A positive note to add to my generally negative view of Nineties sex culture: the one coutervailing influence was the Internet. Although the Internet has an often-deserved reputation for smut, it also is a place for people to communicate about more important things than which celebrities are bisexual. Had the major TV networks been the only cultural outlet in the last decade, their would literally have been no outlet for those who wanted to experience intelligent conversations. In fact, I suspect that the slowly emerging differences between my fun but pretty decadent generation and the upcoming Millenials may derive from the latter's exposure to the Net. (Granted, we Xers surf the Net, too, but all too many of us are pretty noveau riche about it--"cool, let's look for porn." The Millenials are starting to realize its full potential.)

Yes, I was the one who said that I should use more smilies when I'm doing my bitch-on wheels impression. It's easy to forget who is typing what. I forget what I've said myself half the time.

oops. Sorry about that. The "No harm no foul" attitude is appreciated.

I totally agree that sex is great, but there are other things in life that are just as great, or greater. I sometimes get the feeling that advertisers try to make it seem better than it really is, because it is an easy way to sell stuff, especially to kids.

Like, if a young teen with raging hormones and insecurities can be convinced that buying a certain brand of jeans will win him/her multiple desirable sex partners, and also convinced that sex is the most important thing in the world, then that kid is more likely to go buy those jeans. If sex isn't that big a deal to a person, then who needs all that extra crap designed to make it happen.

XoE

Agreed. When I was younger and first started playing in bands, the focus of a lot of guys was (Bevis and Butthead voice here) "Huh huh, this is cool. It will get me chicks... huh huh". For a lot of guys that was THE focus. Period. Now I have no problem with groupies per se, but when the focus is about sex, and money, and how you will look cool and get attention, rather than on the music then you get a much lower class of 'musical' group.

And that's what the record companies look for, people they can make a 'star' out of. Star power used to be a term that meant someone had charisma, now it means someone who the record companies can package up and market into making cash. Sex is just one tool to those ends for those people.

Pretty sick.

On 2002-06-21 19:07, Earthshine wrote:

Yes, I was the one who said that I should use more smilies when I'm doing my bitch-on wheels impression. It's easy to forget who is typing what. I forget what I've said myself half the time.

oops. Sorry about that. The "No harm no foul" attitude is appreciated.

I totally agree that sex is great, but there are other things in life that are just as great, or greater. I sometimes get the feeling that advertisers try to make it seem better than it really is, because it is an easy way to sell stuff, especially to kids.

Like, if a young teen with raging hormones and insecurities can be convinced that buying a certain brand of jeans will win him/her multiple desirable sex partners, and also convinced that sex is the most important thing in the world, then that kid is more likely to go buy those jeans. If sex isn't that big a deal to a person, then who needs all that extra crap designed to make it happen.

XoE

Agreed. When I was younger and first started playing in bands, the focus of a lot of guys was (Bevis and Butthead voice here) "Huh huh, this is cool. It will get me chicks... huh huh". For a lot of guys that was THE focus. Period. Now I have no problem with groupies per se, but when the focus is about sex, and money, and how you will look cool and get attention, rather than on the music then you get a much lower class of 'musical' group.

And that's what the record companies look for, people they can make a 'star' out of. Star power used to be a term that meant someone had charisma, now it means someone who the record companies can package up and market into making cash. Sex is just one tool to those ends for those people.

Pretty sick.

Just one more reason to say "hurray!" for Aimster, Gnutella, et al. I, for one, will not miss the record companies once the bastards are driven out of business. then we can by our music directly from the artists themselves, rather than have the major labels tell us WHAT we want to hear and HOW we want to buy it.

On 2002-06-21 16:25, Heliotrope wrote:

On 2002-06-21 14:14, Jenny Genser wrote:

"Fat" people became "Oversized" and "short" people became "vertically challenged". Hillary Clinton and her ilk were the type pushing this thing, and Bill went along with it (for whatever reason. pick the one you like best).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Earthshine on 2002-06-21 08:10 ]</font>

In my office, the term "vertically challenged" was used as a joke back in 1990 because there were so many short people in my office (my Division Director is 5 foot 6 and a lot of hires around 1989 and 1990 were under 5 foot 5. Our Under Secretary back in 1990 was 5 foot 1 Catherine Bertini. The joke was that if you wanted a job with the Food and Nutrition Service, you had to be shorter than Catherine Bertini.

