addressalign-toparrow-leftarrow-rightbackbellblockcalendarcameraccwcheckchevron-downchevron-leftchevron-rightchevron-small-downchevron-small-leftchevron-small-rightchevron-small-upchevron-upcircle-with-checkcircle-with-crosscircle-with-pluscrossdots-three-verticaleditemptyheartexporteye-with-lineeyefacebookfolderfullheartglobegmailgooglegroupsimageimagesinstagramlinklocation-pinm-swarmSearchmailmessagesminusmoremuplabelShape 3 + Rectangle 1outlookpersonStartprice-ribbonImported LayersImported LayersImported Layersshieldstartickettrashtriangle-downtriangle-uptwitteruseryahoo

Charlotte Philosophy Discussion Group Message Board › what is acceptable sexual behavior?

what is acceptable sexual behavior?

Helen
user 5766938
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 100
IMO, what a big bunch of words serving only to obfuscate my original question. The impropriety of the original posting stands on its own bad ground, naked so-to-speak for readers to recognize that it is not about philosophy, and I continue to view it as inappropriate for this Message Board. I will repeat, 'What does the original posting have to do with philosophy? What it does have to do with are excursions into subject matter irrelevant to philosophy. There was no "message" in the original posting to relate the content to philosophy. It would be hard to convince me that the posting could be validated.

Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,373
Helen,

Our group met this evening, and almost the whole meeting was spent discussing your recommendation.

There was a more basic issue briefly addressed but probably important, namely, what the function of the message board is (or what its functions are). It was noted that message boards are basically for messages. Such messages do not need to be about a specific philosophical topic. For instance, we could be discussing where we should meet in the future. Also, topics of general interest are often posted on message boards.

But it was the issue that you raised, namely, that there is something about the topic itself that makes it nakedly, obviously inappropriate, that we discussed most fully. There were six of us this time, and no one seemed to feel that there was anything wrong with the topic (e.g., that it should not have been posted in the first place), and 1/3 of our group was female.

There was some discussion of the possible implications that our two cousins, the chimps and the bonobos, are quite different in that the bonobos have sex with everyone (especially for conflict resolution) and are more peaceful than the chimps. The question was raised by one of our members as to why for humans masturbation would not be a satisfactory substitute for interpersonal sex as far as making us a more peaceful species is concerned. My answer (speculation) was that it was the specific association of sex with others that made it work to reduce conflict, emphasizing cooperation and the value of the other person (or animal) to one's own feeling of pleasure and well-being.

But frequently during the discussion group members expressed the wish that you could have been present so that they could ask you questions and understand more fully the line of reasoning that has led you to your opinion.

Regarding your observation that the original poster did not relate the content to philosophy, we note that he did not do so also when he posted the topic "International protests going on...." I guess I believe that anything as important as anger and sex certainly has a lot of philosophical issues associated with it. Of course I tried to clarify a number of philosophical issues that it and your posts brought out, so I see it as a good contribution to our group. Thanks!
A former member
Post #: 1
Helen, please join us at our next meeting. We look forward to meeting you and having you join our discussions -- whatever they turn out to be.
A former member
Post #: 1
Helen, we haven't met , so I'll introduce myself. I'm John. I've attended three consecutive meetings (so far) .

First let me say that you made (in my opinion) some valid and eloquent points.
Secondly, I've never been known for voicing popular opinions and hopefully this will not compromise my 'standing' in the group. From what I can tell, I doubt it will.

I share your view that current sexual attitudes would make for a lively discussion. Last night I voiced a concern that certain topics were straying; and to the point that it seemed as if we were trying to 'validate' quotes from internet references (people that have never attended a meeting)

If I may share my own personal philosophy, it is that I "enjoy being wrong." Seems like most people prefer to be among a "yes choir. " I'm sure that you can share and appreciate my view of "how does one mentally grow - if not mentally challenged".

During last nights meeting, I demonstrated my own short-sightedness. Not knowing you (nor reading any of these postings) , I began to verbally suggest that your intentions may have undertones that were different than what the surface might suggest. I was wrong on many levels. For that, I offer you an apology.

The impression I'm getting is that you are objective and not afraid to voice your own opinion. I realize that my posting is off topic, but I'd encourage you to attend.







Helen
user 5766938
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 101
Helen, please join us at our next meeting. We look forward to meeting you and having you join our discussions -- whatever they turn out to be.

There is something about those last six words that leave me not wanting to attend. The idea of a "predatory invitation" comes to mind, something ominous, like the spider inviting the fly in for tea.

I do not do night-driving anymore unless absolutely necessary; that's my first and most important reason to stay home. Second reason is that when I had attended Meet-ups I found them to be either too esoteric or endlessly bound-up by debate over the meanings of words.

I shall remain sitting in the bleachers, so to speak.
Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,379
Helen,

I'm so sorry to hear about the night driving thing. I've forgotten where you live, and I go to the meetings from another event, such that it would be hard for me to pick you up. You also might not like staying till 11 (or later) at Big Ben's or somewhere. But if you really wanted to come, I think we could find a way.

Yes, we're still esoteric and endlessly bound-up by debate, including over the meaning of words, because they are the only way we can communicate and it is helpful if they mean the same thing to all of us.

I'm not sure what ominous threat you imagine awaiting you. Those six words I interpret to refer to our continuing perplexity over the meanderings of our discussions. We keep wondering if we should be staying on topic, but since we almost never know what that topic is, we just seem to enjoy where our brainstorming takes us.

