# The one night stand culture



## Bullgrit (Feb 17, 2014)

I heard a story on the radio this weekend that made me think about this. I've never really understood the one-night-stand culture. Going to bars every night, (or even just on weekend nights), picking up random strangers for an intimate encounter. 

I've known players, both male and female, who seemed to live for the game and/or the hook ups. The idea of having a steady relationship was something to belittle. The movie _Wedding Crashers_ comes to mind as an example. In my opinion, the main characters in that movie were douchebags.

Have you ever participated in the one-night-stand culture? Or do you know people who are? What is it about that culture? Is it the game? Is it the variety? Is it about keeping a score/number? Is it avoiding all emotional investment?

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2014)

Culture? That is funny. Like there are those who do this regularly, hang out with similar people, etc, and those who never done it. Like there is no middle ground. Like it is not human behavior that manifest itself in various ways throughout various cultures.

The media coverage does exist though.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 17, 2014)

I don't see anything wrong with it.  Some people like to have their fun that way and some don't.


----------



## Viking Bastard (Feb 17, 2014)

Yes and no.

I have partaken in something akin to what you describe, but I'd just call it dating--or just partying--depending on context/motive. I have gone down town with a casual hook-up in mind--read: was damn horny--but usually it just kinda happens in the heat of the moment. Or used to (I'm married now). I didn't really have any longing for a girlfriend/partner until I was 22-23, yet I had sexual wants.

Then, for reasons unclear to myself, I starting longing for a deeper connection. And started "dating"... which still followed the same pattern of going down town, only with a different mindset.

This is pretty standard for Icelandic dating culture, at least for young people. You generally don't go on formal dates until _after_ you're going steady. Some people are always locked in one mindset or another, but most people I know have displayed both behaviors at different times in their lives.

And yeah, I've also known people like the guys in the Wedding Crashers (or y'know, more nuanced, less exaggerated versions thereof) and they're just douches (or douchettes). There are always gonna be douches.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 17, 2014)

I'm not a big fan of repression. To me, it makes sense that people have high sex drives and want them satisfied. That's one of our defining qualities as humans. Casual consensual sexual relationships to me are a great step towards bringing sexuality out in the open and killing taboos.

There's no inherent reason why it has to be tied to any long-term commitment, and as long as people are aware of the risks (which wasn't always the case but is getting to be now) and are doing in consensual and honestly, they should be doing it if that's what they want.

Then again, my own personal perspective has always been very romantic (perhaps influenced by fantasy fiction?). Even if I could engage in casual sexual relationships, I don't know that I would.


----------



## Richards (Feb 17, 2014)

Personally, I've never understood the one nightstand culture.  To me, that just makes the bedroom look lopsided and off-balance.  I definitely prefer two nightstands, one on either side of the bed.  That way, I've got room for my stuff in mine, and my wife has room for her stuff in hers.  And, it goes without saying, it makes the bedroom more symmetrical.

...Wait, what?

Johnathan


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 17, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:
			
		

> I'm not a big fan of repression. To me, it makes sense that people have high sex drives and want them satisfied. That's one of our defining qualities as humans. Casual consensual sexual relationships to me are a great step towards bringing sexuality out in the open and killing taboos.



Repression? Where'd that idea come from? And high sex drives and one night stands aren't necessarily related. One can have a high sex drive and never have a one night stand, and folks hooking up for one nighters don't necessarily have high sex drives. Heck, I'd even posit that folks in steady relationships have more sex than those looking for one-time hook ups.

I remember conversations with guys who always bragged about hooking up with a different girl every Saturday night, and I, (in a steady relationship), was always left thinking, "I've had sex four times before the weekend." So the one night stand thing is not about sex drive.

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Feb 17, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Repression? Where'd that idea come from? And high sex drives and one night stands aren't necessarily related. One can have a high sex drive and never have a one night stand, and folks hooking up for one nighters don't necessarily have high sex drives. Heck, I'd even posit that folks in steady relationships have more sex than those looking for one-time hook ups.
> 
> I remember conversations with guys who always bragged about hooking up with a different girl every Saturday night, and I, (in a steady relationship), was always left thinking, "I've had sex four times before the weekend." So the one night stand thing is not about sex drive.
> 
> Bullgrit




The Repression comment is similar to the "slut shaming" comment when I mentioned I disapprove of affairs or promiscuity on the other thread.

I don't see where me not thinking excessive promiscuity is good for society becomes a rampant attack on somebody else's lifestyle preference.

I have a right to not like carrots, just as you have a right to enjoy them.  Just because I don't like them, doesn't mean I'm putting on a bed sheet and burning cabbages on people's front lawns to scare them away from veggies.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 17, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Repression? Where'd that idea come from?



Do I have to justify that in general? That sexual repression is a cornerstone of many cultures (and definitely in modern America)?



> And high sex drives and one night stands aren't necessarily related.



Well, not necessarily. But it seems an intuitive enough connection to me. Surely, they're not completely _un_related.



> One can have a high sex drive and never have a one night stand, and folks hooking up for one nighters don't necessarily have high sex drives. Heck, I'd even posit that folks in steady relationships have more sex than those looking for one-time hook ups.



Which may very well be true. However, it does raise a few follow-up issues.

For one thing, even if people in relationships have more sex, it isn't always with the person they are in the relationship with. Cheating is very common. I think it's better to reserve monogamy for people who are genuinely committed to it, which does not seem to be everyone. I've seen a lot of relationships built on lies, perhaps because the people involved were trying to conform to social norms, or for various other reasons (money, for example).

For another, a relationship is not necessarily an option for everyone at all times. Quite the opposite, I'd argue. If it isn't, that doesn't mean everyone should have to wait until they can find one. If your contention is true and singles have less sex, to me that suggests all the more that they should be trying to get some any way they can, assuming that's what they want (which they may or may not).



> I remember conversations with guys who always bragged about hooking up with a different girl every Saturday night, and I, (in a steady relationship), was always left thinking, "I've had sex four times before the weekend." So the one night stand thing is not about sex drive.



I'm sure there's more going on there, yes. But whatever else it is about is not necessarily bad. For example, if these example people derived self-confidence from their ability to successfully court numerous partners, that may very well be a good thing for them, independent of any satisfaction from the act itself.

It also may be that people lie about these things for various reasons.


----------



## bone_naga (Feb 17, 2014)

As long as they are all consenting adults, who cares? I don't look at it any different than someone being straight/gay/bi. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, do whatever works for you.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 17, 2014)

Janx said:


> The Repression comment is similar to the "slut shaming" comment when I mentioned I disapprove of affairs or promiscuity on the other thread.
> 
> I don't see where me not thinking excessive promiscuity is good for society becomes a rampant attack on somebody else's lifestyle preference.
> 
> I have a right to not like carrots, just as you have a right to enjoy them.  Just because I don't like them, doesn't mean I'm putting on a bed sheet and burning cabbages on people's front lawns to scare them away from veggies.



The problem is that you did not demonstrate it is bad for society. In that case it seems more like you making a moral judgement on what some people do, and that they shouldn't do it, than you saying you do not like something.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 17, 2014)

> Do I have to justify that in general? That sexual repression is a cornerstone of many cultures (and definitely in modern America)?



Wha? America is sexually repressed/repressive? Do you watch TV or movies?

You can literally go anywhere in this country and hook up with anyone for sex at any time. So long as nothing is forced, and you aren't directly paying for it (a law which I agree is odd), sex is totally unrepressed here. All with no general cultural repercussions. 

I don't know how anyone can claim America, in general, is a sexually repressive culture.

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Feb 18, 2014)

bone_naga said:


> As long as they are all consenting adults, who cares? I don't look at it any different than someone being straight/gay/bi. As long as it doesn't hurt anyone, do whatever works for you.




And that's as far as my objection to the practice goes.  I ain't starting Janxes Against You Getting Some or other sillyness.

Go have fun.  I don't think it's good for you or consequence free, but what do I know?


----------



## Janx (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Wha? America is sexually repressed/repressive? Do you watch TV or movies?
> 
> You can literally go anywhere in this country and hook up with anyone for sex at any time. So long as nothing is forced, and you aren't directly paying for it (a law which I agree is odd), sex is totally unrepressed here. All with no general cultural repercussions.
> 
> ...




Indeed, the growing concern is that children are becoming sexual too early now.  Because it is freaking everywhere.

And there are issues.  Kids are getting sex offender status for sharing naughty selfies.  Or actually getting addicted to porn.  or having unrealistic body image problems and sex expectations because of what they see in internet porn.  Or degradation of women mindset because of what they get accustomed to in porn.

We are not living in the 1800s where nobody had sex or acknowledged that it happened.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Wha? America is sexually repressed/repressive? Do you watch TV or movies?
> 
> You can literally go anywhere in this country and hook up with anyone for sex at any time. So long as nothing is forced, and you aren't directly paying for it (a law which I agree is odd), sex is totally unrepressed here. All with no general cultural repercussions.
> 
> I don't know how anyone can claim America, in general, is a sexually repressive culture.




Not having lived there, I can't say - but that's how your country is viewed by most of the rest of the Western world, for right or for wrong. Partly perhaps because your country was founded by self-identified puritans. But I'm not familiar with what you are or aren't exposed to on a daily basis, so you'd know better than me. It's probably just one of those random stereotypes people get saddled with which don't reflect reality at all; happens to us all!


----------



## Janx (Feb 18, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Not having lived there, I can't say - but that's how your country is viewed by most of the rest of the Western world, for right or for wrong. Partly perhaps because your country was founded by self-identified puritans. But I'm not familiar with what you are or aren't exposed to on a daily basis, so you'd know better than me. It's probably just one of those random stereotypes people get saddled with which don't reflect reality at all; happens to us all!




well, the rest of the world is ignorant, so it probably shouldn't surprise us. 

  After all, we brought them BayWatch, and the internet so they could watch porn.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> I don't know how anyone can claim America, in general, is a sexually repressive culture.



