Source of repression in western liberalism

[lemur]

Considering that so many people are concerned about various forms of religious-rooted oppression occurring in secular life through government, I have begun to wonder why there is not universal liberation among secular people. For example, secular people often criticize sexual prudishness and attribute religious restrictions on sexuality to pre-modern and/or irrational superstitions - but what would then account for relative sexual inhibitions among secular people who seemingly hold no form of religiosity or other anti-sexual superstitions? Why don't such people have casual sex with anyone they come in contact with, for example, if they're reasonably sure they can prevent disease, violence, etc.? Why don't they unabashedly discuss their sexual behavior and desires without inhibition or shame? In short, why would sexual inhibition continue once religious taboos are no longer observed? Is there something about sexual repression that goes beyond religion?

Edited January 30, 2011 by lemur

[swansont]

Um, false dichotomy? Why would you expect universal anything, rather than the spectrum of behavior we see, basically everywhere? Why should fewer inhibitions necessarily lead to rampant promiscuity? Removing or reducing the religious component does not automatically turn people away from monogamy. Social structure undoubtedly predates the invention of religion.

[lemur]

Um, false dichotomy? Why would you expect universal anything, rather than the spectrum of behavior we see, basically everywhere? Why should fewer inhibitions necessarily lead to rampant promiscuity? Removing or reducing the religious component does not automatically turn people away from monogamy. Social structure undoubtedly predates the invention of religion.

That's what I was getting at too, i.e. that social-control including sexual control goes beyond religion. But then why so much criticism of religion and relatively little or no attention to non-religious cultures of repression? What makes religion problematic for modern secularism but not other forms of social control?

Edited January 30, 2011 by lemur

[Pangloss]

Hm. Well I suppose there is a certain anti-religious character to the familiar debate about morality in the US. The argument usually goes something like "Americans are more prudish than other Western cultures because of the religious history of the country". As with most boilerplate arguments, it has some basis in truth, but of course it fails to reflect the point swansont made above about lack of religion not necessarily leading to promiscuity. Go figure.

 

Anyway, this seems to be the point you're trying to get at:

 

What makes religion problematic for modern secularism but not other forms of social control?

 

I love socio-political hypocrisies, and all the more so when they make readers uncomfortable, as I expect that one will. Secular-progressives like to think themselves above that sort of thing, even when they reach in to the same toolbox.

 

But in fairness, the side of that movement that focuses on evidence and information (arguably the majority), and not on regulation and deception, deserves recognition for what it seeks. Even if it fails to recognize the softer side of religion and its corresponding benefits.

[John Cuthber]

"Why don't such people have casual sex with anyone they come in contact with, for example, if they're reasonably sure they can prevent disease, violence, etc.?"

Who says we don't?

 

Of course, there's another caveat to add to the list- consent (though you might want to count that among avoiding violence).

The truth that I have come to face is that most of the women I wan't to have sex with don't want to have sex with me.

 

Since I don't like getting my face slapped I don't often ask.

 

I don't see what religion has to do with this and the only moral issue seems to be that I'm disinclined towards rape as a means to get my leg over. That's not a religious argument, it's part of the general principle, included in most religions (but not exclusive to religion) that you should do unto others as you would have others do unto you. There may also be people who don't care about that moral issue, but are kept on the straight and narrow by threat of punishment by society- whether that society is secular or not.

[swansont]

I don't see what religion has to do with this and the only moral issue seems to be that I'm disinclined towards rape as a means to get my leg over. That's not a religious argument, it's part of the general principle, included in most religions (but not exclusive to religion) that you should do unto others as you would have others do unto you. There may also be people who don't care about that moral issue, but are kept on the straight and narrow by threat of punishment by society- whether that society is secular or not.

 

The religious pressure that goes as far as "anything but nighttime, lights-out, married missionary-style intercourse is dirty; do it only to make babies" that is preached some sects. No, this is not some ancient view

http://www.nationalpost.com/Bishops+letter+risks+sowing+confusion+bedroom/4181608/story.html

[lemur]

"Why don't such people have casual sex with anyone they come in contact with, for example, if they're reasonably sure they can prevent disease, violence, etc.?"

Who says we don't?

 

Of course, there's another caveat to add to the list- consent (though you might want to count that among avoiding violence).

