There are a whole lot of people who would like to suppress a whole lot of behaviors, but just as it's hard to get roads repaired and spacecraft launched during an Unravelling, it's also hard to get social suppression 'properly' organized.

Thank God for that! I knew there was something good about the Unravelling. Let's hear it for disorganized "social suppression". Hip hip hooray!

Actually, I disagree with you here. It seems to me that attempted suppression of other people's sexual behavior is the only thing that anyone can get organized. If half that energy went into the Space program there'd be colonies on Mars by now. :smile:

Or maybe come the regenerency we'll have the sex Nazis storming into people's bedrooms. I don't really understand the desire for this kind of thing, but I concede that it's some people's idea of paradise. Yuck, though.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: angeli on 2002-02-04 15:02 ]</font>

My Silent mother used to leave her copy of "Our Bodies, Ourselves" lying around the living room (which wsa also her bedroom in our New York apartment). It didn't bother her a bit that I pored over the chapters on contraception and sexual relationships. As far as menstruation, I never had formal classroom sex education (I attended a Catholic girls' school) when I was in 7th and 8th grades, but I knew everything I needed to know through the other girls and through those little booklets you could send away for from Kotex (they had silly titles like, "So Now You're a Woman..."), along with a "starter kit."

There were no Carries in my class. We all knew what to expect.

[Kiff] What do we mean by "gay lifestyle?" I hear this phrase a lot and it really annoys me, because I think it's meaningless. How do we distinguish the lifestyles of gay people from straight people?


[Mike] I recommend the book "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts. I used to think the same way, but after I read this book I learned that there was a gay (male) lifestyle that was different from that of straight people.

On 2002-02-03 17:45, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-03 17:17, angeli wrote:


about acceptance, back in the vulgar conversation that eventually got locked, I observed that Xers with Silent parents received a much more open and matter-of-fact sex education than Boomers did or that perhaps Millies are. I wonder if that plays into the comparative acceptance of homosexuality in the Unravelling.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I tend to think it's just an effect of the fact that everything receives greater practical tolerance during an Unravelling, since nobody can organize people well enough to oppose anything else anyway. There are a whole lot of people who would like to suppress a whole lot of behaviors, but just as it's hard to get roads repaired and spacecraft launched during an Unravelling, it's also hard to get social suppression 'properly' organized.

If you'd like to see an example of social suppression "properly" organized come to Utah.

You understand we have one party, Republican, and one religion that controls most everything. We have no sex ed. in our schools..contraception cannot be mentioned. Planned Parenthood hides in most communities, if it even exists.

In Utah our boy Millies are much more important than our girl Millies. Come to think of it, all male members of any generation are more important than females. And most non-LDS folks are not quite "good" enough.
One of our largest universities, BYU, sent a Rodin exhibit packing because of its' sexual nature. Video rental stores censor movies that aren't deemed wholesome ("Titanic").
Alcohol must be purchased in State Liquor Stores.....beer is 3.2. and mixed drinks are available only in private clubs.

The governor appointed a "Porn Czar" last year to ferret out nasty stuff.

And on and on and on.

Needless to say, this Utah is not a very creative or culturally interesting place to live.

Visit Utah before you let yourself start to think that maybe a bit of cleaning up this culture in an organized way might not be such a bad thing come the 4T.

Well.
I cant remember when I didnt know.
I remember my Mom telling me when I was like 3 or 4 she grew me in her stomach. I had this image of like a cucumber or squash in her stomach.
There was tons of sex on TV and in movies.
I remember them jokingly covering my eyes but it was no use.
I remember sitting on the toilet at my brothers friends house and seeing stacks of pornography.
And remember Octopussy?
Hellz Yeah!
I remember being like 5 years old and daring my cousins and them daring me to make out with Vanna White on TV :smile:
6 was when I learned about this whole penis vagina thing for real.
I was REALLY excited about it.
I kind of still am :smile:
My friends had pornos lying all around their houses at that time so we would always check them out.
This is about age 6-7

On 2002-02-04 20:01, cbailey wrote:

On 2002-02-03 17:45, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

On 2002-02-03 17:17, angeli wrote:


about acceptance, back in the vulgar conversation that eventually got locked, I observed that Xers with Silent parents received a much more open and matter-of-fact sex education than Boomers did or that perhaps Millies are. I wonder if that plays into the comparative acceptance of homosexuality in the Unravelling.

