A Decline In Morals. Are We Being Too Accepting Of It?! What Standards Do We Go By?

[Sugar&Spice]

I have noticed that, recently anything gose here in today's society. People have become more accepting of things that would have been a disgrace, in earlier years. Let me explain, we know that people degrade themselves in music videos, and on tv with skimpy clothing, and a sexualy free kind of lifestyle. But it is no longer just tv. People have taken this kind of mind frame, and have incorparatd it into their everyday lives.


It is the "in" thing to wear clothes that show all of your breast, and slits that shows all of your legs, and butt. Its like people dont wear clothes anymore.
Years ago, it would have been a disgrace to even show your ankles. And even though that is going too far. I can respect the morals behind it. In those days, a womans body was treated as a temple. But today?! The more of it you show, the better. They even have a
saying,"Sex sells."


On interviews, people no longer hire you based on skills, but rather if you are attractive or not. And if you show skin, the better it is you might get hired.


And how about lifestyles?! People have been accepting gay marriages, and relationhips, as if it is the norm. Years ago it was taboo.



My point is what set of standards do you go by?! It is not the original set of moral standards. People are becoming more tolerable of things, the are not moraly acceptable.



In my opinion, this gives children the wrong view of what is right and wrong. And the media, which supports this kind of lifestyle and people in general, should take note of this. And change this negitive, stigma in view of future generations.


I know his is kind of sticky, but I have presented my views, in a dignified, and respectful manner. Looking for anyone elses opinion.

[judes]

Years ago, it would have been a disgrace to even show your ankles. And even though that is going too far. I can respect the morals behind it. In those days, a womans body was treated as a temple. But today?! The more of it you show, the better. They even have a saying,"Sex sells."

although i don't agree in the appropriateness of wearing skimpy clothing and showing off everything, i believe that we have come a long way in that now, women CAN choose to dress that like if she so chooses. and that is the important part.

in the past, a woman's body was seen as a temple, true, but women themselves were seen as objects. they were covered up because they were gift wrapped and handed off to their future husbands at their marriage, and also covered up beforehand so to not shame their future husbands with their reputation or to disgrace their family.

now women (in certain countries anyway) can let their hair down, they can bare their shoulders or their midriff or their ankles, and it's all entirely up to them. so if i had a choice between covering up my body and following certain rules of behavior because as a woman, i was to be bargained and sold to the highest bidder or if i can wear whatever i want and be my own person, of course i would choose the latter.

i agree that sometimes there are outfits that cross the line, but that is what public decency laws are there for. if you break the law, you get arrested, but where do we draw the line? what is comfortable to one person may not be comfortable to the other.

with the line "sex sells", yes it does. but we have to delve deeper into the reason WHY sex sells. if you have ever been to europe you will see that on primetime tv there are shows that are on that would only be played here very very late night and sometimes they are not even allowed to be played. you will see billboards there of nude women and men, and nobody even blinks an eye. but in north america, because sex is still very taboo and very improper to be talked about in everyday conversation, and because sex is presented as this dirty, risky, and inappropriate thing, it is this inappropriateness, this rebellion, that makes it sell. it is the mentality of "loose morals" that makes it so tempting.

sex sells because people make it seem rebellious and "cool". if you take away that taboo, if you accept sex as just the norm and commonplace, it won't sell anymore, it'll just be something average and common and every day.

comparing european and north american mentality, we can come to the conclusion that: morality is a cultural idea and it is not universal.

we cannot implement an universal code for morality because there isn't one. under different religions, what is moral and right may not be in the other. in a muslim country, if a woman gets raped, she is killed because she is part of the problem as the seductress of the man. the women is seen as moral in western standards, but as immoral in their standards.

On interviews, people no longer hire you based on skills, but rather if you are attractive or not. And if you show skin, the better it is you might get hired.

i don't know what kind of companies you have experience with, but i don't see any proof of that. that is a very general statement. it depends on the field you are in. if you are to become a model, an actress, then of course it depends on your attractiveness. perhaps if you are a receptionist or the first face people see when you walk into an office, then that would be a factor. but attractiveness is subjective. you are attractive if you are personable, if you are engaging. a blank pretty face who is incapable of counting to three is useless to a company that hires the pretty face.

let's say that you do get hired because of your attractive face, but if you are inept when you get hired, that is why there are labor laws saying that a company can fire someone within a "test period" for whatever reasons they so choose.

but we simply cannot forget that when you go to an interview, the most important part is your presentation of yourself. a person cannot blame the company if they show up to an interview in slovenly attire, with messy hair and dirty clothes and then say that they didn't get hired because the company was being choosy about attractiveness. of course not. and even if an attractive person shows up at a job interview but does not have the skills, the degree, or the experience required, a company is not going to hire them even if they look like the most gorgeous thing that ever walked the earth.

it is dependent on the field that is hiring.

And how about lifestyles?! People have been accepting gay marriages, and relationhips, as if it is the norm. Years ago it was taboo.

that is an entirely different debate altogether. there is nothing wrong with gay marriages or relationships. gay people being love and being together does not stop heterosexual relationships from being in love and being together. homosexual relationships have existed for centuries, and it is dependent on the culture that they exist in that it is "taboo" or not.

in greek and roman societies, homosexuality was very much in existance, and that was several thousand years ago. there are lesbian relationships recorded in the sapphic poetry.

gay relationships have always been present in many different cultures, the difference is whether it is accepted in the public view or not. but honestly, what is so fundamentally "wrong" about gay relationships? what is so inappropriate about them as opposed to a straight one? who are they hurting?

