Here's what British mother Olivia Lichtenstein has to say about teen sexuality in a Daily Mail article:
The sexualisation of our young is ubiquitous: boys caught cheating on their girlfriends on mobile phones, ritual humiliation and worse by YouTube (In February 2008, a gang of London teenagers aged 14-16 drugged and raped a woman in front of her children and then posted the film of the attack, videoed on a mobile phone, on YouTube), television programmes like Sex And The City with man-eating Samantha as the living embodiment of casual libidinous sex, all provide the back projection to our children’s lives.I'm not a prude (and I doubt Olivia is either, she looks like she could have been a hottie back in the day!) and I know there is nothing new under the sun. The difference is now it's all out in the open. Every perversion that used to be practiced in private dens of iniquity now spill out like a stinking, toxic sludge, polluting open society.In her book, Female Chauvinist Pigs: Women And The Rise Of Raunch Culture, Ariel Levy writes about the American experience, where many a young girl’s dream seems to be the desire to dance around a pole or cheer while others do.
She says that feminist terms such as liberation and empowerment, that used to describe women’s fight for equality, have been perverted.
It's no wonder they hate us.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1129978/How-faceless-amoral-world-cyberspace-created-deeply-disturbing--generation-SEX.html
28 comments:
It's not liberals that are for this sort of culture; it's materialists and anti-intellectuals of all sorts. Christians and Muslims aren't actually any more culturally sophisticated than secular people.
Not eating fish on fridays and foregoing chocolate during lent aren't exampls of high culture.
This isn't just a short post. It's an oversimplified one.
That's the difference.
reaching-oblivion.blogspot.com
Liberal anti-everything agitprop isn't high culture either.
Our Hollywood celebutard culture offends traditional cultures.
What are liberals anti???
The celebrity culture has nothing to do with liberality. Ricky Gervais notes that it should not be good enough just to be famous, but it is more important to be famous for something positive. And he's an atheist.
Does that offend traditional cultures?
The celebrity culture is liberalism's exhibit A: They believe in nothing but themselves and do everything they can to destroy the established order and mock the values they disagree with.
That cowboy George Bush isn't why they hate us, the image of America and the west projected by Hollywood is more to blame.
This is all BS!!! Not all in Hollywood are liberals and you know that and in light of Bollywood showing the USA as some type of Cowboy--no problems here... better then gay parades. Redneck Ron
Your culture and Islamic cultures are similar in your hate of life, homosexuals, feminists, etc...
I think you're actually right. Liberal culture is more disagreeable with Islamic culture. I'm not going to apologize for that.
The one similarity among traditional cultures is the desire to preserve that culture.
Don't you find it odd that liberals defend and apologize for the people who would cut their heads off if they got the chance?
Please don't tar conservative Christianity in the US with conservative Islam of the Middle East or South Asia. If you insist in your comparison you need to bring evidence. I can't remember the last time we stoned a woman to death or collapsed a wall on a gay man.
I would and have never defended an intolerant group of people. Niether Extreme Christians or Muslims.
As far as preserving traditional culture... Why? It seems like the only cultural constant is the need to change with the times. Things change, people change, and if culture doesn't change with it it becomes dull, boring and outdated. Hence, young people and hip older people don't like stiffling religious cultures.
If you go back to when Christianity was the same age as Islam, you'll find a lot of similarities. Actually Christianity was a bit more extreme. It controlled science, killed blasphemers, non-believers, etc...
Despite what you might say, Christianity has changed considerably over the last three-hundred years. It's just changing too slowly or my liking.
Christianity also saved what Greek and Roman literature we have today.
As to the actions of its adherents, I would hope that people's actions become more enlightened with time. That is called progress.
How did Christianity 'save' Greek and Roman Literature?
That the actions of Christian adherents have become more 'enlightened' over time does not mean they have become more authentically Christian. If anything they have become less and less Christian. That's the progress you're refering to.
You've revealed your complete ignorance of the Middle Ages. Catholic monks hid Greek and Latin transcripts from barbarian hordes. Even atheist PhDs of Humane Letters acknowledge this fact.
