HTML

Weblog of laszloka

Kíváncsi vagy a véleményemre? Vagy netán csak olvasni támadt kedved? Akkor jó helyen jársz :) Ha szeretnéd, hogy írjak valamiről, ami téged is érdekel, és kíváncsi vagy mit gondolok a témáról, csak dobj egy e-mailt, és majd meglátom mit tehetek... lordofbears[kukac]gmail[pont]com

Friss topikok

  • laszloka: @JánosHunyadi: Well, you have said it all. Due to the lack of experience I have nothing else to ... (2012.03.21. 19:30) Nők...
  • laszloka: Well, in my opinion, this courtesy is not telling the girl, that she is too weak to open the door ... (2012.03.21. 16:26) Tisztelet, udvariasság
  • JánosHunyadi: Well, I also find the ideas implemented by the Swedish nursery very strange - but it IS only one n... (2012.03.08. 18:19) A svéd modell...
  • laszloka: Ráadásul Eger nagyon szép város, szóval aki fikázni meri, azt nagyon szívesen meglátogatjuk a tesó... (2012.02.29. 22:47) Ez a divat?
  • laszloka: @Cvanger: Elfogyott a művelésre szoruló szőlő a környéken, gyümölcs meg van, de messze, és a főnök... (2011.07.18. 14:40) Aminek kezdete van...

Linkblog

Nők...

laszloka 2012.03.05. 20:02

Az udvariasság a női nem iránt érzett tisztelet
tettekben való megnyilvánulása.



Nem olyan régen írtam az udvariasságról, most kicsit továbbgondoltam a témát. Mivel közeleg a nőnap, úgy döntöttem leírom a véleményem egy kicsit a mai világról, és hogy a Nők helyzete (szerintem) manapság miért olyan, amilyen.

A Nő

beauty-eyes-gorgeous-miranda-kerr-natural-woman-Favim.com-100877_small.jpgSzerény véleményem szerint a Nők a legszebb teremtmények a földön. Azért ismerjük el, hogy volt ízlése Ádám apánknak anno. Én például kifejezetten örülök, hogy nem szeretett bele...mondjuk egy zsiráfba. Kicsit furcsa lenne a világ manapság. Így meg, hogy csak egy oldalbordába került, még külön jó is a dolog :)
Azt mondják, hogy a Nők a gyengébbik nem. Háát... nem tudom egyet értsek-e ezzel, vagy sem. Az biztos, hogy én személy szerint semmi pénzért nem cserélnék velük. Egy csomó időt elvesz a hosszú haj tisztán tartása, beállítása, sminkelés, öltözködés... Egy Nőtől elvárják, hogy mindig ápolt és szép legyen, jól álljon rajta a ruha, stb.... Nekünk férfiaknak meg: borotválkozunk, felöltözünk, és máris útra készek vagyunk. Senkit nem érdekel, ha kócos a hajunk, vagy gyűrött a ruhánk.
Másrészről pedig, nem tudom hány férfi bírna mondjuk egy gyereket megszülni. Én még sose szültem, de a beszámolókból ítélve nem egy leányálom... Minden tiszteletem a többgyermekes Anyáké. Persze meg tudom érteni miért vállalják be a következő gyereket, meg az azutánit, stb... Az unokahúgom pl. most múlt két éves, de meg kell zabálni olyan aranyos. És már trollkodik a maga módján :D A nagyanyja a minap azt mondta neki, hogy: "Mondj nekem egy mondókááát! Lécci!!", mire a gyerek: "Mondóka, mondóka, mondóka..."
Jó gyerek lesz belőle :D Családban marad, az biztos :)
Azt viszont nem értem, hogy miért akarják a férfiak minden áron megérteni a Nőket. Ha értenénk Őket, nem lenne olyan izgalmas. Én is kezdem tapasztalni, hogy néha jó lenne tudni, mi jár a fejükben, vagy hogy mit értenek bizonyos dolgok alatt... De ez így jó. Miért is mondják, hogy unalmasak a férfiak? Mert ha tetszik, ha nem, nagyon egyszerű logikánk van. Könnyű minket megérteni. Ezért tudják a Nők egy idő után, még azt is, hogy mire fogunk gondolni két perc múlva. De ez is így van jól. Be kell látnunk, hogy dögunalmasak vagyunk, de a Nők még ilyen unalmasnak is képesek minket szeretni. (Hála Istennek. Különben már kihaltunk volna.) Fordított esetben viszont nem működne. Ha egy férfi valaha teljesen megértene egy Nőt, azzal együtt meg is unná. Tehát, hogy ne legyen alkalmunk megunni Őket, mindig tartogatnak valami meglepetést a számunkra. ÉN SZERETEM a meglepetéseket :)
 

A probléma.