Well, let's see. Prostitution is illegal. Our movie and TV rating systems are kinder to mass slaughter than they are to the sight of the human breast. States have laws on the books that officially prohibit oral sex, sodomy, and a variety of other common acts. Pornography and sex work are ridiculed. Homophobia is rampant. In fact, nontraditional (as it were) relationships of all sorts (interracial, interfaith, etc.) are targets for bias and discrimination.

There are actually people advocating for "abstinence-only" sexual education, which is sort of like "starvation only" nutrition education. There was a movement against the mandatory HPV vaccination, partially on account that it supposedly encouraged promiscuity (which apparently is bad). The same battles have been had over selling the morning after pill over the counter. Debates over health insurance coverage for contraception (because apparently that's debatable). There's the whole "slut shaming" phenomenon. Ludicrously restrictive dress codes. Abstinence pledges.

All of which belies the basic truth: people are taught from an early age that sex is bad, and to be ashamed of their own bodies and their own desires.

If someone wants to point out other places or time periods that have been _more_ repressive by comparison, there certainly are some. But America is definitely, definitely repressive.

*I seem to have ninja'd [MENTION=85939]bone_naga[/MENTION] who made most of the same points only a minute after I posted, so I assume that it was coincidental to some extent.


----------



## bone_naga (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Wha? America is sexually repressed/repressive? Do you watch TV or movies?
> 
> You can literally go anywhere in this country and hook up with anyone for sex at any time. So long as nothing is forced, and you aren't directly paying for it (a law which I agree is odd), sex is totally unrepressed here. All with no general cultural repercussions.
> 
> ...



I disagree. You can show gratuitous violence on a PG-13, but let one nipple slip and it's automatically rated R. People that worked in the adult industry (legally or illegally) have trouble with employment once they leave unless they successfully bury that aspect of their past.

And have you seen some of the laws on the books? Many laws against things like sodomy were only overturned by court rulings, not by legislative votes. As individuals a great many people have slept around, but as a society we look down on such things. Consensual sex between minors is still against the law in many states. Statutory rape is sometimes taken to the extreme where an 18 year-old guy is charged for having sex with his girlfriend that was days away from being 18.

And what are popular sayings in rape cases? "Did you see the way she dressed, she definitely had it coming".

Prostitution is illegal (unless you are paying to video tape it, then it's porn and that's somehow ok). Strip clubs vary from full nudity to must be in at least a bikini depending on how prudish the state is. And I don't know of any where the customer is allowed to touch the dancer.

Parents and religious groups still fight teaching sex ed in schools despite numerous studies showing the benefits of doing so. Teens that become pregnant are often shamed out of school rather than being supported so that they can actually have a future. Children are taught to be ashamed of themselves, to the point where most people will use words like "privates" "hoo-hoo" or whatever rather than use the actual names of those dirty dirty parts of your body.

There are places in the country where adult stores are driven out of business and can only exist as a sort of underground deal where you have to know where to go and speak the magic code word.

Big cities tend to be a bit better, but as you get into suburban and rural areas, there is most definitely a prudish anti-sex attitude in many areas of the country.

We aren't as repressive as Saudi Arabia, but I'd hardly call America sexually enlightened.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 18, 2014)

Janx said:


> Indeed, the growing concern is that children are becoming sexual too early now.  Because it is freaking everywhere.



Well, that's kind of unrealistic. It makes sense that pre-pubertal children are not ready to engage in sexual activity, but for much of human history, marriages between young teenagers have been the norm. Once the reproductive system is biologically ready, there's not much that can stop people from using it in one venue or another.



> And there are issues.  Kids are getting sex offender status for sharing naughty selfies.  Or actually getting addicted to porn.  or having unrealistic body image problems and sex expectations because of what they see in internet porn.  Or degradation of women mindset because of what they get accustomed to in porn.



Which is more legitimate. But I would argue that there isn't much evidence of that harm actually occurring, and even if it is true, I think it reflects more that the pornographic material is filling a void left by minimal sex ed and cultural taboos. If we talked about realistic expectations more, the unrealistic stuff wouldn't take hold.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 18, 2014)

[COMMENT][/COMMENT]







Janx said:


> well, the rest of the world is ignorant, so it probably shouldn't surprise us.
> 
> After all, we brought them BayWatch, and the internet so they could watch porn.




You, uh, haven't spent much time in France, Italy, or The Netherlands, have you? 

Baywatch. My goodness.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 18, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Not having lived there, I can't say - but that's how your country is viewed by most of the rest of the Western world, for right or for wrong. Partly perhaps because your country was founded by self-identified puritans.



That last part is overrated I think. Puritans were never a large part of our population, and the New World in many ways was diverse quite sexually liberal. Certainly our founding fathers were (say, Benjamin Franklin's exploits or Thomas Jefferson and his slaves). I'm not an expert historian (though I did take one class in women's history), but my understanding is that the repressive element is relatively new, part of a change in direction to some extent.


----------



## Altamont Ravenard (Feb 18, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> but my understanding is that the repressive element is relatively new, part of a change in direction to some extent.




And confined, unless I'm mistaken, to a certain part of the USA.

AR


----------



## bone_naga (Feb 18, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> *I seem to have ninja'd <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @_*bone_naga*_ <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> who made most of the same points only a minute after I posted, so I assume that it was coincidental to some extent.






Well it seems great minds think alike. You are a great mind, aren't you?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 18, 2014)

Altamont Ravenard said:


> And confined, unless I'm mistaken, to a certain part of the USA.



I'd caution against painting with too broad a brush (and against ENW's no politics rules). But yes, a relatively unique phenomenon in the US, because we're so spread out, is many people that live in relative isolation (certainly through most of our history, but even today to some extent), which causes some rather extreme regional cultural variations.

I should point out, however, that I was referring to Maryland above, which despite being one of the most cosmopolitan and educated regions in the country, has a law banning oral sex. Not prostitution, homosexuality, or anything of the like. It is illegal, today, for consenting adults to engage in any type of oral sexual activity anywhere in Maryland. Obviously, no one is actually enforcing this law, but no one has repealed it either, because no politician wants to be the one to do it. Mind-boggling.



bone_naga said:


> Well it seems great minds think alike. You are a great mind, aren't you?



Well, I've been told that. Personally, I don't think so (at least, not any more).


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 18, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Not having lived there, I can't say - but that's how your country is viewed by most of the rest of the Western world, for right or for wrong. Partly perhaps because your country was founded by self-identified puritans. But I'm not familiar with what you are or aren't exposed to on a daily basis, so you'd know better than me. It's probably just one of those random stereotypes people get saddled with which don't reflect reality at all; happens to us all!



It's not just outside of the U.S. that the U.S. is viewed as a a sexually repressive country. Many within the U.S. view it the same. As Ahnehnoia and Bone_naga have pointed out, there are many laws in place all around the country that prohibit, or restrict sexual behavior. One would think that it varies state to state, but the fact is it varies greatly even within states. Here in Florida you can go from one place where strip clubs are full nudity, and the next they can only be topless, and the next they must be covered up in a bikini or something that covers and equal amount of the body. That variation can be from county to county, or even city to city. As most of Florida is not as developed as the image that Florida tourism authorities would like you to believe (we're more than Miami and Disney Land, dammit!!!). 

In any case, many within the U.S. also feel repressed in regard to sex.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 18, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Well, I've been told that. Personally, I don't think so (at least, not any more).



Just thought you should know, when bone_naga says "great minds," he actually means "rampart fornicator." The guy has plowed his way across countless countries. We don't call him The Storming M@#^@&* for a reason.



[sblock=*]Removed to avoid violating EW's policy[/sblock]


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 18, 2014)

Homicidal_Squirrel said:


> Just thought you should know, when bone_naga says "great minds," he actually means "rampart fornicator." The guy has plowed his way across countless countries. We don't call him The Storming M@#^@&* for a reason.
> 
> 
> 
> [sblock=*]Removed to avoid violating EW's policy[/sblock]



Oh yeah. His sig should be "All your wifes are be mine!".


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 18, 2014)

goldomark said:


> Oh yeah. His sig should be "All your wifes are be mine!".



Quoted for truthyness.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 18, 2014)

Lots of rebuttals already out there, but here's my two cents.

The thing with Hollywood/media is an interesting one, but should be taken with a grain of salt.  There's the whole Madonna/whore thing.  There's that men and women both lie about how many people they've had sex with, men overstating, women understating.  There's our language... how many casual insults and derogatory terms are sexual in nature?  I swear, when I hang out with people my own age I want to slap them upside the head for how often they use some reference to a penis as an insult.  I mean really dudes, you _have_ one of those and you _like_ it, so why are you using it as an insult?

The takeaway being that America is pretty neurotic about sex.  And you want to know one of the things that leads to neurosis?  Repression.  If we aren't repressed, then I want to see the psych eval to see what what we _are_.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 18, 2014)

I'd be willing to bet, if you checked enough towns, England, and even France, has old ridiculous sex laws on their books as well. A law that isn't enforced -- isn't even known unless you dig in historical municipality documents -- isn't really fair play for argument about what is or isn't allowed.

My point is that you can go out anywhere, any time, and find someone to have sex with, in any manner you want, and you'll get no societal trouble. You can have gay interracial multi-partner sex, and you won't be jailed, loose your job, or otherwise have a problem. In general.

Sure, you can find a way to get a problem from it, but the same is true of going to the toilet. No one has a problem with it, but if you go around telling your boss, "I just took the biggest dump!" they'll be some stigma attached to you.

This conversation even started with the acknowledgement of the common phenomenon of one night stand, casual sex. If things were as puritanical as you say, that would be a strictly secret activity. But it's not secret, or even concealed.

Sex is far from repressed in America. It may be less in-your-face than some other countries, but Saturn being smaller than Jupiter does not make Saturn a small planet.

