Nudity, americans and teen pregnancy

Recommended Videos

archvile93

New member
Sep 2, 2009
2,564
0
0
Pararaptor said:
Well, the idea that having more pictures of sexy stuff exposed to younger people will make them want to have sex makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
The problem is that common sense does not necessarily equal reality. Perhaps the sexual taboo encourages young sex because making it forrbidden just makes it more enticing.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Rainforce said:
Therumancer said:
Well the murders are a sign of freedom.
Your people sure fail at life and anything I can think of. o_O

well, and the pregnancy issue sounds really just like that "teens" want to know about the forbidden. haha.
... and is there any purpose to this flame other than to cause trouble?

I explained why I said that, how about addressing what I actually said in full.
 

AdamRBi

New member
Feb 7, 2010
528
0
0
Vast majority of americans won't accept a lax view on sexuality because they're afraid of the immediate results and not realizing the long term benefits. It's like if eating was barred for years and years and suddenly became accepted, there would be a boom of overeating for the first year or so before it started to slow down to what it is now. People are just afraid of that first year or so when sexuality and nudity was made more socially acceptable not realizing things would only get better down the road.

It's all fear.
 

Aptspire

New member
Mar 13, 2008
2,064
0
0
Sol_HSA said:
I had a discussion with a US citizen regarding their fear of nudity. One of the reasons he claimed was the alarming teen pregnancy in his country, and accused that sexuality in advertisements etc. is a huge factor.

Soo.. I googled around a bit, and found that France, one of the most relaxed countries on the planet when it comes to sexuality, actually has one of the lowest rates of teen pregnancies.

So what gives?

I've always found the "no nudity, but murders are ok" mentality somewhat twisted.
look up the latest decisions about christianity vs. condoms XD
 

Falseprophet

New member
Jan 13, 2009
1,381
0
0
Corpse XxX said:
I could not agree more..

They censor a boob, but if someone gets a bodypart cut of, smack it in the blender and use it as a part of a refreshing smoothie afterwards, that is all okay..

WTH??

I'd rather see a tit anyday and help populate the world, than kill someone..
I'm really annoyed by the hypocrisy that you can show pretty much any side of a woman's breast, but if you show the nipple [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NippleAndDimed], the part that actually has a non-sexual function, you've somehow crossed the line into obscenity.



/facepalm
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
Lord Monocle Von Banworthy said:
GeorgW said:
Lord Monocle Von Banworthy said:
GeorgW said:
....so why does only America have this teen pregnancy problem? (It doesn't btw, UK for example is a lot worse.
The second sentence removes the need for the first. If America doesn't HAVE a severe problem (stacked against other nations) there's no reason to ask the question.

But you know what? At least the US has a birthrate of over 2.0 however it got there, so in a few hundred years IT might still exist. What do all the free-living, latex-wrapped Europeans have to say about that?
Context is required for the first part. As I continued saying, this thread is about America, so I was trying not to get off topic. I still felt like pointing out that America is not alone.

As for the birthrate, the world is overpopulated as it is. And most European countries have over 2.0 as far as I know. The countries in Scandinavia do at least, and that's where I'm from. We have the perfect population for our size according to me.
I hate that "the world is overpopulated" crap. "Overpopulated" means about as much as "overweight." It implies that somebody somewhere has the authority to declare what a proper population is. It sounds all clever to be so misanthropic until you're the one living through a population crash. Ever been in one of those Japanese villages where nobody's under 60? I have. I don't want to live in a nation or a world like that.

And you're quite wrong about the numbers. Scandinavian countries are all ranked in the 150s out of 195. VERY marginally above the EU as a whole, which would be ranked 158th if it were a country. Your population is graying and crashing, I'm sorry to say. Not as badly as Hong Kong maybe, but you're not reproducing enough to maintain your numbers.
Your right and your wrong. Your right in that being oveweight and the ovepopulation problem are similar, largely because both are problems with no easy solution.