Your last statement about Christianity and enlightenment is completely unsubstantiated and unmoored from all reason. Are you sure you attended Catholic High School?
"In the 1480s Tomas Torquemada promoted the burning of non-Catholic literature, especially the Jewish Talmud and also Arabic books after the final defeat of the Moors at Granada in 1492."
"When the Church, after the era of persecution, was given greater liberty, a censorship of books appears more plainly. The First Ecumenical Council of Nicæa (325) condemned not only Arius personally, but also his book entitled "Thalia"; Constantine commanded that the writings of Arius and his friends should everywhere be delivered up to be burned; concealment of them was forbidden under pain of death. In the following centuries, when and wherever heresies sprung up, the popes of Rome and the oecumenical councils, as well as the particular synods of Africa, Asia, and Europe, condemned, conjointly with the false doctrines, the books and writings containing them. (Cf. Hilgers, Die Bücherverbote in Papstbriefen.) The latter were ordered to be destroyed by fire, and illegal preservation of them was treated as a heinous criminal offense."
That they decided to keep a few they liked is far from gracious. As far as the last part of Catholicism becoming less stringent and less as it was intended to be over time, that's arguable, but not completely unreasonable.
I would also argue that the moderate muslims are less like what Muhammad had in mind. If you agree with this, it's merely your inability to apply that same sort of thinking to your own outdated belief and practices that makes you yell "unreasonable!" whenever someone takes a critical look at your ridiculous beliefs, cultures, rituals, etc...
Explain how faith being more important than learning is something a good higher culture believes?
Explain to me how a high culture would hold up swearing, working on sundays and carving statues as worse than sodomy, rape, incest, child abuse and salvery?
Notice that the books they were burning were in the words you quoted "false doctrines." In the eyes of the Catholic Church, Arius was a heretic, heresiarch actually, so it makes sense that they would ban his teachings.
Note they did not touch philosophical works. Indeed New Testament writers were probably influenced by Stoicism and Plantonism. Also note they were not trying to hide anything; they merely did not want Christianity tainted by doctrines like Arianism. Indeed Irenaeus wrote an entire work on Arianism.
I can't defend bad behavior like burning the Talmud or killing Jews or Muslims because of their religion. Life was a lot rougher back then. To even bring this up shows that you are historically naive or you think I am.
The only point you could possibly make from this is to repeat the old canard that "religion causes more wars, bla bla bla..." Why did Tamerlane engage in such blood lust that his armies stacked up mountains of enemy skulls, before his conversion to Islam?
Why was Mahmud of Ghazni, never conquered, so fierce? You need to did a little deeper. To simply blame it on believing in a god is simplistic and beneath a man of your intellect.
As for Islam, I just don't know enough about it to discuss it at the level you do. That's why I asked you to elaborate upon your completely unsubstantiated assertions. But you are good at evading the question.
But this article is not about religion, it's about culture. People have a right to preserve their culture. If I'm some South Asian tribal chief and TV arrives with American gansta pimps and half-naked booty shaking crack whores, you damn straight I'm going to view that as a challenge to my culture and its religious values.
In fact, I'm not a tribal chieftan and I live in the US and I view it as a challenge to the culture and protestant work ethic that made this country great.
Grow up both of you!!! Canadian your a liberal jerk!!! Both religions have their bad back grounds but the catholic church has changed, learned to grow and is still growing. The Islamic religion's ways of beleiving has not grown in that way but to rule as a political structure in countries. The commone Muslim with in the Islamic countries don't like this and has religion shoved down their throat. We are lucky to live in countries like we do.
I also know that you can't openly worish the way you want in Israel either.
Go out and do something and support something. Join a religious fatrenity, go to a congressional meeting and/or join the NRA--get involved. Do this instead of sitting back on your ass and bitching. Redneck Ron
I'll have you know I'm a lifetime member of the National Rifle Association. Cuz hooked me up...
