The sex thread

[_harmony]

I am on the attack. Just for once, I get to go for the throat. Let the frauds, poseurs, intellectual crackpots (like merc, PP, Zoid, Schmo, and a dozen others), and desperate demagogues like Rollo beware.

That's pretty funny coming from an ant among a crowd of giants.

Well, ants can bite. Of course, then they get slapped and/or flicked away. I think you're onto something, Rollo!

[_harmony]

The 60's is not the past, in the sense of historical context. The 60's is pretty much the present. Good grief, Loran, in the context of thousands of years, the last 48 is a mere drop in the bucket of time.

As I've already pointed out, your flaming strawman of the many thousands of years has no logical connection to any critique of the sexual revolution, at least not one that I've made.

Actually, that pornography, widespread and in most homes, is thousands of years old is central to my rebuttal of your argument that the 60's sexual revolution, fueled by pornography, is causing the downfall of society.

Snip rambling gibberish.

Actually, no. You continue with the rambling gibberish below.

You don't get it, do you, Loran? Did you never take Debate in high school? Have you never written a paper for a college class? Oh wait. You're the one without a degree. Okay, here's your opportunity to learn a bit (I have no doubt whatsoever that you will not take the opportunity, but no one can say I didn't try):

In order to form a coherent argument, you have to first define your terms. What do you mean by the clear decline of western civilization? You have to then show, by way of your sources, that the decline of western civilization actually exists. (This point is in contention, in case you hadn't realized it). And realize that you are going to have to go back more than 100 years, to show the decline. Then you have to define the 60's sexual revolution as being a phenomena that has never occured previously (which is another point that is in contention). Then you have to tie them together, which you haven't done.

First show me that there is a clear decline in western civilization. Then show me that the 60's sexual revolution is a new phenomena. Then show me that the 60's sexual revolution had anything to do with the decline in western civilization.

(It will probably help for you to understand that not everyone sees the changes in the last 50 years as "bad".)

Try again.

[_Jason Bourne]

I do think the 60s and 70s took many stigmas away from sexual activities. Also the pill took away risk of pregnancy. I have read statistics that show sexual activity before marriage did in fact increase especially for women from the late 50s to the 80s. I think it has leveled and even on the decline some but the problem we seem to face now is kids having sex much younger then before.

I think that porn has certainly become more available, accepted and tolerated. While it has always existed it is more available. That may be more a function of technology though. I am not sure. Certainly what we view in movies and on TV has gotten more heavy into porn, violence and language then it was even in the 70s.

I think these things have always existed and maybe the 50s was the end of a more restrictive period on things sexual, at least in the open. But if some of the documentaries I have seen on sex in history, for example, during WWII and during even Victorian England there was a lot of it going on. So it seems that yes, the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s changed some things and made that which has always been there even more out in the open and more active in acceptable.

[_harmony]

I do think the 60s and 70s took many stigmas away from sexual activities. Also the pill took away risk of pregnancy. I have read statistics that show sexual activity before marriage did in fact increase especially for women from the late 50s to the 80s. I think it has leveled and even on the decline some but the problem we seem to face now is kids having sex much younger then before.

I think that porn has certainly become more available, accepted and tolerated. While it has always existed it is more available. That may be more a function of technology though. I am not sure. Certainly what we view in movies and on TV has gotten more heavy into porn, violence and language then it was even in the 70s.

I think these things have always existed and maybe the 50s was the end of a more restrictive period on things sexual, at least in the open. But if some of the documentaries I have seen on sex in history, for example, during WWII and during even Victorian England there was a lot of it going on. So it seems that yes, the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s changed some things and made that which has always been there even more out in the open and more active in acceptable.

Consider that a thousand years ago, the only people who got married were the rich because they were the only people who could afford it, then 90% of the people on earth were engaging in premarital cohabitation.

If you're talking about "in our lifetime" or some other truncated timeline, that's a different deal than Loran's contention that the 60's somehow marks the lowest point in human history for unmarried sexual activity and our society now is deteriorating to the point of no return (whatever that is).

And put ancient erotica into Google, and see what you come up with, if you don't think porn has been a central part of human life since time began.

[_Jason Bourne]

Consider that a thousand years ago, the only people who got married were the rich because they were the only people who could afford it, then 90% of the people on earth were engaging in premarital cohabitation.

I did not know this at all. But it does not make sense.. Cohabitation costs just as much as marriage unless tyou are saying that there was some cost to the actual ceremony. Seems like marriage has been around for quite a while.