My point is what set of standards do you go by?! It is not the original set of moral standards. People are becoming more tolerable of things, the are not moraly acceptable.

there is no "original set of moral standards". the set of moral standards that are commonly adhered to in these days were not adhered to even several decades ago. but nobody in their right mind would want to go back to those days, so why should we move back to a few years back? culture is about progression, about moving on, about expanding our viewpoints and our knowledge.

to me, women being able to dress in skimpy clothing, while it is sometimes an eyesore, is better than women not being able to dress in the way they want and being controlled.

gay marriages being accepted and having those sorts of relationships become public, is better than the beatings and the brutality and murders of homosexuals and transgendered people.

In my opinion, this gives children the wrong view of what is right and wrong. And the media, which supports this kind of lifestyle and people in general, should take note of this. And change this negitive, stigma in view of future generations.

if we do want to step back to "the original set of moral standards", as it was several decades ago for our current society, black people, such as yourself, would not be able to vote. they would be in segregated schools, they would be viewed as "beneath" the white people. asians, such as myself, would be subjected to head tax, and sent to work in jobs on the railroad. all minorities were seen as "the threat to the white morality", we were seen as corrupting influences, bringing our inappropriate thoughts and behaviors and ways to the culture.

jazz, in its origins, was a response and expression to the oppression of blacks through slavery. it was seen as immoral and wrong to be listened to because it was changing the minds of "the white children". rock and roll in its early days was seen as the music of the devil, and it also had black origins as well. rock and roll and that type of behavior was banned and children were not allowed to listen to that kind of music, but now it is completely acceptable in the mainstream.

i would not blame the media for this type of behavior in people, i would blame the people for buying it from the media. saturation of the market and of the minds of the people by the media of these types of influences is because people lap it up. people LOVE hearing about gossip, about the drugged up nights, the wild parties, the debauchery that occurs on in the hollywood lifestyle. they buy and buy and buy magazines that show trendy clothing and spend several hundred dollars and expensive, revealing clothes. who pushes this market? the people do and the media, the companies, they want to make money, and if they see that people like it, why wouldn't they respond to it?

if we disconnect the media and begin to restrict it, we go down a very dangerous road. if we limit free speech and the freedom of expression, then our society is moving towards a state that i would rather not be in.

if you want sex to stop selling: stop making sex a taboo
if you want people to stop being shallow and drawn to attractive people: stop parading celebrities as gods, stop buying trashy magazines, stop shopping at where they shop, stop taking pictures of them, stop paying them several million dollars per movie

and if you want people to have the same standard of morals: take away their education, take away their freedom of speech, take away their ability to think critically, cripple their expression, stuff the same ideals down their throats, sell them a moral god, make everyone exactly the same.

an universal moral code is a kind of mental slavery.
it can only be supported and sold by religion, whether ancient or modern.

i believe the only moral code we should have is that our actions should not hurt other people or impede in their personal freedom to express themselves or to have the basic rights of food, shelter, clothing, and education.

[tomato_0]

On interviews, people no longer hire you based on skills, but rather if you are attractive or not. And if you show skin, the better it is you might get hired.

that is so true, here they hire you according to how pretty you are and your weight in some girl's clothing stores.

but its disgraceful what people wear nowadays. yea sure there's freedom of choice, but still, that's just going too far - there are little kids practically dressing up as little sk*nks, strutting around town trying to pick up guys, just because everyone else is doing it.

and today on the bus, there was this guy who was just talking at the top of his lungs and kicking my seat, thinking he was cool. that's just rude. people have forgotten their etiquette. back then, the young people would always stand up for the frail and old and pregnant. now, kids just look at them as if they're aliens and leave them to suffer on a shaky bus. i think its absolutely disgraceful this decline of morals.

[judes]

^ if they hire you base on that because they have to sell clothes. if you're pretty and you wear the clothes that you are supposed to sell, other girls will come in and buy them thinking "if she looks so good dressed in these clothes, then of course i'll look good too". it's because of your profession, but in professions that require a degree and work experience, they will never, ever hire someone for a pretty face if they can't do the job. these are some pretty big generalizations that are being made here.

but yes, etiquette has been on a decline.
the elderly should be given a seat on buses and people should treat each other with respect.

[darkwinn]

I think morals are just based on upbringing mainly sex or what not doesn't come into play here. If u have a strong religious background and good parents i think morals stick with u pretty well but then morals overall were just a thought by a society that is now changed. If u really want to think about it society back then had a different reason for being what they are and we have a different reason now. The times have changed. Theres no way to really go back to what we used to have. Most of our reality is in our mind anyways.

[Sugar&Spice]

Okay. I've been logged in but offline. It seems that I had to catch up on my own topic!! Okay here are my thoughts on what was said.


