MovieChat Forums > General Discussion > why is the world so freaked out about se...

why is the world so freaked out about sex?

posted 3 years ago by 123Guy (7387)
146 replies | jump to latest

why is the world so freaked out about sex?

there is obviously bad sides to everything, like sex trafficking - which maybe also wouldn't even exist if we weren't so freaked out about sex - but there is a million good things about sex, and it will keep happening.... I don't understand where all this freak out comes from?

people tossing out all these "bad" things:
- misogyny: what? men hate women because men want to have sex with them???
- harassment: men whoop and hollar and cat call is SOOOO TERRIBLE because they want to have sex with them? so and so said naughty things and touched my leg and tried to kiss me, because he wants to have sex with me
- "toxic" masculinity: you should NOT act like a male designed and built to want to have sex with everything... except that is exactly what we are

then table turning:
- women compete in the game space against other women to get men to have sex with them with makeup, clothing, location, flirting, and even the touching, grinding, twerking etc...
- women over drink to reach around to their inbred, repressed desire to have children

Someone pinches someone's butt or grabs some junk, then has to apologize. Oh SHOCKING.
Someone uses someone else to get ahead in business - I'll let YOU decide the sexes in that scenario. Oh SHOCKING!
Someone with obvious history banged someone and years later calls it rape. Oh SHOCKING.

And yet....

I have known plenty of women... PLENTY of women... who crave and chase sex just as much. I'm not saying that is wrong, just saying this is all normal.

Sex is anything you want it to be these days: monogomous, polyamours, threesomes, ninesomes, golden showers, cosplay, porn, dolls, rape fantasy, foods, toys, whips, chains, maybe just dirty talk, or just cuddling.
People even make up their own sex, and sexlives, moving their lines around whenever and however they wish.
LITERALLY no rules, anything goes, hopefully as long as no one is getting hurt.

Meanwhile, people are seeming more prude than ever and at the same time get worse and worse about it than ever....
strippers becoming pop stars, dressing worse than whores and singing about their Wet Ass Pussy....
Movies are all CLEANER of it now, yet 1/5 of the top 10 websites accessed in the world... this is a FULL FIFTH, mind you, are PORN websites. ONE FIFTH! Search sites, news, shopping, and PORN

So.... things don't really add up.

We talk against sex, yet still crave and pursue it 100% and always will.

So, WHO are we kidding?

Someone jerks off in a public bathroom and the world has a meltdown.
Someone slept their way into a job, and is NOW "abused" long after the fact.
Someone grabbed someone at a drunken party (ooh that NEVER happens in reality - except all the time!) then loses their career, faces public shaming, has to apologize...

Thousands of homes are built every month to house more people that have sex to start a family. Look around. All that expansion is sex based. If it was just single people, porking, then dying off, everything could be re-useable rentals for the next childless couple. But, no, housing popping up all over the world with room for kids - proof of constant sex.

Magazines: 15 fabulous sex tips for your lover - Oh, but don't actually DO any of this because you could end up in prison now.

Best selling movies have HOT (IE sexy) women in them, not ugly ones.
Advertising: Sex sells, does sell, and always will sell. Look at most online credit card ads: some smiling girl with super white teeth, perfect skin, and a twinkle in her eye. Why? duh. Why ask why.

So, we continue to pursue sex - look in ANY night club or bar, enjoy sex, want sex, get sex, why does it seem like every headline that mentions it, makes it seem like everyone is so shocked??
I've seen drunk women (their CHOICE to get drunk) hitting on, feeling up, chasing, and leaving with guys to get sex. They need their inhibitions dropped by alcohol to get down to the truth of who they are. Why? Why not just seek sex? it's okay.

"Oh lordy! That 22 year old slept with a 17 year old!" Yeah, she was fuckin hot, begging for it too! Ever been to any college party ever??? NEVER went to one that didn't have law breaking high school girls there for exactly ONE purpose, and it was not to "learn to drink" or "hang out with friends". They know exactly why they wanted to be there. So do all the guys. OH OH SO WRONG!