Nos tehát. Ez eddig mind szép és jó. De van néhány probléma manapság. És a legnagyobb ezen problémák közül véleményem szerint az, hogy rengeteg férfi úgy tekint a Nőkre, mintha használati tárgyak lennének. Mintha csak egy célja lenne a létezésüknek, és ezt az egy célt most inkább nem boncolgatnám...
Kb. mintha egy autóról lenne szó, vagy egy serlegről, amit kirakhatnak a vitrinbe, és mutogathatják, hogy: "Igen. Ő az enyém. Felszedtem és most úgy tartom, mint egy virágot szokás." A virágokban az a jó, happy_healthy_woman_small.jpghogy csak locsolni kell őket. Meg néha átültetni új földbe, ha a régi "kifáradt". Az emberi kapcsolatok nem így működnek. Ha tetszik, ha nem, egy nőnek több kell, mint locsolás.
Következő dolog. Kicsit kiakaszt, mikor olyanok, akiknek barátnőjük van, és ráadásul azt állítják, hogy még szeretik is a szóban forgó lányt, úgy megbámulnak más lányokat az utcán, mintha fizetést kapnának érte. "Hűséget fogadtam, nem vakságot", vagy: "Férfi vagyok, ilyen a természetem", mondják mindig, de bakker ez nem így működik! Lehet, hogy kicsit régimódi vagyok, de ezt nagyon nem így kéne. Sőt! Sehogy nem kéne. A szeretet alapja a tisztelet. És ha az ember szeret valakit, akkor azt megtiszteli legalább annyival, hogy nem bámul meg más lányokat az utcán. Szerintem. Egy kapcsolatban véleményem szerint egy szabály van, és az így hangzik: 
Soha ne tégy olyat, amit nem tennél, ha tudnád, hogy a barátnőd látja mit csinálsz.
Mit szólna a barátnőd, ha megbámulnál egy másik lányt az utcán, és netán még szóvá is tennéd, milyen jó segge van? Biztos repesne az örömtől, igaz?

A probléma gyökere.