The truth that I have come to face is that most of the women I wan't to have sex with don't want to have sex with me.

 

Since I don't like getting my face slapped I don't often ask.

 

I don't see what religion has to do with this and the only moral issue seems to be that I'm disinclined towards rape as a means to get my leg over. That's not a religious argument, it's part of the general principle, included in most religions (but not exclusive to religion) that you should do unto others as you would have others do unto you. There may also be people who don't care about that moral issue, but are kept on the straight and narrow by threat of punishment by society- whether that society is secular or not.

Good post and it turns over yet another stone in the mystery: i.e. has secularization shifted sexual control (both the burden and the determinant power) more to women away from men? I.e. did men used to control (restrict) themselves and women more sexually, thus giving them more say over when and how sex DID occur? Now that culture has shifted to the common belief that men are universally poised for sex at the tiniest beckon of female receptivity, women would gain both more power and more responsibility for controlling (restricting and allowing) sex, wouldn't they?

 

Obviously there are numerous reasons for women not to accept any and all sexual advances, regardless of their religiosity. However, even if they would renounce the promiscuity-taboo, take on male-jealousy and aggression fearlessly head-on, and figure out ways of conquering all possible health-risks associated with sex, I still think there would be limiting factors. The main ones that would survive, I think, would be those associated with aesthetics - both physical appearance and various forms of social status/class/identity but more importantly behavioral conditions for how their partners should think and act. I simply can't see women accepting any and all forms of male behavior as "sweet liberation" and rewarding all men equally for being all they can be in whatever way they feel like. So if the west isn't going to liberate people from all possible forms of sexual-conditional social control, why criticize religion?

 

 

 

[Mr Skeptic]

Considering that so many people are concerned about various forms of religious-rooted oppression occurring in secular life through government, I have begun to wonder why there is not universal liberation among secular people. For example, secular people often criticize sexual prudishness and attribute religious restrictions on sexuality to pre-modern and/or irrational superstitions - but what would then account for relative sexual inhibitions among secular people who seemingly hold no form of religiosity or other anti-sexual superstitions? Why don't such people have casual sex with anyone they come in contact with, for example, if they're reasonably sure they can prevent disease, violence, etc.? Why don't they unabashedly discuss their sexual behavior and desires without inhibition or shame? In short, why would sexual inhibition continue once religious taboos are no longer observed? Is there something about sexual repression that goes beyond religion?

 

Some things that religious people say do have basis in facts separate from the religion in question. Just as religions consider lying, stealing, etc immoral so do secular people for practical reasons. As for sex, some people do have sex with whomever they can. There are some practical reasons not to, especially for girls, since they might not want to get labeled a "slut". Likewise for the men, that sort of reputation could reduce the chances of women wanting to go out with them, and even more so when it comes to marriage. People are biologically jealous when it comes to sex and that is enough to prevent sex from ever being too casual. This can be seen elsewhere in the animal kingdom as well, where I assume the influence of our religions does not extend.

 

And as for religion being opposed to sex, that is also not universally true if you consider the various fertility goddesses and how to worship them.

[lemur]

Some things that religious people say do have basis in facts separate from the religion in question. Just as religions consider lying, stealing, etc immoral so do secular people for practical reasons. As for sex, some people do have sex with whomever they can. There are some practical reasons not to, especially for girls, since they might not want to get labeled a "slut". Likewise for the men, that sort of reputation could reduce the chances of women wanting to go out with them, and even more so when it comes to marriage. People are biologically jealous when it comes to sex and that is enough to prevent sex from ever being too casual. This can be seen elsewhere in the animal kingdom as well, where I assume the influence of our religions does not extend.

 

And as for religion being opposed to sex, that is also not universally true if you consider the various fertility goddesses and how to worship them.

Yes, I think religion tends to regulate sexuality from a pro-marriage (and procreation) interest. Even if procreation isn't the purpose, it still makes sense to protect people from promiscuity that could end up jeopardizing their eligibility in the eyes of potential marriage-partners. If nothing else, there is often social wisdom behind religious rules and mythologies. Plus, most religions I know promote long-term happiness over short-term pleasure, which is clearly a factor in sexual-control, even beyond impressing potential suitors with your (relative) chastity. Does this mean that secular and religious sexual-conservatives have a potential to join forces and that sexual liberation may begin to fade as an unachievable fantasy?

