|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 1:45 pm
rmcdra Is slut shaming wrong? Why or why not? I actually made a thread about this some months ago, and yes, it is wrong, but I doubt it will ever end. Sex is still, on some levels, considered taboo, and is riddled with double-standards. It supports the "rape culture" we have, and limits a person's sexuality.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 2:35 pm
Ontological Empiricism rmcdra Is slut shaming wrong? Why or why not? I actually made a thread about this some months ago, and yes, it is wrong, but I doubt it will ever end. Sex is still, on some levels, considered taboo, and is riddled with double-standards. It supports the "rape culture" we have, and limits a person's sexuality. Maybe one day but yeah I doubt it would be in our lifetime. Would you be willing to elaborat a bit more on how it limit's a person's sexuality. It seems pretty obvious how slut-shaming supports rape culture since it breeds the mindset of "blame the victim" Edit: Clarification
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 4:05 pm
rmcdra Ontological Empiricism rmcdra Is slut shaming wrong? Why or why not? I actually made a thread about this some months ago, and yes, it is wrong, but I doubt it will ever end. Sex is still, on some levels, considered taboo, and is riddled with double-standards. It supports the "rape culture" we have, and limits a person's sexuality. Maybe one day but yeah I doubt it would be in our lifetime. Would you be willing to elaborat a bit more on how it limit's a person's sexuality. It seems pretty obvious how slut-shaming supports rape culture since it breeds the mindset of "blame the victim" Edit: Clarification For example: shaming a person (mostly a woman) for having more than one sexual partner. Women in particular are subjected to slut-shaming if they have sex outside of marriage, sex with more than one person, and sex for reasons other than procreation. So a person (again, women in particular) cannot be freely open about their sexuality without facing slut-shaming. EDIT: Don't misunderstand me, men face slut-shaming too, but I don't think anywhere near to the extent women face.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 02, 2012 5:18 pm
Ontological Empiricism For example: shaming a person (mostly a woman) for having more than one sexual partner. Women in particular are subjected to slut-shaming if they have sex outside of marriage, sex with more than one person, and sex for reasons other than procreation. So a person (again, women in particular) cannot be freely open about their sexuality without facing slut-shaming. EDIT: Don't misunderstand me, men face slut-shaming too, but I don't think anywhere near to the extent women face. Okay I get what you mean now. Yes I would have to agree with you on this. While there is a slut-shaming of males, it pales in comparison to what goes on with females. That reminds me of the episode of King of the Hill where Peggy and Lou-Ann went to a "sex ed" class and were given pieces of chocolate for each man they slept with. It does not foster a healthy understanding of sexuality and self and fosters unnecessary guilt.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Jun 06, 2012 6:45 pm
rmcdra Ontological Empiricism For example: shaming a person (mostly a woman) for having more than one sexual partner. Women in particular are subjected to slut-shaming if they have sex outside of marriage, sex with more than one person, and sex for reasons other than procreation. So a person (again, women in particular) cannot be freely open about their sexuality without facing slut-shaming. EDIT: Don't misunderstand me, men face slut-shaming too, but I don't think anywhere near to the extent women face. Okay I get what you mean now. Yes I would have to agree with you on this. While there is a slut-shaming of males, it pales in comparison to what goes on with females. That reminds me of the episode of King of the Hill where Peggy and Lou-Ann went to a "sex ed" class and were given pieces of chocolate for each man they slept with. It does not foster a healthy understanding of sexuality and self and fosters unnecessary guilt. It's one of those things that has been burned into our minds for generations and it keeps getting passed on. The girl is told over and over again what a sin it is to "defile" their body before marriage. Before the time of Christ and way into the colonial times, women were stoned, burned, mutilated, and tortured. Virgin girls who were raped often were forced to marry their rapists and submit sexually to them. Now, obviously this was way before women even had rights in most societies and nowadays it's no longer a sin punishable by a gruesome death or maiming. But still, it's like the same mentality is still stuck in our minds.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 3:00 am
Is objectification of any kind necessary for sexual attraction? Why or why not?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Jun 07, 2012 7:58 am
rmcdra Is objectification of any kind necessary for sexual attraction? Why or why not? I would hope not... though, speaking form the hopeless romantic virgin side of things....