Is it?? Then why are their bodies DESIGNED to be able to produce children outside the time frame some laws state, hmmm? It's natural.

29 year old teacher caught with 16 year old "non stop" boy. Oh so shocking. Really? REALLY? I've never known any 16 year old friends that would not want to be in that position. Every guy on here, with 1 single functioning sperm knows he thought about it also in his lifetime.

So, again, I ask, WHY are we so freaked out about the most wonderful amazing thing we all get to enjoy in this life?
Nothing ads up. It makes no sense!

[–] TheMan18 (13052) 3 years ago

Its human nature, we are sexual and sexually sensitive creatures. :)

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

Has it occurred to you that one of the elements of using taboos on sexual behaviour might be as a way of manipulating people and setting them against the offenders ? This employs both divide and rule as well as scapegoating. Very neat, very Machiavellian.

[–] 123Guy (7387) 3 years ago

I guess that is a possibility, but we are the ones water cooling it to death: "Can you believe this happened?!?!" I'm always like, "yes. yes, I can easily believe that happened... why can't you? it's kind of very obvious"

People talk like we are going to create laws eliminating sex.... can't do this or that or even talk about whatever or someone is offended and it is a law you pay for.... I mean who really gives a fluck? we will never outlaw nature.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

I was looking at the forest and you are looking at the trees.

[–] 123Guy (7387) 3 years ago

You feel they will really succeed at demonizing "sex"?
I don't think that will ever ever never ever be the case. So, it won't work for them, for obvious reasons.

[–] CrabgrassWilly (1616) 3 years ago

They did in Barbarella. They had pills you could take instead.

[–] actionkamen (23176) 3 years ago

Also in Demolution Man. They use funny helmets.

[–] BillHicksFan (10611) 3 years ago

They have to control the supply and demand of sex to get 90% of the public going to those jobs they hate.

And now with a new money-maker, dating-sites, you can eliminate millions just by requiring a credit card, or a membership.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

I think you're combining two different things.

1) There's an almost universal gender hierarchy with women on the bottom. Misogyny originates from that.
2) There's cultural and/or religious guilt and shame about sex and nudity.

Other points:
*Sex is a need like food, water and air.
*Abuse does exists. Not anything goes.
*Good nutrition has pushed adolescence younger in girls. It went from 16 to 12. Even 9. That's too young for sex and babies.
*That 16-year old boy isn't psychologically mature and may not be happy becoming a father.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

There's an almost universal gender hierarchy with women on the bottom.

There are only two genders so talking about heirarchies in that context is misleading.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

No, it's not. Would you want to be a women in Afghanistan?

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

Yes, it is. Would you want to be beheaded in Saudi Arabia ?

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

No, it's not. Would you want to be a women in Saudi Arabia? Women who are raped are imprisoned for committing adultery. And all women must have male guardians to handle their money and affairs.

Like I wrote, hierarchy with women on the bottom.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

Yes, it is. Would you want to be beheaded in Afghanistan ? No you wouldn't ! It would be frightening and messy !

Like I said, constructing a "heirarchy" out of two things is misleading. It can only be one or the other. And what makes you think that the world would be better off if women were on top anyway?

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

You're all over the place, aren't you?

A hierarchy still exists with women on the bottom.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

Just giving you a dose of your own medicine.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

No, you're not.

You're started a pointless argument in which you're wrong. If you want to debate, at least find something in which you're correct.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

Yes, I was. My argument isn't pointless at all but you refuse to engage with it and just regurgitate your usual rubbish.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 3 years ago

I DON'T LIKE KEELAI...HOWEVER...AFTER READING YOUR INTERACTION...YOU MADE ZERO SENSE.

[–] chilone (17913) 3 years ago

No one does.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

Gender hierarchy slideshow
https://www.slideshare.net/TanayJoeerder/gender-hierarchy

[–] 123Guy (7387) 3 years ago

hahaha this was a great, classic "who's on first?" back and forth! Loved it! :D

[–] BillySlater (4241) 3 years ago

I agree its odd to use a "gender heirachy" with two genders. A dichotomy would be more fitting.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

It's not equal.

