Why at all??

I know people have been using words like these since ancient times, such as harlot, floozy, slut, hoe, whore, hussy, tramp, skank, and an endless list of slang slurs for people —-Especially women, who are very libidinous.

Why talk about sexuality like it’s a disease? Why make people who attempt at being sexually liberated feel like it’s a bad thing, when it’s neither bad or good? It’s the way you use it that determines wether the situation is bad or good.

So in that sense, why do people constantly degrade sexuality in general, when they should be focused on adulterers who don’t communicate with their partners, or idiotic home-wreckers? Those are people who use sexuality wrong, so why are people always damning the entirety of sexuality, when it’s clearly not plainly horny people’s fault, and when it’s obviously the fault of people who are just sleaze-bags? Why?

(Was going to ask this question somewhere else, but Yahoo Answers is dead, and the Quora app is a massive piss-bucket. So here I am…)

First of all, congratulate you for opening a thread that promises to be very interesting.

(Not that a topic about which burner of your stove you use most, could not be interesting at all, for some people I guess xD ).

----------------------

For me is impossible even begin to give an answer, just like that. I remember that I felt (feel?) much like you in exactly the same issues.

So I will be rumiating a more detailed answer for the following hours.

PS.

Strictly as an optional annex to this post I leave here a presentation of a Latin American scientist. The presentation title is "Towards a General Theory of the SOBs".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Kf_NftfZqY xD

Same reason humans aren't traveling space already.

"Man is only looking for a hole; Woman is only looking for a pole!" ~ old Muslim saying

Social attitudes towards sex have varied over the years and throughout different cultures. Cultures centered around the Abrahamic religions have been especially bad at it and generally more sexually repressive than other cultures. The US itself tends to be one of the more sexually repressive countries in the West nowadays, as odd as that might sound.

Overall, it's been several factors, from a power struggle between the sexes as male priesthoods wanted to keep women out and so the menfolk could be forced to focus on their religious devotions without getting distracted by thoughts of sex. This lead to being ashamed of the body and its natural impulses, which itself lead to vain attempts to suppress ones' sexual nature in an attempt to morally justify why it was bad to have a sexual side.

On top of that, the climate was chillier in the past and not just due to today's climate change issues. Furthermore, economic factors made aspects of sexuality that didn't focus on procreation, and thus in churning out the next generation of peasants, serfs, and cannon fodder, less than desirable for those in power.

Bullying is a cheap and easy (and fun) way to feel superior to others, so humans tend to mock, shame, and humiliate anyone who doesn't conform. As mentioned above, that conformity includes being ashamed of the body and "improper" sexual feelings despite the shame being unhealthy and unnatural. On top of that shame, there's likely also a secret thrill in being and thinking sexually inappropriate things yet publicly expressing those things in a socially acceptable manner. Or to put another way, public bullying and discrimination as a fetish as well as a form of feeling better about oneself and of fitting in with everyone else in your group.

Why at all??

I know people have been using words like these since ancient times, such as harlot, floozy, slut, hoe, whore, hussy, tramp, skank, and an endless list of slang slurs for people —-Especially women, who are very libidinous.

Our current values regarding sexuality change continuously... even within a generation, as we are witnessing right now. We move from more tolerant to less tolerant times and the contrary, about various themes of the universe of sexuality.

Some people will say that some attitudes are "a Western" point of view. But if Western civilization comes from ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, we must remember that back then, what we call homosexuality was widely accepted. Women were viewed, yes, as somehow inferior to men, but not necessarily, for what I know, in regards to sexual behavior.

Then there was a period of Monotheism in the West, with Judaism, Christianity and Islam - I include Islam and most of Islamic countries in the Middle East and North Africa, as "Western" - that at least at the beginning have very strict moral norms about sexuality. I guess it comes as the norms more suitable for tribes that roamed the Deserts. But currently in the Christian world that strict view is disappearing, along with the power and influence in everyday lives, of Christian religions (I mean, on average). But there are, too, other religions and other cultures that have not been so strict about sexuality... I am thinking of Hinduism and Buddhism, and other Oriental religions.