Bullgrit


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> I'd be willing to bet, if you checked enough towns, England, and even France, has old ridiculous sex laws on their books as well. A law that isn't enforced -- isn't even known unless you dig in historical municipality documents -- isn't really fair play for argument about what is or isn't allowed.



Ken Cuccinelli, then-Attorney General of Virginia, fought as long as he could in favor of the state's sodomy ban.  _Last year_.  He was also in the Virginia state legislature in 2003 when, after the Supreme Court struck down sodomy bans nationwide, he voted _against_ amending the state's sodomy ban because he, and many other legislators, wanted to _continue_ to have that ban (unenforceable as they knew it was) on the books _expressly_ to express societal condemnation of certain people.  Cuccinelli thought it was important enough to condemn people that have non-vaginal sex that he was willing to risk letting child molesters go free just to keep that condemnation on the books.  

Last year some idiot sheriff in Louisiana made the newspapers because he was continuing to arrest people under the state's sodomy laws.  Every case was thrown out the prosecutors (they knew they could never win in court as the law was declared unconstitutional) but the sheriff continued to do it anyway.

Multiple times last year we got reports on how teenage rape victims were being bullied by their peers and parents-of-peers for daring to say they were raped.  One family had to move towns because it got so bad.

A few weeks back the Disney show "Good Luck Charlie" included a kid that had lesbian parents.  The kid has since received _death threats_.

But please.  Tell me more about this world of "no consequences".  It sounds nice.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> My point is that you can go out anywhere, any time, and find someone to have sex with, in any manner you want, and you'll get no societal trouble. You can have gay interracial multi-partner sex, and you won't be jailed, loose your job, or otherwise have a problem. In general.



That's incorrect. I had a high school teacher, and her husband who was a high school teacher at another high school in the area, get arrested and fired because they were in a swingers club. The police busted in and arrested a bunch of people. She was charged with prostitution even though she was only taking part in a game/competition where various women were using sex toys to perform certain sex acts to win prizes the club had. Both her and her husband lost their jobs over that. The club was two counties away. The charges were eventually dropped, but her job was not returned.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 18, 2014)

So, because you can find a few examples of crazy zealots having a personal problem with sexuality, all 300 million Americans are sexually repressive? This is like those who claim there's a war on Christmas. Point out a few incidents and expand it to cover the entire country and culture.

Do you deny that one can go out and hook up with anyone they want, any time they want? Do you deny that there are people down at the local bar right now, in plain sight of other citizens, (and even possibly law officers), hooking up for sex as they want? Will they get in any societal trouble for it?

Two people meet, and they want to have sex with each other. Are you saying that they are restricted in this activity more in America than in England, or France, or Brazil? You can even tell a cop you pass on the way to your apartment, "Hey! Guess what! We're going to my place to shag each other rotten." And the cop will probably just shrug and say, "OK, just wait till you get home. (And use a condom.)"

This America is sexually repressive idea is as ridiculous as the "War on Christmas".

Bullgrit


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Do you deny that one can go out and hook up with anyone they want, any time they want?



Yes, totally deny it. The other person has to be attracted to and for the most part consent to sex. Just because you want to get laid doesn't mean it's going to happen. I mean, unless you count sex with a prostitute, which in most of the country is illegal. 







> you deny that there are people down at the local bar right now, in plain sight of other citizens, (and even possibly law officers), hooking up for sex as they want?



Yes, I deny it. They can't do so in public. 







> Will they get in any societal trouble for it?



Yes, having sex in public will get you arrested. 

Related story. I went to a bar a while back with some friends. While we were outside talking, this guy and a girl walk out. The two were obviously drunk. The girl is all over this guy. Some other guy, who obviously wanted to watch the two hook up, tells them they can bang in the back of his pickup truck. The girl didn't want to be watch by a fat guy with a creeper mustache, so she pulls the guy she is with away with his. They go down to about the middle of the parking lot, and get in a car. I'm not sure if it was his or her car, but they get in. About five minutes later, a police car pulls into the parking lot. Several people standing outside point to the car where the guy and gel were. The cop pulls up next to them and flashes the police lights. They two ended up handcuffed. 



> Two people meet, and they want to have sex with each other. Are you saying that they are restricted in this activity more in America than in England, or France, or Brazil? You can even tell a cop you pass on the way to your apartment, "Hey! Guess what! We're going to my place to shag each other rotten." And the cop will probably just shrug and say, "OK, just wait till you get home. (And use a condom.)"
> 
> This America is sexually repressive idea is as ridiculous as the "War on Christmas".
> 
> Bullgrit



I don't want to get into politics because I'm sure someone will point out how there is an EW policy against it, and this thread is fairly entertaining. Still, all you have to do is look at the laws that have been enforced, even as recently as the last 15 years. John Ashcroft, a former U.S. Attorney General went after the adult industry with charges of indecency. He tried to get people thrown in jail for what they did in adult movies. Even now there are several states where certain words have been "banned" from state legislatures. In Florida, you can't say "Vagina" in the state legislature. There was one congressman who got in trouble for that. That was last year, or the year before.


----------



## delericho (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Have you ever participated in the one-night-stand culture?




No.



> Or do you know people who are?




Yes.



> What is it about that culture? Is it the game? Is it the variety? Is it about keeping a score/number? Is it avoiding all emotional investment?




I don't know, but I'd suspect it depends on the individual.

However, provided both parties consent, both parties are up-front and honest about what they want, and nobody gets hurt (and, to ensure this, they take appropriate precautions), I don't see any great problem with it. They're not making the choices I would make, but that's the point: they're not _my_ choices to make.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> So, because you can find a few examples of crazy zealots having a personal problem with sexuality, all 300 million Americans are sexually repressive? This is like those who claim there's a war on Christmas. Point out a few incidents and expand it to cover the entire country and culture.




A few examples?  I think you mistake your opponents' brevity for lack of proof.  I assure you you're completely wrong.  There's a hell of a lot more than a few.  Right now, for example, there's a law somewhere that's in the process of being passed that would allow business owners to refuse service to people of a sexual orientation that they don't like.  This includes _government _workers.  

Anthony Weiner was forced to resign in disgrace for sending picks of his package to girls via text while Rob Ford is still serving in Canada after admitting to smoking crack.  Billy Clinton was impeached for having sex with an intern.  _Impeached_.  I can give you more if this still counts, in your eyes, as 'a few examples'.

Hmm ... one more thing right quick: Janet Jackson exposed part of one breast on TV - and it was covered up - and the whole country was upset about what our poor kids saw when watching the game.  They demonized something natural while never once crying about the beer commercials that glamorized alcohol to their precious little ones or the news they watched afterwards which probably showed the body of someone who was very violently killed.  The priority was a booby.  But yeah, bro.  We're totes open to sex in America.



> Do you deny that one can go out and hook up with anyone they want, any time they want? Do you deny that there are people down at the local bar right now, in plain sight of other citizens, (and even possibly law officers), hooking up for sex as they want? Will they get in any societal trouble for it?




I'll deny it as long as people are fired for being gay and for as long as laws are proposed to enable folks - including gov't employees - to discriminate against people based upon sexual orientation.  Can they do it?  Yep.  Can they do it without consequence?  Sure ... right up until they get caught.

Oh, by the way, there have been teachers fired fairly recently because they happened to be strippers at one point in their life.  Tell me more about our openness and tolerance, please.  Hell, you should tell them.  I'm sure they'd be happy to hear the good news.



> Two people meet, and they want to have sex with each other. Are you saying that they are restricted in this activity more in America than in England, or France, or Brazil? You can even tell a cop you pass on the way to your apartment, "Hey! Guess what! We're going to my place to shag each other rotten." And the cop will probably just shrug and say, "OK, just wait till you get home. (And use a condom.)"




Again, you're missing the point.  Nobody is gonna pull a gun on you and stop you from hooking up ... well, some people probably would.  Anyhoo, there are consequences to these actions that aren't found elsewhere.  Additionally, you can't see nudity on the news or even basic cable but you can see as many burnt and exploded corpses as you want.  For whatever reason you want to think that sex is nothing more than a physical act when that's not even close to what everyone else is talking about.



> This America is sexually repressive idea is as ridiculous as the "War on Christmas".
> 
> Bullgrit




Only if you either aren't paying attention or don't understand the discussion.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 18, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Hmm ... one more thing right quick: Janet Jackson exposed part of one breast on TV - and it was covered up - and the whole country was upset about what our poor kids saw when watching the game.



Not only did they complain-people do that all the time-they actually got a substantial legal decision and regulatory changes.

There have also been significant legal issues surrounding breast feeding in public, and there's a go topless protest movement. Conversely, in Europe you can see topless ads in mainstream publications. America has a thing about breasts.


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 18, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> America has a thing about breasts.



They are very scary and have an unholy power over men. Fear them!!!


----------



## Herschel (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Wha? America is sexually repressed/repressive? Do you watch TV or movies?




You need to get out more. America is horribly repressed, sexually. Violence on the other hand.....



> You can literally go anywhere in this country and hook up with anyone for sex at any time. So long as nothing is forced, and you aren't directly paying for it (a law which I agree is odd), sex is totally unrepressed here. All with no general cultural repercussions.
> 
> I don't know how anyone can claim America, in general, is a sexually repressive culture.
> 
> Bullgrit



 Methinks you're not understanding the nature of repression.


----------



## Herschel (Feb 18, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> I heard a story on the radio this weekend that made me think about this. I've never really understood the one-night-stand culture. Going to bars every night, (or even just on weekend nights), picking up random strangers for an intimate encounter.




Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. As long as you're communicating, consenting adults, go to town. That means drawing the line when agreeing to a mutually monogamous relationship, but if that's not your bag, so be it.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 18, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not only did they complain-people do that all the time-they actually got a substantial legal decision and regulatory changes.




Quite true.  It's amazing ... and very, very sad.  We're worried about kids seeing what most of them saw multiple times a day - right up in their grills, too.   It's just so stupid.