As nice as it might be to try and pretend otherwise, the world only has so many resources on it, and the more people there are, the more strain there is to divide those resources to provide a decent standard of living, never mind advance society. Contrary to what many might want to think, there is a lot of legitimacy to issues like the rate at which trees are being cut down, oil consumed, and other things. Not to mention the disposal of waste. To use wood as an example, the more people there are, the more houses you need to build, the more paper people require, and so on. Even if we could get recycling to 100% of what we use being re-used efficiently (which is impossible since there is depreciation and burn off from recycling) it's not enough when the population keeps increasing in multiples requiring more and more wood (and other resources) to be used.

A lot of the conflict we see going on today is about resources. All the conflicts about oil come down to the simple fact that all arguements about "alternative power sources" aside, the world runs on an oil infrastructure. With increasing populations, and developing nations, there is increased demand for oil. The thing is that it's not limitless, you can't just lower the price and give everyone oil or else it's going to run out. This is one of the whole issues with "The Middle East", their production (not meeting demand to hold onto their resource as long as possible), and of course stockpiling and concerns about what happens when they are tapped out. Not to mention other conflicts based around things like how the US is one of the major customers for international oil, yet we have our own oil production, and arguably purchuse foreign oil so as to hold onto our domestic products as long as possible. To countries with no domestic oil access at all this is hardly "fair". After all imagine what happens if The Middle East runs dry (and it will) and only the US and a few other people have any oil deposits of note.

At any rate, I'm getting increasingly off subject. The bottom line is that we have trouble sustaining the current population level, and it's constantly increasing. We were warned decades ago to embrace ZPG (Zero Population Growth) and did not listen, so now we're dealing with the results of that folly.

In the long term the solution is to get off planet to obtain more resources, but in order to do that we need to unify the planet (explaining why is another whole discussion), and that's unlikely to happen with the current resource conflicts.

You are quite correct that nobody wants to live in a world full of dying old people with very few children, and a focus on reducing the population. That is however the price of not having listened when we had the chance... and yeah, the people who are going to be paying the piper are not the same ones who made the bad desicians to begin with. People who are not only going to get to experience "death world" but deprived of central human experiences like having children for the sake of the species.

Think of that cost (and many others that go along with it) as being similar to obesity. Being fat causes tons of health problems, the bottom line is that hauling around dozens of extra pounds puts stress on your system, leading to all kinds of health issues. For all the screaming of exercise maniacs out there, it's really not a "simple matter" of changing one's diet and lifestyle, since people wind up living the way that they do for a reason. What's more exercising is not easy when your carrying those extra pounds, people who haven't done it do not realize what a hard thing it is to bounce back from.

The thing is though that a lot of people who are obese are kind of blameless for the position they are in. The rude stereotype of the fatty being fat because he does three boxes of little debbies a day in place of meals or whatever is not exactly true. Fat people in the first world tend to get that way due to sedimentary lifestyles, which come from the realities of living in modern nations. We live in a world where people increasingly get paid for mental exercises as much as anything, and will spend most of their work day in one place. This however does not make things any less draining or stressful. Finding time to exercise and eat right, is nearly impossible, and making the nessicary lifestyle changes could very well cost people their jobs.

I'm not going to go into a blow by blow, but the point is that obesity is also a problem, and not an easy one to address. It's an issue the first world is only going to address through concerted societal effort, effort which very few people, especially the movers and shakers who set the policies leading to a lot of this kind of thing, are going to want to go through. It's similar with overpopulation, sure it sucks for you being the guy who the changes fall on to benefit everyone else, but but that doesn't change the reality.
 

Madara XIII

New member
Sep 23, 2010
3,369
0
0
shadyh8er said:
Jumping_Over_Fences said:
If a child is surrounded by toys and you take one that they have been ignoring they start crying because that toy has now become the one they need to play with.

It is the same with sex. If it is just lying around people will ignore it, because it is not that big of a deal. You take it away and people become obsessed with it.

People always seek out what they are told is taboo. Making something out to be horrible has the opposite effect on the masses.
I was going to say something like this, but I didn't know how to word it. This is perfect.
Hmmph I say let the bastards do as they please and if shit hits the fan because of it I'll be on the sidelines Laughing my ass off.


