk about publicly.

Indeed, there might be something about sex which is private. Without granting that it is "inappropriate" nor saying that to talk about sex harms the hearer ... there might be some sense in which a person talking about a sexual experience harms the person they had that sexual experience WITH.

I might be wrong about this. Perhaps the "privacy" of sexual relations is the result of, not the cause of, the social taboo.

[Killbrawn]

First off sex is pretty nasty, it's fluid exchange. Second of all, what religion considers sex to be dirty? All religions I can think of consider sex to be great, when done in the right context. And even outside of religions, sex is supposed to be a special part of relationships, if you have sex with a lot of people you sorta have a hard time considering it special. At least it's harder to say: "Hey girl y having sex with you is special because even though I've had sex with lots of girls I didn't think were special, this time is different though...because I said so." It's why cheating is considered cheating, it's "bad" sex. It's just like how people over use the word love and it loses its meaning or how quicky Las Vegas marriages damage the concept of marriage being something special.

And this is all before you factor in how irresponsible promiscuity is, what with the risk of out of wedlock pregnancies that can lead to kids not growing up in an optimal family setting. And by the time you get to STI's you have to wonder how any rational person could possibly think that promiscuity is a socially acceptable behavior.

And the reason people find it odd to talk about sex is that its a bodily function and it's pretty private. If sex weren't private, then everyone would walk around naked showing off their junk. It's hyopcritical to try and criticize people for believing sex shouldn't be discussed at the dinner table with grandma when you would never walk over to you grandparents and give them a hug while you're ball-sack naked.

So, to summarize: Unless you're willing to let you girlfriend/wife bang anyone she wants and are okay with everyone walking around completely naked in public, it's hypocritical to criticize sexual taboos.

[Bottle]

And even outside of religions, sex is supposed to be a special part of relationships, if you have sex with a lot of people you sorta have a hard time considering it special. At least it's harder to say: "Hey girl y having sex with you is special because even though I've had sex with lots of girls I didn't think were special, this time is different though...because I said so."

Maybe you have trouble with that, but I've never had a problem with it. I don't have a problem with somebody saying, "Wow, you know, I've been to a lot of movies, but this one was definitely the best." Or "I've gone on a lot of first dates, but this one was really different!" Or, "I've met lots of people at this job, but you're so different from all of them." Why should it be hard for me to believe that I can be special, just because my partner has had other lovers? Why should the fact that I've fucked somebody else make it harder for him to believe that fucking him is special to me?

Does music become less special if you listen to it a lot? Is your third child less special because you've already got two kids? After your first kiss with your partner, is it all down hill from there?

If so, then I'm truly sorry for you. Your life must be all about avoiding experiences, because the moment you have an experience you know that you'll never find that experience special ever again. What a lonely, depressing way to live.

[Killbrawn]

Going to see a movie or listening to music isn't nearly as serious or important as a relationship with another person, especially a sexual relationship. If you feel that movies are equal to sex then you have an odd view of the world. And I'm pretty sure the experience of child birth becomes more routine and less "magical" with each subsequent pregnancy. But the child analogy doesn't really fit with what i was talking about, unless you were advocating polygamy or multiple partnerships at the same time but I don't think you were.

And the issue isn't "feeling" that something is special, it's treating it as if it's special. By having sex with lots of people a person shows that they consider sex not to be especially important. If I'm in a room with ten other guys and a girl gives me a cupcake, i think "Wow she gave me a cupcake, she must think I'm special." If she gives everyone a cupcake and then gives me my cupcake last I think "Oh that's nice, I got a cupcake". The cupcake is nice but it isn't really special.

Most people don't think that people should just have anonymous sex. Even fairly "liberal" people will have some sort of parameters for when they will or won't have whether it's that they wait until they're dating a guy or have gone out on a certain amount of dates or even that they just like the person, they discriminate who they will have sex with based on personal beliefs, opinions, etc. because they acknowledge the importance of it.

I doubt if a guy walked up to you on the street and asked for a sexual favor you would say "ok" because you would consider sex too important to just do it with a random guy from the street just because he asked you.

Considering that you already discriminate who you'll have sex with and when based on your own whims I don't see how you can feel fit to criticize people to adhering to millenia old cultural beliefs on the who, when and where.

Like I said before, unless you're willing to have sex with anything, anytime, anywhere it's hypocritical to to criticize the sexual taboos of religious people.

[Concordeia]

This doesn't change the fact that sex's importance and meaning ought to be left up to the individuals involved and not society in general. If people want to half sex just for fun, that should be their business.

[Bottle]

Going to see a movie or listening to music isn't nearly as serious or important as a relationship with another person, especially a sexual relationship.

So you DO think that your third child is less special than your first?

