What's the deal with sex?

[Aristoddler]

It feels good and we're desensitized by the media and it's influences on our lives, in an attempt to emulate success we have grabbed a hold of the one thing that is easiest to attain that we see in the movies.

[Fido]

Originally Posted by Aristoddler

It feels good and we're desensitized by the media and it's influences on our lives, in an attempt to emulate success we have grabbed a hold of the one thing that is easiest to attain that we see in the movies.

Not to deny that the right girl is always a sign of success and status; the fact is that economic exploitation always leads to sexual exploitation.

The question I have is, is this situation sustainable? Law, and economics have put such a great strain on communities and families that it makes parents seem both cruel and foolish. Where is the trust that should bind families together? I think it takes a great deal of trust to drop your drawers around a stanger, but then to engage is sex takes much more. How is it that people who are yet children dare to trust strangers when they will not trust their own families, or their churches, or their schools, or their state on the subject of sex?

I think the only way to account for it is that treating children as individuals, which is forced upon families, when what in the past was normal was for children to be wards of their families and communities, and so deriving their identity exclusively from their families and neighbors, as one of that group, -has left children seeking love, support, happiness, and understanding in the arms of strangers.

For primitives, the knowledge that they were one of a community with an obligation to bring their group honor, and that the community would stand up for them, was an essential part of their being. We cannot protect our children from strangers, and we cannot protect them from the law, and we cannot protect them from televisions using sex to make their sell. If we cannot protect our own, they feel vulnerable, and at the same time, because they are vulnerable, and we cannot protect them -for having no real authority, we must use the extent of our influence to teach them to fear others, distrust others, and be generally hateful. It is no wonder that children, needing love, reject this message out of a natural hopefulness that sometimes leads to their total destruction.

[madscientist]

Originally Posted by Fido

If we cannot protect our own, they feel vulnerable, and at the same time, because they are vulnerable, and we cannot protect them -for having no real authority, we must use the extent of our influence to teach them to fear others, distrust others, and be generally hateful. It is no wonder that children, needing love, reject this message out of a natural hopefulness that sometimes leads to their total destruction.

interesting thoughts Fido. not too easy to understand why it is like that. But stil some things are unclear. so basically you're sayin that its media that influences children.
but why children "reject love out of a natural hopefulness"? waht exactly you meant - what reasons are for them rejecting it? that they think they dont need it? or that they are taught they dont need it?
and yes its sad its this way... has it only been an issue for the past decades or since beginning of humanity?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by madscientist

interesting thoughts Fido. not too easy to understand why it is like that. But stil some things are unclear. so basically you're sayin that its media that influences children.
but why children "reject love out of a natural hopefulness"? waht exactly you meant - what reasons are for them rejecting it? that they think they dont need it? or that they are taught they dont need it?
and yes its sad its this way... has it only been an issue for the past decades or since beginning of humanity?

Children do not reject love, but seek love in spite of the admonitions of parents and state and religions. Why are young people so needy? I would suggest that we often give children substitutes for love, that are not fit substitutes. I would suggest that we fear to love, personally, and socially, to be thought weird, or perverted, for being clingy. I think the main reason is that we must, from the beginning of life, put children on their guard, because we cannot protect them either from criminals or state. We beat and berate our children because the state, or their neighbors will do far worse if the children do not show great care. We should understand that children in primitive societies did not act out, or become deliquents. In fact, no one could control children in savage (american Indian) society. The children were controlled by an enemy who lived outside the community that was no better than a vicious animal, and by the good will and encouragement of those who lived within. Children were reminded that we, the human beings, behave after a certain fashion. As one native said critically to a white man: We beat our horses, but not our children.

Law works to allow people who are, in fact, enemies to live as neighbors. Law breaks down the power of all communities to support and discipline their own. Law makes even children the equal of adult as individuals. In this sense it adds to their lives in every way a burden of anxiety. Children are unprotected and abused. Children are feared and unloved. Children are sold to, and bought for, not to demonstrate love, which is not felt, but to fulfill an obligation which is recognized. Should it surprise anyone that so many want their own relationships, or that they look to love as the solution to every personal problem? Where is the love? Parents should love their children enough to deny them what they think they want to give them what they truly need, what all humans need: Love. Care, concern, support, sharing, sacrifice, defense, affection, encouragement, love.

I don't have my dogs for any reason, and they are the best dogs I can imagine. They are good for nothing and don't do a dam thing. Yet they seem to crave my companionship, and understand what I am going to do before I think I am going to do it. If I had them as a status symbol the way some people have dogs, or children, I am certain I would be disappointed, if not by them, then by all the people who do not care. People have got to stop having children for their reasons, and begin having children for children, not to care how they act, or what they become, but only to give them the love and the life one has in healthy excess. People who have children to be loved will find hate. People with so much love of life that they need to share often find they need no children of their own. But if one has children, give them what they need only, love, affection, patience, and good council. Then you will find that children reaise themselves given this room and food, and the sunshine of love.