Maybe, but I doubt it. I tend to think it's just an effect of the fact that everything receives greater practical tolerance during an Unravelling, since nobody can organize people well enough to oppose anything else anyway. There are a whole lot of people who would like to suppress a whole lot of behaviors, but just as it's hard to get roads repaired and spacecraft launched during an Unravelling, it's also hard to get social suppression 'properly' organized.

Visit Utah before you let yourself start to think that maybe a bit of cleaning up this culture in an organized way might not be such a bad thing come the 4T.

I didn't say it I thought it was a good or a bad thing. In fact, I think it'll be both. A cultural 'cleanup' is coming, but Utah in my opinion is a classic example of how it shouldn't be done.

On 2002-02-04 14:47, angeli wrote:

There are a whole lot of people who would like to suppress a whole lot of behaviors, but just as it's hard to get roads repaired and spacecraft launched during an Unravelling, it's also hard to get social suppression 'properly' organized.

Thank God for that! I knew there was something good about the Unravelling. Let's hear it for disorganized "social suppression". Hip hip hooray!

Actually, I disagree with you here. It seems to me that attempted suppression of other people's sexual behavior is the only thing that anyone can get organized. If half that energy went into the Space program there'd be colonies on Mars by now. :smile:

There is such organization, but it's so evenly balanced that nothing moves, like the battle lines in WW I. It's interesting to go over old newpapers and news mags from 1980, noting the cultural disputes of the time, and compare them to now. There has been very little motion, each side still wants what they want, neither can budge the other yet.

That's the essence of an Unravelling, by the way.

Or maybe come the regenerency we'll have the sex Nazis storming into people's bedrooms. I don't really understand the desire for this kind of thing, but I concede that it's some people's idea of paradise. Yuck, though.

It all boils down, again, to conflicting religious imperatives. Will the Sex Nazis strike? Probably not. There probably will be social pressure to put 'unusual' (I'm looking for a neutral word) sexual activities and fantasies back into the closet.

Both sides of this particular Culture Conflict tend to basically misread each other's underlying motivations and intentions.

On 2002-02-04 19:27, Mike Alexander '59 wrote:
[Kiff] What do we mean by "gay lifestyle?" I hear this phrase a lot and it really annoys me, because I think it's meaningless. How do we distinguish the lifestyles of gay people from straight people?


[Mike] I recommend the book "And the Band Played On" by Randy Shilts. I used to think the same way, but after I read this book I learned that there was a gay (male) lifestyle that was different from that of straight people.

I read the book a few years ago, but I don't remember it very well. I'll look at it again.

Kiff '61

slacking, slacking.

thing is: about most Culture Wars issues, I kind of *do* see the point. I grew up in the rural flyover south, I live in the blue-land urban north. Issues like abortion, the death penalty, euthanasia, gun control ... they are all about life, death and where the government has the right or responsibility to interfere.

But when it comes to the anti-gay movement, I just don't get it. Why are people so upset about the behavior of people they've often never met and are never going to meet, or a lifstyle that doesn't hurt anybody and mostly involves day-glo drinks and bad line-dancing to Madonna tunes. I can see why society might want a say in a woman's right to terminate a pregnancy. I can see why society might want to regulate the sale of drugs and pornography. But I just don't see why they want to supress homosexuality. I see that a lot of people care passionately that gays and Lesbians shouldn't be able to marry, for example, but I don't see why. and don't say AIDS either, because if AIDS is the Scourge of God, then Lesbians are the Chosen People :smile: ... not to mention you'd thing the best thing to do about AIDS might be to encourage monogamy among gay men, right?

