On Fa'Lina's.. er.. 'Assets'.

[Damaris]

Actually, we don't allow those kinds of links in the DMFA forum, since it is PG/PG13 (even with a NSFW tag). But, you're still learning the ropes.

[Mao]

Ah, must've missed the rule on that.  Thanks.   Should I go edit the link out then, just to be sure?

[Shachza]

First one wasn't even supposed to be a link .. not sure what I did there.
And the second isn't NSFW, it's from a comedy show!

The bulk of the forumers are from the United States, land of puritanical repression.  So, yeah. Not appropriate.

Allright, I've updated the post so it's now appropiate for the US of A too ... dang, you guys are seriously repressed over there.

United States; the only developed country that I know of where gratuitous violence is OK for television, but being underdressed is not.  (The entire SAW movie series is fine, but a little accidental boobage causes national hysteria)  

[Ketchup-Crumbles]

While I probably don't mind seeing the stuff if I know what's about to be seen, it can really freak me out if I'm not anticipating it. When I was recently looking for information about meningitis on Wikipedia they had a picture of an open skull right at the top... totally caught me off guard (for anyone interested, it's on the German wikipedia site; the English one has a baby with gangrenous arms...)
And if "nudity" is not that common in American TV why is there so much of it in the movies? Compared to German movies it seems to me, there is much more of it, but I have no statistical data on it, just my personal impression

[Shachza]

While I probably don't mind seeing the stuff if I know what's about to be seen, it can really freak me out if I'm not anticipating it. When I was recently looking for information about meningitis on Wikipedia they had a picture of an open skull right at the top... totally caught me off guard (for anyone interested, it's on the German wikipedia site; the English one has a baby with gangrenous arms...)
And if "nudity" is not that common in American TV why is there so much of it in the movies? Compared to German movies it seems to me, there is much more of it, but I have no statistical data on it, just my personal impression

There is a lot of partial nudity, probably because we are so active at supressing it, but it's generally locked away behind rating levels that warn everyone "ZOMG POSSIBLY NEKKID HERE DO NOT LOOK!"

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

There is a lot of partial nudity, probably because we are so active at supressing it, but it's generally locked away behind rating levels that warn everyone "ZOMG POSSIBLY NEKKID HERE DO NOT LOOK!"

"ZOMG THERE'S NEKKID PEOPLE HERE, LOOKLOOKLOOK AS LONG AS YOU HAVE AN EXCUSE!"

[Anker Steadfast]

I'm sorry, it's just that I find it so absurd that sex is being criminalized in the media.
It's one of the most important things we can do with our lives, and then we turn around and tell our children "oh no, you shouldn't do that, it's bad" ?

Heck, white people have gotten so good at supressing it in the western world that they now have less than the required 2.5 children it takes to have growth.
That means that we are dying out ... and for what ? Why don't we have more children when we have all the best medical care and riches ?

Could it be because everyone is telling "ooo .. sex is BAD!" ?
Could it be because when nature tries to make us have children at the late teenage years, we fight it with all our might ?

It's absurd - grotesque even - to have the richest societies on earth slowly dying out because we are afraid of sex.


This rant was brought to you by the Mow association of Things They Don't Understand.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Life in Lubbock, Texas, taught me two things: One is that God loves you and you're going to burn in hell. The other is that sex is the most awful, filthy thing on earth and you should save it for someone you love. ~ Butch Hancock

Also:
When a man talks dirty to a woman, it's sexual harassment. When a woman talks dirty to a man, it's $3.95 a minute. ~ Author Unknown

And:
Sex. In America an obsession. In other parts of the world a fact. ~ Marlene Dietrich

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

I would like to point out to Anker Steadfast, that there's little correlation between attitudes about the "purity" of sex, and reproduction rate. Just look at the middle east, where some of the most reactionary attitudes towards sex exist on the planet, yet  the fertility rate is astonishingly high........


Low fertility rates correlate more closely with prolonged education than anything else.

[Mao]

Ok, nice soapbox you've got here.

I'm sorry, it's just that I find it so absurd that sex is being criminalized in the media.

Criminalized in the media?  I think you're exaggerating a bit too much.

