2 ms·
What prior ages had the sense to do was to confine the subject of sex to private discussion instead of flouting it in public. It also shows a greater reverence
by lo_zamoyski 2y ago
What prior ages had the sense to do was to confine the subject of sex to private discussion instead of flouting it in public. It also shows a greater reverence and respect for sexual intercourse and sexuality; it is not like having a glass of water, to cite Kollontai. Our unjust mockery and even caricature of previous ages reflects poorly on us.
Public indecency, both in speech and behavior, is a disaster. It has a horrible effect on human relations.
1. It causes scandal in the traditional meaning of that word. That is, is creates precedent that people will copy, lowering moral standards and causing the spread of bad behavior.
2. It titillates and exploits the effect sex has on human beings in order to manipulate and evade reason. Why do you think sex appeal is such a big part of marketing?
3. It stands behind the rise in sexual abuse we say in the 20th century. When decency is normal, the fear of social consequences of being indecent keeps would-be abusers in check. It gives potential victims an easy way to defend themselves. When indecency is normalized, we become desensitized to sexual mistreatment. Protestations are viewed as unreasonable or prudish, and sexual misconduct is even viewed as funny. These accusations have been used to pressure victims into sex.
That being said, not everything was well in the past. I would also not exaggerate how common or popular some of the literature mentioned in the article was (assuming the interpretations are correct; we tend to read our own presuppositions into history, producing anachronism). Pornography also existed back then, but it was not something most people ever came across. It was mostly the product and province of seedy segments of society.
- RiverCrochet 2y ago> it is not like having a glass of water Sometimes I wish it was. Putting it on too high of a pedestal also has negative effects, including introducing unwarranted guilt and getting into irreversible bad relationships simply because you want sex. I would say has more negative effects thnan being open and honest about it. 1. Scandals are bad due to dishonesty and violated trust in authority, not necessarily talking about sex in public. Societies that repress sexual expression will always treat sexual scandals with more intrigue simply due to repression. 2. People who are easily manipulated will at some point succumb to some type of manipulation including easier-to-do ones like fear-based manipulation. 3. Was it a rise in sexual abuse or a rise in talking about sexual abuse? > When indecency is normalized, we become desensitized to sexual mistreatment. When "decency" as you describe is normalized, we simply don't hear about sexual mistreatment. The social consequences can work both against and for an abuser.
- dsr_ 2y ago> What prior ages had the sense to do was to confine the subject of sex to private discussion instead of flouting it in public Citation, as they say, needed. Counterexamples: The Romans. The Greeks. The Babylonians. The New Kingdom of Egypt. Most of the Indian cultures prior to the British invasion. > When decency is normal, the fear of social consequences of being indecent keeps would-be abusers in check. That would depend strongly on what each culture meant by "decency" and "indecency".
- amanaplanacanal 2y agoWas there a rise in sexual abuse in the 20th century? Or did we just shine more light on an ongoing problem?