Yes, no one would want to go back to the days when women were not allowed to even show there ankles. So why go even further, into the past to the so-called caveman days?! Let me explain, back then they said women were clucked in their heads, and dragged into a cave. Why?! Because she was seen as only a sexual object. And honey, today is the same thing. Women are not being knocked upside the head. But they are still being treated as objects. When women don't put clothes on, they are begging to be treated as if they were sexual objects. And alot of them like the attention.
People may say,"Its their right. They can be independant." To me that is a weak statement. This kind of behavior reaps alot of negitive reactions. Let me give an example:



1. An increase in rape. As a statement was brought out in the pre-marital sex thread."Getting drunk, and wondering around a campus sight. in a short skirt. Is asking for trouble." Not the exact words, but the exact same essence. In lamen terms, skimpy clothes, means an increase in rape.



2. A distorted view. It gives people a distorted view of the opposite sex. Women are not judged by who they REALLY are. But rather how much skin she bears when she gose out. And men, they are judged only, by the kind of package a he has, instead of who he is. Whether he is packing light or not, should not even be an issue. But that is the first thing that people say. Why?! Because morals have dropped so much, that the mind frame and the viewpoint, of people really have been distorted. Thinking about eachother as nothing but mere sex toys instead of people.



3. It influences children. People tend to foget that a new generation of people are being brought up everyday. No matter how much a parent may teach their children. They are still going to yearn to fit into what society is doing. And what is society doing?! They are showing skin, and they are being too sexual. The results?! You have children going to school with a whole lot of make-up on, and tight clothing, acting more mature(in a bad way) for their age. Young men think girls are there just to wear a little amount of clothes, and be some kind of an sexual object. And the end result is a bunch of kids, not being aware of their own bodies, having sex. And getting unwanted pregnances, and possible diseases.



So now. Yeah. Women are more indepenant. And it is their right to wear what they want. But should it be to the point that they are corrupting society?! Should it be to the point that the whole pattern of thinking should change for the worse?! And this is not only on women, men too. Whether we want to admit it or not, or whether we like it or not, our actions affect other people. Is it like a pattern. It is the indidual who chooses whether they want their actions to have a positive influence on others, or a negitive one. I hear people talk about being responsable, but your not that until you realise how far being responsible gose.

And that is not going out, and helping to degrade society more then it is. So yeah, people have the right to be independant. But at what costs? I find people who tend to act and dress this way, to be cowards, hidding behind an image. And not once being able to face who they are, and what reality really is. Reality is living day to day being REAL, not hidden behind alot of make-up and skimpy clothing. And not acting like a so-called playa. Thats how they say it I believe.



The media- People like to say,"Oh it is not the media. It is the people themselevs that are responsible for this." I begg to differ. Let me explain once again, my viewpoint one this. What is the media for?! To get information to people, and not just a select amount of people, but to people all over the world. Now when we look at tv, we are feeding our minds with whatever we look at. And alot of what is on the media, is what they think a body should look like. And their view of sex. They advertise it, and they promote it. That is all people see when they look at tv nowadays. To say that the media is not to blame for alot of the distorted views, is a very naive staement. If it wasn't promoted so much, then it would not be viewed as so important. Or the only thing that people go by. And yes, I know that some of you may say,"Even if the media were not around, people would still practice these things." Yeah I know that, but it would not be on such a grand scale as it is with the media promoting such a mind frame.


I don't know where some people have been hidden. But there are constantly people being slighted out of jobs because they want to hire someone that they can see themselves desiring. And I'm not talking about Modeling, And clothing stores. That is obvious that they would want someone who looks a certain way. Those are visual professions. So that statement was childsplay. I'm talking about regular jobs that have nothing to do with looks, but skill. And still people hire based on looks. Not whether your sloppy or not.


That was not what I meant. Anyone with sense would know you wouldn't go on an interview looking sloppy. Back to what I was saying. My first statement was not too general. There have been investigations, and documents on this very thing. And they have found 90% of employers guilty of this. Taking a look at some polls and statistics, will also help you to get a better view on the situation. Eervyone knows that this is happening, whoever dosen't know it must not get out much. But for further explanation I will give everyone a personal experience.



I called a perspective employer, for a job. And he told me to dress to impress, and that he was going to do a group interview, and then choose who he would employ. Once we got there he looked at us from head to toe, and if he did not think you were pretty enough, or handsome enough, he sent you away. No matter how well dressed you were. I made it in. But saw him turn a girl away because she was not pretty. He did not care whether or not he would be sued, because he knew how to use a so-called technical term in the courts, so as not to be sued. Then he told everyone, how he was happy we passed the first test of looking good. Now the fact that he thought I was pretty enough to work for his company, did not sit right with me. Only after the look test, did he try to find out if you were capable of doing the job. How dose he know that one of the so-called ugly ones couldn't do the job?! I turned down the jobs based on principle.



So many people like to think that morals had to do with what white people thought about blacks and Jazz, and other races. That was not based on what was moraly right or not. Their view of other races had to do with a little thing called(we use this word alot in this forum but here it gose again) ignorance. How could a person be immoral according to their race?! Not possible since morals are based upon a persons actions. So the statement about white people not being able to see pass their own ignorance back then, has nothing to do with morals. But white people back then were morally wrong when they killed people because of their skin color, or treated them less because they were different. Now that can be someone with low morals, acting harshly towards another race because they fear what they don't know. So whats more immoral? Being born a certain color?! Or killing someone because they are a certain color?! Hmmmmmm.