Odd how people get hung up on semantics.

[–] chilone (17913) 3 years ago

No. It's not equal. Men have NO RIGHTS in one of the most important issues of humanity: Reproductive rights.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

The right to get or not get a vasectomy is a reproductive right that men have. The right to abstinence, nobody is milking your knob to create test tube babies with your sperm

You're framing it in a way to make yourself seem oppressed. That you don't have a say on a specific matter. But the only way for men to have "reproductive rights" in the way I'm sure you mean is by having power over what a woman can do with her own body

[–] chilone (17913) 3 years ago

And what a woman can do with a man's child.

[–] cyberbob (3488) 3 years ago

The child that happens to be inside her body, not yours. So yes, tough titties. Blame God for making biology so

You're not oppressed just because you can't compel the government to moderate a pregnant woman's behavior

[–] chilone (17913) 3 years ago

You're free to be 100% wrong but I'm sad that you advocate murder.

[–] 123Guy (7387) 3 years ago

yes, there are lots of parts to all of this, but I am trying to keep it large and general: people say one thing and DO the other

of the gender hierarchy, I have seen and heard many, many, MANY a women or group of ladies cat call men just as bad. I've seen women do exactly the same things things as men - the legal, public stuff - and be no different. far as glass ceiling income, that's a completely different topic. want to stay on sex here.

Cultural - yup and yup! See that all the time and I feel sorry for women that have to suffer behind that. And I've watched them climb around it with alcohol as "an excuse" to be okay with their sexuality. Maybe they wouldn't need that excuse if they could just be free. I was thinking the sexual revolution in the 60s (? or whenever that was) freed up women to be open and free? Whatever happened to that??

Agreed 16 year old boys, 14 year old girls are not mature IN OUR SOCIETY for parenting and all the financial balls and chains designed with that, but why are they curious, interested, and even physically CAPABLE of creating children if it's wrong?
Please understand I am never defending teen pregnancy, or pedo-whaters, just pointing out the reality doesn't match our society and law structure....

hmmmmm maybe that is the biggest part of the problem: our society is programmed wrong. Instead of embracing family at whatever age, we embrace money above all to pay rich people and live.
If people hooked up sooner in life, the bond might be tighter, longer lasting, more family oriented? Provided the society around that supported that instead of scoffed at it for bucking the profitable life.
Perhaps that would could eliminate the business and clients of sex trafficking also. hmmmmmm

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

"If people hooked up sooner in life, the bond might be tighter, longer lasting, more family oriented?"

Young marriages have a much higher divorce rate.

[–] 123Guy (7387) 3 years ago

Based in TODAYS designed society, yes. We have no stats on a society based on tighter family, young marriage.... except maybe ancient past?
Remember modern society is based on royals designing it to keep masses enslaved keeping themselves wealthy. Not family oriented lifestyles

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

No, Keelai, you don't use "hierarchy" when talking about only two individuals. You may say that there is a hierarchy among a group of males, and a hierarchy among a group of females, but you don't use hierarchy to describe the relationship of two people. That's poor English.

I think the word you want is "status", or "relationship", or "station", or even simply "position". The etymology of "hierarchy" was to do with a system of allocating levels of importance to the angels, would you believe...

In any discussion it's as well to use the best word; wouldn't you agree?

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

Yes but the word "heirarchy" carries more weight doesn't it. It's more difficult to get people worked up over "relative positions" but if you gab on about "heirarchies" well people's ears prick up. This must be something important, and maybe even conspiratorial !

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Yes, it's pretty common these days, isn't it. And it pisses me off.

Still, sometimes it's entertaining. Especially when people use a big word whose meaning they don't really know.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

"Gender hierarchy seeks to explain not only why men hold a superior position to women but how each group influences the other."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity#Gender_hierarchy

You owe me an apology.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

Why would he owe you an apology when you cite idiocy to back up your idiocy ?

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

Their PhDs are more than you have.

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

PhD's in "Gender Studies" !? It's enough to make a cat laugh !

