Thread: American Aversion To Sex

Yeah, I have a huge problem with North America's priorities concerning sex vs. violence, as well.

Just for fun I googled up "america aversion to sex", and this was the first hit.

This question reminds me of the day that Michael Jr. brought home a note from his school. I had broken that rambunctious will of his long ago, so I was confused. How could he have gotten himself into trouble? But he wasn't misbehaving, it was a note about his school's sexual education (indoctrination) program.

I knew I had to act fast, so I called my son into the den so we could have the dreaded sex talk. I had him take a seat on the couch next to me, and I opened up a book to show to him. This was medical tome about infectious diseases complete with pictures. I made sure he saw every picture in that book. "No, Michael Jr, don't turn your head; you need to see what happens if you don't abstain from sex."

It can be hard being a good parent sometimes.

I based my sex talk on what works, abstinence-only education.[/b]

In all seriousness, I think religion is behind it.

Haha, wow. I feel sorry for that kid...

Lol here's a great like:

I based my sex talk on what works, abstinence-only education. The infinitely wise President George W. Bush has pushed for abstinence programs to be taught in all our schools. This means bringing up contraceptives only to talk about their lack of effectiveness and failure rates.[/b]

I tend to think that it is a holdover from some of our more puritanical ancestors. Sex, and lack of control is associated with giving in to your baser animal instrincts.

I've been to Europe a number of times, they seem to have a healthier outlook on sex than most Americans. As a result, when my children became old enough to be interested in sex, my wife and I were always open about it with them. Not graphic details or anything, we just let them know that talk about sex was no different than say talk about the weather.

Now, we DO encourage them to wait until they find someone special before enguaging in sex with them. Not because it is evil or ugly, but just because it is a special expressino of love that they SHOULD save as a gift for that special person.

Originally Posted by bradybaker

So I was reading the Bill Clinton topic. His sexual deviance seems to be a major issue for a lot of Americans.

Look at American media, violence and obscenities are common place in TV and movies now. But when an actress wears nothing but a towel on Monday Night Football, it's a national issue. Grand Theft Auto's violence wasn't recieved well, but the reaction doesn't compare to the one garnered by the San Andreas 'hot coffee' incident.

Where does this aversion to sex come from? Their closest allies in Europe and even their neighbours to the north are much more enlightened when it comes to this most basic of human expressions. It's easy to see where the violence comes from, America was born out of revolution. Is there a similar cause to the sex aversion?

Help me figure this one out.
[/b]

It's not what I would call an American thing. It's a Christian thing. We have tons and tons of Christians here, and the Christians here seem to be more obsessed with what everybody else is doing than Christians in other countries. It probably has to do with the Protestantism that is so prevalent here, especially in the South. I am pretty sure that the Baptists own Mississippi, for example. In the U.S., we have a clash of cultures, and you are talking about just one of the cultures. We have a huge world of views and lifestyles outside of the conservative Christian culture. We have a huge porn industry here. We also have a gigantic strip club industry. Prostitution is legal in Nevada. That shows how the conservative Christian culture does not dominate. A very large portion of the country is open minded about sex. The amount of sex on television and in our movies is a good illustration of the other culture, and it's the one that dominates the media. It is definitely not anything close to the entire country that is so appalled by fornication.

The Clinton-Lewisnky scandal was not so much an illustration of an American aversion to sex or even a Christian aversion to sex outside of marriage. It was more of a conservative aversion to Bill Clinton. They couldn't bring him down with any of the other crimes he was being investigated for, so they had to settle for trying to bring him down with a perjury charge. Clinton was in trouble for perjury, not oral sex by itself. Judicial precedent suggested that convicting Clinton of perjury would involve selective prosecution. That is why the investigation was unjust. I heard a lot of Americans, Canadians, and Europeans screaming that Clinton was in trouble for having oral sex. That is not what was happening. It was just a case of conservatives finding a loop hole where Clinton technically committed a felony and could be brought down, so they hoped. It was like how the FBI couldn't get Al Capone on murder, laundering, extortion, or anything else, so they got him on tax evasion. It was not a matter of an American aversion to tax evasion. It was the only apparent way to bring down somebody seen as a criminal for other reasons.