Hogy honnan indul ez ki? A válasz nagyon egyszerű. Pornó. A pornográfia a létező leggusztustalanabb dolog, amit ember valaha kitalált. Szívből gratulálok Hugh Hefnernek azért, amiért 1953-ban elindította a pornográfia megállíthatatlan lavináját. Persze azelőtt is voltak problémák, de amióta igazán beindult a pornóipar, a helyzet csak rosszabbodott. Mert miről szólnak a pornográf tartalmak? Háát hooogynee... A női test szépsége, meg az élet rendje, meg természetes dolog. Persze. A női test szép, a szex természetes. Isten is azt mondta Ádámnak: "Szaporodjatok és sokasodjatok!" DE BAKKER NE KAMERÁK ELŐTT MÁR! Pont az "olyan" filmekben tekintik csak és kizárólag használati tárgynak, eszköznek a nőket. Mintha autók lennének. Csak elviszik őket egy körre, aztán miisanevedbocs... Mekkora király, nem?? És még azon csodálkoznak a Nők, hogy semmi megbecsülést nem kapnak a férfiaktól. Hát nem is csodálom, azok után, amiket némelyek néznek nap mint nap.  (Akinek nem inge...)
Women_in_Israel_Army_1_small.jpgA dolgok másik fele, hogy a Nők egy része ehhez még asszisztál is, és inkább olyanná próbál válni, amilyeneket "azokban" a filmekben látni, csak azért, hogy jobban bejöjjön a pasiknak, ahelyett, hogy a régi értékekhez ragaszkodnának. Aki képes azért Barbit játszani, hogy utána forduljanak az utcán, az meg is érdemli, hogy csak azért szeressék, amit mutatni tud. Plasztikpicsák FTW.
Még elkeserítőbb dolog, hogy nem ritka a lányok körében olyan sem, aki már az általános iskolás évei alatt elveszti a szüzességét. Ez már igen! Azért ez valamit elárul a társadalom romlottságáról, nemde? Hol vannak már azok az idők, amikor szüzen házasodtak az emberek... Érdekes módon kevesebb volt a válás. Erre vissza lehet azzal vágni, hogy: "Akkor még más idők jártak". Persze. Rég volt, ez tény, de furcsamód két szülő volt minden családban. Ki érti??
Ráadásul a férfiak is rosszul vannak bekötve. Úgy mennek az utcán, mint kiéhezett oroszlánok és folyamatosan azt figyelik, hogy melyik nőstényre vethetik rá magukat. "Eee de jó segge vaaan", vagy: "Cicamicaa! Elvinnélek egy körre!", és hasonlók. "Őt még akár el is tudnám képzelni, mint a barátnőmet" Ez most komoly??
BUTÁK VAGYTOK! Ez nem így működik. A párok már első nap benne vannak egymás szájában, egy óra múlva kirakják facebook-ra is, hogy kapcsolatban vannak, aztán egy hét múlva elmúlik a formás fenék varázsa, és néznek mindketten, hogy: "Na most mi van", mint Jani a moziba. Mekkora király... Annyira nehéz dolog türelmesnek lenni? Hova siettek? Van elég időtök, nem? Két hét alatt már az ágyon is túl vannak, még egy hét és szakítanak, mert megunták egymást, utána meg azon siránkoznak, hogy megint nem jött össze. Pfff... Ki érti??
Aztán, mintha mise történt volna, kezdik az egészet elölről, ugyanezzel a módszerrel. Mondanám ilyenkor, hogy okos ember más kárán tanul, kevésbé okos a sajátján, a teljesen hülye meg a sajátján se. Ha valakinek egy idő után nem esik le, hogy ez így nem jó, az magára vessen.
Lehet, hogy még sose voltál szerelmes, de hidd el, eljön majd a pillanat, mikor meglátsz valakit, és nem az lesz, hogy "
Őt még akár el is tudnám képzelni...", hanem valami olyasmi, hogy: "Senki mást nem tudok elképzelni..." Csak várni kell türelmesen. Ez a titok. Én is ezt teszem. Várok. Aztán vagy összejön, vagy nem. (Forever Alone? xD)

Címkék: vélemény pornográfia nők nemek tisztelet kapcsolatok udvariasság kitartás türelem

18 komment

A bejegyzés trackback címe:

https://laszloka.blog.hu/api/trackback/id/tr424287191

Kommentek:

A hozzászólások a vonatkozó jogszabályok  értelmében felhasználói tartalomnak minősülnek, értük a szolgáltatás technikai  üzemeltetője semmilyen felelősséget nem vállal, azokat nem ellenőrzi. Kifogás esetén forduljon a blog szerkesztőjéhez. Részletek a  Felhasználási feltételekben és az adatvédelmi tájékoztatóban.

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.07. 02:55:54

You write well but I have to say that you seems to have very little knowledge of sexual history. For example, you lament the fact that people lose their virginity at such a young age these days. Well, that is nothing new - until very recently it was common for women to get married (and lose their virginity) in their early teens.

The objectification of women also has a long history. Indeed, I would argue that sexual objectification has been vital for the propagation of the human species - without objectification there would have been no sexual desire (which, by definition, involves treating the other person as a sexual object) and therefore no sexual intercourse. So your contention that pornography is the cause of the current objectification cannot be supported. Indeed, I am sure that most women would agree with me when I state that their situation today vis-a-vis being treated as object is better than at any time in history.

Whatismore, what you would regard as pornography has existed as long as art. It is rather ridiculous to point to Hugh Hefner when the Romans were already mass producing pornographic images. I deliberately wrote "what you regard as pornography" because the concept of pornography did not exist during Roman times - the concept is largely an invention of the Victorians. And even the exhibition of bare ankles was regarded as pornographic in Victorian times, so by Victorian standards we are all pornographers these days.

Oh, and my advice for any couple would be NEVER wait to have sex. Waiting does not do any good whatsoever. The sooner you start having sex, the sooner you begin to discover each other sexually - and I think even a lifetime is not sufficient to fully explore a sexual relationship. If a couple gets bored of sex after a few years then there are other problems in their relationship. If they get bored of sex after only a few months then they probably never really had sex.

laszloka 2012.03.07. 15:52:36

@JánosHunyadi:

Yes. It was common for people, to GET MARRIED at young age, and loose their viginity AFTERWARDS. Not loosing their virginity first and get married after. What is more, the average lifespan used to be much shorter than it is nowadays, thus people were forced to get married as soon as possible.