It's one of the most important things we can do with our lives, and then we turn around and tell our children "oh no, you shouldn't do that, it's bad" ?

I'm going to go ahead and disagree on the 'most' important thing we can do with our lives and that we tell our children that it's bad.  In fact, when the heck did 'the children' even enter into this discussion.  This forum isn't your soapbox, Anker and this post is starting to near flamebait levels.

Heck, white people have gotten so good at supressing it in the western world that they now have less than the required 2.5 children it takes to have growth.

White people?  I hate to break it to you, but some of those nations that are listed as having the low birthrates...aren't all white.  Again, hitting the flamebait levels there, Anker.  Also:  Western world?  I'm looking at that map you have there and.. uh.. the western world is actually (with the exception of Canada) well within the 2-3 range.

That means that we are dying out ... and for what ? Why don't we have more children when we have all the best medical care and riches ?

Actually, it doesn't.  As long as a nation is above 2, it's not dying out at all.  Stagnating, maybe, but not dying out.  That said, so far you've failed to address the issue of resources and over-population among others.  Sometimes, a stagnant or lower birthrate is actually a good thing.

Could it be because everyone is telling "ooo .. sex is BAD!" ?
Could it be because when nature tries to make us have children at the late teenage years, we fight it with all our might ?

Could also be because of the two things I just mentioned.  Just saying.  You're kinda over simplifying the whole issue and making it sound like some 'big bad' is out to kill us all by censoring us.  Except, that people are still free to do whatever they choose.  'The Media' as you call it, can tell you what they think all they like, but the onus is on the listener to decide.

It's absurd - grotesque even - to have the richest societies on earth slowly dying out because we are afraid of sex.


This rant was brought to you by the Mow association of Things They Don't Understand.

TL;DR:  Nice soapbox rant, but it's got more missing facts (you've got one, count them, ONE source.. and it doesn't defend your argument at all), screams of flamebait for reasons already mentioned and frankly?  It reads more like a F.U.D. propaganda speech against 'the media' (which you never actually define, technically this forum can be considered media).  It's so full of sweeping generalizations and arm flailing that I'm not sure if you're serious or trying to start a flame war.

[Congo Jack]

I would like to point out to Anker Steadfast, that there's little correlation between attitudes about the "purity" of sex, and reproduction rate. Just look at the middle east, where some of the most reactionary attitudes towards sex exist on the planet, yet  the fertility rate is astonishingly high........

Countries with high reproduction rates, such as India and countries with reactionary attitudes toward sex, such as Iran happen to be both in Middle East, but those are different countries. VERY different.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Reproduction rate and education has some relationship, and we want higher quality vs quantity.  The reasons for many children is more labor for more resources/money.  But this is a myth, more children need more resources, and money.    Few children need fewer resources or they can have more resource to improve their chances for a better life.

And the other end ..less children
Or they can become spoiled, and work less and expect more.  They lose the meaning of work and become less educted    Ancient Roman fell prey to this.  The Senate would give the people free Bread and entertainment in the Collosium to keep the people "happy".  So much so, that people felt that their right to the food and entertainment just for being Roman.   Many people now feel that it is too expensive to have children.  

PBH  

[Corgatha Taldorthar]

I would like to point out to Anker Steadfast, that there's little correlation between attitudes about the "purity" of sex, and reproduction rate. Just look at the middle east, where some of the most reactionary attitudes towards sex exist on the planet, yet  the fertility rate is astonishingly high........

Countries with high reproduction rates, such as India and countries with reactionary attitudes toward sex, such as Iran happen to be both in Middle East, but those are different countries. VERY different.

I wasn't really considering India as part of the middle east.

I was thinking more
Saudi Arabia with 3.83 children to woman
Syria 3.12 children to a woman
and Libya 3.71 children to a woman

To name a few, as countries that struck me, at least, of being very reactionary towards sex, far more so than pretty much anything you'd see anywhere in "The Western World" (which I'm loosely envisioning as  Europe and areas of a predominantly UK cultural influence, Canada, U.S., Australia, New Zealand, etc.