If you feel that movies are equal to sex then you have an odd view of the world. And I'm pretty sure the experience of child birth becomes more routine and less "magical" with each subsequent pregnancy. But the child analogy doesn't really fit with what i was talking about, unless you were advocating polygamy or multiple partnerships at the same time but I don't think you were.

So you'd love your child less based on who its mother was? Not seeing how polygamy fits in to that picture.

And the issue isn't "feeling" that something is special, it's treating it as if it's special. By having sex with lots of people a person shows that they consider sex not to be especially important.

Just like how a person who goes the movies a lot is showing that they don't consider movies to be especially important.

Er, what?

If I'm in a room with ten other guys and a girl gives me a cupcake, i think "Wow she gave me a cupcake, she must think I'm special." If she gives everyone a cupcake and then gives me my cupcake last I think "Oh that's nice, I got a cupcake". The cupcake is nice but it isn't really special.

Because obviously the only choices are for a woman to either give her cupcake to you and you alone, or for her to give out her cupcakes to everybody indiscriminately?

Most people don't think that people should just have anonymous sex. Even fairly "liberal" people will have some sort of parameters for when they will or won't have whether it's that they wait until they're dating a guy or have gone out on a certain amount of dates or even that they just like the person, they discriminate who they will have sex with based on personal beliefs, opinions, etc. because they acknowledge the importance of it.

Because if you're willing to have sex with more than one person in your lifetime, then you clearly can't have any standards whatsoever?

I doubt if a guy walked up to you on the street and asked for a sexual favor you would say "ok" because you would consider sex too important to just do it with a random guy from the street just because he asked you.

If a guy walked up to me on the street and asked me to go get in his van, I'd say "no," too. Do you really think that means I consider riding in a van to be a precious and special experience that I should share only with the one I love?

Considering that you already discriminate who you'll have sex with and when based on your own whims I don't see how you can feel fit to criticize people to adhering to millenia old cultural beliefs on the who, when and where.

I'm not criticizing anybody for choosing who they fuck (or don't fuck). If I were, you might have a point. But since I'm not, you really kinda don't. You're just making the same argument as people who say, "By saying that you think it's wrong to be racist, you're discriminating against racists, which makes you JUST AS BAD as the racists!!!!"

Like I said before, unless you're willing to have sex with anything, anytime, anywhere it's hypocritical to to criticize the sexual taboos of religious people.

Just like how unless you are willing to eat anything, any time, anywhere, it's hypocritical to criticize people who feed their children nothing but McDonalds.

Or something. I really can't even parody you, because you're doing it so well yourself.

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This doesn't change the fact that sex's importance and meaning ought to be left up to the individuals involved and not society in general. If people want to half sex just for fun, that should be their business.

This is very true, however, some elements of society think it's A Ok to butt into people's choice of fucking. *nod*

[Bottle]

This doesn't change the fact that sex's importance and meaning ought to be left up to the individuals involved and not society in general. If people want to half sex just for fun, that should be their business.

This is very true, however, some elements of society think it's A Ok to butt into people's choice of fucking. *nod*

But, according to my friend above, stating that it's probably best to let consenting adults make their own choices without presuming that you have the moral authority to judge them is hypocritical unless you're willing to fuck everything that moves.

You wouldn't want some illogical internet yahoo to think you're a hypocrite, would you?! So slut up or shut up!

[Nanatsu no Tsuki]

This is very true, however, some elements of society think it's A Ok to butt into people's choice of fucking. *nod*

But, according to my friend above, stating that it's probably best to let consenting adults make their own choices without presuming that you have the moral authority to judge them is hypocritical unless you're willing to fuck everything that moves.

You wouldn't want some illogical internet yahoo to think you're a hypocrite, would you?! So slut up or shut up!

Oh dear, Bottle, no! I do not wish to be considered a hypocrite by illogical and fallible Yahoo. Not Yahoo! No!!!!!

[Concordeia]

Dammit, I can't believe I said "half" and not "have". My grammar is almost always perfect!

*gets put up against the wall and shot by the Grammar SS*

[Lauchlin]

Considering that you already discriminate who you'll have sex with and when based on your own whims I don't see how you can feel fit to criticize people to adhering to millenia old cultural beliefs on the who, when and where.

As an aside, people following millennia old cultural traditions should always be criticized because they're showing such a severe lack of imagination.

[Bottle]

Considering that you already discriminate who you'll have sex with and when based on your own whims I don't see how you can feel fit to criticize people to adhering to millenia old cultural beliefs on the who, when and where.

As an aside, people following millennia old cultural traditions should always be criticized because they're showing such a severe lack of imagination.

Moral plagiarism!