I understand your opinion about the objectification of women, but that's not the point i tried to discuss. It's not about the objectification during sexual intercourse, but the way men treat women nowadays. When i see women, i don't see them as potential subjects for a sexual relationship, but as other sensitive human beings. The problem comes in, when men look at every women with a sexual desire, or treat them as they would not be human beings, but animals, or even worse, objects, like a flower, as i mentioned. And this is greatly amplified by pornographic material. If we look at women like they are only individuals to be subjected to sex, what else differentiates us from animals, but opposable fingers, then?

I'm not talking about drawings and paintings here. That is called art. But pornography is different. The human body, as i wrote, is beautiful. It's beauty and complexity made it one of the most common subject for artists since the ancient times. But when it comes to pornography, it is obvious, that the aim is not to show the beauty of the human body, but sex itself, which is, in my opinion the most private matter in people's lives, and should not be shown to the public by any means.

Sex is not the primary purpose of relationships between men and women. It is only secondary. The relationship itself; the invisible bond between two human beings, called LOVE is what makes the whole thing beautiful. Sex only seals that bond. But what happens, when there is no bond to be sealed?
Indeed, its up to the reader to decide whether to have sex too early or not, but what I'm asking is: What happens if You are making a cake, but You take it out of the owen too soon. Will it be as delicious as it could be, if You took it out at the right time? I don't think so.
"To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven" /Ecclesiastes 3:1/

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.07. 17:00:16

@laszloka: Your written English is also superb - congratulations!

"but the way men treat women nowadays" - My point here is that men treated women in an even worse way in the past. I am not condoning what you describe - far from it, as I loathe sexism. But I believe you are wrong to imply that there is any recent cause of such behaviour - any cause or causes are at least ancient, if not prehistoric.

"And this is greatly amplified by pornographic material" - Do you have any evidence for this or is it just a personal opinion? You may be right or you may be wrong, but only evidence can lead us closer to the answer.

I think you misrepresent what art is. Art is not about drawing or painting - that is merely craft or skill. After all, house painters are not artists and no one would claim that they are. In its broadest sense art is "the use of skill and imagination in the creation of aesthetic objects, environments, or experiences that can be shared with others." Pornography fits well within that definition of art. Maybe you were referring to "fine art". Any definition or classification of what is or is not fine art can only be subjective. But even by the strictest definitions some pornography is fine art. There are many examples from classical Greece. Few would disagree that ancient Greek statues of naked men and depictions of sexual intercourse on vases are among the pinnacles of classical art. I contend that they are also pornographic. Let's take the definition of pornography as the "explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction." The paintings of sexual intercourse are certainly explicit portrayals of sexual subject matter and though we will never know exactly what purpose their creators had in mind, I believe it is more than fair to assume that one of their main purposes was erotic. Even the statues show strong evidence of being erotic. It is clear to any man who has seen one that the genitalia of these statues are not anatomically accurate - they are too small. I believe this is because they are not purely artistic creations but also pornographic - the ancient Greeks regarded small male genitalia as sexually attractive, so these statues would probably have caused sexual arousal in ancient Greeks looking at them.

"Sex is not the primary purpose of relationships between men and women. It is only secondary." I think this statement is too simplistic. The primary purpose of pair relationships between men and women is (not always, but usually) to produce offspring. Sex is part of this process and therefore is part of the primary purpose of such relationships. To discuss further, we need to define what we mean by love. There are innumerable definitions and concepts of love across the world and throughout history, but I think the ancient Greek concept of Éros is a good proxy for the modern concept of romantic love between two adults. When using this concept of love it is clear that sex (not just sexual intercourse but also sexual desire) does not merely seal the bond of love - it is an absolutely necessary component of love. Without it the relationship is a platonic one.

What happens if you take the cake out of the oven too late? It is ruined and inedible. Better an uncooked cake than one that has been reduced to burnt ashes. However, your cake analogy does not, in my mind, fit in any way with love or sex. Cakes require preparation and a defined amount of time in the oven. Sex does not require preparation though I would argue that it benefits from a certain amount (no more than a few hours though). People can argue about love - some believe in 'love at first sight' and others that true love requires time. It is all very subjective.

