Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

Why DO people have such busybody attitudes to sexuality? *mod warning opening post*

1356

Comments

  • #62
    oppenheimer1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,733 ✭✭✭oppenheimer1


    endacl wrote: »
    Inconsiderate parking.

    No, the Church have told people that if they refrain from parking for certain days during the month, they can park as they please during the rest of it...:pac:


  • #63
    Shout Dust
    Closed Accounts Posts: 341 ✭✭Shout Dust


    I've a theory that its because other people having sex and reproducing would be to the detriment to us passing on our own genes


  • #64
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    endacl wrote: »
    Inconsiderate parking.


    Enda you must have missed the fcukers that park all over the pavement on a Sunday morning and you've to weave in and out between them to pass, not to mention all the cars that park down a housing estate near the church! :(


  • #65
    endacl
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 22,443 ✭✭✭✭endacl


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    Enda you must have missed the fcukers that park all over the pavement on a Sunday morning and you've to weave in and out between them to pass, not to mention all the cars that park down a housing estate near the church! :(
    I don't get out of bed on a Sunday morning. That's 'their' time. I get the rest of the week!

    :D


  • #66
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Its just fcuking boring thanks whoring adding those throw away parts and adds nothing to your post. Its the intellectual equivalent of saying Your Ma

    Yes, I totally mentioned groups that interfere in the sex lives of others in a thread about people who interfere in other peoples' sex lives because I wanted thanks. There was no other possible reason I could have mentioned them. Not even a shred of relevance. Do you rush into discussions on World War 2 screaming "GODWIN!!!!" triumphantly by any chance?
    Ok to respond to your original point, I don;t think people most people have a busybody attitude to sexuality, being a busybody implies that you go out looking to interfere or judge, its very different judging something done in public or thrust in your face.

    This is exactly what the groups I mentioned do. In every country in the world, including this one, running the full gamut of interference from trying to shame and judge peoples' sexuality to actively murdering them for it. If recent events have shown anything, it's that Ireland is FULL of interfering busybodies looking to act holier-than-thou at any old thing. And you don't think people have a busybody attitude to sex? Don't try to fob off your lack of knowledge/compassion by pretending you're oh-so-jaded that mentioning topical organisations is worse than five consecutive Holocausts. Because THAT'S 'fcuking boring thanks whoring'.
    Interestingly you use the word taboo in your post, you should be aware that its actually the social "unacceptability" of the action that makes it appealing.
    If one is truly completely a blank slate or completely open minded, these things wouldn't be "taboo", and as such they would probably loose some of there appeal.

    In short to get enjoyment from the simple fact something is taboo means you have to have some social hangups about sex in the first place (like everyone has to some extent).

    Nope. You just have to enjoy the act. If I considered anything taboo, I wouldn't do it, because it's taboo. It also helps if stuffy uptight moany arseholes think it's the devil's work, because pissing off boring f*cks like that is always a worthwhile and enjoyable endeavour. But hey, if we're going down the pop psychology road, your assumption that you HAVE to have hang-ups about a thing to enjoy it speaks volumes about your own outlook.


    tl;dr

    Ah, bless.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    - Crazed zealot who hates people enjoying sex.

    - Someone who doesn't care what others do consensually in private but expresses, when asked, reservations about very public sex acts.

    Not the same thing.


  • #68
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Sarky wrote: »
    This is exactly what the groups I mentioned do. In every country in the world, including this one, running the full gamut of interference from trying to shame and judge peoples' sexuality to actively murdering them for it. If recent events have shown anything, it's that Ireland is FULL of interfering busybodies looking to act holier-than-thou at any old thing. Any you don't think people have a busybody attitude to sex? Don't try to fob off your lack of knowledge/compassion by pretending you're oh-so-jaded that mentioning topical organisations is worse than five consecutive Holocausts. Because THAT'S 'fcuking boring thanks whoring'.


    Ireland is just as full Sarky of people who look for people to object to their behaviour because it gets them attention. The holier-than-thou types are usually the same type of person who considers themselves intellectually superior to others, and this isn't always based on a religious or conservative foundation.

    Nope. You just have to enjoy the act. If I considered anything taboo, I wouldn't do it, because it's taboo. It also helps if stuffy uptight moany arseholes think it's the devil's work, because pissing off boring f*cks like that is always a worthwhile and enjoyable endeavour. But hey, if we're going down the pop psychology road, your assumption that you HAVE to have hang-ups about a thing to enjoy it speaks volumes about your own outlook.


    Why would you actually care what stuffy, uptight arseholes think though? I mean, I usually ignore the opinions of boring fcuks and those that don't agree with me. If they don't agree with me, that's their problem, not mine, because I'm not seeking their permission or approval to have sex the way I want to have sex, I'm enjoying sex because I enjoy sex, not because I care about the opinions of others.