[Marat]

Wilhelm Reich, an early follower of Freud, once pointed out that everyone's wildest sexual aspirations could be fulfilled all the time if society were prepared to be casual about sex, but even though he wrote this back in the 1920s, the idea never caught on, since people somehow seem to prefer struggling needlessly for sexual satisfaction.

 

One explanation for this may be that sexual energy represents a huge force, so if society can repress it and then channel and divert its frustrated energies into various tasks which benefit society more than sex, then society is strongly motivated to repress sexuality by any excuses it can contrive. How much entrepreneurship, military valor, scientific dedication, and cultural self-development would there be if there were no reserve of thwarted libido to invest in other pursuits? As a result, after society has lost religion as a way to repress and divert sexual energy, it has to invent other myths or contrive other blocks to frustrate, store, and divert sexual energy, such as vice laws, censorship laws, myths that every illicit intercourse must result in pregnancy or STDs, exaggerations of the AIDS risk, social theories that women who consent too easily to sex are worthless, etc.

 

Another explanation may be that women can gain social power by creating an artificial shortage of willing female sexual partners, when in fact there are naturally enough for the entire world to be sexually satisfied all the time. By automatically declining sexual invitations unless very good reasons persuade them otherwise, women can become governors of a sex economy they have created, so they get rings from rich men, become objects of everyone's attention just by looking pretty even if they have never bothered to develop their personality or intellect, and are put on a social pedestal because the supply of their half of the human race has artificially been made 'scarce' for sexual cooperation.

[JohnB]

I think people are giving religion too much credit and/or blame.

 

The reason for monogamy are very old and quite basic. We tend to forget that for the majority of human history most people lived barely above the subsistence level with the male doing most of the work that fed his family. This naturally leads to a situation where he wouldn't want to be trying feed children that aren't his. Hence the societal preference for monogamy.

 

Religions just tapped into the prevailing mindset and cemented this into their doctrine. There is nothing surprising in this as at the time most religions were forming, most people were still barely above subsistence level.

 

Rather than secular freedom slowly changing attitudes towards sex, I would suggest that economic freedom for women has been the greater force. The ability of women to be financially independent of men has given them an ability to be "choosier" since the requirement of "Someone to support her and the family" is no longer the primary reason for choosing a mate. In many ways I think the "sexual control" as Lemur puts it has shifted from men towards women, but this is due to economic independence and not secularism.

 

However, it should be noted that this "control" is simply more open now. With the exception of arranged marraiges, while the men appeared to have the control, it was always the women who had the true control. I'm sure that many here, like me, can look back at things done when younger and think "I was crazy to do that". Why did we do it? To hopefully impress the girls and get laid. Basic but true. The women chose their partners and we poor fools spent our time trying to work out what would make them choose us.

 

The ladies let us think we were the ones in control while over the centuries we busted our buns to show that we could provide for them, (one of the uses for Harvest Festivals was to show what a good farmer you were) we learned martial arts to show we could defend them. We learned poetry and literature to demonstrate how "cultured" we were. In more recent times we listened to some of the worst poetry in history to show our "Rebel" or "Bohemian" side, joined causes we didn't care about because the hot chicks did care and we go to "Chick Flicks" to demonstrate our sensitive side.

 

Here's a thought experiment to demonstrate who really has the "control". If all men agreed tomorrow that they would only sleep with women who can walk on their hands and told the ladies this, they would laugh in our faces and wait maybe 24 hours for us to cave in. However, if women decided to only sleep with men who could walk on their hands and said they would enforce it, within 7 days half the population would be upside down. There would be a thriving self help industry covering everything from "Handwalking for Beginners" to "Being the Best Handwalker you can Be."

 

Within a month we would have TV shows like "So You think you can Handwalk?", "The Handwalking Factor" and "America has Handwalkers".

 

The ladies have always had the power, but economic freedom now allows them to use it more openly. The only thing saving us mere males from a lifetime upside down is that women in general seem to like men and simply use their control to allow us to make complete fools of ourselves for their amusement, rather than as a tool for our oppression.