> There have also been significant legal issues surrounding breast feeding in public, and there's a go topless protest movement. Conversely, in Europe you can see topless ads in mainstream publications. America has a thing about breasts.




Yup, it's crazy how backwards we are in America concerning that stuff.  When I went to Greece we were in an area that didn't allow topless sunbathing and yet I saw many topless women enjoying the rays.  The 'ban' was never enforced.  Some people understand that there's nothing bad about the body I guess.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 18, 2014)

Herschel said:
			
		

> Don't knock it 'til you've tried it. As long as you're communicating, consenting adults, go to town. That means drawing the line when agreeing to a mutually monogamous relationship, but if that's not your bag, so be it.



Tried it once and found it to be the most uncomfortable intimate experience. A while later, I let myself get caught up in one to the point where when I realized I really didn't want it again, it was uncomfortable untangling from the situation. So, I can knock it with experience as not a thing for me. And that's why I don't understand the culture of those who do such on a regular basis.

Bullgrit


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 19, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> And that's why I don't understand the culture of those who do such on a regular basis.



Perhaps it's simply a consequence of your overall lifestyle.

For example, I was on the road recently with some guys who were prospecting for this sort of thing, talking about how they always look at time spent traveling as an opportunity for hookups. But I don't travel much; I'm more rooted. I think commitment would naturally be much harder for someone who travels a lot than for someone who stays in one place.

And then of course, there's the whole marriage thing (I'm assuming you're married based on posts elsewhere). Married life is very different form single life. And not everyone wants to or can get married. Even finding a true boy/girlfriend is not an easy thing. You might simply consider what the landscape is for someone who simply doesn't have a realistic option to commit (let alone someone who chooses not to).


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 19, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not only did they complain-people do that all the time-they actually got a substantial legal decision and regulatory changes.
> 
> There have also been significant legal issues surrounding breast feeding in public, and there's a go topless protest movement. Conversely, in Europe you can see topless ads in mainstream publications. America has a thing about breasts.



Hell, in some states you have to air brush men's nipples out of advertisements.  There are literally billboards for wrestling where the bare-chested men are nipple-free.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 19, 2014)

EscherEnigma said:


> Hell, in some states you have to air brush men's nipples out of advertisements.  There are literally billboards for wrestling where the bare-chested men are nipple-free.



You're kidding, right?


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 19, 2014)

goldomark said:


> You're kidding, right?



I never kid about nipples.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 19, 2014)




----------



## Umbran (Feb 19, 2014)

Herschel said:


> As long as you're communicating, consenting adults, go to town.




Note, however, that even if you set aside the health and pregnancy concerns, for some folks this is not a good idea.

As a generalization - intimate contact has neurochemical and psychological effects beyond the short term.  This is not surprising, as humans use sex for pair bonding.  For some people, this is no big deal.  For others, having a physically intimate relationship, but abandoning the emotional and social bonds can lead to depression.  In the archetypal case, an individual tries to relieve the depression with more one-night-stands, and ends up in a bit of a vicious cycle.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 19, 2014)

> Hell, in some states you have to air brush men's nipples out of advertisements. There are literally billboards for wrestling where the bare-chested men are nipple-free.



States? Plural? Advertisements? Plural? Billboards? Plural?

Actually, it was one billboard, in one city, apparently over a misunderstanding.  "However, buses all over town are still cruising the streets baring the original posters of the wrestlers --male nipples and all." http://www.tmz.com/2008/03/28/wwe-puts-the-squeeze-on-nipples/

See, when folks start pointing at one or two individual instances of stupidity, or mistakes, or personal over-zealousness, and then claim those minor instances are indicative of a vast pattern, any hope for intellectually honest discussion is lost.

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 19, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> See, when folks start pointing at one or two individual instances of stupidity, or mistakes, or personal over-zealousness, and then claim those minor instances are indicative of a vast pattern, any hope for intellectually honest discussion is lost.



Yeah, that be true if nipplegate was the only example. People have mentioned many examples that are problematic, pointing toward a pattern. 

Heck, I'd argue that your misgivings with your own experience with a one nightstand comes from a shiness that takes roots in a represent sexuality thanks to the US's culture. But I'm missing some info on that one.


----------



## EscherEnigma (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> States? Plural? Advertisements? Plural? Billboards? Plural?
> 
> Actually, it was one billboard, in one city, apparently over a misunderstanding.  "However, buses all over town are still cruising the streets baring the original posters of the wrestlers --male nipples and all." http://www.tmz.com/2008/03/28/wwe-puts-the-squeeze-on-nipples/
> 
> ...



As long as we're talking about "hope for intellectually honest discussion", I think it may become prudent for you to say what _could_ convince you.  We can safely conclude that "public actions", "laws", "ended careers", "rape victims being driven out of their towns", "culture that errs on the side of the rapist to the degree of ostracizing the rape victim", "media reactions", "sex education" and "transwomen, particularly transwomen of color, continue to suffer extreme amounts of violence and murder" are all _not_ on said list.

*Edit: *Heck, I'll even go first.  I could be convinced that America is _not_ sexually repressed if
(a) no sexual identity or expression was not positively correlated (to a statistically significant degree) with increased abuse, bias and violence.
(b) 50% of rapists spend at least a day behind bars (not even prison, just a holding cell) as a consequence of said rape (not even a conviction necessary).
(c) Female and male promiscuity are treated equally.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 20, 2014)

> what could convince you



What would convince me that what I see on a daily basis, and what I've experienced over 46 years is wrong? Well, maybe some evidence that is more than rare incidents, and that is not just shocking claims either made up whole-clothe or blown up far beyond the actual facts.

This idea that America is sexually repressive is sort of like the idea that New York City is a dangerous place. Someone could take all the news stories, all the individual anecdotes, all the myths and legends,  and pile them up on a message board and make it look like there's drugs and robbery and murder all over the place in NYC. Holy crap, it would be dangerous foolishness to even visit that place. But the fact is that the vast majority of New Yorkers live happy and safe their entire life.

It's hard to convince someone that their culture is actually different than what they've seen and experienced their entire life. Rare and odd instances don't make a general culture.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> What would convince me that what I see on a daily basis, and what I've experienced over 46 years is wrong?




It's all relative. Of course it's not repressed compared to what you consider the norm; you were brought up in it.  But folks are discussing the topic as compared to other Western countries. One thing many of your questions in this forum reveal is that you haven't traveled much outside your own country.  That's fine, and it's cool that you ask for information and seek to broaden your knowledge base. I respect you for doing that.   

It's important to release that when discussing relative concepts like this, it's as _compared to elsewhere_. Politicians in Italy don't get condemned for their sex lives; France doesn't have a big Bible Belt condemning a whole demographic based on their sexuality; Amsterdam has sex workers acting legally and safely; basic public broadcast TV (i.e. not cable and the like) in the UK has plenty of breasts and sex and the like, and that's pretty tame compared to the rest of Europe. I don't know enough about Eastern Europe or Russia to comment on those.   Nor India or China or most of Asia.  I've been to Japan, and vending  machines had sexual content, and pornographic comic books sat on the  bottom shelves in many shops.

Now, I've been to the US a half-dozen times. In total, I've only spent about 3 months there.  So I am definitely NOT making any claims one way or the other, except to observe that your country is widely regarded as extremely prudish about sex, and enthusiastic about violence, and this comes across in the media you export. Whether that view is justified or not is another matter, and I'll leave it to others to hash out. I'll just try to define the topic at hand, because I think you seem to be mistaking the term "sexual repression" for "not being  allowed to have sex".  That's not what it means.  It refers to the  culture surrounding the subject, not the act itself, and this debate will certainly work better with at least an agreed-upon definition.

Some elements of the subject (not all) include:



comprehensive sex education
topless or nudist beaches and other areas
the amount of sexual content on freely available television
legal or decriminalized prostitution
attitudes of voters or media regarding the sex lives of politicians
pro-gay legislation
age of sexual consent
controversies regarding topic like abortion, rape, and other issues
freely available contraception
the need to fetishise, ritualise, or label normal sexual behaviour or culture (your own use of the term "one night stand culture" being an example of that)

That's just some of the things.  Now, it's no surprise that the US is by a long way the most conservative (and religious) Western country.  That's veering too much into politics and religion, though, so we can't discuss that - but that's likely the broader issue, of which this topic is but a microcosm.  But we'll need to reign the topic in to the more focused one at hand, while acknowledging that we're skirting round the larger picture.

(Incidentally, I'd hardly claim that my own country is a bastion of free sexual expression -- it's less so than much of Western Europe by a long shot.)


----------



## Janx (Feb 20, 2014)

EscherEnigma said:


> As long as we're talking about "hope for intellectually honest discussion", I think it may become prudent for you to say what _could_ convince you.  We can safely conclude that "public actions", "laws", "ended careers", "rape victims being driven out of their towns", "culture that errs on the side of the rapist to the degree of ostracizing the rape victim", "media reactions", "sex education" and "transwomen, particularly transwomen of color, continue to suffer extreme amounts of violence and murder" are all _not_ on said list.
> 
> *Edit: *Heck, I'll even go first.  I could be convinced that America is _not_ sexually repressed if
> (a) no sexual identity or expression was not positively correlated (to a statistically significant degree) with increased abuse, bias and violence.
> ...




I'd say that maybe the issue at hand is that America has hypocrisy and duality issues.

It is true as BG says, that you can get sexed up any way or time you want.  It's out there.  And nobody is picketing in front of where it is.

But it's also true that if you flaunt it, it's going to attract the trolls who are gonna make like hard for you.

It's also an age group thing.  teens and twenty somethings are less prudish than older folks.  As one politician who changed his mind on being anti-gay in his politics, his kid told him "dad, that stuff doesn't matter anymore."

That doesn't mean all teens and twenty-somethings are pro-gay and open sex, but they are WAY more sexual than they used to be as a whole, and way more accepting of different sexual values.

It almost says more about the jerks who pick on the gay kid at school as the jerks are the minority with wierd social values nowadays as everybody else likes the gay kid.


----------



## Herschel (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Tried it once and found it to be the most uncomfortable intimate experience. A while later, I let myself get caught up in one to the point where when I realized I really didn't want it again, it was uncomfortable untangling from the situation. So, I can knock it with experience as not a thing for me. And that's why I don't understand the culture of those who do such on a regular basis.
> 
> Bullgrit




Because some people enjoy it. If you don't, that's cool and good that you understand that about yourself. Humans aren't inherently monogamous but large societies work better when the majority are socially conditioned to be.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

Note - somebody has reported this thread for personal attacks. I've read through it, and while I see vigorous debate and disagreement, I'm not seeing examples of that. As always, please report specific posts, rather than entire threads - thanks! The biggest danger in this thread is likely the temptation to veer into politics or religion.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> This idea that America is sexually repressive is sort of like the idea that New York City is a dangerous place.



New York _is_ a dangerous place. As [MENTION=1]Morrus[/MENTION] notes, it's all relative. Walking down the street in New York is definitely less dangerous than climbing Mount Everest or touring North Korea, but there is a significant amount of violent crime and accidental death there, much of which is avoidable/preventable.

Likewise, America has more sexual freedom than Iran and more than it did itself a century ago, but less than most of the first world and less than it could.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2014)

> Edit: Heck, I'll even go first. I could be convinced that America is not sexually repressed if
> _(snip)_
> (b) 50% of rapists spend at least a day behind bars (not even prison, just a holding cell) as a consequence of said rape (not even a conviction necessary).




Sad to say, that rate may not be achieved in any country in the world, if for no other reason than a large number of rapes go unreported.

That's without even getting into a discussion of victims who are not believed, backlogs in testing forensics, statutes of limitations coupled with overwhelmed court systems, and other issues.


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> Sad to say, that rate may not be achieved in any country in the world, if for no other reason than a large number of rapes go unreported.
> 
> That's without even getting into a discussion of victims who are not believed, backlogs in testing forensics, statutes of limitations coupled with overwhelmed court systems, and other issues.



Which is, to some extent, a consequence of America's sexually repressive culture. People are afraid to talk about these things, and often times those fears have a basis in fact.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2014)

EscherEnigma said:


> *Edit: *Heck, I'll even go first.  I could be convinced that America is _not_ sexually repressed if
> (a) no sexual identity or expression was not positively correlated (to a statistically significant degree) with increased abuse, bias and violence.




I'd have to agree with the others, that America's got some issues with respect to sexuality.

When discussing this, I'd have to suggest avoiding absolutes - like the one above - *NO* identity or expression was positively correlated to abuse?  In order to prove the culture as a whole is okay, there must be_ no cases at all_?  That seems extreme.  No matter how well balanced a culture is on the whole, there will be a few screwed up individuals. 

(Not that we are anywhere near that point with sexual identity and expression - the culture still has problems with that.  I just think absolutes are apt to get us in trouble in this discussion.)

As an example, I'll refer to what I mentioned above.  There seems to be an implication in this thread that, if you set aside STDs and pregnancy, there are *no* negative consequences to casual intimate relations between consenting, informed adults.  But, as I noted, for some folks this can lead to depression - not because they are "repressed", but for solid neurobiological reasons.  The implied absolute ("all people would be okay if they were promiscuous") is not true.

Just as those who follow the culturally accepted pattern need to make room for those outside those norms, those who want room made for them should not pass judgement on individuals because they fit the norm.  Tolerance works both ways.


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2014)

Umbran said:


> I'd have to agree with the others, that America's got some issues with respect to sexuality.




EVERY country has got some issues with respect to sexuality.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:


> EVERY country has got some issues with respect to sexuality.




No argument there.  I just wanted to be clear that my saying, "we probably shouldn't use absolutes" to be conflated with, "This isn't a problem in the USA".  

It is honestly no surprise that we (meaning humans, now) have issues with the subject.  It has been (and still is, in many places) tied to procreation, which is about as important as it gets for a species. What we gain in flexibility, we have to pay for in working through complexity.


----------



## Janx (Feb 20, 2014)

Umbran said:


> As an example, I'll refer to what I mentioned above.  There seems to be an implication in this thread that, if you set aside STDs and pregnancy, there are *no* negative consequences to casual intimate relations between consenting, informed adults.  But, as I noted, for some folks this can lead to depression - not because they are "repressed", but for solid neurobiological reasons.  The implied absolute ("all people would be okay if they were promiscuous") is not true.




I would agree with that.  We have girls now that don't feel good about themselves after a one night stand because they feel cheap and used by the guy.

The stereotype being, girls falls for guy, thinks he's into her, but he only sticks around for the one night.  result = hurt feelings.

Now if Girl A is just into a one night stand with the guy, she's probably going to be fine.  But Girl B wasn't doing it as a recreational activity.  And for a lot of people, it is not just a recreational activity.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 20, 2014)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Politicians in Italy don't get condemned for their sex lives; France doesn't have a big Bible Belt condemning a whole demographic based on their sexuality; Amsterdam has sex workers acting legally and safely; basic public broadcast TV (i.e. not cable and the like) in the UK has plenty of breasts and sex and the like, and that's pretty tame compared to the rest of Europe.



Do UK politicians occasionally get into trouble for their sex lives? Does the UK have a group that’s against homosexuality? Does the UK have general legal prostitution? Does UK public TV regularly show breast nipples, full frontal nudity, actual sex acts?

(Curious: Did the UK release of _The Full Monty_ actually show the full Monty of the main characters at the end, on stage? The version I saw here in the US did not show it, just their backsides.)

The more I sit here and think about it, I keep thinking of more and more examples of public sexuality in the US. There’s sexuality freakin’ everywhere.

•  comprehensive sex education – Some people don’t want such taught by the government.

•  topless or nudist beaches and other areas – We got those in plenty in the US. There are at least two nudie clubs in my city that I know of, and I’ve never searched.

•  the amount of sexual content on freely available television – Lots of sexuality on TV.

•  legal or decriminalized prostitution – Don’t have this.

•  attitudes of voters or media regarding the sex lives of politicians – Politicians who are involved in “sex scandals” still often get re-elected, so it doesn’t bother most people. (Also, it’s not about their sex lives, it’s usually about affairs, prostitution, and/or misuse of government resources. But the media can get more attention with “sex” stories.)

•  pro-gay legislation – “Pro-gay”? Do you actually mean, “non-anti-gay”?

•  age of sexual consent – 18 isn’t young enough? 

•  controversies regarding topic like abortion, rape, and other issues – That’s not sexuality.

•  freely available contraception – Contraception is fully available all around.

•  the need to fetishise, ritualise, or label normal sexual behaviour or culture (your own use of the term "one night stand culture" being an example of that) – I’m part of the married culture, and the parent culture, and Southern culture, the gamer culture, the ENWorld culture, etc. Identifying something as a culture doesn’t mean it’s labeled as out of the normal behavior.

Bullgrit


----------



## Dannyalcatraz (Feb 20, 2014)

> legal or decriminalized prostitution – Don’t have this.




Actually, we do in the counties surrounding Las Vegas, Nevada...though not in Vegas itself, it should be noted.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 20, 2014)

Dannyalcatraz said:
			
		

> EVERY country has got some issues with respect to sexuality.



Like I said earlier, just because Saturn is smaller than Jupiter doesn't mean Saturn is a small planet. If Europe is Jupiter with sexuality, and America is Saturn, (or even Neptune*), doesn't mean America is a small planet of sexuality. No one would put Saturn in the size catagory with Mercury.

Bullgrit

*Avoiding the obvious joke.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 20, 2014)

Janx said:


> I would agree with that.  We have girls now that don't feel good about themselves after a one night stand because they feel cheap and used by the guy.



But does she feel used and cheap because of the negative view of  the sexuality of women a lot of cultures have and a lot of women internalize? 

Your post is a good example of this everyday sexism. Women are presented as victims when it comes to sexuality, like they can't enjoy it on a pure recreational level, that men are generally predators and women need a bit of protection from us (cause they can't protect themselves or make the right decision).


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 20, 2014)

> Actually, we do in the counties surrounding Las Vegas, Nevada...though not in Vegas itself, it should be noted.



Yeah, I know. But I didn't want to use that one example as others here use single instances to suggest that America is fine with prostitution.

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> •  age of sexual consent – 18 isn’t young enough?



The body is ready for sexual intercourse at a younger age (generally) and sexual urges pop up earlier than that.



> •  controversies regarding topic like abortion, rape, and other issues – That’s not sexuality.



It's not!?


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 20, 2014)

Two quick points ...

Not sure if contraception is freely available.  Certainly, you can get it in drug stores, sure, but there is push back, for example, to condom distribution programs, and there are issues with insurance and contraceptives.  Questions, too, about what a guidance councilor is to do when asked questions about sexuality and/or contraceptives.

About safety in New York ... what I thought I read somewhere was that a part of the bias is to neglect the _lack_ of safety elsewhere.  Not that New York should be thought of as safer, but that other places that don't have the reputation for being unsafe, are quite unsafe.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

I'll just grab a couple of quick points, as I'm winding down for the day.  But your replies are very much leading me from "I don't know what it's like over there" to "yeah, it does sound a bit repressed".



Bullgrit said:


> (Curious: Did the UK release of _The Full Monty_ actually show  the full Monty of the main characters at the end, on stage? The version I  saw here in the US did not show it, just their backsides.)




Never seen it.  



> comprehensive sex education – Some people don’t want such taught by the government.




Exactly. It's the "some people" which are part of a country's culture.  There's no such movement in most countries.



> Lots of sexuality on TV.




Out of curiosity (I don't really know how TV works over there) is it on mainstream broadcast TV, or cable channels ? How would you characterize it?  Someone earlier cited _Baywatch_, which I wouldn't group as such. I've seen stuff like _Spartacus_ or _GoT_, but are those on premium cable channels over there or general free broadcast TV?  (Is the term "network TV over there?  I'm not sure.)