Okay, well, I'm not really trying to argue that religion causes more harm than good, but only that it certainly isn't the only means towards preserving ancient wisdom, and has actually worked against preserving ancient works when it has been in their own interests.
As far as culture and Ron go...
The culture you're refering to was slave-owning---segregating. The cultural shift you mentioned is completely black influenced. It may be the worst of black culture we see in the media, but it's still black culture, and last time I looked black people have been the most Christian people in America.
The idea that instead of moving forward with the culture we have and adapting to the times, that we should go back to the way it was during segregation or slavery is just not an idea I'm fond of.
It's not that I think you want to start buying slaves again (although it was people like you back in the day that argued for slavery and segregation even after the fact). It's that the idea that moving backwards rather than forward is a little bit sick.
I am glad you went through with it cuz and my comments were directed at the canadian liberal.
Religions have not worked to good as a governing programers. They are very self centered as politics. Islam-look at we have now. Liberalism-look at Europe, "especially France". Catholism-look at Europe in the middle ages.
What would it be like if the crusades didn't happen? What here be partnerhsip between the religions, Islam what changed into? Catholic church would have changed? The break off from catholic chudch wouldn't happen?
Welcome to the dark of the world NRA my fraternal brother!!
Canadian: People like me arguing for slavery? You are way off base. You don't know me or know where I come from so drop that crap!
Britney Spears or Heath Ledger OD'ing on pills and Lindsay Lohan bombed off her ass crashing her car into a tree does not advance culture or society.
Glorifying violence and reducing a human being's value to sexual utility is not a leap forward. Pimps, hos and drug use do not edify humanity; they degrade it.
I never argued that those are examples of high culture, only that moving backwards in time is not the answer either.
Wasn't the NRA started just after slavery ended?
The NRA was started back in the 1880's I think.
This article was not about moving backwards. It was about how Hollywood offends traditional societies.
Yes like Poland, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, Phillipines, Brazil, etc...
In other words, backwards societies and cultures that are making every effort to move backward rather than forward in time. They would all like it if religion, tradition, ritual, sexual shrudity, singular media, etc... were all more prevalent, than... post-modern art, literature, popular media, alternative media outlets, liberal attitudes towards sex as nothing other than sex, etc...
I know that these societies would like to move forward with these attitudes, but this doesn't change the fact that they're backwards and old-fashioned.
Prude or no prudishness the promiscuity and the homosexual culture of America and other western misfits are the exact reason why these radical Muslims want to destroy the west, it's not George Bush or conservatism they hate and that's a fact.
They don't want that filth to infiltrate their clean and peaceful beheading and suicide bombing culture, that's all.
Homosexual culture? We tolerate the existence of gay people and in a small way tolerate their life-style choices and that makes the west "misfits".
But you make a good point. Bush and Bin Laden have more in common than they'd like to think.
I think homosexual acts were illegal in Texas while Bush was governor.
Canadian: Now you're god, deciding which societies are "backward"? How arrogant.
Chicago Ray is right. Despite your trite comparisons of Bush and UBL, the bottom line is our Hollywood culture threatens traditional societies. You need to get some new talking points.
C.P. You are dead wrong in thinking you can judge cultures. For each culture is validated within itself. You can make measures of cultural differences, but measuring the actions of culture A within the rules of culture B is fundamentally flawed.
Cultural diversity is a good thing, and has contributed much to this country. However, the neo-liberal politically correct celebration of cultural diversity is celebrating not diversity, but differences... and it does so at the expense of the host culture. I have lived around the world and have appreciated the cultures that I have lived in. But celebrating American Indian culture is not done by denigrating Western European culture and the Western European expansion into the new world. The greatness of Sitting Bull does not reduce the greatness of Christopher Columbus. To celebrate diversity would be to celebrate them both, not one at the expense of the other. Which unfortunately is how the left chooses to celebrate diversity.
Silverfiddle has a valid point, the culture of Hollywood is defined by the lack thereof... it is more closely related to barbarism and anarchy than any great and significant works or achievement. It is little more than rampant narcissism.
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.