And as for my analysis of higher education--> fewer children, I don't think the relationship is between resources consumed and generated. It's more along the lines that, if you're in some sort of education until you're in your late twenties, you're probably going to be hugely in debt to pay for said schooling, and will need to focus on a career to stay afloat from an individual economic standpoint. People who spend 16 hours a day in an office, week in and week out, rarely have the time or energy to go out and start families.


There's also a correlation between educational availability in a country and the quality of medicinal care in said country. (This one shouldn't be too hard to grasp). If you want to look at it coldly, if you're in a stone age situation, infant mortality alone is likely to kill half of your offspring alone. If you want to have 2 kids to survive into adulthood, you need to have a lot of babies, to ensure that some of them make it.

Countries with weak medicine (which tend to have little advanced education, and tend therefore to be poor) will have a mentality of having lots and lots of kids, because of the above mentioned pressures which simply don't exist in most in an industrialized state. I live in the U.S. If I have two kids, the odds are very, very good that both of them will survive to be 18. Therefore, if you just want to maintain the population (and let's assume, for the sake of the argument, that cultural attitudes will prevail upon families so that they'll have roughly enough kids to keep the population where it is running into the next generation) you need to have fewer kids, probably around 2 per couple, plus a little fraction to account for accidental deaths.

However, there's going to be a window in any region that's going through a medical revolution, where cultural attitudes towards reproduction haven't yet caught up to the medical realities on the ground. I don't have the statistics in front of me (I could look them up, but this post is already too long and too detailed) but I seem to remember from my history classes the *huge* population spikes that were going on all over Europe during the beginning of the industrial era, during which, I don't think coincidentally, medicine was advancing quite rapidly. It was still primitive compared to what we have today, but it was vastly better than what you see in the renaissance era.


EDIT: Fixed a link

[Pvblivs]

Could it be because everyone is telling "ooo .. sex is BAD!" ?

That seems rather unlikely.  I just don't see major outbreaks of celibacy.  I do, however, see extensive use of birth control.

At this particular point in time, I think we could do with some population shrinkage.  When the population of cities goes back to being measured in thousands, rather than millions, we can seek to avoid shrinkage.  (It's been said that growth for the sake of growth is the philosophy of a cancer cell.)

[Jubs]

I'm probably gonna be skewered for this position but anyways.
I believe that organized religion and skewed morals are what have given many (not most or all) their contradictory views on sex. I am not mentioning any names but a religion that is against the pill and stuff like that can make sense, but to be against condoms too? Just weird.
That said I believe that sex was designed be God to be between one man and one woman for life and to be used for the purpose of reproduction, recreation, and (sometimes) reconciliation.
If you disagree that's great because this is only my opinion, and I don't say that to be cocky or anything. I just realize that my opinion is a smaller minority than most of yours.
Also as a side note (and to answer possible oncoming replies) I am not a gay basher or anything like that. Just because I disagree with the way they live their lifestyle does not give me or anyone else any authority to force them to live according to a certain set of morals. Because we all are responsible for our own choices not other's.

[Mao]

If they skewer you for that, they'll have to skewer me too (and in this place, that's not such a good idea).  I don't agree with some of the views you hold, but you've not flamed or said anything offensive and have been polite.  Just keep that calm, polite composure and you'll survive this little personal hell that I've been given the reigns of with nary a scratch and your sanity intact.

[Arcblade]

Just keep that calm, polite composure and you'll survive this little personal hell that I've been given the reigns of with nary a scratch and your sanity intact.

Are you sure?  I think my sanity is warping just from reading some of this subforum.   

[Mao]

Heh, that's why we suggest that protective headgear for folks in here, the Tinfoil Hat!  Helps keep them out of your brain, looks stylish and helps you keep your brain intact and you bounce about the conversations here in the Tearoom.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Personally, I've gone for...

'I know what you're thinking, you're thinking "I'm not wearing a crash helmet inside". Well, it's not really a crash helmet, it's more of a crash helmet with hair on it. We call it a reinforced toupee...'

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Heh, that's why we suggest that protective headgear for folks in here, the Tinfoil Hat!  Helps keep them out of your brain, looks stylish and helps you keep your brain intact and you bounce about the conversations here in the Tearoom.