> attitudes of voters or media regarding the sex lives of politicians –  Politicians who are involved in “sex scandals”




The fact that it's a "scandal" is the issue. There are many places where folks just aren't interested in the private lives of their politicians as long as they do their jobs right; those things that would be scandals in one place are not elsewhere.



> Also, it’s not about  their sex lives, it’s usually about affairs, prostitution,




Again, sexual repression isn't about the act of sex.  It's about those very issues.



> pro-gay legislation – “Pro-gay”? Do you actually mean, “non-anti-gay”?




I don't know what the commonly used term is in your country, but here the term "pro-gay" is used to mean "not discriminating against gay people" or legislation such as "enabling gay people to marry". That's an area that lots of countries are still only just getting right - it only happened here in the last year or so (though we had a "civil partnership" equivalent before that). 



> age of sexual consent – 18 isn’t young enough?




It's 16 here and in many other Western countries.  So many cultures would say no.



> controversies regarding topic like abortion, rape, and other issues – That’s not sexuality.




It's part of the discussion, for certain, and always has been.



> freely available contraception – Contraception is fully available all around.




I wasn't trying to imply it wasn't available, but that it wasn't free (I'm not even saying it_ isn't _free in your country - I've absolutely no idea - just that as an area of discussion free contraception is one primary indicator of a society's attitude towards sexual issues).

But anyway, <!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention --> @_*Bullgrit*_ <!-- END TEMPLATE: dbtech_usertag_mention -->, in answer to your initial question - these are the things people mean when they talk about sexual repression.  It's clear that you feel strongly that the label does not apply to you country, which is fine (and others here clearly strenuously disagree with you).   I personally think the UK is likely fairly similar ot the US in this, and places like The Netherlands and Italy make both countries look pretty puritanical (certainly compared to here; I'm only hazarding a guess at the US).


----------



## Olgar Shiverstone (Feb 20, 2014)

My wife and I have two night stands, one for each side of the bed. But I can certainly see the viability of a one night stand culture for all the folks sleeping one to a bed, or for couples willing to share -- or for that minority which sleeps in twin beds with the night stand between them.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

tomBitonti said:


> Not sure if contraception is freely available.  Certainly, you can get it in drug stores, sure, but there is push back, for example, to condom distribution programs, and there are issues with insurance and contraceptives.  Questions, too, about what a guidance councilor is to do when asked questions about sexuality and/or contraceptives.




By "freely available" I mean "available for free". I may have phrased it clumsily.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

Richards said:


> Personally, I've never understood the one nightstand culture.  To me, that just makes the bedroom look lopsided and off-balance.  I definitely prefer two nightstands, one on either side of the bed.  That way, I've got room for my stuff in mine, and my wife has room for her stuff in hers.  And, it goes without saying, it makes the bedroom more symmetrical.






Olgar Shiverstone said:


> My wife and I have two night stands, one for each side of the bed. But I can certainly see the viability of a one night stand culture for all the folks sleeping one to a bed, or for couples willing to share -- or for that minority which sleeps in twin beds with the night stand between them.




Hah!


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2014)

Janx said:


> Now if Girl A is just into a one night stand with the guy, she's probably going to be fine.  But Girl B wasn't doing it as a recreational activity.  And for a lot of people, it is not just a recreational activity.




I don't have the study on hand, but it is a bit deeper than that.  If Girl A is intellectually okay with it, that doesn't mean her neurochemistry is okay with it.  Acts of intimacy (not limited to sex, by the way, but sex generally has the strongest impact) result in release of hormones in the human body, and those have impact on your neurochemistry.  For some, the act of repeatedly initiating the bonding process without actually forming bonds leads to a neurochemically depressed state.  What you think you want has nothing to do with it - like a diabetic who *wants* that piece of cake, having it is still a bad idea.

The study, in fact, focused on men.  The basic scenario is this: Gent feels low, decides to go hook up (because sex is fun, and getting some means he's a Real Man, so he'll be happy afterwards).  But it doesn't help - he's still depressed.  Lather, rinse, repeat, and the person is driven into a pretty depressed state, and doesn't know why.  The effect can be seen regardless of what they *think* is right for them, and isn't just a matter of personal belief or social pressures.

Basically - it is possible for a person to be wired to be better off in committed relationships, that not everyone can have casual sex and just be okay.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 20, 2014)

As to contraception:

"Free" as in cost no money, no it generally isn't free. But then, neither is aspirin or water.

"Free" as in availalbe for anyone, yes. I bought my first condom at 16 years old. My first girlfriend got on birth control pills at 16 without her parents' knowledge. (Granted that was 30 years ago.) 

Today, my son could walk to the store and buy a condom for $1. If I drove him, he could purchase a whole box of condoms from the drug store. I don't know how easy it would be for a girl to get pills nowadays, but then pills are chemicals that alter one's body functions, so some control would be probable.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> "Free" as in cost no money, no it generally isn't free. But then, neither is aspirin or water.




And yet, even so, many countries make it free.  As in no money.  Do you see what I mean? It's all relative. What seems "normal" to you isn't to another country.  You find it odd to make condoms free; other cultures find it odd not to.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> •  controversies regarding topic like abortion, rape, and other issues – That’s not sexuality.




Oh, yes they are.  If it is tied to gender, it involves sexuality.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Feb 20, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Exactly. It's the "some people" which are part of a country's culture.  There's no such movement in most countries.



You, that was definitely standing me out to me as one of the "safest" signs that there is still sexual repression, if people are scared that their kids might learn something about sex in school. 

It might also point out the heterogeneity of the country if there is no generally accepted consensus on when children should learn about sexuality, and what they need to know. 

Umbran's example by the way is also something that people should be aware of and in a free society without discrimination and without sexual repression, I'd also say no one should be considered a particularly great or bad person because he engages in one-night stands or doesn't, irrespective of sex. 

But that is certainly a topic we're working on in most countries in the world, and the US is probably not behind or ahead in that area...


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 20, 2014)

> comprehensive sex education – Some people don’t want such taught by the government.
> Exactly.



Having "the talk" with one's kids about "the birds and the bees" is a common thing in America. Most parents do educate their kids about sex and sexuality. (I say "most" like I'd say, "Most parents teach their kids not to get into a stranger's car.") Not liking the idea of government schools teaching about sex to one's children is not the same as not wanting to teach one's children at all about sex. And not wanting government schools teaching sex isn't the same as repressing sex. Schools generally dont' teach religion, but that doesn't mean religion is repressed.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Having "the talk" with one's kids about "the birds and the bees" is a common thing in America. Most parents do educate their kids about sex and sexuality. (I say "most" like I'd say, "Most parents teach their kids not to get into a stranger's car.") Not liking the idea of government schools teaching about sex to one's children is not the same as not wanting to teach one's children at all about sex. And not wanting government schools teaching sex isn't the same as repressing sex. Schools generally dont' teach religion, but that doesn't mean religion is repressed.




I get it, Bullgrit.  You don't think the general perception of your country is accurate; that's clear.  That's OK.  I have no desire to convince you otherwise, and not enough knowledge to know whether such would be accurate anyway.

 I'm only trying to clarify what the debate is about in answer to your question: 



			
				Bullgrit said:
			
		

> Repression? Where'd that idea come from?




That's the answer to your question; that's where the perception comes from.  I'm not arguing the validity of the perception.  I'm just attempting to indicate what issues people mean when they use that term.

I think I've pretty much exhausted my own ability to input into the debate.  I've listed the issues folks generally categorize under the topic at hand, but I'm not familiar enough with daily American life to have any strong opinion about it over there. Most of the stuff I hear about is France, Italy, Netherlands, etc. which are all pretty darn liberal about such things compared to my own country.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Exactly. It's the "some people" which are part of a country's culture.  There's no such movement in most countries.




Um, Morrus, careful there.  There's lots of countries that have enough problems having universal schooling (or even schools at all!).  You won't see a movement to prevent teaching sex education when they aren't trying to teach sex ed.  I mean, yeah, there's probably no such movement in, say, Somalia - but that doesn't speak to their level of sexual repression (which is arguably higher than that in the US), it speaks to their horrible economic situation. 

If you want to limit consideration to First World countries, that's fine, but let us be aware we're doing it.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 20, 2014)

> And yet, even so, many countries make it free. As in no money. Do you see what I mean? It's all relative. What seems "normal" to you isn't to another country. You find it odd to make condoms free; other cultures find it odd not to.



Just because you don't hand over four quarters at the time you recieve the condom doesn't mean you don't pay for it.

But I don't see the relationship between an individual paying a buck for a condom if he/she needs one vs. getting handed one without immediate payment and sexual repression.

Relief from thirst is not repressed, yet water is not free. Would you say alcohol is repressed in England? You have to pay for it.

Bullgrit


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

Umbran said:


> Um, Morrus, careful there.  There's lots of countries that have enough problems having universal schooling (or even schools at all!).  You won't see a movement to prevent teaching sex education when they aren't trying to teach sex ed.  I mean, yeah, there's probably no such movement in, say, Somalia - but that doesn't speak to their level of sexual repression (which is arguably higher than that in the US), it speaks to their horrible economic situation.
> 
> If you want to limit consideration to First World countries, that's fine, but let us be aware we're doing it.




Yes, the conversation is framed in the context of Western countries.  Sorry; I thought that was clear.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> But I don't see the relationship between an individual paying a buck for a condom if he/she needs one vs. getting handed one without immediate payment and sexual repression.




I know. 

Again, I'm not trying to convince you of anything.  I'm going to leave this discussion.  I don't have a position to argue.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 20, 2014)

I think it's the term, "repressive" that is a problem in this discussion. Its use here seems to be overstepping. It's almost like Godwinning the discussion. If you don't believe in freedom at over level 9000, then you're a nazi.

I'll agree that maybe the US is less open sexually than some other well-chosen places, but calling it repressive is far past the truth.

It would be silly for my wife-swapping, orgy-going, nudist neighbor to call me sexually repressive just because I put on pants before walking out to check the mail. Like with most things, there is a long scale for sexual openness, and America is far from the "repressive" end of that scale.

Bullgrit


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Having "the talk" with one's kids about "the birds and the bees" is a common thing in America.



Doesn't calling it "the talk" and talking about birds and bees instead of talking about sex, coitus, penis, etc, point toward a taboo?


----------



## tomBitonti (Feb 20, 2014)

About contraceptive availability: My point was, while they are available, to a degree, they are not as available as is possible, and not without controversy.  Is that controversy simply because there is such a wide difference of views on sexuality?  Is the controversy a symptom of repression?

And, about the amount of sexuality in media.  (And, while we have fits over a briefly exposed breast, we certainly don't shy away from the topic of sex.  See, for example, http://www.vulture.com/2013/01/friends-sex-partners-numbers-chart.html.) The US seems to be quite mixed up about all of this!  The best that I can say is that the presentations are very often unhealthy.  Presentations are both repressive, as well as tantalizing.  I don't know if that works out, on the whole, to being repressive or not, but the overall message seems to me to be quite unhealthy.  I'd say there are likely other psychological diagnoses which result in addition to repression.

Thx!

TomB


----------



## Herschel (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Today, my son could walk to the store and buy a condom for $1. If I drove him, he could purchase a whole box of condoms from the drug store. Bullgrit




A related question is how common it would be for you to drive him (or a daughter) to the drug store for contraception. 

"If we tell our kids about contraception then they'll want to use it" can be interpreted two ways, one repressive and one proactive.


----------



## Umbran (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> I'll agree that maybe the US is less open sexually than some other well-chosen places, but calling it repressive is far past the truth.




With respect, if you're a male heterosexual monogamist, maybe you're not in the best position to see some of what's going on.  You aren't the one who feels their activities are unduly restricted or frowned upon by others.

You think maybe if I go ask a friend of mine who has just had gender reassignment surgery if she feels there's repression she's had to work against, do you figure she'll say, "Not at all, my entire culture was behind my choice!"?


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 20, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Out of curiosity (I don't really know how TV works over there) is it on mainstream broadcast TV, or cable channels ? How would you characterize it?  Someone earlier cited _Baywatch_, which I wouldn't group as such. I've seen stuff like _Spartacus_ or _GoT_, but are those on premium cable channels over there or general free broadcast TV?  (Is the term "network TV over there?  I'm not sure.)



Yes. There's a very clear distinction. Pay cable channels can show more.

Network TV can't show breasts or any other sexual body part (at least, barring exceptions for some educational/documentary purposes). There are also serious restrictions on the type of acts that can be shown. I remember listening to a number of very interesting podcasts on how Battlestar Galactica scenes had to be edited very precisely as to the number of thrusts/moans/etc.

Even on pay cable there are limits. There isn't any real sex of course (which has a lot to do with actors unions and some very legitimate concerns), and the male anatomy is taboo (oddly enough, showing the entire woman doesn't seem to be a problem at all).



> It's 16 here and in many other Western countries.  So many cultures would say no.



Even that is fairly conservative, when you consider the underlying biology. Clearly, relationships with large age differences can be (and perhaps inherently are) abusive, but teenagers having sex with each other is pretty normal. At the moment, an 18 year old and a 17 year old in the US are separated by that age of consent.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 20, 2014)

Umbran said:
			
		

> With respect, if you're a male heterosexual monogamist, maybe you're not in the best position to see some of what's going on. You aren't the one who feels their activities are unduly restricted or frowned upon by others.



Am I the only one who sees a difference between something being frowned upon by some individuals and something being restricted by the culture? And between being frowned upon by a few vocal people and the general culture caring at all? Whose sexual activity is being restricted? (Not counting prostitution and pedophilia.) Some people frown on homosexual sex, but is anyone actually restricted from participating in it?

Looking back at the OP, some people frown on casual one night stand sex, but no one is restricted from it by the culture. It's a common thing.



> You think maybe if I go ask a friend of mine who has just had gender reassignment surgery if she feels there's repression she's had to work against, do you figure she'll say, "Not at all, my entire culture was behind my choice!"?



Again, is repression the word to use? Not supporting something isn't the same as repressing something. I don't support my local sports team. 

According to Dictionary.com
repress
1. to keep under control, check, or suppress 
2. to keep down or suppress
3. to put down or quell
4. to reduce (persons) to subjection

Your friend got reassignment surgery. Legally, yes? By a certified doctor, yes? Any government or cultural *actual* blocks to the procedure, no? Does she have to live in secret? Will she suffer legal or career consequences if someone finds out she was once a he?

Sure, if she goes around wearing the change on her sleeve, so to speak, then, like Janx said earlier, some trolls will step up. But has the society, the culture repressed -- suppressed, controlled, or subjected -- her?

Alcohol and firearms are more restricted and controlled than sex, but no one ever says America is repressive about alcohol and firearms.

Bullgrit


----------



## Janx (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Just because you don't hand over four quarters at the time you recieve the condom doesn't mean you don't pay for it.
> 
> But I don't see the relationship between an individual paying a buck for a condom if he/she needs one vs. getting handed one without immediate payment and sexual repression.
> 
> ...




And be aware that colleges and Planned parenthood give away condoms and birthcontrol (not all).

Meaning literal free as in beer happens in some places.

availability wise, birth control is available to anybody with the means to shop at the drug store.

Nobody's shaming anybody while they purchase the condom.

The qualification is necessary, because countries that give away condoms probably also give away health care.  America doesn't work that way presently (not intended as a value judgement).


----------



## Herschel (Feb 20, 2014)

If ytou want an example of repression in current events I give you the States of Kansas and Idaho. The Kansas House easily passed a bill allowing segregation of gays but the State Senate surprisingly came to their senses last week.

Now Idaho is not only trying to enact similar legislation, but the state is also submitting legislation that would overrule local and municipal anti-discrimination ordinances.


----------



## Janx (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Am I the only one who sees a difference between something being frowned upon by some individuals and something being restricted by the culture? And between being frowned upon by a few vocal people and the general culture caring at all? Whose sexual activity is being restricted? (Not counting prostitution and pedophilia.) Some people frown on homosexual sex, but is anyone actually restricted from participating in it?




Exactly.

dipping into history, in the 90's a US president was getting impeached for sexxing up his intern.  His popularity was at the highest point during that time.  Meaning more of the population LIKED him than the people in control of the government who were trying to fire him.

This is in direct contradiction to "people in sex scandals are shunned"


There is a vocal minority raising a stink about gays getting married or other sex related issues about teaching sex ed in school.  Most parents do not object to their kid being taught evolution or sex ed.

It is the same demographic of people (whom I will endeavor to not label) who object to both as a general stereotype.


Given that most Americans don't vote, it is more probable that they don't care what about these issues, at least not enough to take action.  They mind their own business.  Call them True Neutral in that they ain't getting involved.

I would not assume they count towards the "against sex stuff" side of things.


----------



## Alzrius (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> •  age of sexual consent – 18 isn’t young enough?




Just as a note, the idea that 18 years old is the age of consent in America is a pervasive misrepresentation. In fact, while federal laws regarding crossing state lines to engage in criminal sexual activity with a minor (and transporting a minor across state lines for the purposes of criminal sexual acts) do define "minor" as being under 18, the actual age at which minors can consent to having sex is defined by each state.

Currently, thirty states (and the District of Columbia) set that age as being 16, and another eight states set it as being 17. Only twelve states have the age of consent being 18. (Though there is a federal law that requires someone to be age 18 to consent to being depicted in pornography.)


----------



## Ahnehnois (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> no one ever says America is repressive about alcohol and firearms.



Not to get too political, but there are definitely some people that say both of those things, pretty loudly and exerting quite a bit of influence.

For one think, the drinking age on the books is pretty ludicrous compared to the rest of the civilized world (and relative to what people are actually doing). People have been complaining that you can join the army three years before you can drink a beer for quite a while. Not that there aren't rampant problems with alcohol abuse. Repression can, arguably, be justifiable. It is, however, in our case quite illogical how it is done.



> Am I the only one who sees a difference between something being frowned upon by some individuals and something being restricted by the culture?



Given that those individuals often make consequential decisions that affect large swaths of people (such as laws and court decisions), these two things are not necessarily all that separate.


----------



## bone_naga (Feb 20, 2014)

Alzrius said:


> Just as a note, the idea that 18 years old is the age of consent in America is a pervasive misrepresentation. In fact, while federal laws regarding crossing state lines to engage in criminal sexual activity with a minor (and transporting a minor across state lines for the purposes of criminal sexual acts) do define "minor" as being under 18, the actual age at which minors can consent to having sex is defined by each state.
> 
> Currently, thirty states (and the District of Columbia) set that age as being 16, and another eight states set it as being 17. Only twelve states have the age of consent being 18. (Though there is a federal law that requires someone to be age 18 to consent to being depicted in pornography.)



The military also sets the age of consent at 16, although you still have to abide by the laws of the state.


----------



## bone_naga (Feb 20, 2014)

Ahnehnois said:


> Not to get too political, but there are definitely some people that say both of those things, pretty loudly and exerting quite a bit of influence.



Quite true, although to be fair even the most pro-gun people don't claim that the US is repressive compared to other countries, only that it is repressive in comparison to their view of the Constitution. But I don't think we can delve any further into that matter.



Ahnehnois said:


> People have been complaining that you can join the army three years before you can drink a beer for quite a while.



Technically four years, but I agree.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> Am I the only one who sees a difference between something being frowned upon by some individuals and something being *restricted *by the culture? And between being frowned upon by a few vocal people and the general culture caring at all? Whose sexual activity is being *restricted?*




Bolding mine. With all due respect, Bullgrit, you're moving the goalposts and inventing new terms.  Nobody is being "restricted"; nobody in this thread has even used that word.