If you're talking about "in our lifetime" or some other truncated timeline, that's a different deal than Loran's contention that the 60's somehow marks the lowest point in human history for unmarried sexual activity and our society now is deteriorating to the point of no return (whatever that is).

Well it seems that in modern times, say from 1800-1950, things regarding sex were more under the table. And it seems promiscuity, at least among women, was lower. But like I siad, I think the 60s and 70s just made this more open and wide spread.

And put ancient erotica into Google, and see what you come up with, if you don't think porn has been a central part of human life since time began.

I did not say porn has only been around for a short time. Just that it is more readily available and wide spread, and whether that is due more to technology or the sexual revolution of the 60s I do not know.

[_harmony]

Consider that a thousand years ago, the only people who got married were the rich because they were the only people who could afford it, then 90% of the people on earth were engaging in premarital cohabitation.

I did not know this at all. But it does not make sense.. Cohabitation costs just as much as marriage unless tyou are saying that there was some cost to the actual ceremony. Seems like marriage has been around for quite a while.

Have you studied much about history, Jason? Remember what life was like in the Dark Ages? In ancient Egypt? In the city-states of Mesopatamia? Ancient Rome? The Ottoman Empire?

Marriage has been around for quite a while. It is a legal act that creates protection for property and ensures succession of the family name. However, in most parts of the world, prior to the 15th century or so, marriage was only for the rich. Peasants didn't get married; neither did slaves; neither did serfs. Marriage was costly: priests had to be paid, licenses had to be bought, registration had to take place, a dowry had to be paid. And that was just in Europe.

If you do your geneology, you'll see the trend. If you hit a line of kings, you can trace back into the 800-900's. But if you're from a family of peasants, good luck. There simply are no records, because if there is no property to protect, there was no reason to spend the money (money they didn't have) to record such things.

If you want to get into some really heartbreaking stuff, check out how children were treated around 1000.

Well it seems that in modern times, say from 1800-1950, things regarding sex were more under the table. And it seems promiscuity, at least among women, was lower. But like I siad, I think the 60s and 70s just made this more open and wide spread.

That's not what Loran said. However, I agree with you. Since the 1800's, things have changed considerably. However, check out prior to then.

I did not say porn has only been around for a short time. Just that it is more readily available and wide spread, and whether that is due more to technology or the sexual revolution of the 60s I do not know.

I don't know about the readily available thing. Seems to me like if it's commonplace enough to be prominently displayed in one's dining room, it's pretty common. But it's definitely more available now than it was 100 years ago.

[_Roger Morrison]

Hi Harmony & Jason, what great dialogue! Pardon my intrusion, but this topic has been of more than a natural interest to me, apart from my natural libido :-).

Curious person that i am by nature, i've observed it, experienced it culturally, engaged it healthily, and "morally"--not always the same... "Sex" is far more than copulating. That word was in the title of my previous non-fiction: "Copulating Luck In Our Sort-Of Christian World".

Actually, 'sex' serves as warp and woof, to a large degree in my bloged novel under rewrite, "Growing Up".

I think you two truly balance each other, bringing the best out of each. Harmony, congratulations on your objectivity. The facts are there. I particularly loved your use of "trucated"! That seems to be the world that most inhabit, with reluctance to explore or experience beyond... Jason, you wrote:

I think these things have always existed and maybe the 50s was the end of a more restrictive period on things sexual, at least in the open. But if some of the documentaries I have seen on sex in history, for example, during WWII and during even Victorian England there was a lot of it going on. So it seems that yes, the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s changed some things and made that which has always been there even more out in the open and more active in acceptable.

That is popular opinion. Backed up empirically, i suggest by somewhat "truncated" studies. As Harm suggested, studies very often are 'selective' and leave out the lower echelons of society, and castes. When i watch some of those documentaries, i often wonder how typical are they out side of CA and the 'new' urban sprawl they usually depict. What about in the Smokeys, LA or the Carolinas??

I was born in the 30s, so my 'truncation' started in those pre-war depression years, and really my "life" began in WWII years. One of the fun things for me and my Bud, at about 8 - 10 years old, was to collect condums--"Frenchies"--on a long stick, along "Lover's Lane", there was no small number. Seems they liked to leave them as evidence of their fun. No pill, so "Rubbers" abounded. Public School senior year, grade 8, had 15 & 16 year olds (i was 12) who where sexually active. Shot-gun weddings were common. Coat-hanger abortions were not uncommon as i entered teens and high school.