"Taste every fruit of every tree in the garden at least once. It is an insult to creation not to experience it fully. Temperance is wickedness." Stephen Fry

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.07. 17:17:19

@laszloka: I've just found a few words by M. O'C. Walshe that provide a very different view of sex to the Judeo-Christian one that is still prevalent in Europe (and which you are echoing in your own views and opinions). In his view, based on Buddhist philosophy, sex is the very opposite of a private matter - it is a completely impersonal force.

"The biological function of sex is obvious and requires no discussion here. But the interesting thing for us to note is how sex — like everything else — is a purely impersonal force. We tend to think of it in intensely personal terms, but in actual fact it is a force that just flows through us and uses our most wonderful and inspiring emotions for its own ends, which are totally concerned with the continuance of the race as a whole. The idea that it is just a private and wonderful thing between you and me is merely a part of our general illusion. Altogether, it is a prolific breeder of illusions. It can lead a man to think he has found the most wonderful woman in the whole world while everybody else is thinking, "What on earth can he possibly see in her?""

laszloka 2012.03.07. 22:37:36

@JánosHunyadi:

Thank you. Although I'm not really sure why are we discussing it in English :)

So, to get on topic...
Does the fact, that men treated women even worse in the past means, that was right to do so? They used to be discriminated, just because they were born females, therefore they weren't ever treated in a way they should have been. As this problem begun to fade away, porn came, and ruined everything women managed to achieve in order to gain equal rights. They have equal rights now (more or less), but how are they supposed to ever attain even the slightest amount of respect? Pornographic material shows a fairly disrespectful way of treating women, and for that very reason I think it has an adverse effect on the attitude of men, thus denying women in gaining the respect of males.

What I wrote so far, was only my personal opinion, but motivated by this discussion, I did some research on the topic.
Let me share some pieces of evidence I found.
"Dr. Dolf Zimmerman and Dr. Jennings Bryant showed that continued exposure to pornography had serious adverse effects on beliefs about sexuality in general and on attitudes toward women in particular."
"Brief exposure to violent forms of pornography can lead to anti-social attitudes and behavior. Male viewers tend to be more aggressive towards women..."
Enough said. No need to explain.

I must apologise for being a little sarcastic. Where i was talking about art, of course i was referring to fine art...
The fact, that the genitalia of those statues are smaller than they anatomically should be, can possibly mean two things: either their creator meant to cause sexual arousal by making them small, as you mentioned, or simply did not want to emphasize the erotic parts of the human body, but the body itself instead.
To be a little sarcastic again, I have never asked women whether seeing the genitalia of those statues causes sexual arousal in them, but I'm fairly sure that no male on Earth gets a hard-on by looking at those creations of art :)

I share your opinion in some aspects. Of course sexual desire, and intercourse are necessary components of love. The seal is a necessary component whatsoever. But what does sex stands for, when two people are having sex, even though they hardly know each other? Is that also a form of love? And yet again, comes the question: What is the difference between two animals mating, and two humans having sex, then?
Éros can be a proxy for concept of the love that spreads nowadays (and can hardly be called love in my opinion). A better form of love is somewhere between Éros and the also ancient Greek concept of love, Agápe. Usually it is mentioned as "unconditional love", or as the unconditional love of God. In ancient Greek, it refers to a deeper sense of "true love" rather than the attraction suggested by Éros. Thats the main point. Attraction itself is not enough to maintain a relationship for a lifetime, and should not be called love by any means. Even if a couple has no sex-related problems, they will naturally grow older, thus becoming less attractive, eventually becoming unable to have sex. What else would be the force, that keeps them together, if not love?

Let's stay at the topic of food. We all love food. Some meals require miniscule amount of preparation time. They are enjoyable, and fulfill our need for food. But some other meals require enormous amounts of preparation time. They also fulfill our need for food, but which one is better? Bread and butter or stuffed cabbage?
Men are more likely to fall in love at first sight, than women. And I can guarantee, that it is possible, but it is not necessarily true love. It is "LOVE at first sight" and not "TRUE LOVE at first sight" Although over time it can become true love.

Every fruit? Nah. Sometimes less is more, if you know what I mean :)

About the M. O'C. Walshe quote, well... I don't have much to say. If the privacy of sex is only an illusion, then i would like to keep on living in this illusion.

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.07. 23:47:40

Well I know why I am writing in English - because it is my first language and Hungarian is my sixth (in terms of chronology, though arguably my third or fourth in terms of ability). I don't know why you replied in English, but I'm happy to read either language :-)

I agree that females were discriminated against just because they were born females. But I disagree that porn changed things - as I wrote, pornography has existed for thousands of years so it did not "come, and ruin everything women managed to achieve". Do you really believe that pornography has "ruined" equal voting rights, increasing equality in the work place etc? If so, why do you believe this? I find it a very bizarre belief, so I am not sure that I understand you yet.