But I hate hats... cheesez tin-foil hats won't help you against all the mind warping ideas here.

So Religion... God and Goddess... That is too heavy a subject for this place.  
So, Sexual ritual are meant to keep people responsible for their actions.  They are there protect the family, the best unit to raise the young into productive members of society.  To respect each other, and ourselves, so we don't fell victim to our or someone else's impulses and lusts.    

Once people start losing thier sense of responsibility and their actions don't have any effect on how their are treated.  It is the begin of the end of civilization.  

PBH

Please note I did not say what makes a family..but a minumium should be Two adults. (mature prefered.)

[Jubs]

Please note I did not say what makes a family..but a minumium should be Two adults. (mature prefered.)

I know a few people that have a opinion similar to that. I was wondering what you used to come to this opinion.
Was it studies, life experiences, a book, or something else?

[Prof B Hunnydew]

Please note I did not say what makes a family..but a minimum should be Two adults. (mature preferred.)

I know a few people that have a opinion similar to that. I was wondering what you used to come to this opinion.
Was it studies, life experiences, a book, or something else?

I have read some studies on child raising across cultures, and my own life experience... The conclusions, they reach is that a child of both sexes have a better chance of understanding their selves and the world with both sexes around.   With daily examples from both male and female role-models in their lives, they grow up more rounded and have better self-esteem.  Even in cultures where the Father doesn't stay with the mothers, the uncle or brother of the mother is there to help educated the child.
 
For my own experience, I have seen too many single mothers work too hard to raise kids and bring enough money home for food on the table.  With little hope of giving their children even a good life.
Quality daycare is in short supply and never enough at any price.

It takes a village to raise a child, single parents rarely have just another person to help, let alone a village.

PBH

[lilpuppy23]

It reads more like a F.U.D. propaganda speech against 'the media'

What is F.U.D. ?
Or is the answer something I really do not want to know?

[Darkmoon]

Well, it is the internet...

[Mao]

Fear. Uncertainty. Doubt.  Essentially they spew stuff out with little backing in an attempt to create those feelings toward their target.  The F.U.D. in this case was towards some 'media' boogeyman who's apparently out to get you and take away your ability to think critically about sexuality.

[Keleth]

. . . Can't sleep. Fox news anchors will get me

[Shachza]

. . . Can't sleep. Fox news anchors will get me

I don't know what's worse: Glen Beck's warped world views being broadcast on national TV, or the fact that people listen to and agree with him.

[Scow2]

I've noticed a correlation between a person's criticism of "sexually-repressed" societies and the individual's ability to get laid... so, either they don't have enough experience in sexual matters to understand why society suppresses sexual expression, or... they are deluded into thinking they would get laid in a sexually open society...

[Jubs]

Please note I did not say what makes a family..but a minimum should be Two adults. (mature preferred.)

I know a few people that have a opinion similar to that. I was wondering what you used to come to this opinion.
Was it studies, life experiences, a book, or something else?

I have read some studies on child raising across cultures, and my own life experience...

I like that. I may not agree totally with your opinion (that's opinions for ya{fickle creatures} ), but I definitely like the fact that there is at least one person out there that doesn't base their opinions of what makes a family(or whatever you want to call it) on what Disney and/or your average talk show host tells you.

P.S.

I don't know what's worse: Glen Beck's warped world views being broadcast on national TV, or the fact that people listen to and agree with him.

Looks like someone's is trying to start an argument.

[Prof B Hunnydew]

An old comedy, when I was a kitten, had the Vice Pres of US and the actress arguing over what makes a family on the national stage.  I find it Ironic, that Murphy Brown, the character, turned out to be a terrible mother as her show went on, and her handy man/friend was always stuck raising her child, which made Mr Quayle's point about single mothers, but dont look to the media to correct itself.  This isn't to say I don't believe that Mr Quayle with a "E" is not an Idiot.

But I like the village idea, that all the adults are raising and looking out for every child in the community.  This was common before the '60s.  Too bad, many adults don't look out for their own kids, let a lone others' kids,  when they are doing wrong.  Most adults are afraid of law-sues or becoming targets to stop a bunch of kids from messing up or messing around.  Which is why we have gangs.   

PBH