The one night stand culture

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.)

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

Click to expand...

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!"?

Click to expand...

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

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.

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

Click to expand...

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).

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.

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?

Click to expand...

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.

Bullgrit said:

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

Click to expand...

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.)

Bullgrit said:

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

Click to expand...

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?

Click to expand...

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.

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.)

Click to expand...

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

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.

Click to expand...

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.

Click to expand...

Technically four years, but I agree.

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?

Click to expand...

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".