My Theory is the fact that if you're human then of course you're gonna seek what you're told not to....Why? Well because due to the pure idiocy I find in my fellow man along with the fact that curiosity is indeed almost irresistable.

But I think the best way would be the Prohibition way and incorporate said method and wait for the results. If it works then keep it, if not well back the drawing board
 

Madara XIII

New member
Sep 23, 2010
3,369
0
0
Pirate Kitty said:
Teen pregnancy is lower than it's ever been in the U.S.

There is nothing more unnatural than fearing that which is completely natural - the human body.

Puritanical blood runs deep in the Western world. 'Bout time we exorcised it, mes thinks.
And I thought OP was over-generalizing such nonsense.

I say remove the intolerant dilweeds and keep the good natured ones rather than say all puritans are biggots....

Double-standard me thinks ¬_¬
 

Madara XIII

New member
Sep 23, 2010
3,369
0
0
LawyerScumGhost said:
Basically, america is fucking retarded

Hooray!!! Another over generalization of my Country!! You're Soooooooooo Funny AHUR AHUR AHUR...

Jesus and I thought double-standard biggots only existed in the USA. Thnx for proving me wrong
 

Krantos

New member
Jun 30, 2009
1,840
0
0
Pararaptor said:
Well, the idea that having more pictures of sexy stuff exposed to younger people will make them want to have sex makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Actually, no. It's the whole censorship issue. By denying it, and making it "forbidden" you actually make it more desirable for teens.
Being a child of the 80's and early 90's, I can say that, before the internet, nudity used to be much more provocative simply because it was so hard to find. Once I went to college and was able to see all the nudity I wanted, it lost it's sparkle because it was just there. Nothing forbidden or interesting about it.

As to why the stance of no-nudity exists, it's just a societal value. It's like asking why the french like wine or why the British have the sense of humor that they do. It's a societal thing and it what's we've all been brought up around.
 
Apr 29, 2010
4,148
0
0
EmileeElectro said:
In Britain, we're a lot more relaxed, and my boyfriend who lived in America for a while said the only sort of show that showed nudity was Nip/tuck. Apparently America don't have a watershed too? Everything is censored, whereas 9:30pm is watershed over here, where the ruder shows come on TV and no one bats an eye lid.
I think we're the worst for teenage pregnancies though, but I'm not sure.
I think it's the same where I live in terms of censorship. Before 8-9 pm, it's relatively "family-friendly". After that, you might get programs that regularly show nudity and violence, like Boardwalk Empire. Heck, after 10, Cinemax becomes "Skinemax".
 

Rainforce

New member
Apr 20, 2009
693
0
0
Therumancer said:
Rainforce said:
Therumancer said:
Well the murders are a sign of freedom.
Your people sure fail at life and anything I can think of. o_O

well, and the pregnancy issue sounds really just like that "teens" want to know about the forbidden. haha.
... and is there any purpose to this flame other than to cause trouble?

I explained why I said that, how about addressing what I actually said in full.
Nope, I just need to get it out of my head. I read what you said in full, but then again, no context could ever justify this sentence. At least not in my opinion. Now let's just leave it at that, I already compensated my anger with my first comment.
 

Duskwaith

New member
Sep 20, 2008
647
0
0
Where to start...

Society needs something to blame for its own failures video games, pornography etc. Why not blame teenage pregnancies on nudity?

Its not like all the finest renaissance art depicts nudity.
 

Jumping_Over_Fences

New member
Apr 15, 2009
978
0
0
shadyh8er said:
Jumping_Over_Fences said:
If a child is surrounded by toys and you take one that they have been ignoring they start crying because that toy has now become the one they need to play with.

It is the same with sex. If it is just lying around people will ignore it, because it is not that big of a deal. You take it away and people become obsessed with it.

People always seek out what they are told is taboo. Making something out to be horrible has the opposite effect on the masses.
I was going to say something like this, but I didn't know how to word it. This is perfect.
Well thank you, I have always enjoyed this analogy. I have used it for years and have found that it works perfectly for many different situations.
 