  • #69
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    - Crazed zealot who hates people enjoying sex.

    - Someone who doesn't care what others do consensually in private but expresses, when asked, reservations about very public sex acts.

    Not the same thing.


    When I'm just after my breakfast, I don't want to see a lad gobbling another lad's breakfast roll in public :(


  • #70
    Fox_In_Socks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭Fox_In_Socks


    Czarcasm wrote: »
    When I'm just after my breakfast, I don't want to see a lad gobbling another lad's breakfast roll in public :(

    The tomato sauce gets everywhere if you gobble....

    :pac:


  • #71
    Mariasofia
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,887 ✭✭✭Mariasofia


    I dont think ill ever fully enjoy a breakfast roll again..:)(without mental pictures anyway)


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    kfk
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 546 ✭✭✭kfk


    Try to imagine going to Tesco etc. and people are banging in the isles, on the checkouts, getting in the way of trolleys and just being a nuisance. Christmas dinner with the family and your parents in law are going to town at the top of the table!

    Would sex have to be restricted for people working? Would people have to be insured for sex because of the higher risk of injury? Pregnant women everywhere! Boners everywhere! Blood everywhere! I think the whole nudist and free sex market would just drag us back to the dark ages.


  • #73
    Fox_In_Socks
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,615 ✭✭✭Fox_In_Socks


    kfk wrote: »
    Try to imagine going to Tesco etc. and people are banging in the isles, on the checkouts, getting in the way of trolleys and just being a nuisance. Christmas dinner with the family and your parents in law are going to town at the top of the table!

    Would sex have to be restricted for people working? Would people have to be insured for sex because of the higher risk of injury? Pregnant women everywhere! Boners everywhere! Blood everywhere! I think the whole nudist and free sex market would just drag us back to the dark ages.

    Jesus, sign me up!


  • #74
    Czarcasm
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,076 ✭✭✭✭Czarcasm


    Fox_In_Socks wrote: »
    Jesus, sign me up!


    Sex in the frozen food aisle could be a bit problematic, but the Christmas turkey fcuker sounds like a runner- never mind having no elbows on the table, get your god damn feet off the table! :pac:


  • #75
    Nodin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 46,938 ✭✭✭✭Nodin


    Wacker The Attacker wrote: »
    I love fanny


    Don't tell us. Tell Fanny.


  • #76
    RDM_83 again
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,116 ✭✭✭RDM_83 again


    Sarky wrote: »
    Yes, I totally mentioned groups that interfere in the sex lives of others in a thread about people who interfere in other peoples' sex lives because I wanted thanks. There was no other possible reason I could have mentioned them. Not even a shred of relevance. Do you rush into discussions on World War 2 screaming "GODWIN!!!!" triumphantly by any chance?



    This is exactly what the groups I mentioned do. In every country in the world, including this one, running the full gamut of interference from trying to shame and judge peoples' sexuality to actively murdering them for it. If recent events have shown anything, it's that Ireland is FULL of interfering busybodies looking to act holier-than-thou at any old thing. Any you don't think people have a busybody attitude to sex? Don't try to fob off your lack of knowledge/compassion by pretending you're oh-so-jaded that mentioning topical organisations is worse than five consecutive Holocausts. Because THAT'S 'fcuking boring thanks whoring'.




    Sarky wrote: »
    Yes, focus on the throwaway part instead of the actual point.

    Your above post would be a lot more valid if you hadn't said this, when I pointed out that section of your post.
    Sarky wrote: »
    Nope. You just have to enjoy the act. If I considered anything taboo, I wouldn't do it, because it's taboo. It also helps if stuffy uptight moany arseholes think it's the devil's work, because pissing off boring f*cks like that is always a worthwhile and enjoyable endeavour. But hey, if we're going down the pop psychology road, your assumption that you HAVE to have hang-ups about a thing to enjoy it speaks volumes about your own outlook.

    Your sort of backing up my view when you start going on about how pissing of stuffy uptight arseholes is so great ;)

    And you are the one that used the word taboo, you didn't use the word alternative which would be more correct (and also sensitive "alternative lifestyles").
    Your also missing the point about enjoyment, for example if your taking enjoyment from the fact that the act is shocking and out there yes its to do with your sexual hang-ups. If you get more pleasure from banging some one if front of a bunch of people than doing it in private its happening because of your own social conditioning (and your rebellion against it), because the actual act is still the same its just the social situation is different.


  • #77
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo wrote: »
    It's definitely something to do with controlling women and knowing who the father of the child is.

    Tribal communities marry off virgins, the Muslims in Saudi Arabia and other places make women wear the veil and we get/got the CC and so on around the world.