Right on, angeli. It's completely beyond me how two gay men getting hitched (or whatever they call it) in Vermont threatens my own marriage of nearly fourteen years.

Live and let live.

Kiff '61

Did everyone hear? Yesterday the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed the right of gay couples to adopt children.

On 2002-02-05 15:21, Neisha '67 wrote:
Did everyone hear? Yesterday the American Academy of Pediatrics endorsed the right of gay couples to adopt children.

I thought this was an appeal to have both partners become "parents" rather than a single adopter and his/her companion as is the present case. For the children isn't quite worn out as a Boomer ploy this far into the 3T.

I disagree with some of the earlier posts here in that I do think there is a lot of movement toward suppression of certain types of sexual activities. Why is it that there has been, for example, such a crackdown on what used to be called go-go clubs where girls dance in scanty clothing? Most of the ones that do survive are so strictly regulated yet charge a tremedous amount of money. I have long questioned whether the government should be trying to legislate morality? After all, wasn't it all the Boomers who started this whole movement toward freer sexual expression, and are they now being Indian givers wanting to take it all back?

Would anyone care to speculate on how the current priest sex abuse scandal and the sex scandal involving R. Kelly would have been handled during the Consciousness Revolution?

I don't care if gay men or lesbians get married personally. I say let 'em. BUT if they are going to do it they need to get the same penalties as well as benefits.
Let them have the same problems with divorce for example. Let them fight over who gets what stupid junk they didn't want in the first place (to paraphrase Harry of "When Harry Met Sally")

I don't think there would be an explosion of gay marriage amoung the men anyway. Why? because out of neccesity they would HAVE to be out of the closet, and many are not ready yet. You can't hide a spouce from an employer on your Tax or insurance forms.
So only those "out of the closet" would be doing this anyway. I wonder if this is what those who oppose gay marriage are worried about?

Letting them have a civil union sounds rational to me. If religious leaders don't wish to sanctify it within a church, then that is their right, but if two guys or gals want to say "I do" in front of the whole wolrd and have that person be the one to their partner in financial/legal matters as well as emotional matters, then who does it hurt?

Besides the more guys who marry other guys out there, the more ladies for us eligible bachelors :wink:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-15 19:55 ]</font>

On 2002-06-15 08:42, Brian Beecher wrote:
I have long questioned whether the government should be trying to legislate morality? After all, wasn't it all the Boomers who started this whole movement toward freer sexual expression, and are they now being Indian givers wanting to take it all back?

Maybe they want to be the only generation to enjoy those activities. That would fit in with their narcissism. It's like a kid who makes himself a toy and then won't let anyone else play with it.

On 2002-06-15 19:53, Earthshine wrote:


Besides the more guys who marry other guys out there, the more ladies for us eligible bachelors :wink:


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-15 19:55 ]</font>

FINALLY someone thinks the way I do on this!

All I know is I want my 35 year old Danish girlfriend back!!

On 2002-02-05 11:50, angeli wrote:
I see that a lot of people care passionately that gays and Lesbians shouldn't be able to marry, for example, but I don't see why.

There are two reasons.

1. "It's icky!"

This is, unfortunately, all too common a reaction, and most people who have it never really question it. Homosexuality is simply classified in their minds as 'perversion', end of discussion. If you defend it, in any way, you yourself are instantly perceived as a potential threat to their children. The thought of it happening anywhere makes their stomachs turn, for irrational reasons. The only cure for this attitude it time, and lots of it.

This group is huge, and includes some people who won't admit that they are part of it.

2. The other reason, which is often less emotional but also harder to counter, is their interpretation of the moral strictures of Scripture, especially Corinthians. From their point of view, that settles the issue.

The first group can be countered, by experience, time, and education. The second can't be so dealt with, because within their own frame of reference, they right. They won't accept an argument that isn't part of that frame, and within it they can't be proven wrong.