I have read, if you believe Rebert Kaplan, that the status of Thai prostitute could be very different, at least in principle, that one in New York. The former seen more like an "entrepreneur".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_D._Kaplan

About cultures one can say a lot. But what about the Evolution of Humanity? Have Humans evolved to be more sexually restrained or not?

You have for example the view of Desmon Morris. The human penis is more large than necessary, and is evolving even larger. Human tits are permanently large, simulating "frontal buttocks" to stimulate the male. Humans don't have a period of estrus ... they are sexually ready all the time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Naked_Ape

Then, humans are hyper-sexualized monkeys, so to speak. And ethological adaptations, should have accompanied those adaptations. So probably those words, and many others, are probably more recent,... I will guess that from the beginning of Civilization. Before, I believe, life was so precarious, dangerous and short, for people to waste the time criticizing much the sexual conduct of others, beyond the most immediate competition.

Of course, you have authors like Wilhelm Reich and his book "Der Einbruch der Sexuellen Zwangsmoral", in which he claimed that the natural and original cultures, were Matriarchal, and absolutely "liberated" even in themes like incest, or sexual experimentation of both sexes at early age. However, I believe that by the 1930s, there was alreday a lot of Ideology going around about these themes.

https://openlibrary.org/works/OL1992600W/Der_Einbruch_der_sexuellen_Zwangsmoral

Why talk about sexuality like it’s a disease? Why make people who attempt at being sexually liberated feel like it’s a bad thing, when it’s neither bad or good? It’s the way you use it that determines whether the situation is bad or good.

In principle ... yes. But in Real Life, does anything goes?

What is "sexually liberated"?

Let's put one example ... if you are going to have a "very liberated" sex life with MANY sexual partners, you have to be aware, that you could catch (in real life) any kind of STDs ... then someone will say that is because people does thing, say, without a condom, or do French kiss ... or even more... but then, if you cannot do that ... Are you really free? But if you do it, anyway, then you have to admit that the consequences for you and maybe for your close persons could be great.

And people that do some things to the extreme and recklessly, usually "end bad". Even if, as many other things, sex in principle and per se has nothing wrong.

And I have not even began to scratch in the surface of "sexual liberation", in other points of view. Political for example.

So in that sense, why do people constantly degrade sexuality in general, when they should be focused on adulterers who don’t communicate with their partners, or idiotic home-wreckers? Those are people who use sexuality wrong, so why are people always damning the entirety of sexuality, when it’s clearly not plainly horny people’s fault, and when it’s obviously the fault of people who are just sleaze-bags? Why?

(Was going to ask this question somewhere else, but Yahoo Answers is dead, and the Quora app is a massive piss-bucket. So here I am…)

Well, at least I believe that we have here an entire massive site, of people that do not view negatively sex per se. Then there are other sites ... and groups of people, in real life, that surely have views similar to yours. I assure you.

I don't try to change society in that regard. I don't know even if I try to do it, I am doing "the right thing".

Rather I employ my time looking for people with which I could share thoughts and deeds. But you have to invest your time and effort in that... looking for something good for you.

mexicanfurry said:
But if Western civilization comes from ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, we must remember that back then, what we call homosexuality was widely accepted.

Homosexuality was only considered honorable for the top. For the bottom, it was considered shameful. Which dovetails with Roman views on women.
And AFAIK, the Vikings held the same view on homosexuality.
That's why I'd say it wasn't completely accepted, at least not in the way we think of LGBT acceptance today.

/me tries to imagine a gay rights movement for tops only

nathmurr said:
Why talk about sexuality like it’s a disease?

What MexicanFurry said. It's a very obvious frame of reference when you can plainly see what happens to people who exchange bodily fluids with just anyone, but you live in an era with no way for anyone to know about things like microorganisms, and one where condoms and modern medical treatments haven't been invented. The conclusion in that circumstance is pretty clear. Not something to take lightly.

nathmurr said:
Why make people who attempt at being sexually liberated feel like it’s a bad thing, when it’s neither bad or good? It’s the way you use it that determines wether the situation is bad or good.

So in that sense, why do people constantly degrade sexuality in general, when they should be focused on adulterers who don’t communicate with their partners, or idiotic home-wreckers? Those are people who use sexuality wrong, so why are people always damning the entirety of sexuality, when it’s clearly not plainly horny people’s fault, and when it’s obviously the fault of people who are just sleaze-bags? Why?