I am 5 foot 2 so I am legitimately "vertically challenged" (short). Its a term I've thrown around a lot as a joke. Sometimes I've used it or heard it used as a humorous euphemism for a child. I've never heard it as a serious term for run-of-the-mill normal short people.

However, I can't speak for the preferred term for those whose shortness is not "normal", such as dwarves and normally-proportioned but extremely short people. I think they prefer the term "little people", which is also a term for small children.

Is 5'4 3/4" "vertically challenged" or not? I feel like I am more short than tall, even though I know that's really average for a woman.

I've heard 5'9 as average male height and 5'3.7 as average female height, but at Jarvard the average guy is AT LEAST 6 feet - and the average woman is like 5'6 (you almost never see anyone below 5'2) so I have to keep repeating to myself that I truly AM "average" and not near the bottom

It occurs to me that Boomers and Xers have, generationally speaking, completely differing attitudes towards sex. Simply put, Boomers see sexuality as spiritual. Xers see it as recreational.

Both liberal and conservative Boomers appear to see sex as primarily spiritual. Liberals see it as a way of connecting with other people, of becoming "one" with humanity, and this being the case they are loath to see promiscuity as wrong. Conservatives are spiritual about sex also-- they view it in context of its primary purpose of reproduction, their own slice of immortality, of producing children who will leave their mark on the world when they themselves are gone. As such, they see homoxsexuality is a cardinal sin, since it serves no spiritual purpose whatsoever when viewed with an eye towards immortality. Moderates or pragmatic Boomers may take a differing view-- that sex is the ultimate way of becoming one with a particular person, one's soulmate. When viewed this way, having sex with dozens of people you barely know is, in effect, cheating on your soulmate before you even meet them.

Not being an Xer, I don't know for sure how they really feel about The Act Of Love. From what I observe, it appears that they don't see it as any big deal, period. If you're not getting any, it's "bummer-- you're missing out" but there isn't the sort of judgement like you generally get from Boomers when you aren't "lucky" in such matters. On the other side, for an Xer being promiscuous is just another extreme sport, like black-diamond snowboarding or bungee-jumping-- totally thrilling, with its own set of risks like any other activity. It might kill you, but it might not. Whatever.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-22 07:27 ]</font>

On 2002-06-21 19:42, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
It occurs to me that Boomers and Xers have, generationally speaking, completely differing attitudes towards sex. Simply put, Boomers see sexuality as spiritual. Xers see it as recreational.

Both liberal and conservative Boomers appear to see sex as primarily spiritual. Liberals see it as a way of connecting with other people, of becoming "one" with humanity, and this being the case they are loath to see promiscuity as wrong. Conservatives are spiritual about sex also-- they view it in context of its primary purpose of reproduction, their own slice of immortality, or producing children who will leave their mark on the world when they themselves are gone. As such, they see homoxsexuality is a cardinal sin, since it serves no spiritual purpose whatsoever when viewed with an eye towards immortality. Moderates or pragmatic Boomers may take a differing view-- that sex is the ultimate way of becoming one with a particular person, one's soulmate. When viewed this way, having sex with dozens of people you barely know is, in effect, cheating on your soulmate before you even meet them.

Not being an Xer, I don't know for sure how they really feel about The Act Of Love. From what I observe, it appears that they don't see it as any big deal, period. If you're not getting any, it's "bummer-- you're missing out" but there isn't the sort of judgement like you generally get from Boomers when you aren't "lucky" in such matters. On the other side, for an Xer being promiscuous is just another extreme sport, like black-diamond snowboarding or bungee-jumping-- totally thrilling, with its own set of risks like any other activity. It might kill you, but it might not. Whatever.

Tantric is nice. :smile:

One aspect of the Awakening/Unravelling Sex Revolution that doesn't get remarked on too much is the revolution of married sex that occurred among the Christian Conservative community.