    Putting it bluntly, men couldn't trust 'village bicycles' over virgin good girls as it heightened the chances that 'their' child was actually genuinely their child. Humans have to put an enormous amount of time, money, commitment ect. into the raising of a child so women who don't ride around possessed the best chance a man had of passing on his genes, that's why we're here right now sure. :)

    Contraception, DNA testing and the welfare state are the three main reasons why society doesn't put so much weight on the importance of chastity and all that as much as we did.

    People here are posting like sex is taboo in this day and age, it certainly was but I really don't think it is now.
    The idea that prehistoric tribes were largely focused on paternity (men ensuring they were father of child) issues (and moreso that they leaned towards monogamy), is not actually that solid, as there is a lot of countering evidence of tribes who were extremely open sexually, and there isn't anything solid to show one way or another, that this is how tribes in general were.

    Am reading a rather good book at the moment 'Sex at Dawn' (which I think can be found free on the authors website), which goes into all this - I'm not settled on its arguments, don't know if I agree with it all (haven't read the countering book to it yet), but it's a very good read.

    That said, I don't disagree that paternity-issues play a part in this - but I think the reason they do is more because of societal pressures, with another root cause (e.g. religion) behind them.


  • #78
    dd972
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,563 ✭✭✭dd972


    Because OP. the quay-ers are wanting to take over the world, convert anyone between 11 and 15, compulsory homosexuality's the next step after marriage and you shouldn't sit too near them too cos I heard it's contagious


    ...Well that's what Deano and Robbie told me down the pub


  • #79
    Stabshauptmann
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,885 ✭✭✭Stabshauptmann


    Anytime a story crops up in the media about a sexual act the woman is vilified.
    A) Why the woman
    B) Whats wrong with the act

    It's usually other women who decry loudly how degrading the act is. These people know nothing about what they talk.


  • #80
    P_1
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,681 ✭✭✭✭P_1


    Stabshauptmann wrote: »
    Anytime a story crops up in the media about a sexual act the woman is vilified.
    A) Why the woman
    B) Whats wrong with the act

    It's usually other women who decry loudly how degrading the act is. These people know nothing about what they talk.

    That's something that always annoys me with 'incidents' like that. People get onto a soapbox and claim that a sexual act is either 'disgusting', 'degrading' or 'wrong'. Now usually when two consenting adults decide to have sex or commit sexual acts on one another there is generally pleasure derived by both parties to the act.


  • #81
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    I know it gets frowned upon as the kind of default answer whenever you consider the ills of social conservatism in this country, but is 'the Catholic Church' not a pretty definitive answer here?
    Seems clear to me, that we're still shedding obsolete social conservatism rooted in religion, and that this is the primary reason why people still feel any need at all to judge others for their sexuality.

    Fair enough for those who judge just because they don't want to see something publicly, that's logical enough, but those who would go further and judge someones worth/value (basically tantamount to dehumanizing them) for their sexuality or indiscretion - they have no place doing that, and that kind of extreme/harsh judgment I do think is rooted in lingering (often misogynistic) social attitudes instilled by religion, which causes women to be viewed as sluts for any display of promiscuity and men as 'legends'.

    There's no escaping that particular enormous double standard in society at the moment (and it's far from the only double standard as well - arguably there are some which are tantamount to misandry, but I won't go into that as it'd be a long debate :P), and it's interesting but hard to pin down exactly what motivates it still; it's not all down to religion (even though I think that formed most of it - it still lingers even after it), I think Ireland still has some big societal issues surrounding sexual openness, and between genders (e.g. expected gender roles), and regarding mental health, and regarding actual society itself (I don't know how to explain it well, but in Ireland I think people are disproportionately prone to peer-pressure/groupthink, as compared to other places - this leads to a reinforcement of backwards social values, out of fear of being judged/ostracized yourself for rocking the boat).

    I think it's a really interesting topic, but it's also really really complicated to try and get a proper grasp or understanding of it, because I think there are a very large amount of different societal problems mixed in with it there.


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    FiachDubh
    Closed Accounts Posts: 72 ✭✭FiachDubh


    Because human relationships are about more than reproduction

    And also I know form Bird keeping that some species of parrot wont mate without privacy.


  • #83
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    RDM_83 again wrote: »
    Your above post would be a lot more valid if you hadn't said this, when I pointed out that section of your post.

    Oh I see, you only wanted to create an argument about semantics, for the sake of argument. Mission accomplished. Well done you! Maybe I should have replaces 'getting jiggy' with 'the sacred physical act of love between consenting adults', just in case someone thought I meant 'impersonating Will Smith' and wanted to bring me up on that in order to look really clever.
    Your sort of backing up my view when you start going on about how pissing of stuffy uptight arseholes is so great ;)

    And you are the one that used the word taboo, you didn't use the word alternative which would be more correct (and also sensitive "alternative lifestyles").
    Your also missing the point about enjoyment, for example if your taking enjoyment from the fact that the act is shocking and out there yes its to do with your sexual hang-ups. If you get more pleasure from banging some one if front of a bunch of people than doing it in private its happening because of your own social conditioning (and your rebellion against it), because the actual act is still the same its just the social situation is different.