The moral of this story people. Is that morals have dropped trumendously. And no one wants to admit it. Except so far, for me and tomato O. I don't think that morals should taken lightly. We see the results of what happens when it is taken lightly. CHAOS!!


Another thing. Sex is not forbidden, or Taboo. If it was it would be hard to get it on the internet, on your street corners, at you grocery stores where the magizines are, are anywhere else for that matter. And wmen would not be allowed to walk around undressed. People buy things about sex, not because it is taboo. but because of an uncontrolled sexual desire, and alot of time on their hands. Ok this post is long enough. I'm done!:roll:

[judes]

Yes, no one would want to go back to the days when women were not allowed to even show there ankles. So why go even further, into the past to the so-called caveman days?! Let me explain, back then they said women were clucked in their heads, and dragged into a cave. Why?! Because she was seen as only a sexual object. And honey, today is the same thing. Women are not being knocked upside the head. But they are still being treated as objects. When women don't put clothes on, they are begging to be treated as if they were sexual objects. And alot of them like the attention.
People may say,"Its their right. They can be independant." To me that is a weak statement. This kind of behavior reaps alot of negitive reactions. Let me give an example:

the problem here is not with the women. the problem here is with the mentality of people in general. we have to get into the roots of why people treat women like sexual objects, and why we have this mentality, and then we have to educate people when it comes to treating others with respect and dignity.

1. An increase in rape. As a statement was brought out in the pre-marital sex thread."Getting drunk, and wondering around a campus sight. in a short skirt. Is asking for trouble." Not the exact words, but the exact same essence. In lamen terms, skimpy clothes, means an increase in rape.

...that doesn't make any sense. women should be allowed to dress however they want wherever they want without fear of being raped. this is like the muslims saying that it's the woman's fault for telling the man to come hither and ravish her so that she must die. although getting drunk and dressing in skimpy clothing IS asking for trouble, but a woman should be able to feel safe at all hours of night wherever she is regardless of how she chooses to dress. we should be trying to increase safety and protecting women and focusing on the real problem here: the problem of rape instead of focusing on what is not the actual problem, the way the women are dressed. rape happened in all cultures and all societies irregardless of how people are dressed, so the correlation between "more rapes happening because of the women are wearing skimpy clothes" is not correct. you have a higher chance of getting raped if you are wearing skimpy clothes, true, but a rapist will choose a victim to rape whether she is dressed in whatever way, the difference is that one is an easier target because she is in a dangerous situation.

2. A distorted view. It gives people a distorted view of the opposite sex. Women are not judged by who they REALLY are. But rather how much skin she bears when she gose out. And men, they are judged only, by the kind of package a he has, instead of who he is. Whether he is packing light or not, should not even be an issue. But that is the first thing that people say. Why?! Because morals have dropped so much, that the mind frame and the viewpoint, of people really have been distorted. Thinking about eachother as nothing but mere sex toys instead of people.

i think it takes a person whose mind is on sex all the time or is trying to prevent him/herself from thinking about sex all the time to point fingers and lay the blame. there was a quote that was said that "each generation thinks that it invented sex". people are seen as sexual objects from the past to the future. the prostitute is one of the oldest professions in the world. telling people to cover up isn't going to change anything, instead we have to critically analyze the mentality behind this, and get people to understand that the body isn't a bad thing. the body has its natural functions, its curves and its appearance. the body is at it is, and viewing another person's body doesn't have to be sexual, it can be neutral. we should accept all body types and all sorts of appearances, which is why i addressed the issue of celebrities. celebrities and hollywood stars should not be revered as the "style leaders", they should not be paid so much or given so much attention or attract so much fame. they are the ones perpetuating these ideals that wearing skimpy clothing is fantastic and they are the ones who are the "leaders" for the children that you mention in the next point.

3. It influences children. People tend to foget that a new generation of people are being brought up everyday. No matter how much a parent may teach their children. They are still going to yearn to fit into what society is doing. And what is society doing?! They are showing skin, and they are being too sexual. The results?! You have children going to school with a whole lot of make-up on, and tight clothing, acting more mature(in a bad way) for their age. Young men think girls are there just to wear a little amount of clothes, and be some kind of an sexual object. And the end result is a bunch of kids, not being aware of their own bodies, having sex. And getting unwanted pregnances, and possible diseases.

once again, who do these people follow? celebrities, whose job is to present this glamorous life of beauty and money if you looked and acted a certain way.

to address this issue, i already talked about it before. take away the idea that the body is disgusting and dirty and the idea that sex is some glorified event but yet also some gross inappropriate event. make people comfortable with their bodies and other people's bodies.

I called a perspective employer, for a job. And he told me to dress to impress, and that he was going to do a group interview, and then choose who he would employ, etc.

well which job is this? what was the position that you were to be employed for? it depends on those factors. i won't address this point unless i know what job it is.