[Laerod]

First off sex is pretty nasty, it's fluid exchange. Second of all, what religion considers sex to be dirty? All religions I can think of consider sex to be great, when done in the right context. And even outside of religions, sex is supposed to be a special part of relationships, if you have sex with a lot of people you sorta have a hard time considering it special. At least it's harder to say: "Hey girl y having sex with you is special because even though I've had sex with lots of girls I didn't think were special, this time is different though...because I said so." It's why cheating is considered cheating, it's "bad" sex. It's just like how people over use the word love and it loses its meaning or how quicky Las Vegas marriages damage the concept of marriage being something special.

Gee, and there I was thinking that every time I sleep with a different girl it's a new sort of special.

And this is all before you factor in how irresponsible promiscuity is, what with the risk of out of wedlock pregnancies that can lead to kids not growing up in an optimal family setting. And by the time you get to STI's you have to wonder how any rational person could possibly think that promiscuity is a socially acceptable behavior.

Ah, we, uh, killed these arguments two to three pages ago. Feel free to provide verifiable evidence that hasn't been delivered yet to support:
1) that promiscuity is, in fact, irresponsible;
2) how high the risk of out of wedlock pregnancies due to promiscuity is;
3) what an optimal family setting is (and do note that it being two parents has been disproven);
4) how high the risk of contracting STI's is; and
5) that there are no means to reduce these risks to a negligible level.

And the reason people find it odd to talk about sex is that its a bodily function and it's pretty private. If sex weren't private, then everyone would walk around naked showing off their junk. It's hyopcritical to try and criticize people for believing sex shouldn't be discussed at the dinner table with grandma when you would never walk over to you grandparents and give them a hug while you're ball-sack naked.

The assumption that this is the case everywhere is funny. Nudist colonies exist and nude bathing is not only legal in Europe, people actually do walk around naked showing off their junk when doing so.

So, to summarize: Unless you're willing to let you girlfriend/wife bang anyone she wants and are okay with everyone walking around completely naked in public, it's hypocritical to criticize sexual taboos.

This is funny. What about letting the boyfriend/husband bang anyone he wants? Or are men and lesbians the only ones entitled to an opinion on this matter? Not that it's accurate. The agreement you have with your significant other doesn't preclude you from having an opinion that other forms of relationships should be allowed.

[Kobeanare]

So you'd love your child less based on who its mother was? Not seeing how polygamy fits in to that picture.

Multiple simultaneous children/multiple simultaneous partners, I'd imagine. I'd also say there's absolutely nothing wrong with any form of consensual non-monogamy.

One thing, though. You've mentioned several times in this thread that you ask your prospective partners if they've been tested, and that this is a good way to avoid getting an STI. How exactly can you trust their answers? Most infected guys would lie, I'd imagine.

[Killbrawn]

Seriously. Could you at least try to read what I wrote instead of mocking it simply because I disagreed with you.

1) I wasn't saying that I wouldn't love my second child less, I was saying that the process of child birth probably seems more special the firs time it's done.

2) I mentioned polygamy because that would be a case of someone loving multiple people equally. Your analogy comparing children to sexual partners didn't fit, because you were arguing that sexual encounters with later partners could be more special than previous ones while the case of children would be one of equal love for all of them.

3) I don't see how you got that I was saying that people that aren't willing to only have sex with one person in their life have no standards whatsoever. I said the exact opposite! My point was that everyone has a standard of when and where and with whom sex is right and therefore it's only a logical conclusion for people to decide that it should only be between married people since people already place limits on when they have sex and with whom.

4) I don't even see the point of the van comment, I'm sure you knew what i meant but I'll explain it again. If someone just asked you for sex, you probably wouldn't have sex with them unless the parameters that you have set for when and where and with whom to have sex with were met. So it's hypocritical for you to criticize them for placing limits on sex when you already place your own arbitrary limits on sex.

5) I don't get where you find the parallel to your analogy. It is not racist to accuse someone of racism, it is hypocritical to criticize the idea of thinking of sex as being bad when done at the wrong place and time and with the wrong person when you yourself most likely do the same thing except with different specifics about time and person.

6)I apologize if I implied you were attacking the idea of only having one sexual partner for life when you weren't but it seemed that way to me; I apologize if I was wrong in that regard. And the McDonalds thing is not an accurate analogy since a family that eats only McDonalds would die while I don't believe there are any known negative health effects from monogamous marriage.

7) Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that consenting adults shouldn't be able to make their own choices. I said that it's wrong to criticize religious people for believing in more strict guidelines on when sex is and isn't appropriate. This topic isn't about religious people trying to force people to act the same as them, it's about the taboo of sex and I was responding to people's inaccurate comments on religion with regards to sexual taboos.