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

Your misogynistic comment is proving my point about a gender hierarchy.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Please Keelai, don't make it any worse. Using Wikipedia articles to support your ideas is a sufficient mistake for one day, I think.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

An article with 82 scientific references! You can't deflect away from the fact that the term is used by sociologists.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Well, Kee, I'd argue that Sociology isn't actually a science. And please, don't point me to a Wiki article that says it is.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 3 years ago

LMAO...BILL NYE THE TROLL GUY.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Uh uh, it's just me. Why do you insist on claiming that I'm a troll? Does it make you feel more important to believe you're arguing with two people at once, rather than just one? I think it does.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 3 years ago

Why is sociology considered a science?
Answers. Sociology is a science every bit as much as biology or chemistry. Social sciences, like natural and biological sciences, use a vigorous methodology. This means that a social scientist clearly states the problems he or she is interested in and clearly spells out how he or she arrives at their conclusions.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

But I clearly state the problems I'm interested in, and I tell people how I arrive at their solutions, (when I find one), but I don't call myself a scientist.

Sociology is a field of interest and study that's engaged in by people who are curious to know why people do what they do. There are no E=mC² findings in sociology. Plenty of WTFs, but no more than that.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 3 years ago

LMAO...CHILD.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Well see, now you've disappointed me, Kowalski. I often read your posts here and I find them generally intelligent. But, "LMAO....CHILD"?? Come on, man.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 3 years ago

science
[ˈsīəns]
NOUN
the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

"the structure and behaviour of the physical and natural world".

Not " the structure and behaviour of human beings' personal interactions". That's what sociology is. Anyone sufficiently interested can do it. It doesn't require advanced education or specialist knowledge or skills.

You get that, don't you. Of course you do.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 3 years ago

HUMAN BEINGS HAVE STRUCTURE AND DISPLAY BEHAVIOURS OF AND WITHIN THE PHYSICAL AND NATURAL WORLD...YOU ARE GRASPING AT ONE LONE STRAW STCKING OUT OF A LION'S ASSHOLE...EVEN IF YOU GET IT...YOU'RE GONNA END UP LOOKING LIKE SHIT.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

THAT'S aN OdD ANALoGY, KOWALSKI.. WhERE DID YoU GEt THaT oNE FrOM?

LoOK, son, I'll Be AS kInd as I CAN. YoU'RE the ONe who's GRAsPInG AT STRaWS. If you don't REaLISE THaT, YoU don't know wHAT THe metAPOPHOR MEaNs.

Damn, this has been a depressing thread! Two well-known members whose posts are usually, (though not always), fairly indicative of basic reasoning ability, have let me down badly. Seriously, I'm disappointed.

As I said earlier, why are you being so stupid today?

[–] Kowalski (76258) 3 years ago

IT'S SCIENCE...END OF STORY.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Well, thank god for that!

[–] Kowalski (76258) 3 years ago

RIGHT?...ANYWAY...NOW THAT WE HAVE THAT SETTLED...LET ME ASK YOU...WHICH COLOR UNDERWEAR WORKS BETTER FOR A WEDNESDAY?...INDIGO OR TAUPE?🤔

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Keep taking those meds, man.

[–] Kowalski (76258) 3 years ago

OH...I AM...NUMEROUS TIMES A DAY...BY THE WAY...I WENT WITH INDIGO...THEY LOOK HOT.

[–] joej2923 (3047) 3 years ago

I agree that sociology is not a science. Sociology is mainly used to keep jocks eligible at universities. It's an easy A at most universities. It's an interesting field but it is of very little practical value. The big problem with sociology NOW is that many of the critical race theory propagandists have found a home in sociology departments. The whole critical race theory field of study does fit under the umbrella of sociology. I believe Robin DiAngelo was a sociology professor and the Virgina Tech sociology professor wrote a book explaining how beer was racist.

https://liberalarts.vt.edu/news/bookshelf/sociology-bookshelf/2020/beer-and-racism.html

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Good points, Joe. And maybe that's why guys like my correspondents here defend it so earnestly. Makes them feel they're in the same group as jocks, by even such a tenuous association.