You presented one piece of evidence that pornography has a negative effect, but that is hardly convincing. To begin with, the researchers looked at violent pornography. There is strong evidence that any form of violence portrayed in the media desensitises people to actual violence - the problem here is the violence and not the depiction of sexual activity.

"but I'm fairly sure that no male on Earth gets a hard-on by looking at those creations of art :)" Unless you are homosexual yourself then how would you know? Besides, my point was that this is ancient Greek pornography created to arouse ancient Greeks. There is a lot of Victorian pornography that would not arouse people nowadays, because (for example) depictions of the naked ankles of women are commonplace in modern Western societies.

"But what does sex stands for, when two people are having sex, even though they hardly know each other? Is that also a form of love?" It does not stand for anything and, no, I don't believe that it is a form of love. But, as I wrote before, there are so many definitions of love that I am sure there are many people in the world who would regard it as a form of love.

"What is the difference between two animals mating, and two humans having sex, then?" That is evident - the difference is that the former involves animals and the latter people. Really, I'm not being sarcastic, but that is the only difference. After all, homo sapiens are animals too. Of course, homo sapiens is one of the few species that engages in recreational sex, so it could be valid to differentiate between animals that only have sex for procreation and those (humans, chimpanzees etc.) that also have sex for other reasons: enjoyment, companionship, emotional attachment...

"A better form of love is somewhere between Éros and the also ancient Greek concept of love, Agápe." I don't know how you can state that one type of love is better than another. On what basis are you quantifying or qualifying different types of love??? I may be similar to you in my personal attitude to love (I would rather enjoy "true love" than any other type) but I cannot intellectualise that and state that this form of love is any better or worse than another type.

"Attraction itself is not enough to maintain a relationship for a lifetime, and should not be called love by any means." I agree totally with this.

I find the following definitions of love the most useful. "I am in love" means I want to be happy. "I love you" means "I want to make you happy".

"they will naturally grow older, thus becoming less attractive, eventually becoming unable to have sex. What else would be the force, that keeps them together, if not love?" Love between a couple changes over time. It may begin as Éros and eventually become Agápe. It seems that you personally would prefer to begin with Agápe - that is a noble desire, but one that is difficult to achieve.

"If the privacy of sex is only an illusion, then i would like to keep on living in this illusion." That is understandable. Everyone maintain illusions - we cannot live without them. I maintain the illusion that there exists a "me" that is a constant and immutable being. In reality we are all undergoing constant change. The "me" of 2012 is not the "me" of 2002.

magichorse 2012.03.08. 01:16:14

Lászlóka is at the stage of idolizing women because he has not had any experience with them yet. It will pass :) The aversion to pornography could be due to religious upbringing.
I partly agree with him on pornography - it has a major impact on teenagers' expectations of sex. There is a recognizable change in what teenage girls consider normal in sex due to their desire to conform to what they believe must be the norm.
It may mislead viewers about other aspects of a relationship as well.

Even the sex itself is far from ideal - female orgasm is often ignored, petting is minimal.

Still, I do not think pornography could be regarded as totally detrimental to the development of sex and love life in modern ages. On the contrary, in my opinion it has played a very important role in the shift from the Christian view of the Dark Ages, where the only purpose of sex was the production of offspring and any pleasure associated to it was condemnable, forcing the huge majority of women to spend their entire life without ever experiencing an orgasm or indeed any pleasure - towards today's view where sex is also recreational, and it should be pleasurable for both partners.
Pornography was the medium spreading this meme to the populace. It has shown very clearly that there is more to sex than a quick coupling in the dark.

So certain trends of pornography can have negative effects, but on the whole it is improving our way of life, it helps dismantling the heavy chains Christianity forced on the human mind on Europe, and helps the gradual return to the ways of the ancient times, when human sexuality was still nothing to be ashamed of.

Indeed, if we lived in ancient Greece or Rome, where couples could have sex even at a public meal and nobody raised an eyebrow - youngsters would actually see real, affectionate sex between well established couples, presenting them with a much better role model than pornography.

Until such time though pornography remains the only widely available model for teenagers.

And as for real love - finding that is a learning process and some exploration is actually recommended. It happens epochs after learning to have sex. It depends much more on the compatibility of the personalities of the couple, and a willingness to adapt and cooperate. It is quite conceivable in my opinion that you could find real love without ever having sex - but not without spending years in very close friendship and regular contact with several members of the other sex. Otherwise you could never really understand your partner. And without understanding there can be no love, only infatuation.

And what a shame it would be to find a woman who perfectly complements your personality and marry her without ever having sex, only to find out that you are incompatible sexually, then live your life without ever enjoying your relationship the way you could have. Without sex, love withers. Without a happy sex and love life, you will be a ghost of who you could have been.

I think Lászlóka is far more developed emphatically than his friends and has a much better chance to have real love one day. The fault of his reasoning lies at the point where he concludes that because his peers watch porn and he does not, and they have no empathy towards women and he does, therefore the former must be the cause of the latter. A very common mistake even in science :)

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.08. 18:38:42

@magichorse: It was not just in ancient Greece and Rome that sexual intercourse was on open, even public, display. During the Christian Dark Ages (ie. at least until the Renaissance, when the first chinks of light began to show through the cracks in the wall of ignorance and superstition built by the Church) it was mainly the nobility that adhered to the forms of behaviour imposed by the Church. The peasantry may have been forced to attend church every Sunday by their lords and masters, but in the privacy of their own homes they did as they pleased. When you live in a small hut with a few children, it just is not possible to separate off sex, or indeed any other activity, into a private domain. It was, perhaps, the Victorian Britons who took the idea of privacy to its ultimate. I find it rather ironic, as a descendant of those Victorians, to find myself arguing that sexual privacy is a modern concept - even an illusion - whereas my Hungarian interlocutor seems wedded to this most Victorian of values.

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.08. 18:52:00

As for pornography - it mirrors the situation with recreational drugs. Prohibition by the authorities pushed it underground and gave it cachet. Now that technology has removed most barriers against the widespread dissemination of pornography, the authorities (government, schools, religious and civil organisations) find that they have no control whatsoever over what adolescents are viewing. As with drugs, I think a more sensible approach is needed - acceptance that it exists, tolerance towards the more benign forms, and a focus on prohibition against the more malign forms. In a way this is beginning to happen with the strong measures taken against child pornography, but what is lacking is the other side of the coin - why not teach adolescents in school, as part of sex education, that viewing pornography is normal and healthy? Alas, those in authority are rarely sensible...

magichorse 2012.03.09. 14:42:32

It is ironic indeed. However I do not think Victorian values actually ever spread to Hungary, and the aversion to sexuality can be found in every culture embracing any form of Christianity (or Islam, its close relative). In the early Dark Ages some of the peasantry did not really absorb Christianity fully yet, they usually kept on practicing their local native religion in secret. But the Church spared no effort converting them, so eventually in the peasant's mind the two religions first fused then were eventually replaced by Christianity.

In my opinion that is what led to a more universal acceptance of the Christian value that sex, joy and happiness is shameful while suffering is nice (a good way to keep the peasants in line though - it certainly worked).

As for authorities not being sensible - while that can often be the case, mostly due to politicians being old and just not flexible enough to adapt to new ways, more often than not it is only due to hypocrisy - politicians will have to try to appeal to as many voters as possible so new trends will be tolerated but will not be publicly supported until a huge majority of the voters are firmly behind them.

laszloka 2012.03.21. 15:38:21

@JánosHunyadi:

It would be a little bit weird to read Hungarian and English replies in turns, so i decided to write my answer in English. It is also useful as a practice for my language exam.
You must have a good talent for languages, then :)

No, i do not belive, that porography ruined voting rights and stuff like that. I belive that nowadays porn, as I wrote, "shows a fairly disrespectful way of treating women", thus making it hard for them, to gain respect. And this form of pornography did not exist in the ancient times. Regardless of what we think of, either ancient Rome, or Victorian times, the so called "violent forms of pornography" based on what you said, did not exist. You can call it pornographic, but not violent. Thats the main difference.
Any misunderstanding was surely caused by compositional mistakes, due to my language disability :)

True. Any form of violence desensitises people, but the fact, that violent forms of pornography have the same effect, does not make it right by any means. Violence is violence. Either pornographic or not, it has an adverse, desensitising effect on people. Long term exposure to any (not only violent) pornographic material opens the door for other forms of evil, such as anger, abuse, violence, hatred, lying, envy, compulsiveness and selfishness. Porn shows its harmful nature the best, when the porn addict tries to stop their habit, which is virtually impossible without help. If you fail to control a habit, then its not you, who is in charge, but the habit itself.
source: www.porn-free.org/porn_is_bad.htm

Well, I'm not homosexual, but i see your point. The things that used to arouse people in Victorian times, do not arouse people nowadays. Is it possible, that desensitisation is to be blamed for that?

Well, the love, with which i love my dog, is somehow worse than the love I feel towards my siblings. The latter makes me feel better. Thats how i can differentiate. Of course love is love, no matter what, but somehow there is a little difference.

Yes. That definition is probably the best to describe what love really is.

I agree with you in Éros becoming Agápe. Even though it is hard to achieve, i will do my best to succeed.

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.21. 16:14:09

@laszloka: Well, I agree that violent pornography may be bad (but I await evidence to demonstrate this). I agree that some pornography is disrespectful of women, but not all. Gay pornography does not feature women at all, so that is not disrespectful of women. And pornography made by women for women is not disrespectful of women. As for the rest, there are all sorts out there, which is why I believe that regulation (differentiating between harmful and benign pornography) is better than prohibition (generally treating all pornography as equal). Scientific evidence can be used to determine what types of pornography are harmful. Without basing our opinions on evidence we are merely conducting a modern day version of a witchhunt.

"Long term exposure to any (not only violent) pornographic material opens the door for other forms of evil, such as anger, abuse, violence, hatred, lying, envy, compulsiveness and selfishness." This is just a statement that someone made without any evidence. I can just as easily write that long term exposure to any ROMANTIC material opens the door for other forms of evil, such as anger, abuse etc.

Any addiction is difficult to stop (that is part of the definition of addiction) - it can addiction to drugs, alcohol, porn, sex, coffee, tea, chocolate, love, therapy. That does not mean that the object of addiction itself is evil. Would you really describe love as evil? And yet some people are demonstrably addicted to love.

"The things that used to arouse people in Victorian times, do not arouse people nowadays. Is it possible, that desensitisation is to be blamed for that?" I don't think it is natural or healthy to be aroused by bare ankles. I blame Victorian prudishness for that sexual fetish.

laszloka 2012.03.21. 18:08:52

You wrote: "any form of violence portrayed in the media desensitises people to actual violence" This is already a bad effect. I agree with the rest.

I do not belive, that romantic films have the same adverse effect porn has, but you are right. That is only a statement, without any reliable evidence given.

Addiction is defined as the continued use of a mood altering substance or behaviour despite adverse consequences. Where are the adverse consequences of love? I'd rather designate it as a way of life, rather than call it an addiction.

I agree. Victorians were a little bit weird compared to today's standards.

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.21. 18:37:56

Yes, I read the article when it was first published. It is potentially a very convincing argument. But Ms. Wolf does not support it with evidence - she refers to young men and women telling her things on college campuses, but that is little better than heresay. I suspect that, knowing who she is, only those students who have a problem with pornography talk to her about it. The majority who use it without problems haven't talked to her, and why should they?

The problem I have with most people on the anti-pornography side of the debate is that they form an opinion and then look for evidence to support it. Whereas any social scientist worth his or her salt does it the other way around - looks for the evidence and then forms his or her opinion based on the evidence. Until both sides start using evidence-based reasoning, then the debate will never get beyond the level of young children in a school yard: "my Dad's better"..."no, my Dad's better".

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.21. 18:45:21

@laszloka: Love can have very adverse consequences - just read Romeo and Juliet :-) I'm not saying that it is normally an addiction, but there is at least some evidence to suggest that it can be:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Love_addiction

JánosHunyadi · http://scryblen.eu 2012.03.21. 19:00:42

Oh, and my personal experience runs counter to Naomi Wolf's views - using pornography has not desensitised me but, on the contrary, I find "real, live women" more sexually attractive than ever. I suspect that Wolf is more concerned with the effect of the widespread availability of pornography on women than on men. She is clearly unhappy that young women seem to be influenced by pornography in how they treat their bodies and how they behave. I can understand why, as a feminist, she would be concerned with this. But I think she does not understand young men.

laszloka 2012.03.21. 19:30:54

@JánosHunyadi:

Well, you have said it all. Due to the lack of experience I have nothing else to say, although i would be glad to discuss this subject again later on :)
süti beállítások módosítása