In the late Seventies, Marabel Morgan came out with a book called "Total Woman" that encouraged Christian wives to lurge their husbands by purchasing sexy underwear and other tactics. In the Eighties and Nineties, mainstream shops like Victoria's Secret boomed by catering to this group.

Sex (between a man and a woman joined in matrimony) became mainstream and even among the conservative set, something to be talked about and enjoyed.

On 2002-06-22 09:12, Jenny Genser wrote:
One aspect of the Awakening/Unravelling Sex Revolution that doesn't get remarked on too much is the revolution of married sex that occurred among the Christian Conservative community.

In the late Seventies, Marabel Morgan came out with a book called "Total Woman" that encouraged Christian wives to lurge their husbands by purchasing sexy underwear and other tactics. In the Eighties and Nineties, mainstream shops like Victoria's Secret boomed by catering to this group.

Sex (between a man and a woman joined in matrimony) became mainstream and even among the conservative set, something to be talked about and enjoyed.

My mother had that book, even though she was not at all religious. For a "Christian" book it was pretty raunchy! I remember reading the part about greeting your husband at the door wearing nothing but Saran wrap! It was a hoot!

If you are a music lover, there are more than just one method to be <A HREF="http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/dynamic/hottx/review.html?in_review_id=556960&in_review_text_id= 523132>prolific</A>.

If you are a music lover, there are more than just one method to be prolific.

On 2002-06-21 19:40, Agent 24601984 wrote:

I've heard 5'9 as average male height and 5'3.7 as average female height, but at Jarvard the average guy is AT LEAST 6 feet - and the average woman is like 5'6 (you almost never see anyone below 5'2) so I have to keep repeating to myself that I truly AM "average" and not near the bottom

Regarding Harvarders being taller, Agent 24, I suspect that probably has more to do with simple prejudice-- a bias on part of admissions officials towards accepting taller, more athletic and more outgoing people into the school.

One thing I have noticed is that "average" height seems to vary with geography. In northern climes such as Washington State, Ohio, and New Jersey, 5'9" is indeed right about average height for a man (5'4" or so the average for a woman). Being exactly 5'9" myself, I don't feel overly short or tall in any of those places. However, out in California the average guy is substantially taller-- around 5'11" or perhaps even 6'0". I wonder if height could be related to the amount of sunshine one receives growing up? Are people down in the Southern states measurably taller than they are up north as well? Perhaps Susan or Angeli knows the answer.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-22 15:50 ]</font>

On 2002-06-21 19:42, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Conservatives are spiritual about sex also-- they view it in context of its primary purpose of reproduction, their own slice of immortality, of producing children who will leave their mark on the world when they themselves are gone. As such, they see homoxsexuality is a cardinal sin, since it serves no spiritual purpose whatsoever when viewed with an eye towards immortality.

Now that's a very interesting way to look at it, and one I had not really considered.

Not being an Xer, I don't know for sure how they really feel about The Act Of Love. From what I observe, it appears that they don't see it as any big deal, period. If you're not getting any, it's "bummer-- you're missing out" but there isn't the sort of judgement like you generally get from Boomers when you aren't "lucky" in such matters. On the other side, for an Xer being promiscuous is just another extreme sport, like black-diamond snowboarding or bungee-jumping-- totally thrilling, with its own set of risks like any other activity. It might kill you, but it might not. Whatever.

Of all the Generational archetypes, Xers are arguably the most individual, the least likely to follow a generation-wide pattern. You'll find just about every conceivable variation in attitude in a small selection of Xers, on this or any other subject.

On 2002-06-22 15:43, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Regarding Harvarders being taller, Agent 24, I suspect that probably has more to do with simple prejudice-- a bias on part of admissions officials towards accepting taller, more athletic and more outgoing people into the school.

I'd believe so, and similarly I wouldn't be surprised if, for example, Princetonians were even taller!

On 2002-06-22 22:54, HopefulCynic68 wrote:

Of all the Generational archetypes, Xers are arguably the most individual, the least likely to follow a generation-wide pattern. You'll find just about every conceivable variation in attitude in a small selection of Xers, on this or any other subject.

You, XoE, and voltronx; nuff said :smile:

On 2002-06-20 20:31, angeli wrote:


Its funny though, HC. You say that people who risk death by being who they are and in this way are suicidal and unwise. What you don't say is that the people who would, wish to, do hurt them for being different are homicidal and evil. Yes, evil. That's a heavy word, but a better one than "homophobic" IMHO.

The "foolishness" you speak of is really honesty and bravery in the face of evil and occasional mortal peril.

Evidently I'm not making my meaning quite clear. It may be brave, in fact it certainly is, but it's also foolish, if it's done in such as a way, or at such a time, as to be futile.

You keep mentioning that this was what it took to bring change, and that's quite true, during the 2T. But had this been attempted on the same scale 15 years earlier, it would have availed nothing. The people doing it would have suffered the same or worse fates, and left the world no better for their efforts.

The dividing line between courage and foolhardiness is fuzzy, and moves around. It's courageous and admirable to risk one's safety for a truly noble goal, but only if there is at least a slim chance of accomplishing someting by it.

It's a judgement call as to when it's wise to take the risk and when not. But there's no use in facing the risk for no result, and doing so isn't admirable, it's pointless and foolish.

Its all very well to talk about being wise and picking your timing and all that, and there is something to be said for not taking foolish risks. But when the foolish risk is living your life honestly, I can see how the game is worth the candle for many people.

Dying or suffering for nothing is never worth it. There are times when you can live your life honestly safely, times when it's risky but worth the risk, and times when the only smart and sane move is to shut up and hope they don't notice you.

I don't like that any better than you do, though.

On 2002-06-20 23:54, Xer of Evil wrote:


HC, when I was talking about getting smacked, I was saying that a guy would learn pretty soon what resulted in a smack and what didn't. Experience would shape behavior, not rules.

That's just the point, though. Unless he's hitting on the same woman all the time, the experience is going to be highly various, almost to the point of no pattern at all.

By the way, men are also free to smack horny women if needed, but I've never heard of a straight guy turning DOWN a woman who wanted to have sex.

Oh, it does happen, though not all that often because far more often than not, even today, the approach is made by the male.

But married men sometimes refuse for the sake of their marriage, or even to stay true to a girlfriend/S.O., or for religious reasons, etc.

Oh, almost forgot the "younger man" question. I sort of beat this topic to death with William a while back, but basically I said that the larger the age difference the more difficult it is to have an equal relationship. But if we're just talking about having sex, bring it on baby!

XoE

If both parties enter into a relationship knowing it won't be altogether equal, I'm not sure that's inherently a problem, though obviously it can be. Not all unequal age marriages and relationships are innately exploitative.

P.S. Am I the only person who dislikes the phrase 'hitting on' as a euphemism? To me it sounds more like physical abuse than an attempted come-on.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: HopefulCynic68 on 2002-06-22 23:17 ]</font>

On 2002-06-22 23:00, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-06-22 15:43, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Regarding Harvarders being taller, Agent 24, I suspect that probably has more to do with simple prejudice-- a bias on part of admissions officials towards accepting taller, more athletic and more outgoing people into the school.

I'd believe so, and similarly I wouldn't be surprised if, for example, Princetonians were even taller!

William, my cousin just finished her first year at Princeton. She's about 5'1" and probably weighs less than 100 lbs. All three of her roommates were at least 5'10, blond, and athletic. She was expecting there to be more Asian-Americans, like in the other Ivies, but Princeton is still quite WASP-y. Her guess is that the average woman is about 5'9", with a significant number who are close to 6'. The average guy is about 6'2". She's feeling quite small and dark.

Kevin, that's funny that you don't feel short in the NW. When my husband and I were students we came out here for a summer and felt even shorter than usual! (I'm 5'2" if I stand really straight, and he's about 5'7".) Our theory was that the relatively clean air made native Oregonians taller than us transplants.

With respect to this average height discussion, I believe there is wide variation even among people from different European countries. For example, I recall that the two nations with the tallest men are Scotland and Norway (I think?). I believe men average about 5'11" or 6 feet in these places. On the other hand, men average a lot shorter in a number of Mediterranean countries. Cannot remember exactly, but some of these were below 5'9", I think.

The point is that you are likely to see some variation in average height in different regions of this country, based solely upon the makeup of the majority European element. The average height may be slightly taller in the South with a mostly northern European population (and possibly in Minnesota with its Scandinavian population). The average is likely to be a bit lower in places with heavy Mediterranean populations, for example, New York. I cannot imagine that the divergence is that large but there is a fair bit of variation among various ethnic groups.

On 2002-06-22 23:35, Neisha '67 wrote:

On 2002-06-22 23:00, Agent 24601984 wrote:

On 2002-06-22 15:43, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
Regarding Harvarders being taller, Agent 24, I suspect that probably has more to do with simple prejudice-- a bias on part of admissions officials towards accepting taller, more athletic and more outgoing people into the school.

I'd believe so, and similarly I wouldn't be surprised if, for example, Princetonians were even taller!

William, my cousin just finished her first year at Princeton. She's about 5'1" and probably weighs less than 100 lbs. All three of her roommates were at least 5'10, blond, and athletic. She was expecting there to be more Asian-Americans, like in the other Ivies, but Princeton is still quite WASP-y. Her guess is that the average woman is about 5'9", with a significant number who are close to 6'. The average guy is about 6'2". She's feeling quite small and dark.

Kevin, that's funny that you don't feel short in the NW. When my husband and I were students we came out here for a summer and felt even shorter than usual! (I'm 5'2" if I stand really straight, and he's about 5'7".) Our theory was that the relatively clean air made native Oregonians taller than us transplants.

I know two princeton females from the Lucent Global Science Scholars; one is about 5' - 5'2, Asian, and into math and the other is about a foot taller, gorgeous, white, athletic, and premed :smile:

On 2002-06-22 23:47, Stonewall Patton wrote:
With respect to this average height discussion, I believe there is wide variation even among people from different European countries. For example, I recall that the two nations with the tallest men are Scotland and Norway (I think?). I believe men average about 5'11" or 6 feet in these places. On the other hand, men average a lot shorter in a number of Mediterranean countries. Cannot remember exactly, but some of these were below 5'9", I think.

The point is that you are likely to see some variation in average height in different regions of this country, based solely upon the makeup of the majority European element. The average height may be slightly taller in the South with a mostly northern European population (and possibly in Minnesota with its Scandinavian population). The average is likely to be a bit lower in places with heavy Mediterranean populations, for example, New York. I cannot imagine that the divergence is that large but there is a fair bit of variation among various ethnic groups.

Specific diet matters too, and may explain part of a regional variations as well.

William, my cousin is a Lucent scholar! Or is it AT&T? My aunt is at AT&T and my uncle is at Lucent, so it's one or the other. Her name is Nina. No last names, please, to preserve her privacy (or some semblance of it). Also, if you know my cousin, she already thinks I'm a geek, so don't let her know the true extent of my nerdly tendencies (i.e. my addiction to this site).

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Neisha '67 on 2002-06-22 23:53 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Neisha '67 on 2002-06-22 23:55 ]</font>

On 2002-06-22 23:35, Neisha '67 wrote:
Kevin, that's funny that you don't feel short in the NW. When my husband and I were students we came out here for a summer and felt even shorter than usual! (I'm 5'2" if I stand really straight, and he's about 5'7".) Our theory was that the relatively clean air made native Oregonians taller than us transplants.

I felt short in NJ because at the time I was, for my age (15, when I left). Just when I started growing to what was considered average back there I moved to California where people were taller still! . But when I moved to Seattle, it seemed that I was right about average height again. Granted that the NW, with its high percentage of Scandinavian immigrants, probably had even more very-tall (over 6'3") people that did California, but there were also more short people too. So it all averaged out. At least that was my take on it.