So many people like to think that morals had to do with what white people thought about blacks and Jazz, and other races. That was not based on what was moraly right or not. Their view of other races had to do with a little thing called(we use this word alot in this forum but here it gose again) ignorance. How could a person be immoral according to their race?! Not possible since morals are based upon a persons actions. So the statement about white people not being able to see pass their own ignorance back then, has nothing to do with morals. But white people back then were morally wrong when they killed people because of their skin color, or treated them less because they were different. Now that can be someone with low morals, acting harshly towards another race because they fear what they don't know. So whats more immoral? Being born a certain color?! Or killing someone because they are a certain color?! Hmmmmmm.

the concept of morality previously was because a particular race was thought to have immoral ideas and presented themselves immorally. you completely missed my point here. my point was to address that the concept of morality has changed throughout the years that we have opened our minds and our thoughts to different types of people and different experiences, which is why narrowing down universal morals in dangerous because nobody has any right to force people to think, dress, act a certain way unless it endangers someone else.

all we can do for children is to teach them to think for themselves, to make their own decisions and choices about where their lives should go. we should not tell them that this is bad or that is bad or this is dirty and that is wrong and this is inappropriate. they won't learn anything from that.

The moral of this story people. Is that morals have dropped trumendously. And no one wants to admit it. Except so far, for me and tomato O. I don't think that morals should taken lightly. We see the results of what happens when it is taken lightly. CHAOS!!

if you speak to previous generations, they would probably say the same about the type of morals that you idealize. if you go even further back, this trend is the same thing. each generation has to grow up and find its own way of doing things of thinking and of moving on, of selecting what to learn from the past.

and what is this "chaos" that you speak of? that's such a general term and doesn't add to your argument. it sounds like an attempt for dramatics without stating anything concrete.

Another thing. Sex is not forbidden, or Taboo. If it was it would be hard to get it on the internet, on your street corners, at you grocery stores where the magizines are, are anywhere else for that matter. And wmen would not be allowed to walk around undressed. People buy things about sex, not because it is taboo. but because of an uncontrolled sexual desire, and alot of time on their hands.

Then why is it you cannot speak about sex in a public setting? Why is it that you are saying that children must be pure and they shouldn't have sex at an early age or imitate sexual beings?

And I don't understand why people have an uncontrolled sexual desire that's different from before? Where's the science proving this rise of uncontrollable passion that's so varying from previous generations? It's just the sexual revolution bringing sexual freedom and ideas to the forefront.

And studies have shown people are working even longer hours and more than they did before, where is that free time you're talking about?

I see sex as more of a taboo than it has ever been with the rise of fundamentalist christians. You see the abstinence only programs and nothing else in the schools. You see the problems with obtaining the plan b pill and the controversy surrounding the HPV shot. You see sex being paraded around on the media but in our consciousness, it has taken even more of a step back into something "inappropriate" because the limited education that is received and what we see in front of us as two contradictory ideas.

Of course young people want to know what sex is like because they see it so much but they don't understand it. Young people rebel, they want to do something that is "wrong". They want to do something that is against what they're taught in schools. If you understand something, if you don't find any thrill, any excitement, any sort of danger in doing it, you wouldn't do it as much in the first place. But then it's this kind of "cover yourself up but look on tv, look at all of those people being happy and famous dancing around in no clothes" that's the danger I'm talking about.

And nobody has addressed the gay issue, which is important considering it was listed in the first post as something I don't believe should be there in the first place.

[Sugar&Spice]

the problem here is not with the women. the problem here is with the mentality of people in general. we have to get into the roots of why people treat women like sexual objects, and why we have this mentality, and then we have to educate people when it comes to treating others with respect and dignity.


How can you get to the root of the problem when you don't want to look at one of the things that may be causing the problem. And that is how people carry and present themselves. People wear clothes that shout negitive sexuality. But then wonder why they are looked at as such.


[/b] rape happened in all cultures and all societies irregardless of how people are dressed, so the correlation between "more rapes happening because of the women are wearing skimpy clothes" is not correct. you have a higher chance of getting raped if you are wearing skimpy clothes, true, but a rapist will choose a victim to rape whether she is dressed in whatever way, the difference is that one is an easier target because she is in a dangerous situation.


Exactly! Women can be raped whether they are wearing skimpy clothing or not. But why make a bad situation worse?! Its like throwing salt on a wound. If you know rape happens, why wear a certain kind of clothing and increase your risk of being raped?! That is why I said an Increase. Because skimpy clothing increases a womans chances of being raped.


i think it takes a person whose mind is on sex all the time or is trying to prevent him/herself from thinking about sex all the time to point fingers and lay the blame.[/QOUTE]


Hmm....this statement is important because? I don't see where this statement renders any importance to the topic, so I'll just dismiss it as a pre-mature statement.


instead we have to critically analyze the mentality behind this, and get people to understand that the body isn't a bad thing.


How can you critically analyze anything behind the situation, if you don't even know where to start analyzing?! You don't want to say that it is because of the way they dress. But then you speak of getting to the bottom of their mentality. The way people dress, gives an indication of their mentality. So taking a look at that, is the beggining of understanding the mentality of the person. Other then that you are just grasping at straws.


the body has its natural functions, its curves and its appearance. the body is at it is, and viewing another person's body doesn't have to be sexual, it can be neutral.


It is all in the presentation of the body that makes it seem natural. And there is nothing natural about someone walking the street half naked.




which is why i addressed the issue of celebrities. celebrities and hollywood stars should not be revered as the "style leaders", they should not be paid so much or given so much attention or attract so much fame. they are the ones perpetuating these ideals that wearing skimpy clothing is fantastic and they are the ones who are the "leaders" for the children that you mention in the next point.
once again, who do these people follow? celebrities, whose job is to present this glamorous life of beauty and money if you looked and acted a certain way.


First you say that the media is not to blame for the view people have about women being sex objects. But now you are saying that it is the celebrities that are at fault. These two statements contridict eachother. Because celebrities and the media, are in direct corralation to eachother. Without the media, celebrities are nothing. They rely on the media to promote their look, and to hold up their view of beauty as if it was something to be revered.(I may have spelt that word wrong. So sue me) Therefore upholding a unhealthy view of what is beauty, and what is moral, or acceptable. So to say that celebrities are at fault, is the same as blaming the media. Thus my earlier statement.


take away the idea that the body is disgusting and dirty and the idea that sex is some glorified event but yet also some gross inappropriate event. make people comfortable with their bodies and other people's bodies.


The body is only precieved as dirty, or inappropriate when it is presented as such. When people walk around wearng clothes that degrade, rather then glorifies their body. Then they in themselves are making the body seem dirty, and inappropriate.


well which job is this? what was the position that you were to be employed for? it depends on those factors. i won't address this point unless i know what job it is.


Well I can promise you this, it was no modeling job. It was a office job, that deakt with filing, computers, answering phones, and appointment setting. All of the things that anyone can do, no matter whether you're ugly or not. Now I'm a nurse, which comes with its own annoyences. But thats another topic all together.


the concept of morality previously was because a particular race was thought to have immoral ideas and presented themselves immorally.
my point was to address that the concept of morality has changed throughout the years that we have opened our minds and our thoughts to different types of people and different experiences.


I find fault with that staement for the fact that it is wrong(I took the long road to saying this but just typing the word WRONG! Would be rude.]When white people went over to afirica to capture black people, they had no Idea of their customs nor did they have any indication of how they funtioned as a people. So they really could not determine whether they were immoral or not. They just went over there, saw that they spoke a language that they themselves could not understand. And concluded that they were lesser then themselves. This was based upon an assumption, and a baised viewpoint, not anything concrete. When you come to the conclusion that something is immoral, it is because you have witnessed the action and saw that it is corrupting or damaging to others. Being born a certain color is not immoral. So their assumption was just that, and dose not stand up to logic. Their realising their wrong action and correcting them, had nothing to do with morals. Rather it had to do with a slight decline in stupidity.


which is why narrowing down universal morals in dangerous because nobody has any right to force people to think, dress, act a certain way, as long as it dose not endanger someone else.


Hmm...I would call being a greater risk for rape because of skimpy clothing is endangering yourself. And embeding wrong views into the minds of others, because of skimpy clothing. Is also endagering, the mind frame of kids. I say that is harmful.


and what is this "chaos" that you speak of? that's such a general term and doesn't add to your argument. it sounds like an attempt for dramatics without stating anything concrete.


Now let me ask you a question. What could I possibly gain by acting dramatic on a website on the internet?! Are you serious?! Come on get real. If you don't know what I'm talking about, don't try to assume you know what I meant by stating comments like this one. And from what has been discussed so far, getting into the reason why I said," Chaos." Would be an endless debate that gose nowhere. But then again you never know.


Then why is it you cannot speak about sex in a public setting? Why is it that you are saying that children must be pure and they shouldn't have sex at an early age or imitate sexual beings?


I don't know where you've been, but that is all people talk about nowadays, and yes in public. And I have not seen any laws that have been passed that forbids people to speak about sex in public. So it is still being talked about. Also what do you mean?! Are you saying children shouldn't be pure?! And that they sould have sex, even though at their age they are not sure of their own body?! You're going to have to clarify that so that I can give an appropriate answer.


[QUOTE=judes;706009]And studies have shown people are working even longer hours and more than they did before, where is that free time you're talking about?


I guess while you were looking up that information, you must have missed the study that said that there are 5million people in america alone who are out of work.(not homeless. Just out of work) And and another 1-2 million peole who have jobs that engage in immoral sexual acts at the work place, from looking up pornography, to planning trips just for the ake of sleeping with underaged children. But its my bad, I shuld have also said people who not only have time on their hands, but also those who don't use their time wisely. We can't forget about our dear hardworkers since they work oo hard.:rolleyes: That is your fretime. As well as when they are supposed to be working and not. Sometimes its best to look at reality.


I see sex as more of a taboo than it has ever been with the rise of fundamentalist christians. You see the abstinence only programs and nothing else in the schools.


Those programs are improtant. I thelps children to get their priorites right. Not everyone agrees that children should be sexually active. Because of the deline of morals, and people saying it is ok for kids to have sex, they need to re-adjust the childrens thinking. But the choice is still up to the children themselves.



You see sex being paraded around on the media but in our consciousness, it has taken even more of a step back into something "inappropriate" because the limited education that is received and what we see in front of us as two contradictory ideas.


The thing that I see as contradictory here is your statement. When I meantioned the media before as the problem, you disagreed. But now you are basing part of your statement on it. I'm not clear as to where you stand on this matter. Since you seem to be saying two different things.



And nobody has addressed the gay issue, which is important considering it was listed in the first post as something I don't believe should be there in the first place.



Well I believe it should be, which is why I put it here in the first place. Here is my opinion on it.



I have no problem with gay people in general. But when they say that they want to be together studies have shown that 95% of gay couples want to raise children, inside of their relatioship. This brings confusio to whatever child they choose to adopt, or reproduce. On a study of children with gay parents, they have found that 70% of the children who live in a gay household are confused as to their own sexual origin. It got to one point that a girl started to cry becuse she had a liking towards men, but thought something was wrong with her because she thought it was normal to be with another girl. It distorts the thinking of children adopted, or bore to that home, and it dose not tend to be a good example, in any form. If you don't understand that statement, then I guess we hit a dead end since that is my stand on the situation.

I'm having problems with the quoting. I did it right but it still merged some of my responses together with my qoutes. So if anyone sees the quote, messed up its not because I didn't bother to try and fix it. It is just not working for me right now. So I hope everyone can understand what is being said.

[judes]

if you want to post something, please fix the quote and figure out how everything works before you post it, because i had problems reading what you're saying and how you broke things up so it was a big problem for me to understand whatever you're trying to get at.

How can you get to the root of the problem when you don't want to look at one of the things that may be causing the problem. And that is how people carry and present themselves. People wear clothes that shout negitive sexuality. But then wonder why they are looked at as such.

once again, maybe it's because i come from a different background, i don't see why people who dress in certain ways can say something that is "negative" about themselves. i certainly don't like it when people complain they are being viewed in a certain light when they choose to dress a certain way BUT once again, my opinion is that people should dress however they please and this stigma of the naked body should be discarded altogether. it should be like in europe where the body is displayed just as it is without people freaking out like what happened with janet jackson at the superbowl.

Exactly! Women can be raped whether they are wearing skimpy clothing or not. But why make a bad situation worse?! Its like throwing salt on a wound. If you know rape happens, why wear a certain kind of clothing and increase your risk of being raped?! That is why I said an Increase. Because skimpy clothing increases a womans chances of being raped.

you completely missed my point. we should be targetting the rapists and the people who sexually harass and discriminate and take out this mentality of the body as solely a sexual idea. we should not be punishing women or telling women to cover themselves up because "they might be raped". instead of dealing with the actual problem, which is rape, this is blaming the woman, who should not be at fault no matter how she dresses, because she doesn't choose to be raped.

and with the quotes and the italics and stuff, i'll just address the things you're saying that i thought i can kind of comprehend since it's disjointed.

First you say that the media is not to blame for the view people have about women being sex objects. But now you are saying that it is the celebrities that are at fault. These two statements contridict eachother. Because celebrities and the media, are in direct corralation to eachother. Without the media, celebrities are nothing. They rely on the media to promote their look, and to hold up their view of beauty as if it was something to be revered.(I may have spelt that word wrong. So sue me) Therefore upholding a unhealthy view of what is beauty, and what is moral, or acceptable. So to say that celebrities are at fault, is the same as blaming the media. Thus my earlier statement.

who makes the celebrities famous in the first place? certainly not the media, the media promotes and spreads ideas, it does not force people to watch a certain tv show or listen to a certain celebrity. it's the people who buy those magazines and the photographs and stalk the celebrities. you cannot say that you are blaming these two things if you blame the other. they are interconnected, but not to the same point where you can distinguish one from another. it's like cooking with cheese and tomatoes in a pizza but saying that taking out the tomatoes is affecting the cheese. well no, it'll taste differently, but tomatoes can be by themselves and cheese can be by itself.

but then i don't have the same viewpoint as you in thinking that things should be policed and the media should be told what to show and what not to show. i believe that people have the right to make decisions for themselves of what they want to watch or not want to watch and the media can report whatever they want as long as it doesn't hurt anybody else.

I find fault with that staement for the fact that it is wrong(I took the long road to saying this but just typing the word WRONG! Would be rude.]When white people went over to afirica to capture black people, they had no Idea of their customs nor did they have any indication of how they funtioned as a people. So they really could not determine whether they were immoral or not. They just went over there, saw that they spoke a language that they themselves could not understand. And concluded that they were lesser then themselves. This was based upon an assumption, and a baised viewpoint, not anything concrete. When you come to the conclusion that something is immoral, it is because you have witnessed the action and saw that it is corrupting or damaging to others. Being born a certain color is not immoral. So their assumption was just that, and dose not stand up to logic. Their realising their wrong action and correcting them, had nothing to do with morals. Rather it had to do with a slight decline in stupidity.

hahaha. that's just like saying "...no offense but...". if you find something that you could state to be rude, why say it in the first place? you're still saying it, except in a cop out way.

do you know the definition of morality?
"conformity to the rules of right conduct"
in the white people's eyes, their rules of right conduct clashes with the way the black or asian people behaved. so no, i am not wrong. yes their behavior was ignorant, and yes their viewpoint was not right, but your definition of morality doesn't stand up to the dictarionary's definition of morality, because you take it further in distinguishing that morality HAS to be corrupting to another, but no, it doesn't. that is why saying "morality" is dangerous, because morality is such a general and all encompassing idea of the "right" behavior, the "right" actions, and it is difficult to know what actions is "right" according to which culture. so i'm sorry but my logic holds up.

The thing that I see as contradictory here is your statement. When I meantioned the media before as the problem, you disagreed. But now you are basing part of your statement on it. I'm not clear as to where you stand on this matter. Since you seem to be saying two different things.

once again, you don't understand what i'm getting at. i am not BLAMING the media for all of these faults. i am talking about the education that children are getting from their schools alongside the media and inside their families. i am talking about the influences of these sources AND the contradictions inherent within the message they are sending out to children. and the root of the blame, i put on education, because if we educate children about their bodies and their sexuality, then the media would not put so much focus on this hyped up sexuality because it wouldn't sell. i will repeat myself: children are taught to cover up at home but to bare all outside of the home, and even though what is taught at home is supposedly the right lesson, they will long, as you say, to conform with society. so which is why if we give the media nothing to sell or there is no rush of demand for supplying these kind of sexual ideas, then the media will correct itself if we start with education.

I have no problem with gay people in general. But when they say that they want to be together studies have shown that 95% of gay couples want to raise children, inside of their relatioship. This brings confusio to whatever child they choose to adopt, or reproduce. On a study of children with gay parents, they have found that 70% of the children who live in a gay household are confused as to their own sexual origin. It got to one point that a girl started to cry becuse she had a liking towards men, but thought something was wrong with her because she thought it was normal to be with another girl. It distorts the thinking of children adopted, or bore to that home, and it dose not tend to be a good example, in any form. If you don't understand that statement, then I guess we hit a dead end since that is my stand on the situation.

my dear...do you think that gay people don't experience that in their families? do you think that a child who is raised with a mother and a father but who thinks he likes men will NOT cry and wonder what's wrong with him? he probably thinks it's normal to be with another girl. i have a lot of friends who are gay, and they've all struggled with this in their childhood in different ways even if they have associated with influencing adults in their lives who are gay or straight. but a lot of the gay people who grow up in this enviornment turns out to be productive members of society, so i don't see the distinction between heterosexual and homosexual parents affecting their children.

with all of the homeless and starving children in the world, if a gay couple can provide a good home for them, why not? why do the starving children need to wait for a "good heterosexual home"? it's a little too late for that for a lot of these kids.

but i'll be running the winter games from now on so my responses will be sporadic if there will be any at all. so other people feel free to jump in. i'll be back sometime in the future.

[Sugar&Spice]

Like I stated before, I have tried to fix the problem but could not. And stop calling me "my dear." I'm not your dear.


Secondly, I disagree with just about everything you just stated. So commenting to them would just be redundant on my part. So I'm glad your allowing tim to pass before you answer again, so that someone else can contribute to the discussion without it being this whole,"I don't agree with you because." And stating the same thing all over again. And that is me, stating what I want to in a uncoped out way.

[orangeman]

I'm not going to go into that long feud. To make my point: yes, the morals of society are declining.

This can be reflected by two things I experienced today:

1) When I was walking home from school. there were these skaters outside. As I walked past them, they split and 4 followed me for some time. I didn't get hurt or anything, but their intention was to mess with me. First of all, the only thing I did was walk towards my house. They make it seem as if I'm different, therefore trying to sneak up behind me. I don't mind if they fool around but trying to somewhat hurt me if it's their intention is pretty low. Another reason might be the fact that I'm chinese and they're mexican, but I'm uncertain on this issue.

2) While going home, I cross the crosswalk with a busy right-turn lane. Usually, it's long because people cross the streets often. Though as I crossed, an asian driver honked at me and told me to walk faster. I was about to reach the other side in 3-4 steps, but this driver cussed at me for walking too slow. I walk a pretty fast pace, and no way was I holding up traffic for very long. Didn't know why I really did it, but i'm sure it was because I was holding up their time.

Morally, this is what people have become. The skaters either hating me because I'm chinese/not a skater, and the asian driver yelling because i'm too slow. No one has respect for others, nor themselves.

Parents don't even teach their kids morals anymore. It's more of "finding out for yourself". There are people who try to fit in groups and adapt a new life. Being what they aren't, and trying to blend in. These people lose character. I think I can recall some former classmates that have changed.

This doesn't relate to the topic directly, but it's something I experienced in the moral decline of society. America is getting more like Rome. And history documents that Rome, one of the great empires of the world, didn't last forever.

[darkwinn]

The more i see your arguements the more i begin to see that its also getting nowhere. If you really want to think about morals u must first go to the orgin. Where did u obtain ur morals from and where did they obtain theirs? Some people say religion, other people, friends, family, media, ect. But if you really think about it..it all depends on what you accept or not. Some people can't accept the same religion so their morals may be different from urs. Kids these days either realize that god isn't here to help them (not saying everyone but i have encountered many and the stastics show that most college kids nowadays aren't religious) or they perfer to be "realists". Instead of believing in the good morals they see whats on the media and what their friends determine is "right" and then their own sense of "Right" changes and a chain reaction occurs where everyone thinks differently and their versions of "right" is different from past history. Like a story passed through time it changes with each passing. We are humans we weren't born of morals we were born as animals technically. We adapt to our surroundings as kids i bet you guys also thought the current fad or whatever was cool or hip. Maybe even now if u look at what u wear yourselves and think did i think this was cool first? or did i see someone else wear it and i liked it afterwards. We imitate others and that is where we obtain our morals and identities. A combination of the people around us. So have we lost our morals or have they declined? the answer is No. They have just changed.

[jct8]

I don't think that a way a person dresses or their sexual orientation really determines a person's "morality." Morality is an ambiguous term in that it varies with culture, race, country, religion, etc.