You say this isn't "bad or good," but you're looking at the perspective of whether trust is being broken. Maybe it wasn't such a moral standard that brought about these seemingly-arbitrary prejudices. Maybe it originates as a biological imperative. Nature doesn't care about right or wrong, it cares about reproductive success or reproductive failure, and that's why getting kicked in the balls causes debilitating pain. It didn't have to be that way... If you buy into the psychological explanation, then "useful" might be a better word than "good." So, if these values could have reproductive benefit, then they damn sure have a good reason for sticking around.

I would assume all these feelings are tied to reproduction. This is a reasonable guess, because the underlying drive to reproduce drives our thoughts in a lot of ways, such as being the reason for the existence of sexuality, which is pretty relevant to the topic at hand. In that sense, these aren't arbitrary feelings that make no sense. We are talking about the propagation of life, which is something humans must take seriously if they are to continue existing. And when those who take it more seriously have more reproductive success, well, that sort of compounds the presence of those feelings.

The reason it's aimed at women in particular is because, for obvious reasons, they do not have to worry about their children not being their own flesh and blood. Men have no way to guarantee their reproductive success except to ensure, one way or another, that their women aren't having some on the side. Sometimes this is done through force, other times through social pressure. Why take it out on women who have nothing to do with you instead of leaving it at unfaithful wives? Because the more people decide to hold all women accountable, the less you have to worry about from other people, as your wife will be subject to the same pressure. It's like how rape is usually seen as wrong when it's got obvious reproductive benefits. To allow these things would introduces a new threat to those who already have their shit together. Stigmatizing these things is a net gain for males trying to guarantee their reproductive success, or at least the males who have their shit together and have acquired a mate and are valued by society. This is all perfectly logical for a creature that has a biological imperative to reproduce.

Which, let's face it, is something the average furry can't relate to ;) people here are probably waaay less likely to have any desire to have kids than the general population, so bear that in mind if nothing I say seems identifiable. Also, bear in mind, human instincts don't always manifest in a way that is "useful" for what those instincts are "intended" for. And so gay people, or people in an open relationship involving contraceptives, could totally get jealous of what people do with their partners due to a mindset that originated for the sake of reproduction.

And that's my hypothesis. Someone else can handle the studies...

And re: homosexuality:
What mantikor said basically. I'd say homosexuality was not "widely accepted." More like it wasn't considered a "thing." The idea of sexual orientations didn't really enter into the thought process. Men were still expected to have kids, it's just that they weren't as big on love-making with women because they didn't think much of women in general. So men were a better choice for the pleasures of the flesh. For the Romans, bottoming was seen as being for slaves and probably amounted to rape most of the time.

What I mean by “Sexually liberated” isn’t going around having sex with whoever and whenever. I’m talking about people who are open-minded, and don’t shame others for wanting sex, or having it. People who can have premarital sex, or talk about sexuality, but don’t feel ashamed by any of those concepts. In other words, people who are free of being chained down by society’s arbitrary BS.

Clawstripe, Mantikor, Fenrick...

Very interesting points of view. To be reflected.

( What I told before? =). Thoughts are really flowing know. )

----------------------

Nathmurr.

What I mean by “Sexually liberated” isn’t going around having sex with whoever and whenever. I’m talking about people who are open-minded, and don’t shame others for wanting sex, or having it. People who can have premarital sex, or talk about sexuality, but don’t feel ashamed by any of those concepts. In other words, people who are free of being chained down by society’s arbitrary BS.

I symphatize with that view. To be free of shame produced just by the cultural ambiance, from a psychological point of view. To feel free to explore your sexuallity and enjoy it.

But then again... even when in Internet we are for one another somehow "disembodied" - just white symbols in a blue background, so to speak - but most / all of us, in front of our keyboards, are made of flesh and bone. Complex biological and social beings. There is an "objective reality" around everyone of us.

Besides... I for one, don't think that most of us live necessarily in totally evil societies. As Fenrick said, maybe many of the long held rules and values of the society have a reason to be. To keep functioning, at the very least. And even, some of them as a good advice of how average humans could complete well their life cycle.

Between the ideal and the deed, it is advisable to reflect things well.