We started by talking about a culture of sexually repressed people; an attitude.  You moved that to "repression" which is another thing entirely; a collective action.  Now you're talking about _"restriction"_ which is yet another entire level of action common only to places like Iran.  These three things are_ not_ the same thing, and it's important you see that.

A sexually repressed culture is not one that necessarily is restricted in any way.  I don't think we're all talking about the same thing. I think maybe some time spent abroad might help you to understand that basic cultural assumptions are different in different places, and what you see as "the norm" is not the norm anywhere but "the place where I am right now".


----------



## Morrus (Feb 20, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> but no one ever says America is repressive about alcohol and firearms.




Not about firearms, no.  You're the world's most gun-happy nation, and proud of it. 

Alcohol? If by "no one" you mean "everyone", sure.  You're positively paranoid about it.  Can't drink till you're 21 (but can vote or give your life in war years before then), ask clearly mature adults for ID to buy alcohol, have a whole "thing" about mixing drinks like kids mixing crayons to make cocktails, developed a whole range of rituals and language to address things which most countries just call "drinking" - you're known the world over for being repressed about alcohol.  America is known as a country fascinated with yet utterly repressive about alcohol by - well, 7 billion minus 300M people, whatever that is?  6.7 billion people. Less the super-religious middle eastern people.

Here's a question: is it honestly news to you that the world views your country in these ways? It sounds like it is, but every American I've met has known that (they sometimes disagree, which is fine, but it's never seemed to be actual new information to them).


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 20, 2014)

Not to mention some cultures do not have minimum drinking ages.


----------



## Janx (Feb 20, 2014)

Morrus said:


> Not about firearms, no.  You're the world's most gun-happy nation, and proud of it.
> 
> Alcohol? If by "no one" you mean "everyone", sure.  You're positively paranoid about it.  Can't drink till you're 21 (but can vote or give your life in war years before then), ask clearly mature adults for ID to buy alcohol, have a whole "thing" about mixing drinks like kids mixing crayons to make cocktails, developed a whole range of rituals and language to address things which most countries just call "drinking" - you're known the world over for being repressed about alcohol.  America is known as a country fascinated with yet utterly repressive about alcohol by - well, 7 billion minus 300M people, whatever that is?  6.7 billion people. Less the super-religious middle eastern people.




Remember that post where I said that America has some hypocrisy/duality isssues?

Alcohol's another one of those.

We don't know how to handle alcohol.

Send an American employee to the French office (say the 2nd largest oil company in the world) .
Take him to the lunch room.  Where he's amazed to see caraffes of wine on every table.

The american idiot will drink himself stupid.  Never noticing that all the french employees have ONE glass of wine with their meal.  The American will then be sent home after lunch, as he is clearly too drunk to work.

A stereotype of americans not practicing moderation, but also a true story and common occurance at said company.


----------



## Bullgrit (Feb 21, 2014)

Morrus said:
			
		

> Nobody is being "restricted"; nobody in this thread has even used that word.



I even quoted Umbran's use of that word in the post you quoted:







			
				Umbran said:
			
		

> With respect, if you're a male heterosexual monogamist, maybe you're not in the best position to see some of what's going on. You aren't the one who feels their activities are unduly *restricted* or frowned upon by others.



Bold my own.



> you're moving the goalposts and inventing new terms....
> We started by talking about a culture of sexually repressed people; an attitude. You moved that to "repression" which is another thing entirely; a collective action.



*I'm* inventing new terms? Seems to me you're inventing new definitions for variations of the same term: repress, repressed, repression, repressive. I even included the definition in one of my posts, yet some apparently keep using it in a different meaning. You're saying that a people can be repressed without the culture having any repression?

Some people here are using repressed to mean less than maximum. Like if France is a 10 on sexual openness, America is repressed because it's an 8.

I didn't bring repression into this conversation. I responded to someone else bringing it in. Check post #7. Others bring in the term, and when I ask why, I'm told that I am the one talking about it? Dude, read all the posts, not just mine. And if you read just mine, at least read the quotes from others that I include. My posts are responses.



> I don't think we're all talking about the same thing.



Apparently. I'm responding to specific quotations. You're responding to me as if the quoted posts don't exist.



> I think maybe some time spent abroad might help you to understand that basic cultural assumptions are different in different places, and what you see as "the norm" is not the norm anywhere but "the place where I am right now."



I fully understand this. I'm not a yokel. I am not saying that America is completely sexually open with absolutely no hangups at all. I know other cultures have more sexual openness, less sexual hangups. I know this. I think I've even stated this before. But, again, being less open than the most open doesn't make for repression. By your own admission, the UK is less open than France or Brazil. Is the UK sexually repressed?

Hmm. Maybe it's a case of "anything less open than my own culture is repressed." France would say England is sexually repressed. Brazil would say France is sexually repressed. Las Vegas would say everyone is sexually repressed. Maybe it's not an objective scale, but a subjective one based on your own culture. This might be our overall problem in this thread. I've been talking about an objective scale of open--repressive, and you're talking about a subjective scale (anything less open than mine is repressive).

Like I've analogized before, Saturn is not a small planet even though it is smaller than Jupiter. (But maybe Saturn would call Neptune "small"? Would Neptune be right in arguing against the "small" label? What would a passing asteroid say to that?)

Maybe a door would be a better analogy. At what point is a door open or closed. I'd say a door is open if I can get through it without having to move it. (I'd say this is the US, on the topic of sexuality.) A door is closed if I can't get through it without pushing it. My door may be less open than yours, but saying my door is closed is not right.

Iran has been brought up. That is a sexually repressed culture. It is sexually repressive. For instance, people are killed. It's not a matter of just not being as open as France. It's actively *repressive*; it's not just a comparison. (Can't get through the door without pushing it.)



> Here's a question: is it honestly news to you that the world views your country in these ways? It sounds like it is, but every American I've met has known that (they sometimes disagree, which is fine, but it's never seemed to be actual new information to them).



No, it is not a surprise that other countries have a mistaken view of America. But it is surprising to essentially be told I should accept those mistaken views because, well, non-Americans believe them.

I don't have the time or stamina to keep up this discussion. But in writing this post, I do think I see the problem in communication. Like I said above, it seems some people are using a subjective scale for calling repression. Any step down from complete sexual openness is repression. Any restriction, like nudity on TV, or prostitution, is repression. I think that is misusing the term, and so misrepresents reality.

[The alcohol thing, yeah, I shouldn't have made that comparison. I don't drink, so I forget the limitations the US has on it.]

Bullgrit


----------



## Homicidal_Squirrel (Feb 21, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> No, it is not a surprise that other countries have a mistaken view of America. But it is surprising to essentially be told I should accept those mistaken views because, well, non-Americans believe them.



If it was only people outside of the U.S. telling you that the U.S. is sexually repressive, you'd have a stronger point, but that's not what's happening. Plenty of people that live within the U.S., that were born in the U.S., that have grin up in the U.S. are telling you the U.S. is sexually repressive. So it's not as wrong a view of the U.S. as you'd like to think.


----------



## Morrus (Feb 21, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> No, it is not a surprise that other countries have a mistaken view of America. But it is surprising to essentially be told I should accept those mistaken views because, well, non-Americans believe them.




Again, not at all. I'm really sorry, Bullgrit. I appear to be angering you, and I don't intend to.

Let me reiterate again - I am only pointing out what the external perception is; I'm not qualified to comment on the reality. It may well all be myth or nonsense! 

You asked where these views came from and seemed surprised to hear then. I'm trying to explain that they do exist. I'm not trying to vouch for or argue their validity - they may be accurate or they may not; I honestly don't know. But they exist nonetheless. And I understand that you so not agree with them.

As I said when I entered the discussion - we're all often stereotyped, and it's an uncomfortable thing. Fortunately people like you and I (middle aged white males) suffer the least of this out of anybody in the world, and that we do suffer is largely trivial and harmless.



> France would say England is sexually repressed.




Oh, I assure you that the French say _precisely_ that. 

As I said starting out -- it's all relative. That's an important thing to keep in mind. There aren't any absolute values.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 21, 2014)

Bullgrit said:


> You're saying that a people can be repressed without the culture having any repression?



Repression doesn't mean physical violence and/or constraint. It can mean social stigma, like people looking down on you or ignoring you reusing to serve you at a restaurant, etc. It fits with the definition you gave of repression. 

Someone quote me cause I think I'm on his ignore list and he thinks repression means physical repression.



> Some people here are using repressed to mean less than maximum. Like if France is a 10 on sexual openness, America is repressed because it's an 8.



No one said France was a 10. It just is less repressed than the USA.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 21, 2014)

Point of order: You cannot convince someone of anything once they very obviously decide to refuse to listen to any points brought up that contradict their beliefs.  It's a fun, interesting thread - don't get me wrong - but I think it's pretty apparent that at least one participant has refused to engage.  Some offer examples, for instance, that he simply handwaves away.  You can't discuss with that.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> Point of order: You cannot convince someone of anything once they very obviously decide to refuse to listen to any points brought up that contradict their beliefs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 21, 2014)

goldomark said:


> I disagree.




No you don't.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> No you don't.



From my personal experience I can only come to the conclusion of disagreement.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 21, 2014)

goldomark said:


> From my personal experience I can only come to the conclusion of disagreement.




No you can't.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 21, 2014)

Zombie_Babies said:


> No you can't.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 21, 2014)

I'm happy to see that you're beginning to see things my way.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 21, 2014)

In  Lincoln Laser Vision?


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 21, 2014)

Exactly.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 21, 2014)

Wrong.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 21, 2014)

Not quite.


----------



## Kramodlog (Feb 21, 2014)

I accept your concession.


----------



## Zombie_Babies (Feb 24, 2014)

Oh-ho!


----------

