Imperious Entertainment
You are here: Home
Blogs There's nothing wrong with a little SEX! Is it? by Geoffrey Alls (revisited) | There's nothing wrong with a little SEX! Is it? by Geoffrey Alls (revisited) |
|
|
|
| Written by Foresight | |
| Monday, 24 December 2007 | |
This scene made me uneasy not because it was extremely raunchy or obscene but because it was in a movie that was obviously directed at kids. For some strange reason I don’t want kids to think the decision to have sex is a one that should be made so loosely. But my thinking maybe outdated and maybe sex isn’t as meaningful as it used to be.
Some people don’t think you should call anyone names or that mankind shouldn’t judge others. These people are misled about the way societies are run and how people coexist. Norms allow us to coexist, they allow us to deem what actions we as a people want to support and what kind of behaviors it finds harmful. Once a society recognizes that certain actions are detrimental, it is up to that society to deter its citizens from that type of behavior. Have we as a society decided that promiscuous behavior is detrimental to us? We have decided as a society that it is detrimental for the government to interfere in our intimate decisions, especially the ones concerning sex and procreation. This means the burden lies on public opinion to shape the norms in these areas. What should the norms be? Do we want to live in a society where sex is meaningless? Comments
(3)
I share the same sentiments bro. To answer your question, i'm not sure what the norm should be but promiscuity should not be the norm.
I'm not sure about advocating 'norms' in the sense that the existing norms don't allow for the unique nature of quite a few groups of people: women, Blacks, Latinos, Native Americans, Asians, the disabled, et cetera. BUT, I'm sure that's not what you're getting at here.
I think promiscuity is still frowned upon. Particularly, in Stardust, the man does not have sex with a bunch of different women (as I recall, he has one woman and he never marries). The emphasis is on sex as pleasurable at the expense of associated consequences. Chaka Khan's "Its yo thang... do what you wanna do.... I can't tell ya who t'sock it to." The norm seems to define sex as release, and with limited reprecussion. The only time that it seems permissible to define sex as 'special' is when it occurs on a special occaision (wedding, anniversary, birthday, etc), is the loss of a woman's virginity, or pertains to a teenage couple. You've taken care to focus on the physical consequences, but the emotive ones (for both genders) are also important. I think the norm should be no sex before marriage; it just makes sense to me for it to occur within the confines of that kind of relationship.
I wrote a paper just like this for my literature class about double standards in society. I am so glad to hear a male share my views. I hate when females say, "If a man gets called a pimp for sleeping around then I should be called a pimp too for doing the same thing." Ignorance. In either case, male or female, that act of having multiple sex partners by definition is promiscuity and should be viewed negativley no matter what sex is engaging in the act. Instead of arguing to LOWER our standards as women to be equal with men, women should argue that the same ridicule a female would face for being promiscuous, a man should have to face as well.
Being intimate with someone is the the closes you can ever be to that person, in every sense. Sex is not something to be taking lightly, contrary to how it is portrayed in the media today. I personally could never date a man who is or was a so called pimp. To me that translates into, "He was a big whore." Copyright 2007. All Rights Reserved.       |
|
| Last Updated ( Monday, 24 December 2007 ) |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
Subscribe
Subscribe to our free week in review newsletter. The "name" field is optional.
Do the Right Thing
Here lies the "Do the Right Thing" poster to remind people what they're supposed to do.