[Marat]

The truly sad thing is that by artificially creating a shortage of female sex partners by their general practice of withholding sex, women have increased their power by creating an unnecessary sex economy at the price of making themselves sex objects. Feminists think that men make women sex objects, but it is in fact women who do. If there were not this artificial shortage of female sex partners and the resultant commodification of women, relationships between men and women could be more like normal friendship.

[lemur]

One explanation for this may be that sexual energy represents a huge force, so if society can repress it and then channel and divert its frustrated energies into various tasks which benefit society more than sex, then society is strongly motivated to repress sexuality by any excuses it can contrive. How much entrepreneurship, military valor, scientific dedication, and cultural self-development would there be if there were no reserve of thwarted libido to invest in other pursuits? As a result, after society has lost religion as a way to repress and divert sexual energy, it has to invent other myths or contrive other blocks to frustrate, store, and divert sexual energy, such as vice laws, censorship laws, myths that every illicit intercourse must result in pregnancy or STDs, exaggerations of the AIDS risk, social theories that women who consent too easily to sex are worthless, etc.

 

Another explanation may be that women can gain social power by creating an artificial shortage of willing female sexual partners, when in fact there are naturally enough for the entire world to be sexually satisfied all the time. By automatically declining sexual invitations unless very good reasons persuade them otherwise, women can become governors of a sex economy they have created, so they get rings from rich men, become objects of everyone's attention just by looking pretty even if they have never bothered to develop their personality or intellect, and are put on a social pedestal because the supply of their half of the human race has artificially been made 'scarce' for sexual cooperation.

Good post - and do you notice that part of male supremacy is claiming that men are more productive than women, and that men are economically dominant? Yet, traditionally male economic dominance and productivity was done in the service of providing for women and children, so in fact men were extracting productive labor from themselves and each other in exchange for sex and family.

 

 

However, it should be noted that this "control" is simply more open now. With the exception of arranged marraiges, while the men appeared to have the control, it was always the women who had the true control. I'm sure that many here, like me, can look back at things done when younger and think "I was crazy to do that". Why did we do it? To hopefully impress the girls and get laid. Basic but true. The women chose their partners and we poor fools spent our time trying to work out what would make them choose us.

 

The ladies let us think we were the ones in control while over the centuries we busted our buns to show that we could provide for them, (one of the uses for Harvest Festivals was to show what a good farmer you were) we learned martial arts to show we could defend them. We learned poetry and literature to demonstrate how "cultured" we were. In more recent times we listened to some of the worst poetry in history to show our "Rebel" or "Bohemian" side, joined causes we didn't care about because the hot chicks did care and we go to "Chick Flicks" to demonstrate our sensitive side.

 

Here's a thought experiment to demonstrate who really has the "control". If all men agreed tomorrow that they would only sleep with women who can walk on their hands and told the ladies this, they would laugh in our faces and wait maybe 24 hours for us to cave in. However, if women decided to only sleep with men who could walk on their hands and said they would enforce it, within 7 days half the population would be upside down. There would be a thriving self help industry covering everything from "Handwalking for Beginners" to "Being the Best Handwalker you can Be."

 

Within a month we would have TV shows like "So You think you can Handwalk?", "The Handwalking Factor" and "America has Handwalkers".

 

The ladies have always had the power, but economic freedom now allows them to use it more openly. The only thing saving us mere males from a lifetime upside down is that women in general seem to like men and simply use their control to allow us to make complete fools of ourselves for their amusement, rather than as a tool for our oppression.

That is funny. Now compare this with a culture of strict religious control, such as some Islamic society maybe (I don't know enough about details from personal experience to specify). If women are strictly forbidden from adultery or divorce, what basis do they have to choose sex partners? If they cannot choose, then what basis do men have to compete? If rape was not forbidden within marriage, as it wasn't until recently, men wouldn't have to insist on sex regardless of consent, but there would be no basis for men to submit to their wife's conditions to have sex unless he legitimately believed she had a headache and it was not a "headache" caused by the fact that she was unsatisfied with his work performance. Now, since I am sounding like a tremendous sexist at this moment, consider if women could get honesty and emotional intimacy from their husband without him averting contact by saying he had a hard day at work and is not in the mood for deep conversation. My point is that all these games of conditional-acceptance to manipulate each other could be eliminated if people were strong enough to walk away from sex or other relationship desires when attaining satisfaction would require lowering oneself to subservience.