The reason they worry about it in others is the fear, quite literally that punishment will fall on the entire nation or world for the actions of some members, and the toleration of evil (as they see it) by the rest.

and don't say AIDS either, because if AIDS is the Scourge of God, then Lesbians are the Chosen People :smile:

:lol: :lol:

Angeli, I've used that exact argument myself in debates with my harder-core Red Zone fellows. The usual result is a resentful stare, and they change the subject.

... not to mention you'd thing the best thing to do about AIDS might be to encourage monogamy among gay men, right?

That's harder to achieve than it sounds. What statistical data is available indicates that gay male relationships are possibly the least stable ones extant. Grante the data are very limited, and being straight myself, I can't speak from experience.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-06-16 21:19 ]</font>

On 2002-06-15 22:34, Justin wrote:
All I know is I want my 35 year old Danish girlfriend back!!

take a plane to denmark :smile:

On 2002-06-15 22:34, Justin wrote:
All I know is I want my 35 year old Danish girlfriend back!!

All I know is I want a 35 year old girlfriend, period (30 or 32 would be better still, 27-28 would be awesome!). Don't much care whether she's Danish or not. However, it would help if she is smart, sweet and sentimental with mostly-highway mileage :smile:

On 2002-06-17 16:21, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-15 22:34, Justin wrote:
All I know is I want my 35 year old Danish girlfriend back!!

All I know is I want a 35 year old girlfriend, period (30 or 32 would be better still, 27-28 would be awesome!). Don't much care whether she's Danish or not. However, it would help if she is smart, sweet and sentimental with mostly-highway mileage :smile:

Kevin, here's an idea. YOU take the plane to Denmark. Hehehe. No, seriously, there are lots of 27-35 year old women out there who would love to meet you, Kevin. Don't give up.

On 2002-06-17 17:12, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-17 16:21, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

On 2002-06-15 22:34, Justin wrote:
All I know is I want my 35 year old Danish girlfriend back!!

All I know is I want a 35 year old girlfriend, period (30 or 32 would be better still, 27-28 would be awesome!). Don't much care whether she's Danish or not. However, it would help if she is smart, sweet and sentimental with mostly-highway mileage :smile:

Kevin, here's an idea. YOU take the plane to Denmark. Hehehe. No, seriously, there are lots of 27-35 year old women out there who would love to meet you, Kevin. Don't give up.

Don't worry, Susan. Not searching, definitely not desperate (Boomer/Xer America's most cardinal sin).

Just a little tongue-in-cheek humour :smile:

"it's icky"

Well, that's about the size of it. A lot of people have an emotional, irrational fear of homosexuality. There are also those who have the same emotional, irrational fear of the homeless, or the sick, or the handicapped, or of people of other races/nationalities/beliefs. Defending the "it's icky" response with scripture is kind of choosing Old Testiment words over New Testiment example. Jesus hung out with the "icky" all the time. Indeed preferred the "icky" over the pretty and comfortable. Pretty shaky theological ground to stand on, if you ask me, but of course nobody who holds that view does. :wink:

I've always tried to stick up for my gay friends, but it is such a tricky issue, especially in high school amongst males..because we're not that mature...although I offer that most male sports teams have a certain homoerotic bend to them.
I have to admit once I was eating a sandwich in the artsy part of town and happened upon two young men making out. It did kind of gross me out, I don't know why. I always thought I'd be cool. Perhaps its just a response to something out of the ordinary.

My friend lived right next to a gay dance club, so that was a bit annoying. gay men also seem very um...sexually aggressive. When I was in that part of town I had dudes coming on to me all the time.

Angeli, why can't women be more like that?


Justin

On 2002-06-18 14:14, Xer of Evil wrote:
You want us to be sexually aggressive with other women?

XoE

I think he meant with him X. Though you are asking a loaded question there as well ...
:lol: