I have heard the odd person also rationalise the idea on the (silly) grounds that if you like it too much, you will be less inclined to want to go through the hassles of dating, etc.
Peaches wrote: Surely, viewing porn is an urge most have indulged, and let he who has not masturbated cast the first stone. But is viewing porn an ethical practice?
Peaches wrote: Conjointly, is masturbation natural?
Peaches wrote: Why is masturbation received as a humiliating practice? On that note, why is nudity recieved negatively? Why is sex, on basic terms, regarded as a demeaning practice? Why is sex, even as a topic, recieved as taboo?
Peaches wrote: Perhaps I'm boundless in the sea of sexual restraints. I simply cannot see a logical reason to treat a natural practice as a transgression; I can't help but view "Everybody Poops" in the same dimension as "Everybody F**ks." I'm sorry, but I don't know how a process that our poor little bodies have been preparing us for since conception can be a bad thing.
Paul Anthony wrote:Every society has its taboos. Sex in public is taboo, but so are other natural (but not very pretty) bodily functions. Would you really want it otherwise? Some things are best done in private.
Why are sex, masturbation, and porn taboo?
To be honest, I am not 100% sure why this sense of modesty or prudishness came about under the reign of Queen Victoria but we know that before this time, people were far more "loose".
Phalcon wrote:I think that the root of it, at least partially, is hygene.
Unlike most animal species, we find our bodily extracts to be highly disgusting. We prefer to stay away from the bodily extracts of others. As a consequence, we like it when the organs that emit them are covered. These organs and the activities associated with them become taboo.
Phalcon wrote: Darey,
Certain attitudes are hard coded in our primitive brain and are not easily changed by a cultural context. One of them is foul smells. The extracts of ears and noses, as well as spit, do not smell offensively, while urine, feces, sperm and menstrual fluids do. It probably hints us that we should stay away from these extracts because they are especially infectious. I realise that some people might like the smell of them, but they are in minority.
Phalcon wrote: It is possible that prehistoric societies that didn't find them offensive were extinguished by desease. I'm not sure, this is just a hypothesis..
Phalcon wrote: In many African cultures women do not cover their brest, but pretty much all cultures on earth cover their genitals and behinds.
Phalcon wrote: Some cultural constructs may not be related to any natural instinct but are a consequence of a historical circumstances.
Phalcon wrote: Our species exists for about 100K years.
Phalcon wrote: Sexual restrictions may have existed since then. Otherwise there must be some factor that made them appear, in all of humanity and I don't know what that could be.
Is that all? So those human skeletons found in africa said to be I will say around, but I think over, 2 million years old are not real, or not human remains?
It is called evolution. 'Evolution' in the sense of change that is. Everything changes, that is how all things appear. At some stage through our evolutionary history it is far more likely there would not have been sexual restrictions, so if that is the case, then there is some factor that made them appear. Just like the degree of sexual restrictions is always changing so would have there been the change from non-sexual restriction to sexual restriction.
Users browsing this forum: Google Adsense [Bot] and 8 guests