[perplexity]

A large proportion of children arrive unreasonably, with no decision to conceive from one or both the parents, nor so strange because of it.

In early life the World revolves around the child. Then as time goes on the inadequate Parent becomes the inadequate Human Being. A parent who sucks from a child to seek satisfaction does the same with everybody else. It is about the person, not the parent.

---

[Fido]

Originally Posted by perplexity

A large proportion of children arrive unreasonably, with no decision to conceive from one or both the parents, nor so strange because of it.

In early life the World revolves around the child. Then as time goes on the inadequate Parent becomes the inadequate Human Being. A parent who sucks from a child to seek satisfaction does the same with everybody else. It is about the person, not the parent.

---

I agree, I think.

I much prefer the way of the savage. They looked at children fromthe moment of birth as a future friend and support. That is why they were so accepting of strange behavior, and even homosexuality. They knew that person was some one's family, and that was enough. They had the world neatly divided into two sorts of people: Those outside of the community, and those inside. Those inside could do no wrong. -We judge our children too much by outside standards, the standards of outsiders, and should not be surprised when they judge themselves by outside standards like fashion.

In fact we should say to children: There it is. This is your life, do what you want, be who you are, and I will not judge you even if the outside world does. I look at my two kids, both so opposite it is hard to imagine them so like me in most regards. And I judge them, and should not. Both are intelligent, but one has add, is artistic, and so disconnected that at times I fear she is a future psycho killer. The other is large, like myself, beautiful, smart, and a little over weight. She didn't have to break a sweat to get through high school with just under an A average. But I worry about these reflecting on me, when I should worry about my reflecting on them. Who am I to judge? That is not my job as a parent, but is only to facilitate their growth, and freedom from myself and from childhood. If I judge myself, I find I am guilty.

[madscientist]

so what you are saying Fido is that we shouldnt judge our children... and that they need love. which is not given to them.
But didnt really get the stuff about the 2 divisions outside and inside community - so should children be divided or not?

and is love all they need? what other care should be given according to you?
and should parents be hard on their children or not - i.e. should they try to make them according to their qualities and make them obey everything or give them more freedom? is there any definite answer to this?
I know how annoying it is when parents want their children to be according to how they think they should be because that's what they had - but the society changes and the children may not have the exact same characteristics interests etc. So what is your point of view on this? To what extent should parents go into the affairs of their kids?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by madscientist

so what you are saying Fido is that we shouldnt judge our children... and that they need love. which is not given to them.
But didnt really get the stuff about the 2 divisions outside and inside community - so should children be divided or not?

and is love all they need? what other care should be given according to you?
and should parents be hard on their children or not - i.e. should they try to make them according to their qualities and make them obey everything or give them more freedom? is there any definite answer to this?
I know how annoying it is when parents want their children to be according to how they think they should be because that's what they had - but the society changes and the children may not have the exact same characteristics interests etc. So what is your point of view on this? To what extent should parents go into the affairs of their kids?

I don't even know about loving them, just that we should love ourselves. We should love our families and love our communities and what is more should get a hold of our communities and not let them be run from out side. Honor should be more important than love, and love should be everything. Children should be disciplined but with no more than words. The law gives them rights but they should be made to understand they have no right to love, respect, or assistence from their community if they act dishonorably. Period. Chidren should be fed, and watched, watered, and read. They don't really need the tv. The tv sells misery if I don't get it. Who needs it? Everytime they switch off the news they turn on the blues. They forget how good they got it, and then forget that they got it. All they have to learn in life is how to hang on to it.

[madscientist]

Originally Posted by Fido

Honor should be more important than love, and love should be everything.

should it? depends what one means by "honor". is it more important than love if these 2 counter-argue each other? should we only love someone simply because it gives us honor? on the other hand, should we refuse to love someone - e.g. due to racial or social reasons, etc if it costs us a loss of honor? dont think so... i think honor comes with love. But honor from one person differs from that of another one or from that of God or some other being we may or may not believe in.
What is honor in the first place? and is it absolute?

[Fido]

Originally Posted by madscientist

should it? depends what one means by "honor". is it more important than love if these 2 counter-argue each other? should we only love someone simply because it gives us honor? on the other hand, should we refuse to love someone - e.g. due to racial or social reasons, etc if it costs us a loss of honor? dont think so... i think honor comes with love. But honor from one person differs from that of another one or from that of God or some other being we may or may not believe in.
What is honor in the first place? and is it absolute?

Honor and ethics have a lot of area in common. They are not absolute, but tend toward the absolute. There will always be a human factor. Yes, love is about honor too, self honor, honor of the other, honor and offer, sorry I had to do that; but you get my drift, because one pledges their honor more than their love, that should be their first priority. It is not about two people, but two families, and while it, meaning marriage, is formal, it is also a blessing and a curse. So, again, it is not just about two people, but two families, and in addition, bringing children into society with honor. Honor used to be essential. I believe it still is, but money has become as substitute for honor, and as long as honor can be purchased honor will be demeaned.