At any rate, please let us hear from the bleachers as much as possible, and know that all opinions are welcome (and debatable).
Helen
user 5766938
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 102
Bill writes: I'm not sure what ominous threat you imagine awaiting you. Those six words I interpret to refer to our continuing perplexity over the meanderings of our discussions. We keep wondering if we should be staying on topic, but since we almost never know what that topic is, we just seem to enjoy where our brainstorming takes us


Bill,
Thank you for considering ways for me to attend, but I want to remain off the playing field.
Re the "six words" and my response and then your response, I would like you read them again, but this time for the humor, that being what I intended, totally, sans paranoia.
My philosophy: Life is absurd so you better learn to laugh. If you cannot laugh, then just shoot yourself now and get it over with.
More humor with that, but this time tongue-in-cheek as "truth" has sneaked in.



Bill Van F.
wvanfleet
Group Organizer
Charlotte, NC
Post #: 1,380
We will consider your spirit to be hovering somewhere in the Versailles Room when we are there. Have a good Xmas!

BTW, life is only absurd if you expect it not to be.
A former member
Post #: 405


The first sexual revolution: lust and liberty in the 18th century

Adulterers and prostitutes could be executed and women were agreed to be more libidinous than men – then in the 18th century attitudes to sex underwent an extraordinary change


The rise of sexual freedom … detail from The Bed, etching, engraving and drypoint by Rembrandt (1646). Photograph: © Trustees of the British Museum

But the more I pursued it, the more amazing material I uncovered: the first sexual revolution can be traced in some of the greatest works of literature, art and philosophy ever produced – the novels of Henry Fielding and Jane Austen, the pictures of Reynolds and Hogarth, the writings of Adam Smith, David Hume and John Stuart Mill.

And it was played out in the lives of tens of thousands of ordinary men and women, otherwise unnoticed by history, whose trials and punishments for illicit sex are preserved in unpublished judicial records.

Most startling of all were my discoveries of private writings, such as the diary of the randy Dutch embassy clerk Lodewijk van der Saan, posted to London in the 1690s; the emotional letters sent to newspapers by countless hopeful and disappointed lovers; and the piles of manuscripts about sexual freedom composed by the great philosopher Jeremy Bentham but left unpublished, to this day, by his literary executors.

Once noticed, the effects of this revolution in attitudes and behaviour can be seen everywhere when looking at the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. It was one of the key shifts from the pre-modern to the modern world.


So pervasive was this ideology that even those who paid with their lives for defying it could not escape its hold over their minds and actions.

When the Massachusetts settler James Britton fell ill in the winter of 1644, he became gripped by a "fearful horror of conscience" that this was God's punishment on him for his past sins.

So he publicly confessed that once, after a night of heavy drinking, he had tried (but failed) to have sex with a young bride, Mary Latham.

Though she now lived far away, in Plymouth colony, the magistrates there were alerted. She was found, arrested and brought back, across the icy landscape, to stand trial in Boston.

When, despite her denial that they had actually had sex, she was convicted of adultery, she broke down, confessed it was true, "proved very penitent, and had deep apprehension of the foulness of her sin … and was willing to die in satisfaction to justice".

On 21 March, a fortnight after her sentence, she was taken to the public scaffold.

Britton was executed alongside her; he, too, "died very penitently".

In the shadow of the gallows, Latham addressed the assembled crowds, exhorting other young women to be warned by her example, and again proclaiming her abhorrence and penitence for her terrible crime against God and society.

Then she was hanged. She was 18 years old.

A former member
Post #: 406

Larry Flynt: The Right to Be Left Alone (video - documentary)

AMG AllMovie Guide:
Larry Flynt: The Right to Be Left Alone

Whether you love him or you hate him, there's no denying that controversial Hustler Magazine published Larry Flynt is one of the most outspoken free speech advocates in modern times.

In Flynt's opinion, the fundamental rights of average Americans are slowly being stripped away, and he isn't afraid to name names when it comes to who's doing the stripping.

By drawing on rarely seen documentary and television footage, filmmaker Joan Brooker-Marks offers an expansive overview of Flynt's landmark Supreme Court case, his much-publicized entanglement with adulterous televangelist Jerry Falwell, the jail sentence he received for refusing to divulge his source for incriminating tapes detailing the FBI's entrapment of John DeLorean, and his campaign runs for both governor of California and President of the United States.

Additionally, Brooker-Marks examines Flynt's frequent clashes with the Bush administration - including his successful lawsuit against Donald Rumsfeld and the Pentagon - as well as the assassination attempt that left him paralyzed and his first wife's valiant struggle with AIDS in a series of unguarded and deeply personal interviews. ~ Jason Buchanan, Rovi



Hustler Magazine v. Falwell

In Hustler Magazine, Inc. v. Falwell, 485 U.S. 46 (1988), the United States Supreme Court held, in a unanimous 8–0 decision (Justice Anthony Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of the case), that the First Amendment's free-speech guarantee prohibits awarding damages to public figures to compensate for emotional distress intentionally inflicted upon them.

Thus, Hustler magazine's parody of Jerry Falwell was deemed to be within the law, because the Court found that reasonable people would not have interpreted the parody to contain factual claims, leading to a reversal of the jury verdict in favor of Falwell, who had previously been awarded $200,000 in damages by a lower court.

Powered by mvnForum

People in this
Meetup are also in:

Sign up

Meetup members, Log in

By clicking "Sign up" or "Sign up using Facebook", you confirm that you accept our Terms of Service & Privacy Policy