I'll check out that beer link. Maybe he can recommend some good brands. I don't think my present beer tastes racist enough.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

No need since it's common knowledge that sociology is a social science, Sheldon Cooper.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

"Common knowledge"? Well, at least this conversation hasn't been a total waste of time. I've had a few laughs, at least.

But can you do better than that, Kee?

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

"Gender hierarchy seeks to explain not only why men hold a superior position to women but how each group influences the other. This new emphasis on gender hierarchy seeks to take a more relational approach to women as well."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hegemonic_masculinity#Gender_hierarchy

https://www.brycerich.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/07/gender-hierarchy-1024x576.png

I told you so!

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

As I said elsewhere Wokism is like a new religion or cult. The zealots vomit out their dogma and quote fellow dogmatists as if they have got hold of some new improved undeniable Bible. It's pathetic.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

"The meaning of WOKE is aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)."

So you admit you're a racist and don't support justice!

[–] Quasimodo (16388) 3 years ago

And at the first sign of ideological distress KeyLiar plays the race card quickly followed by the anti-SJW card ! Ka-Pow !!

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Yes, at the risk of being tautological, (sort of), I have to say he's inevitably predictable.

I actually expected better of him.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

You're the one criticizing "Woke" which only means to support racial and social justice.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Big lol here, Keelai. I must say I haven't usually found you to be this stupid. Why are you being so today? Having a bad day? Not feeling 100%? Serious question.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

I'll consider your ad hominem attack a sign of defeat.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

If it makes you feel better, please do.

But you know it isn't.

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

What makes me feel better is that you lost this debate when I linked to "gender hierarchy" charts and articles.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Haha, man, I didn't even go to those links!! Surely you didn't think I would! I haven't used Wiki to verify or contradict anything for about ten years! I really don't think anybody does.

Don't tell me that you do?!!

[–] 123Guy (7387) 3 years ago

I don't really want to join this segement.... but...

Woke and attentive to FACTS is oxymoronic

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

"Woke and attentive to FACTS is oxymoronic"

That's YOUR PERSONAL OPINION based on your prejudicial biases.

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Keelai (34973) 3 years ago

https://image.slidesharecdn.com/genderhierarchy-160308153536/95/gender-hierarchy-1-638.jpg?cb=1457451687

[–] blue1981 (7827) 3 years ago

Women top the hierarchy as they are viewed and valued as sexual beings while guys are shamed for even thinking about it.

[–] 123Guy (7387) 3 years ago

Truth and facts are not of interest to some here.

[–] chilidoggg (14326) 3 years ago

Onanism

https://mechon-mamre.org/p/pt/pt0138.htm#8

After Onan's brother Er was slain by God, his father Judah told him to fulfill his duty to his brother by entering into a levirate marriage with his brother's widow Tamar to give her offspring. Religion professor Tikva Frymer-Kensky has pointed out the economic repercussions of a levirate marriage: any son born to Tamar would be deemed the heir of the deceased Er, and able to claim the firstborn's double share of inheritance. However, if Er were childless, or only had daughters, Onan would have inherited as the oldest surviving son.

When Onan had sex with Tamar, he withdrew before he ejaculated and "spilled his seed on the ground", since any child born would not legally be considered his heir. The next statement in the Bible says that Onan did evil and that God slew him.

[–] 123Guy (7387) 3 years ago

how does this apply here? explain?

[–] chilidoggg (14326) 3 years ago

"why is the world so freaked out about sex?"

I do not want to be slew by God!

[–] 123Guy (7387) 3 years ago

eh... he's got better planets to manage. we already failed. :)

[–] chilidoggg (14326) 3 years ago

Has it been resolved as to how big Tommy Lee is, as to length and as to girth?

[–] Egosomnia (863) 3 years ago

Hey, Chil, if that's your take on the discussion, and you posted what you posted, you're effectively joining a virtual circle jerk, aren't you?! :) haha. No offence.

[–] chilidoggg (14326) 3 years ago