I agree with encouraging teenage abstinence. I know it won't be completely effective, probably not even 25% effective. However, if just one person in an entire junior high or high school is convinced to wait on sex, that could be one person who avoids having to deal with the birth of his or her child or an abortion at a time when it will be so incredibly difficult to handle it. We have so many kids born into families that are not ready for them, and even more often into no family at all, often not even a mother. That is a real problem here, and teenagers usually don't quite get it. They know that sex causes pregnancy and can transmit sexually transmitted diseases, but it way too often happens where teenagers get pregnant or get somebody else pregnant or end up with a sexually transmitted disease and then say, "Oh!!!!!! Now I get it!!!!!!!!" and it's too late. I do believe that the added message that if they do it they need to use condoms should be given, but teenagers need to greatly understand in vivid detail what the consequences of sex can be. Although I agree with that much, I respect other people's wishes and actions concerning their sex lives. I think pornography, prostitution, stripping, gay marriage, and multiple spouse marriages should all be legal. I have no problem with anybody who wants to engage in those things. I just think the consequences of sex are too much overlooked by too many people who don't quite get what they are doing, and those people need to be given really good information and encouragement.

I don't think it is an aversion to SEX at all, but rather a general discomfort about others deciding when and how our children should be made aware of all the facts of life.

I was raised in a Catholic home where sex was a "dirty" topic. That was a long time ago. We swore our children would not grow up with the same baggage - and they indeed been raised differently. Yes, our nation has puritan roots and we are still growing out of the whole "taboo subject" thing. That's different from an "aversion."

That being said, we refuse (in our home) to allow the sexual relationship be reduced to something casual or recreational. There are real consequences to engaging in sex... bringing children into this world being just one of them. Bonds (spiritual and otherwise) are formed and strengthened in intimacy, and people are hurt horribly when those bonds are broken. No matter how one feels about abortion, (I feel it is murder,) it involves a medical procedure that carries risk. And that doesn't even begin to touch on STDs.

In this home, we have an aversion to CASUAL sex.

Going back to the Clinton thing, since it was brought up again in this context - that was a matter of a married President cheating on his wife with a young female SUBORDINATE, using the highest office of the land to conduct his trysts in and lying about it to the public, after which he declared publicly that oral sex isn't sex. This isn't a schlocky movie star or some talk show host we are talking about here... he was our freakin' PRESIDENT at the time. Our kids were very young when this was going on, and we found ourselves unable to even have the bloody news on in the middle of the day unless we wanted to start answering questions that children of that age have no business needing to be concerned about.

That's not aversion to sex - that's aversion to perverse, indiscreet, immoral behavior in public by our highest elected government official holding our most revered office in the U.S. It is an aversion to taking the very act that our species' survival depends on and treating it in a casual and cavalier manner.

Reducing that to an "aversion to sex" is ridiculous.

Personally I agree with those who say it is because of the puritan roots, and christians in general. This is nothing against christians, but the christian religious right in america is attempting to control everybody's lives with their crap. Why is stem cell research, abortion, gay marriage, etc. such a big deal? It is mostly because the religious right is putting their paw in everything, and with a president like Bush, there isn't much to do about it. Most other people don't really give a damn if gays marry eachother, or if some teenage girl who accidentally got pregnant wants an abortion. A lot of people care very much a about stem cell research, and not because it involves "killing babies", even though they are so undeveloped, they can't feel a thing, but because they want it to happen because of a relative suffering from diabetes or something. Most people don't honestly care wether or not prostitution is allowed, becasue even when it isn't there is nothing we can do about it. The thing is, the right are controlling the media a lot, and making their laws because god dammit, is offensive to them (yet damn isn't), shit is too strong, fuck is innapropriate. The fine for indecent exposure or whatever you want to call it on TV is like $300,000 because the religious right and bush want it. Personally I think it is all BS, and while extreme nudity shouldn't be allowed on TV, Janet Jackson's "wardrobe disfunction" was a way overrated event. Lay off a little. It should be up to the parents to teach the child what is the right thing to do about sex in a non-indoctrinating way, not some conservative random guy who doesn't even know youk, and is just doing this to shove their believes on others.

Isnt it amazing how the misconceptions of our ancestors ripple through time. Sex was thought to be immoral BECAUSE it was a basic human drive, which were all considered the work of the devil. Ehhh, hold on a second.... Anyway, it is simple from there on out. Parents tell their children sex is dirty. The children tell their children, and so on for 1000 years. Then we get the leftovers.

Truthfully, we have made big strides with aboloshing these traditions. Soon sex wont even be an issue. The last 30-40 years have been GREAT for liberation of "the soal".

Religious traditions always fail, with time. When the traditions fail, the religion looses meaning and dissapears. PLEASE let this happen soon. Imagine a world where people are not preoccupied with the afterlife. A place where we could focus on here and now. All world problems could be solved.

The more averse people pretend to be, the more obssessed they really are.