Edited January 31, 2011 by lemur

[John Cuthber]

"Wilhelm Reich, an early follower of Freud, once pointed out that everyone's wildest sexual aspirations could be fulfilled all the time if society were prepared to be casual about sex, "

You would need a lot of clones of Angelina Jolie and they would be busy.

 

I realise that might be considered as a rather silly statement, but anyone who cites Freud and his followers is leading with their chin.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

The truly sad thing is that by artificially creating a shortage of female sex partners by their general practice of withholding sex, women have increased their power by creating an unnecessary sex economy at the price of making themselves sex objects. Feminists think that men make women sex objects, but it is in fact women who do. If there were not this artificial shortage of female sex partners and the resultant commodification of women, relationships between men and women could be more like normal friendship.

Three points:

 

1. Misogyny is against SFN rule 1.c, so you'd be wise to back up statements that sound misogynistic with significant evidence.
2. This seems to contradict the obvious evidence. The "female hysteria" craze of one or two hundred years ago existed because men had a strong belief that women were physiologically incapable of enjoying sex, and that women had an obligation to lie there and take it like a warm-blooded masturbation aid. The practice of women willfully entering sexual relationships for their own pleasure is a modern invention. They haven't artificially limited the sex supply -- they've radically expanded it.
3. Your argument implies that women should stop limiting their sexual availability because men are incapable of adjusting to a sex shortage. Shouldn't it be men who learn to pursue deeper relationships with women (instead of purely sexual relationships), rather than women who give up and let men use them how they want?

[Marat]

What I am saying is simple inference from common experience. I don't know anywhere in the world where women are as available for sexual partnership with men as men are available for partnering with women, and given that availability for sexual partnership is a voluntary decision, it logically follows that women's restricted willingness to participate creates an artificial and unnecessary sexual economy where none is needed, since there are naturally just as many men as women, and thus no democraphic reason for the widespread sexual frustration among men.

 

From that it logically follows that the artificial shortage of female sexual partners created by women creates an equally artificial preciousness of the 'scarce' supply of women, and this is what transforms them into sex objects.

 

When a so-called science forum starts making rules which put slavish and dumb submission to the nostrums of political correctness above rigorous reasoning from common experience and logic, then the 'science' forum should change its name to the 'political correctness forum.'

 

My grandfather left Nazi Germany because he refused to subordinate his scientific work to the official political theory of Aryan racial superiority, so I find it strikingly ironic that reasoning here is now similarly censored for failing to match the official political theory that women are perfect and may not be criticized as a group.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Sweet! Godwinned on page 1. Please note that I didn't say you can't criticize women. I said that statements that sound misogynistic should be backed up strongly. Don't put words in my mouth.

 

Why do you conclude that the "sexual economy" is unnecessary? Could women perhaps be right in withholding sex except when they want it? And isn't it the men transforming the women into sexual objects? Why should we move towards more sex, rather than men adapting to less?

 

(I may have to split this off into its own topic soon)

[Pangloss]

The truly sad thing is that by artificially creating a shortage of female sex partners by their general practice of withholding sex, women have increased their power by creating an unnecessary sex economy at the price of making themselves sex objects. Feminists think that men make women sex objects, but it is in fact women who do. If there were not this artificial shortage of female sex partners and the resultant commodification of women, relationships between men and women could be more like normal friendship.

 

What I am saying is simple inference from common experience. I don't know anywhere in the world where women are as available for sexual partnership with men as men are available for partnering with women, and given that availability for sexual partnership is a voluntary decision...

 

I don't believe the first sentence of the second quote above (highlighted in bold). I challenge that perception and demand evidence that it is so. I suspect you are wrong -- that as many women go partnerless in our society as men. What I think you're actually saying is that sexually attractive women are choosier than men in general. And that's an obvious case of observer bias. It's not "women's" fault if the cute ones won't sleep with you.

 

What I suspect is the reality is that both men and women participate in voluntary practices that sometimes result in some men AND WOMEN not having partners.

[John Cuthber]

Hang on,

"I don't know anywhere in the world where women are as available for sexual partnership with men as men are available for partnering with women,"

What?!

Ignoring homosexuality here (and I think we should).

I'm pretty damn certain that the number of women available to have sex is exactly the same as the number of men available to have sex.

It takes two to tango.

I grant that, for example, in my bedroom, there's a shortage of available women, but I think that's exactly compensated for by another bedroom where there's a woman thinking that a man would make things better.

 

It's a pity we don't have eachother's phone numbers.

[dragonstar57]

in a response to the OP perhaps it has something to do with individual issues of self-confidence.

a self confident person is more likely to approach a perspective partner than a shy person and therefore is far more likely to find partners

Why should we move towards more sex, rather than men adapting to less?

 

(I may have to split this off into its own topic soon)

because less is not more

this thread has a general assumption that more is more

imho this is getting a little off topic

[Mr Skeptic]

The truly sad thing is that by artificially creating a shortage of female sex partners by their general practice of withholding sex, women have increased their power by creating an unnecessary sex economy at the price of making themselves sex objects. Feminists think that men make women sex objects, but it is in fact women who do. If there were not this artificial shortage of female sex partners and the resultant commodification of women, relationships between men and women could be more like normal friendship.

 

Haven't you considered that perhaps there are other reasons why women might be biologically or culturally less inclined to sex? For example, if you consider the biological cost and effort required to go from conceiving a child through pregnancy through child rearing until the child is self-sufficient, compared to the effort and biological cost to ejaculate. From a social point of view, pregnancy and its consequences for an unmarried woman brought much more shame on a woman than a man even if caught having an affair, and also increased the chance that the woman would get caught (no contraceptives historically, and no safe abortion either), and that if caught someone would care. Also socially, women had hardly any choice in working especially when with a baby and men were the main wage earners. So is it really a surprise that in the interests of maximum reproduction a man might want to have sex as often and with as many women as possible, whereas a woman would have a far more limited sex drive further reduced by social pressures, and that they might perhaps be more interested in stable relationships than carefree sex? Perhaps rather than wonder about some global yet still secret conspiracy to deprive men of sex, you might wonder that they have any sex drive at all.

[lemur]

Why do you conclude that the "sexual economy" is unnecessary? Could women perhaps be right in withholding sex except when they want it? And isn't it the men transforming the women into sexual objects? Why should we move towards more sex, rather than men adapting to less?

Would it be equally legitimate for a man to restrict his emotional availability to after sex as it would be for a woman to limit her sexual availability to after emotional availability is established? Should conditionality and quid-pro-quo play any role in sexual relationships generally? Should people just have sex when they want sex and have emotional intimacy when they want that and share income when they want to do that without there being any exchanges among different desires/needs? And could people ever be so neutral to want sex only for sex, emotional intimacy only for emotional intimacy, etc. - or are people always going to naturally withhold one thing until they get something else that they want?

Edited February 1, 2011 by lemur

[CaptainPanic]

In reaction to the OP:

I always explained liberalism as a freedom of choice and an acceptance of other people being different, rather than the adoptation of a new set of habits, and thereby merely comforming to yet another group.

 

This means that they will have casual sex, and talk openly about it if (1) they like to do so themselves and (2) the partner likes that as well. But both the liberal person and the partner don't necessary have to like this. It's the freedom to choose and accept what makes a liberal.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a true liberal will actually conform to any set of rules (and change them too if necessary) - but because it is practical, not as a matter of principle. There is a very limited set of rules that almost everybody should conform with, and those are the basic human rights, constitutions and freedom itself.

[Athena]

Considering that so many people are concerned about various forms of religious-rooted oppression occurring in secular life through government, I have begun to wonder why there is not universal liberation among secular people. For example, secular people often criticize sexual prudishness and attribute religious restrictions on sexuality to pre-modern and/or irrational superstitions - but what would then account for relative sexual inhibitions among secular people who seemingly hold no form of religiosity or other anti-sexual superstitions? Why don't such people have casual sex with anyone they come in contact with, for example, if they're reasonably sure they can prevent disease, violence, etc.? Why don't they unabashedly discuss their sexual behavior and desires without inhibition or shame? In short, why would sexual inhibition continue once religious taboos are no longer observed? Is there something about sexual repression that goes beyond religion?