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:19 pm
rmcdra Is objectification of any kind necessary for sexual attraction? Why or why not? That's a really good question. Lol. I've never really thought about it before. Mostly I've just gone with the flow. For me, unless I really love the person to the point where I can look past it, it's a yes. Maybe for my husband it's not necessary... but he's good looking and we're young. I'll get back to you on that in fifty years when we're old and wrinkly... of course... at that point we may not have a sex drive anyway so it could be completely redundant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 12:44 pm
LinyBeany rmcdra Is objectification of any kind necessary for sexual attraction? Why or why not? That's a really good question. Lol. I've never really thought about it before. Mostly I've just gone with the flow. For me, unless I really love the person to the point where I can look past it, it's a yes. Maybe for my husband it's not necessary... but he's good looking and we're young. I'll get back to you on that in fifty years when we're old and wrinkly... of course... at that point we may not have a sex drive anyway so it could be completely redundant. This is something that I've been pondering for a while. It seems inescapable to have any sort of sexual relationship without objectification on some level. Maybe it's because I haven't had many partners so I could be missing something. It seems that there would be a "safe" level of objectification that you can have so that you don't lose sight of your partner being a person.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 3:16 pm
rmcdra Is objectification of any kind necessary for sexual attraction? Why or why not? I don't think so. Objectifying someone implies that you aren't thinking of their personality or feelings much if at all and are merely using them as a tool. At least that's how I've always thought of it. That's how I've felt when I was being objectified anyhow. Due to things that I've been through recently, my definition might be a bit stronger than most. ^^; That said, I still think it is entirely possible to be attracted to someone without resorting to that.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:33 pm
Saber Talawyrm rmcdra Is objectification of any kind necessary for sexual attraction? Why or why not? I don't think so. Objectifying someone implies that you aren't thinking of their personality or feelings much if at all and are merely using them as a tool. At least that's how I've always thought of it. That's how I've felt when I was being objectified anyhow. Due to things that I've been through recently, my definition might be a bit stronger than most. ^^; That said, I still think it is entirely possible to be attracted to someone without resorting to that. I might also be thinking too much into it. I tend to do that sometimes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Jun 08, 2012 6:48 pm
rmcdra I might also be thinking too much into it. I tend to do that sometimes. Not necessarily. Really, that's the kind of thing that is probably a bit different for everyone. 3nodding
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Jun 23, 2012 4:30 pm
I agree thoroughly with you. I understand how families are afraid to talk about sex with their young ones for fears that it may inspire curiosity to engage in sexual activity. But I've noticed that it's been proven time and time again that we see a lot of teenage pregnancies and STD transmission (from adversities against birth control and condoms) from a lot of religious communities who choose not to engage in such talks.
Not saying that the celibacy talk doesn't work, but I think these communities need to realize that celibacy is not for everyone and cannot be forced on anyone. However, if these talks are shared (even WITH the celibacy talk), it's proven that individuals wait longer to have sex, and when they do, they are much safer with their choices and regret their decisions a lot less.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 1:56 pm
Why do you think some people push for abstinence-only sexual education instead of real sexual education?
Is it because they think that if their child learns the nitty-gritty, down-and-dirty details of sex and what it can lead to, they'll be more likely to go out and do everyone? neutral
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Jun 24, 2012 2:04 pm
Ontological Empiricism Why do you think some people push for abstinence-only sexual education instead of real sexual education? Is it because they think that if their child learns the nitty-gritty, down-and-dirty details of sex and what it can lead to, they'll be more likely to go out and do everyone? neutral What do you count as real? Cause the school I went to, taught everything... from STD's, pregnancy, condoms, contraceptives(though, only the birth control part).... the list goes on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
