[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by knox

the mistake that you're making is that you're confusing criticism against objetification and gender roles with puritanism. it's quite the opposite really. think about it.

besides, you're referring to sexuality without considering female sexuality. it is not that they SEE wrong in everything, it's that they're NOT FREE to express their sexuality a-as it really is b-without suffering consequences c-without having their sexuality pre-defined for them.

i think that's hard to understand without being a woman, but i will just say that if you're trying to imply that anyone on this forum is being a prude you're really far from the truth.

in fact, it gets a bit tiring that EVERYTIME a woman complains about feeling OBJECTIFIED in a NEGATIVE way, people will start using the word "prude". It's a bit like going on a date and not wanting to sleep with some guy and he starts calling you a prude to see if maybe you'll feel bad and put out.

ok, i think when i responded to this there was only the first paragraph and the rest must have been added while i was composing my reply. or maybe my eyes tricked me. either way, i only saw the first paragraph. so i'll add the rest.

i didn't mentioned female sexuality but i did not say that women see wrong in everything. i don't get that in my everyday life and i don't get that at home and i don't get that in my circle of friends and acquaintances. nowhere did i say that women see wrong in everything.

to address the next paragraph, i do however know that in certain places/ groups/ societies women are not allowed to express their own sexuality as it is, without social predefinitions, and without suffering consequences. absolutely. but again it's prudery and double standards that label a woman "a whore" if she likes sex, or determine that she has to have sex with men and for procreation, or that she has to put out if some asshole pays for dinner, and so on and so forth, we can make lists forever.

that thing about calling a woman a prude to see if she starts to put out sounds like a despicable trick to fool the feeble minded, and i doubt it would work, but i guess if done to an insecure teenager desperate to impress her peers it might have an effect.

regardless, when i say PURITAN im not saying "prude", much less modesty, which i consider a virtue, and the widespread lack of it one of the reasons i detest the jerry-springer atmosphere of the internet (yet here i am)... i'm talking about the view that sex is somehow negative and inherently "dirty", so it needs to be fetishized and objectified and hidden in a guilty and shameful corner in order to be "enjoyed". or else approached in total shamelessness--"girls gone wild" style.

i know this isn't going anywhere, just wanted to clarify that i call "puritans" those who demonize sex-- male sex, female sex, transgender sex, the most harmful people are those who demonize what should be one of the most enjoyable aspects of life (and i don't mean that you are that person, just in case you wonder). america was founded by a bunch of crazy people dressed in black who came from england with a lot of crazy notions about "evil". but every culture has its own bunch of puritans-- demonizers by day, pedophiles by night.

anyway, my eyes hurt, too much typing, and i think i need to go out regardless of who is around.