Morrus said:
Nobody is being "restricted"; nobody in this thread has even used that word.
I even quoted Umbran's use of that word in the post you quoted:
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.
Bold my own.
you're moving the goalposts and inventing new terms....
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.
*I'm* inventing new terms? Seems to me you're inventing new definitions for variations of the same term: repress, repressed, repression, repressive. I even included the definition in one of my posts, yet some apparently keep using it in a different meaning. You're saying that a people can be repressed without the culture having any repression?
Some people here are using repressed to mean less than maximum. Like if France is a 10 on sexual openness, America is repressed because it's an 8.
I didn't bring repression into this conversation. I responded to someone else bringing it in. Check post #7. Others bring in the term, and when I ask why, I'm told that I am the one talking about it? Dude, read all the posts, not just mine. And if you read just mine, at least read the quotes from others that I include. My posts are responses.
I don't think we're all talking about the same thing.
Apparently. I'm responding to specific quotations. You're responding to me as if the quoted posts don't exist.
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."
I fully understand this. I'm not a yokel. I am not saying that America is completely sexually open with absolutely no hangups at all. I know other cultures have more sexual openness, less sexual hangups. I know this. I think I've even stated this before. But, again, being less open than the most open doesn't make for repression. By your own admission, the UK is less open than France or Brazil. Is the UK sexually repressed?
Hmm. Maybe it's a case of "anything less open than my own culture is repressed." France would say England is sexually repressed. Brazil would say France is sexually repressed. Las Vegas would say everyone is sexually repressed. Maybe it's not an objective scale, but a subjective one based on your own culture. This might be our overall problem in this thread. I've been talking about an objective scale of open--repressive, and you're talking about a subjective scale (anything less open than mine is repressive).
Like I've analogized before, Saturn is not a small planet even though it is smaller than Jupiter. (But maybe Saturn would call Neptune "small"? Would Neptune be right in arguing against the "small" label? What would a passing asteroid say to that?)
Maybe a door would be a better analogy. At what point is a door open or closed. I'd say a door is open if I can get through it without having to move it. (I'd say this is the US, on the topic of sexuality.) A door is closed if I can't get through it without pushing it. My door may be less open than yours, but saying my door is closed is not right.
Iran has been brought up. That is a sexually repressed culture. It is sexually repressive. For instance, people are killed. It's not a matter of just not being as open as France. It's actively *repressive*; it's not just a comparison. (Can't get through the door without pushing it.)
Here's a question: is it honestly news to you that the world views your country in these ways? It sounds like it is, but every American I've met has known that (they sometimes disagree, which is fine, but it's never seemed to be actual new information to them).
No, it is not a surprise that other countries have a mistaken view of America. But it is surprising to essentially be told I should accept those mistaken views because, well, non-Americans believe them.
I don't have the time or stamina to keep up this discussion. But in writing this post, I do think I see the problem in communication. Like I said above, it seems some people are using a subjective scale for calling repression. Any step down from complete sexual openness is repression. Any restriction, like nudity on TV, or prostitution, is repression. I think that is misusing the term, and so misrepresents reality.
[The alcohol thing, yeah, I shouldn't have made that comparison. I don't drink, so I forget the limitations the US has on it.]
Bullgrit