Of course its ok for society to have a prevailing view of what is and isn't ok. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals. If a plurality or majority of the individuals in the society agree on something then it only makes sense that the "society" would share the majority view. You don't have to follow that view, and there are no laws forcing you to. However, society does set the standard of what is considered acceptable. As long as no one's getting jailed or being attacked for their promiscuity, it doesn't really matter.

9) No I do not know how to do multiple quotes which is why I didn't use them. Please focus your comments on the relevant parts of my response and ignore that.

[Bottle]

So you'd love your child less based on who its mother was? Not seeing how polygamy fits in to that picture.

Multiple simultaneous children/multiple simultaneous partners, I'd imagine. I'd also say there's absolutely nothing wrong with any form of consensual non-monogamy.

One thing, though. You've mentioned several times in this thread that you ask your prospective partners if they've been tested, and that this is a good way to avoid getting an STI. How exactly can you trust their answers? Most infected guys would lie, I'd imagine.

I don't fuck people I don't trust.

[Bottle]

Seriously. Could you at least try to read what I wrote instead of mocking it simply because I disagreed with you.

As everyone can see, I'm quite capable of doing both.

But don't worry, I'm not mocking you for disagreeing.

1) I wasn't saying that I wouldn't love my second child less, I was saying that the process of child birth probably seems more special the firs time it's done.

Interesting theory. How many children have you birthed?

2) I mentioned polygamy because that would be a case of someone loving multiple people equally. Your analogy comparing children to sexual partners didn't fit, because you were arguing that sexual encounters with later partners could be more special than previous ones while the case of children would be one of equal love for all of them.

I honestly don't see how this supports your arguments in any way, so I'm going to just give it a pass.

3) I don't see how you got that I was saying that people that aren't willing to only have sex with one person in their life have no standards whatsoever. I said the exact opposite! My point was that everyone has a standard of when and where and with whom sex is right and therefore it's only a logical conclusion for people to decide that it should only be between married people since people already place limits on when they have sex and with whom.

So because everyone has different standards, we should all arbitrarily pick marriage as our standard?

4) I don't even see the point of the van comment, I'm sure you knew what i meant but I'll explain it again. If someone just asked you for sex, you probably wouldn't have sex with them unless the parameters that you have set for when and where and with whom to have sex with were met. So it's hypocritical for you to criticize them for placing limits on sex when you already place your own arbitrary limits on sex.

For the zillionth time:

I AM NOT CRITICIZING ANYBODY FOR SETTING THEIR OWN LIMITS ON WHO THEY FUCK.

You are doing that, but stop projecting your moral failures onto others.

5) I don't get where you find the parallel to your analogy. It is not racist to accuse someone of racism, it is hypocritical to criticize the idea of thinking of sex as being bad when done at the wrong place and time and with the wrong person when you yourself most likely do the same thing except with different specifics about time and person.

Which, for the zillionth time, is what YOU are doing, and I agree that it's hypocritical and silly of you. But since I'm not doing that and you are, I don't see why you think this is a good point to make.

6)I apologize if I implied you were attacking the idea of only having one sexual partner for life when you weren't but it seemed that way to me; I apologize if I was wrong in that regard. And the McDonalds thing is not an accurate analogy since a family that eats only McDonalds would die while I don't believe there are any known negative health effects from monogamous marriage.

There's enough fail in this one to completely derail a thread, so I'm going to skip it as well in the interests of non-hijack.

7) Don't put words in my mouth. I never said that consenting adults shouldn't be able to make their own choices. I said that it's wrong to criticize religious people for believing in more strict guidelines on when sex is and isn't appropriate. This topic isn't about religious people trying to force people to act the same as them, it's about the taboo of sex and I was responding to people's inaccurate comments on religion with regards to sexual taboos.

It really seems like you haven't read the OP, or any of my posts on the thread, because you're arguing against something completely irrelevant.

The entire point of the thread is that taboos against sexuality result in objectively harmful outcomes (i.e. people getting sick and/or dying, unwanted pregnancies, increased domestic abuse, rape, etc), which means that it's everyone's business to discuss these taboos. Whether or not you, as an individual think sex should happen only between married people is a quite different subject than whether SOCIETY should view those who fuck out of wedlock as dirty or worth less than others.

Of course its ok for society to have a prevailing view of what is and isn't ok. Society is nothing but a collection of individuals. If a plurality or majority of the individuals in the society agree on something then it only makes sense that the "society" would share the majority view. You don't have to follow that view, and there are no laws forcing you to. However, society does set the standard of what is considered acceptable. As long as no one's getting jailed or being attacked for their promiscuity, it doesn't really matter.

Careful, your ignorance is showing. If you honestly think that it really doesn't matter just because people aren't put in jail for fucking, then you are so catastrophically ignorant of the public health issues and civil rights issues surrounding this topic that you probably should excuse yourself from the thread if you want to avoid massive humiliation.