 

When I came of age good girls didn't have sex before marriage. Some did, but didn't want others to know about it. I am unaware of there being words for males, equal to slut, whore, bitch. Amazingly around the world, it is females who treat a loose woman the worst. I believe The Scandinavian countries and India are an exception to this. There are places where people are much kinder and do not attach shame to female sexuality.

 

However, I remember being terrified of getting pregnant. There were no food stamps or welfare, only charity, and it is was socially shameful to be dependent on anyone but a husband. I was raised by a divorce mother, when women were restricted in education and the jobs they could have, and even if they worked the same job a man worked, the woman was automatically paid less. Clearly a single mother would not do well, and on top of her hardships, she had to care for a baby. There are extremely few jobs where a mother can work and care for her baby too. The problems of being a single parent are terrible from my point of view, and I knew if I became a mother, I w was on my own, with no family to help me. And from my point of view this is restricted to the past! I will return to this argument after taking my Great Grandson to day care and my granddaughter to work.

[lemur]

In reaction to the OP:

I always explained liberalism as a freedom of choice and an acceptance of other people being different, rather than the adoptation of a new set of habits, and thereby merely comforming to yet another group.

 

This means that they will have casual sex, and talk openly about it if (1) they like to do so themselves and (2) the partner likes that as well. But both the liberal person and the partner don't necessary have to like this. It's the freedom to choose and accept what makes a liberal.

 

As far as I'm concerned, a true liberal will actually conform to any set of rules (and change them too if necessary) - but because it is practical, not as a matter of principle. There is a very limited set of rules that almost everybody should conform with, and those are the basic human rights, constitutions and freedom itself.

All you are saying is that liberalism is accepting of personal choice where (self)repression is concerned - but the issue remains of what the source of repression is, if not religion. I think numerous replies in this thread have covered various bases for various repressive logics. Interestingly, I don't see any of these non-religious rationales for repression being challenged or fought the way that religion is. It is as if there is simply a cultural movement to replace religious repression with secular forms of repression - but this begs the question of "why call it liberalism?" If the goal is not to liberate people except for the purpose of being free to repress themselves, why not welcome religion as just another means of self-repression?

 

 

When I came of age good girls didn't have sex before marriage. Some did, but didn't want others to know about it. I am unaware of there being words for males, equal to slut, whore, bitch. Amazingly around the world, it is females who treat a loose woman the worst. I believe The Scandinavian countries and India are an exception to this. There are places where people are much kinder and do not attach shame to female sexuality.

 

However, I remember being terrified of getting pregnant. There were no food stamps or welfare, only charity, and it is was socially shameful to be dependent on anyone but a husband. I was raised by a divorce mother, when women were restricted in education and the jobs they could have, and even if they worked the same job a man worked, the woman was automatically paid less. Clearly a single mother would not do well, and on top of her hardships, she had to care for a baby. There are extremely few jobs where a mother can work and care for her baby too. The problems of being a single parent are terrible from my point of view, and I knew if I became a mother, I w was on my own, with no family to help me. And from my point of view this is restricted to the past! I will return to this argument after taking my Great Grandson to day care and my granddaughter to work.

It is practically impossible to combine work with full-time childcare, except maybe for a tiny handful of professions. Economics still tends to favor couples where one partner works full-time and the other parents full-time. Also, informal social traditions/culture tend to favor couples where it is the man that works full-time and the woman who stays home with the kids. Men who are full-time parents probably understand female sexual-caution better than men who work full-time, I would guess. After all, when you have to spend a lot of time alone and waiting for babies to wake up or kids to finish school, you actually have loads of sexual possibilities; but you also have to consider the consequences of marital infidelity, pregnancy, disease, social reputation, and your own sense of self-control. So it is my impression that women have become stewards of their own sexual control (as well as that of men), because they are the ones put in the position of taking responsibility for the consequences of sexual permissiveness. Men are just kept busy working all the time, which gives them the peculiar ability to fantasize about unrealistic sex without any consequences except pleasure and orgasm. Clearly I am generalizing here, and if anything I have made controversial statements repeatedly in this thread for the sake of stimulating free discussion. I think this is necessary because I think the sociological imagination regarding sex and sexuality is subject to the same repressive censorship as sex itself.

Edited February 1, 2011 by lemur