Obviously openess is new. What is dispayed is not. IMSCO, the negative effects of such openess are exacerbated by the inability of adults, in their ignorance, to move with the times. I do not mean by that for promiscuity, infidelity, or early-teen sex to be encouraged, abuses to be tolerated, etc...

THE problem was/is too much reluctance of folks/parents, generally speaking, to talk honestly from a healthy, well informed physical, emotional knowledge base to Children, from the first simple question concerning anatomy, feelings or relationships.

To assign adult, consentual, responsible premarital sex as "next-to-murder" is indication of dangerously, irresponsibly distributing misinformation. It is akin to hate-literature in its potential negative effects upon some individual lives. My considered opinion.

Warm regards, Roger

[_Jason Bourne]

I did not know this at all. But it does not make sense.. Cohabitation costs just as much as marriage unless tyou are saying that there was some cost to the actual ceremony. Seems like marriage has been around for quite a while.

Have you studied much about history, Jason? Remember what life was like in the Dark Ages? In ancient Egypt? In the city-states of Mesopatamia? Ancient Rome? The Ottoman Empire?

Some yes but more focused on recent history, American history...not much ancient other then a cursory article here or there.

Marriage has been around for quite a while. It is a legal act that creates protection for property and ensures succession of the family name. However, in most parts of the world, prior to the 15th century or so, marriage was only for the rich. Peasants didn't get married; neither did slaves; neither did serfs. Marriage was costly: priests had to be paid, licenses had to be bought, registration had to take place, a dowry had to be paid. And that was just in Europe

.


Interesting.

If you do your geneology, you'll see the trend. If you hit a line of kings, you can trace back into the 800-900's. But if you're from a family of peasants, good luck. There simply are no records, because if there is no property to protect, there was no reason to spend the money (money they didn't have) to record such things.

So this is why many can trace back to the 1600s of 1500s but after that it gets real tough.

Well it seems that in modern times, say from 1800-1950, things regarding sex were more under the table. And it seems promiscuity, at least among women, was lower. But like I siad, I think the 60s and 70s just made this more open and wide spread.

That's not what Loran said. However, I agree with you. Since the 1800's, things have changed considerably. However, check out prior to then.

It seems what I know about Rome that there was lots of debauchery there. I think we might blush in comparison.

I did not say porn has only been around for a short time. Just that it is more readily available and wide spread, and whether that is due more to technology or the sexual revolution of the 60s I do not know.

I don't know about the readily available thing. Seems to me like if it's commonplace enough to be prominently displayed in one's dining room, it's pretty common. But it's definitely more available now than it was 100 years ago

I think we agree.

[_Jason Bourne]

Hi Harmony & Jason, what great dialogue! Pardon my intrusion, but this topic has been of more than a natural interest to me, apart from my natural libido :-).

Curious person that I am by nature, I've observed it, experienced it culturally, engaged it healthily, and "morally"--not always the same... "Sex" is far more than copulating. That word was in the title of my previous non-fiction: "Copulating Luck In Our Sort-Of Christian World".

Actually, 'sex' serves as warp and woof, to a large degree in my bloged novel under rewrite, "Growing Up".

I think you two truly balance each other, bringing the best out of each. Harmony, congratulations on your objectivity. The facts are there. I particularly loved your use of "trucated"! That seems to be the world that most inhabit, with reluctance to explore or experience beyond... Jason, you wrote:

I think these things have always existed and maybe the 50s was the end of a more restrictive period on things sexual, at least in the open. But if some of the documentaries I have seen on sex in history, for example, during WWII and during even Victorian England there was a lot of it going on. So it seems that yes, the sexual revolution of the 60s and 70s changed some things and made that which has always been there even more out in the open and more active in acceptable.

That is popular opinion. Backed up empirically, I suggest by somewhat "truncated" studies. As Harm suggested, studies very often are 'selective' and leave out the lower echelons of society, and castes. When I watch some of those documentaries, I often wonder how typical are they out side of CA and the 'new' urban sprawl they usually depict. What about in the Smokeys, LA or the Carolinas??

I was born in the 30s, so my 'truncation' started in those pre-war depression years, and really my "life" began in WWII years. One of the fun things for me and my Bud, at about 8 - 10 years old, was to collect condums--"Frenchies"--on a long stick, along "Lover's Lane", there was no small number. Seems they liked to leave them as evidence of their fun. No pill, so "Rubbers" abounded. Public School senior year, grade 8, had 15 & 16 year olds (I was 12) who where sexually active. Shot-gun weddings were common. Coat-hanger abortions were not uncommon as I entered teens and high school.