BRex21

New member
Sep 24, 2010
582
0
0
Therumancer said:
I explained why I said that, how about addressing what I actually said in full.
Alright, even though its off topic i feel the need to stand up for Rainforce and address what you actually said in full. anyone who wants to follow along can read the whole post which is #40 on this thread(page 2)

the thing about oil for food, is that it wasn't technically breaking any embargoes, it was a UN workaround because the USA and UK left sanctions that saw massive quantities of Iraqis including 150 children dieing of easily preventable diseases each day, due to lack of food water and medicine. WORLDWIDE, the biggest criticism was that the program was geared towards its own survival as opposed to the well being of the Iraqi people by preventing access to anything that would allow them to rebuild their own infrastructure. Yes there were arguments that Saddam's government was strengthened by this and those people were correct, but the ironic thing in this is, that it was all printed in the international courier. Despite the more constrictive laws on paper the biggest differences between the two countries is that America protects hate speech and sensationalism better.

Yes I *think* I have high personal freedoms, meet me in Cuba and we'll talk about it. But seriously, your explanation as to why you are free, or better able to survive a full frontal assault, IE higher number of guns per capita has a few flaws. first, France and many other countries have rioted against their government for a long time, and superior weaponry usually does not play as big a role as you might think. if you are suggesting that your government COULDN'T win an out and out war against you than i have to ask, what are you packing that can stop a tank and shoot down a supersonic aircraft. Honestly though, if the police are after you, for something you didn't do? are you actually going to shoot them? because in America YOU GET ARRESTED FOR THAT! YOU GET ARRESTED FOR TRYING TO RUN TOO! and if you disobey an order in the military YOU GET ARRESTED AGAIN! Besides while America has the highest guns per capita, it has far from the most gun owners per capita and is very far from being the only country that allows gun ownership so unless the average US gun owner has developed into some sort of nine armed gunslinging monster i don't really see how its a benefit. Armed violence is far from the only form of self expression.

As for the lack of information on abortions. Most countries using a single payer system will pay per appointment or procedure. this means the doctor has to keep detailed records of what went on in order to justify getting payed. So unless there are droves of people going around preforming abortions for free, I would have to assume that the number recorded would be pretty close. The only difference is there would not be names attached.

As for addressing the reality and taking things with a grain of salt, i'm assuming that you are overlooking the fact that unreported crime happens everywhere, and saying its higher because the crimes themselves are less severe, is little consolation. OH, and name one incident where a missing person case was actually brought before congress, because that REALLY isn't what congress does.
 

Legendairy314

New member
Aug 26, 2010
610
0
0
Hormones and teenagers tricking themselves into thinking that they've found "the one" at age 16 probably has a lot to do with it. As humans we're hardwired to start reproducing as soon as we're able. We married much younger back in the older years so with a new set of restrictions we've not been hardwired too what do people expect?

Sure, having a control of your own body isn't a lot to ask for but many people have had sex as teenagers without adverse consequences. Pregnancies for unprepared adults can be even worse than that of teenagers given the circumstances. Sex is always a risk, some people don't understand that before it's too late.
 

Socius

New member
Dec 26, 2008
1,114
0
0
Hate to be the "Hater", but the reason of the wast amount of teen pregnacies in america isn't nudity on the tellie, but ignorance and outright stupidity amongst teenagers and well, most of the popullation. learn to use pregnancy prevention like P-pills, condoms and the stuff before blaiming naked pixells on a screen. I have a lot of nudity here in my country on the tellie but the amount of teenage pregnancies as a statistic are barely existing,why? good, or at least moderate good sexuall education at school, at the age of 13. Something I recon americans lack because their parents fear sex in all its form. and of course you let private persons instead of the state controll your education as well, thats about as dumb as the average american, suppose thats why it is like that.
 