I also might add that in the Pacific Northwest, i experienced virtually none (that I could tell) of the bias on part of women elsewhere towards guys who are "tall and athletic". The latter may possibly be explained by the fact that the "sports" popular there -- skiing, hiking, sailing, etc. -- depend more on being just in fairly reasonable shape than on amazing athletic prowess.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-23 10:35 ]</font>

On 2002-06-21 19:42, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:
It occurs to me that Boomers and Xers have, generationally speaking, completely differing attitudes towards sex. Simply put, Boomers see sexuality as spiritual. Xers see it as recreational.

Both liberal and conservative Boomers appear to see sex as primarily spiritual. Liberals see it as a way of connecting with other people, of becoming "one" with humanity, and this being the case they are loath to see promiscuity as wrong. Conservatives are spiritual about sex also-- they view it in context of its primary purpose of reproduction, their own slice of immortality, of producing children who will leave their mark on the world when they themselves are gone. As such, they see homoxsexuality is a cardinal sin, since it serves no spiritual purpose whatsoever when viewed with an eye towards immortality. Moderates or pragmatic Boomers may take a differing view-- that sex is the ultimate way of becoming one with a particular person, one's soulmate. When viewed this way, having sex with dozens of people you barely know is, in effect, cheating on your soulmate before you even meet them.

Not being an Xer, I don't know for sure how they really feel about The Act Of Love. From what I observe, it appears that they don't see it as any big deal, period. If you're not getting any, it's "bummer-- you're missing out" but there isn't the sort of judgement like you generally get from Boomers when you aren't "lucky" in such matters. On the other side, for an Xer being promiscuous is just another extreme sport, like black-diamond snowboarding or bungee-jumping-- totally thrilling, with its own set of risks like any other activity. It might kill you, but it might not. Whatever.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-22 07:27 ]</font>

Hmm. being an Xer I can't agree with this, even though I think you got some good thoughts here. It is probably true that a good sized percentage of us look at the fun part of sex, I have a couple of friends that are swingers, but I think Hopefull had it right that Xers as a generation don't have any one view of it. The swingers are a minority; most are in steady relationships, with various views of what sex means within that relationship, ranging from the pragmatic to the spiritual.

Another point about spirituality and the boomers. Maybe some boomers understand that aspect of it, but a lot of them were into just the "let's get laid" attitude as well.
The culture of the 80's was very corporate and market driven (still is, but with a different feel now), and it was the silent and Boomer genereations that were promoting "free love" and "sex for sex sake" during the entertainment of that time (the first wave Xers were only around 20, and NOT controling the media). So while some boomers were about the spirituality of sex, just as many were preaching the view of "go out and get some!"

I wasn't part of the free love thing in the 60's, but as someone younger my image of it was all about sex without 'hang ups', without responsibility. Maybe you could explain it a little better from a Boomer viewpoint?

Peace

I picked up a book that was written in 1975 called "Forbidden Flowers" by Nancy Friday.

It seemed those Boomer women were all into their "Earth" man and mescaline and having sex in the mud.

Can someone tell me the difference between late wave Boomers (late 50s) and first wave (1940s) they seem very similar.

I mean what really is the difference between being 17 in 1969 vs. 1975?

On 2002-06-23 10:28, Kevin Parker '59 wrote:

I also might add that in the Pacific Northwest, i experienced virtually none (that I could tell) of the bias on part of women elsewhere towards guys who are "tall and athletic". The latter may possibly be explained by the fact that the "sports" popular there -- skiing, hiking, sailing, etc. -- depend more on being just in fairly reasonable shape than on amazing athletic prowess.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kevin Parker '59 on 2002-06-23 10:35 ]</font>

Kevin, I suspect this is because, in the Northwest (and perhaps Northern California as well) people of both genders prefer playing outside to sitting inside watching sports on TV. As a result, women here get used to looking at real guys who are in shape, and don't spend much time watching professional athletes.

I am guessing that, in other parts of the country, women get used to thinking of David Robinson-type larger-than-life-gods as the model of a man who is fit, while the men they see in the office look more like Dilbert. Just a theory. :wink:

Of course the exception is Southern California and parts of South Florida. There men play outside *and* are expected to be larger-than-life-gods. Damn movie/modeling industry.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Neisha '67 on 2002-06-24 16:51 ]</font>