Obviously openess is new. What is dispayed is not. IMSCO, the negative effects of such openess are exacerbated by the inability of adults, in their ignorance, to move with the times. I do not mean by that for promiscuity, infidelity, or early-teen sex to be encouraged, abuses to be tolerated, etc...

THE problem was/is too much reluctance of folks/parents, generally speaking, to talk honestly from a healthy, well informed physical, emotional knowledge base to Children, from the first simple question concerning anatomy, feelings or relationships.

To assign adult, consentual, responsible premarital sex as "next-to-murder" is indication of dangerously, irresponsibly distributing misinformation. It is akin to hate-literature in its potential negative effects upon some individual lives. My considered opinion.

Warm regards, Roger

Roger

Interesting points. Thanks. My dad who was born in 1934, also had related stories about finding condoms at spots that couple visited.

[_huckelberry]

Consider that a thousand years ago, the only people who got married were the rich because they were the only people who could afford it, then 90% of the people on earth were engaging in premarital cohabitation.

I did not know this at all. But it does not make sense.. Cohabitation costs just as much as marriage unless tyou are saying that there was some cost to the actual ceremony. Seems like marriage has been around for quite a while.

Have you studied much about history, Jason? Remember what life was like in the Dark Ages? In ancient Egypt? In the city-states of Mesopatamia? Ancient Rome? The Ottoman Empire?

Marriage has been around for quite a while. It is a legal act that creates protection for property and ensures succession of the family name. However, in most parts of the world, prior to the 15th century or so, marriage was only for the rich. Peasants didn't get married; neither did slaves; neither did serfs. Marriage was costly: priests had to be paid, licenses had to be bought, registration had to take place, a dowry had to be paid. And that was just in Europe.

If you do your geneology, you'll see the trend. If you hit a line of kings, you can trace back into the 800-900's. But if you're from a family of peasants, good luck. There simply are no records, because if there is no property to protect, there was no reason to spend the money (money they didn't have) to record such things.

If you want to get into some really heartbreaking stuff, check out how children were treated around 1000.

Well it seems that in modern times, say from 1800-1950, things regarding sex were more under the table. And it seems promiscuity, at least among women, was lower. But like I siad, I think the 60s and 70s just made this more open and wide spread.

That's not what Loran said. However, I agree with you. Since the 1800's, things have changed considerably. However, check out prior to then.

I did not say porn has only been around for a short time. Just that it is more readily available and wide spread, and whether that is due more to technology or the sexual revolution of the 60s I do not know.

I don't know about the readily available thing. Seems to me like if it's commonplace enough to be prominently displayed in one's dining room, it's pretty common. But it's definitely more available now than it was 100 years ago.

Harmony, I find myself quite puzzled by some of what you say above. On one leval I can understand you to be saying that there are a lot of various patterns in the past and many have not been good enough to support a picture of the good old days lost in 1968. As Roger notes sex outside of marriage was not invented in the 1960s.

I am really puzzled about your marriage comments. I think you seriously underestimate, or appear to underestimate, the pervasive place of marriage in human society. Your observation about marriage c 1000 in Europe I think is misleading. The fact many people without funds or social standing did not have official church wedding hardly means that they did not form marriage relationships. People married in history long before there was a church or a central government. It was something done by local community or family. The Catholic church tried to take over the role. 1000 ad that takeover was not complete and would have been applicable to higher classes primarily. Other poeple would have made other arrangements.

Am I speculating? To an extent yes but it fits history I have read. History of that time did not focus on family arrangements of oridinary people. If one looks about the world explored in the past few centuries all kinds of cultures have been described. I cannot remember one in which marriage for ordinary people was not the ususal situation. Yes there would be people for which it did not apply such as slaves, but common people commonly have married everywhere. Similarly I cannot think of any ancient record in which people are shown to be living without marriage being normally present. There are some people who remain single such slaves soldiers sailors prostitues but that leaves a lot of common farmers artisans etc who to my awarness have married all about the world in recored time.

I might add the observation that Europe in 1000 is a point late in a period of social disruption. The old patterns of village and town were disrupted by war, invasion, plague and collapse central government.. Instead instead of tradtional village order there was a patchwork of barbaric warlords. This is hardly a point of time making a good example of what human society usually looks like.