Therumancer

Citation Needed
Nov 28, 2007
9,909
0
0
BRex21 said:
Therumancer said:
I explained why I said that, how about addressing what I actually said in full.
Alright, even though its off topic i feel the need to stand up for Rainforce and address what you actually said in full. anyone who wants to follow along can read the whole post which is #40 on this thread(page 2)

the thing about oil for food, is that it wasn't technically breaking any embargoes, it was a UN workaround because the USA and UK left sanctions that saw massive quantities of Iraqis including 150 children dieing of easily preventable diseases each day, due to lack of food water and medicine. WORLDWIDE, the biggest criticism was that the program was geared towards its own survival as opposed to the well being of the Iraqi people by preventing access to anything that would allow them to rebuild their own infrastructure. Yes there were arguments that Saddam's government was strengthened by this and those people were correct, but the ironic thing in this is, that it was all printed in the international courier. Despite the more constrictive laws on paper the biggest differences between the two countries is that America protects hate speech and sensationalism better.

Yes I *think* I have high personal freedoms, meet me in Cuba and we'll talk about it. But seriously, your explanation as to why you are free, or better able to survive a full frontal assault, IE higher number of guns per capita has a few flaws. first, France and many other countries have rioted against their government for a long time, and superior weaponry usually does not play as big a role as you might think. if you are suggesting that your government COULDN'T win an out and out war against you than i have to ask, what are you packing that can stop a tank and shoot down a supersonic aircraft. Honestly though, if the police are after you, for something you didn't do? are you actually going to shoot them? because in America YOU GET ARRESTED FOR THAT! YOU GET ARRESTED FOR TRYING TO RUN TOO! and if you disobey an order in the military YOU GET ARRESTED AGAIN! Besides while America has the highest guns per capita, it has far from the most gun owners per capita and is very far from being the only country that allows gun ownership so unless the average US gun owner has developed into some sort of nine armed gunslinging monster i don't really see how its a benefit. Armed violence is far from the only form of self expression.

As for the lack of information on abortions. Most countries using a single payer system will pay per appointment or procedure. this means the doctor has to keep detailed records of what went on in order to justify getting payed. So unless there are droves of people going around preforming abortions for free, I would have to assume that the number recorded would be pretty close. The only difference is there would not be names attached.

As for addressing the reality and taking things with a grain of salt, i'm assuming that you are overlooking the fact that unreported crime happens everywhere, and saying its higher because the crimes themselves are less severe, is little consolation. OH, and name one incident where a missing person case was actually brought before congress, because that REALLY isn't what congress does.

Well, see the point that I'm making is that again, you apparently aren't reading what I wrote because I addressed some of these topics in my response. One of the reasons my posts are so long is because I tend to head off what I already know are going to be common responses/disagreements. I've debated some of these subjects for years.

For example, you talk about the right to bear arms and "well, what are you going to do against a tank or supersonic jet?". You apparently missed several key points being made about both a military of non-exclusionary volunteers as another part of the checks and balances (making it difficult for the entire army to be mobilized against it's own people), and of course the simple point that by using that level of force... which is what it would require, the goverment would wind up leveling the country itself and wound up ruling nothing.

There is a massive armed revolt, to deal with the insurgents in New York the military bombards it with artillery, flies some supersonic jets over and carpet bombs, and drives tanks through the wreckage, given that going in with infantry gun to gun wouldn't liable accomplish anything.... well congrats, the goverment has stopped the insurgency in that region. Unfortunatly in doing so it has leveled one of the greatest cities and marketplaces in the world to an extent from which it's unlikely to ever recover. That incredible natural harbour that has been one of The USA's greatest assets? It's now offline and pretty much full of toxins and munitions. Your workforce? You just killed them all.

When the population is unarmed they can be kept in line with armed force fairly easily, but if the population is armed, in the case of a large scale rebellion it takes the kind of force your talking about to "win" and if you do that by the time it's over your not going to wind up with anything.

As far as riots go, again I mentioned "small groups of people". Riots are not a general rebellion, but a comparitively small portion of the population. Sure it's a lot of people in a given area, but something that can be dealt with. It's not a matter of a substantial portion of the population deciding that the goverment needs to go and deciding to bring it down, etc...

-

Other points you raise were also answered within my initial post if I recall, and this is getting long enough as it is. I will say that you should do a web search for the "oil for food scandal". The program isn't what is being talked about, but the direct violation of policies that were in force hidden behind the legitimate operation of that program.