4 ms·
That time period is so markedly different from ours, the comparison is useless.
by vjulian 1y ago
That time period is so markedly different from ours, the comparison is useless.
- swagasaurus-rex 1y agoIt was just 60 years ago, and most cultures in the world today still practice this form of sexual modesty.
- vjulian 1y agoHow’s that working out? Overbearing control over sex is not only unnecessary, it’s the problem. It’s also so exceptionally culturally ingrained, people immediately and emotionally come to its defence.
- swagasaurus-rex 1y agowhats the problem?
- cindyllm 1y ago[dead]
- al_borland 1y agoIt worked for hundreds, or maybe, thousands of years. What we’ve been doing for just some decades is already leading to talks of population collapse. Maybe that way wasn’t wrong.
- codedokode 1y agoMaybe because women didn't work then?
- vjulian 1y agoSex was great back then? For women? Gays? Who? The point you make is backward-looking. I suggest we as a culture look forward instead.
- ta8645 1y ago> Sex was great back then? Yes, obviously; there was a much higher reproductive rate. It seems like you're talking about enjoyment or something else, but that really wasn't the focus of this thread.
- al_borland 1y agoWhat do you mean by “great”? It was successful in reproduction. That’s what we’re talking about here. People were having families and raising children that went out to have families and raise children. Gay couples can’t have children (outside of adoption or surrogacy), so I’m not sure how that is relevant to the topic at hand. Gay couples will not be helping with the next baby boom. We made a change in the culture, from the standpoint of the species continuing to survive into the future. The change put us on what looks like a worse path. Would it not be wise to question those changes to see where it went wrong and course correct, just like we’d do if this was any other problem in any other domain?
- vjulian 1y agoThat you’re focusing on “reproduction” and factoring out the pleasure of sex is a vestige of religion and speaks to the very heart of the problem.
- al_borland 1y agoThis has nothing to do with religion, and everything to do with not having the population collapse, because we've become so focused on pleasure that we forgot why there is a biological advantage to it being pleasureful... to do it more and reproduce more. But modern technology has eliminated that pesky side effect of children. The pleasure can and does still exist. It's not like it gets removed when sex is ends in a pregnancy. It doesn't have to be some mechanical act, the way you seem to be framing it.
- pyuser583 1y agoWhile this may be true, it would be helpful if you would explain what the differences are and how they make the comparison useless.
- mensetmanusman 1y agoThe people today who proscribe to these beliefs are the only people above 2.1, it will be the future due to natural selection of culture.