    You suggest politically correct terms for sexual kinks, you tell me that enjoying a kink is because of your social conditioning, and then in the same sentence you say it's actually because of the rejection of same? And I'm the one with hang-ups? Have you considered that someone might enjoy a kink simply because they are free to do so? Or because those still clinging to their own shame and fear are really amusing when they get scandalised, as well as bitter that they're not having as much fun?

    Anal, BDSM, blood-play, cosplay, whatever else is out there in the vast, vast field of "alternative" (happy now?) sexual behaviour, none of them need the shock factor you're talking about. Just one or more consenting adults, nobody needs to be surprised, or embarrassed about it. And lo! People enjoy them in public and in private without disgusting any little old ladies!

    And all this because you wanted to roll your eyes at a mention of the Catholic Church in order to be hip and down with the kids. You know this makes you the guy who tried to steer the thread towards Catholic bashing. By all means, continue, I hear Catholic-basher-bashing threads are really popular right now. I'm sure those thanks will come flooding in for you.


  • #84
    Roger_007
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 21,886 ✭✭✭✭Roger_007


    FiachDubh wrote: »
    Because human relationships are about more than reproduction

    And also I know form Bird keeping that some species of parrot wont mate without privacy.
    But do they talk about it afterwards....:rolleyes:?


  • #85
    Femme_Fatale
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,628 ✭✭✭Femme_Fatale


    If you're not into kinky stuff, you're clinging to shame and fear and you're bitter.

    There you have it: enlightened, inclusive, libertine thinking.

    ****ing hell, it's just another form of trying to control sexuality.


  • #86
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Femme_Fatale wrote: »
    If you're not into kinky stuff, you're clinging to shame and fear and you're bitter.

    There you have it: enlightened, inclusive, libertine thinking.

    ****ing hell, it's just another form of trying to control sexuality.
    Has anyone expressed this sentiment though?


  • #87
    a fat guy
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 800 ✭✭✭a fat guy


    I think it has a lot to do with how men and women behave when it comes to courtship.

    The man asks the woman out, spends time and effort "on" her and eventually they have sex. He has to work for it.

    Why would a man spend that much effort on a woman who he knows has given sex to men in the past quite freely? Especially when everyone (her friends included probably!) demonises her?

    She is blackened by society then, because she is seen as not being worth as much as other women who do not act in such a way.

    It's not right for anyone involved, but its how society operates. The woman is an object, and the man must (almost) always chase, if he doesn't then he does not get any sex.


    I'm not saying that this is the only problem with people's attitudes towards sex, but it is the one that is most relevant to this thread.


  • #88
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Has anyone expressed this sentiment though?

    Not that I can see. But all my male privilege might be getting in the way, it's insidious like that. I guess maybe not being into something makes it easy to assume that people who get annoyed at those actively against that thing are also talking about them. People get really weird about sex. I wish they didn't. Everyone would be happier.


  • #89
    Love2u
    Closed Accounts Posts: 325 ✭✭Love2u


    Nodin wrote: »
    ...running through woods after game with an exposed penis would be an extreme sport few would care to try. The idea that people would be naked all the time is a bit mad - its not practical for a range of reasons.

    Its Certainly not a sport I'd like my children to witness if I happened to be taking a walk in the woods with them :-@ I say no thanks.


  • #90
    RobertKK
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 33,782 ✭✭✭✭RobertKK


    People should go around naked, it will help feed things like fleas, horseflies, ticks, maybe some animals who want a bit of meat and see your dangly bits.

    Then people are living too long and if we all went around naked we could have some extra cases of skin cancer and this would help kill off some people via skin cancer and maybe hypothermia given our climate.

    I don't think people should be like pussy riot who had sex in public which included in front of children, or where they used a frozen chicken in a supermarket to pleasure themselves.
    That chicken didn't die for that.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    Norwesterner
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 725 ✭✭✭Norwesterner


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Why is it considered "indecent" in the first place by humans though? I can't think of any other mammals who behave in the same way.
    Quite a lot of the animal kingdom are monogomous sexually.
    Most fornicate for breeding purposes only.
    I've no problem what people do in the sack, as long as they don't ask me to pick up the tab for the sprogs when the daddy goes AWOL.
    I think the reason why we have to be prudish sexually is to protect to sanctity of the family and to keep some kind of order in society.


Advertisement
Advertisement