Sexual liberation

[Nickolai77]

When I think of history (and as a history major, I can think of A LOT of history), I can think of no other period of time where sex supposedly played such a crucial role in a society yet was so unattainable, so completely pointless, and so alienating.

The irony of the modern "sexual liberation movement" is that it may have, in fact, caused the opposite to occur by making us sexual slaves, inept at having successful, meaningful relationships.

I could go on about my point, and feel free to argue, but Idk... I'm not feeling the "liberation."

It might be possible to speculate that people living in the past, before the age of mass media, were in some ways more liberated than people today. What i think's happened is that mass media- in the form of pop music, magazines and romance-flicks, has set a sort of universal standard as to how dating works and what peoples sexual expectations are. Before mass-media, romance wouldn't have been institutionalised, peoples expectations as to how people fall into relationships would have been largely based around the experience of their friends and advise from the family. So in some ways, without mass media setting overly idealistic standards of romantic behaviours and physical appearance, people may well have been freer to form relationships in ways that suited them. Sex however's a bit different, we know that the Church governed all sorts of expectations as to how and when sex should be done. But you could argue mass media's doing exactly the same thing, only it's advocating how and when people should have sex in a radically different way.

Anyway, this is just a hypothesis i've come up with off the bat. Still, i feel that mass media does little to sexually liberate us- if anything, it oppresses us by espousing a certain narrative as to how relationships should be formed and setting fantasied standards of beauty that can't be fully realised in the real world.

 

[blackrave]

snip

I was about to write something horribly rational, but then I realized that we will never meet and I don't care how you evaluate this topic and I'm sure you too pretty much don't care what I think about all this, so I think we should just stop this argument, otherwise we will circle around for a few more days.

Also I realized that you took this
[quote/]P.S.And yes, I consider myself last bastion of morality, thank you for noticing, good sir.[/quote]
seriously, so here is a few disclaimers: No, I don't consider myself as some sort of righteous pillar of rationality and moral. No, I don't think everyone need to follow my mentality (but it would be awesome to see at least few). No, I'm not some sort of religious puritanical nutcase, who thinks that genitals are made by devil and if you rub them you will go to hell. No, I don't think that sex is some sort of magical mental merging experience (but I would like if people would appreciate intimacy a little more). And no, the fact that you disagree doesn't make you wrong. No, I never had sexual experience (believe it or not, but monogamy isn't some crazy idea, it actually makes sense). And yes, I might be totally fucked up, but this is my burden to carry, and did you ever thought that maybe giving in your every wish and desire might be as "unhealthy" as suppressing most of them?.

Really? You think culture and education is all that stands between men attempting to fuck every woman in sight and women spreading their legs for every man asserting his dominance

Do we have a sex drive? Yes.
Is that drive relentlessly pushing men to impregnate every woman they know and pushing woman to seek out the most brutal partners? Hell no.

Yes I pretty much believe that only thing that stands between our instincts and civilized behavior is education and culture. Also common sense.

Now be fair. If you had chance to impregnate multiple women without responsibilities or consequences, like some sort of Genghis Khan. Every week a new beautiful woman to impregnate and you can do it freely, nobody will judge you. And you wouldn't do this? You would just say "no"?
Don't write the same moment you read this! Sit a few minutes, think about this really good, dig into deeper layers of your own personality. Then answer.
Ok, you may answer "no", then second question: Would you like to do this?
You can skip this answer, since it is pretty obvious.

 

[Hagi]

Yes I pretty much believe that only thing that stands between our instincts and civilized behavior is education and culture. Also common sense.

Now be fair. If you had chance to impregnate multiple women without responsibilities or consequences, like some sort of Genghis Khan. Every week a new beautiful woman to impregnate and you can do it freely, nobody will judge you. And you wouldn't do this? You would just say "no"?
Don't write the same moment you read this! Sit a few minutes, think about this really good, dig into deeper layers of your own personality. Then answer.
Ok, you may answer "no", then second question: Would you like to do this?
You can skip this answer, since it is pretty obvious.

I would say no. And I would not like to do this.

I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally.

That it was my instincts tell me.

I do not desire to fuck and impregnate an endless string of faceless and nameless women as apparently your instincts tell you.

You should not project your desires and instincts on everybody else. They are yours and yours alone.

I've got my possessive streak. You've got your fantasies of promiscuity. We're all slightly fucked up. But all in our own unique way. And that's completely fine, nothing amoral about it, as long as we respect each other's differences (within the bounds of the law of course).

 

[blackrave]

I would say no. And I would not like to do this.

I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally.

That it was my instincts tell me.

I do not desire to fuck and impregnate an endless string of faceless and nameless women as apparently your instincts tell you.

You should not project your desires and instincts on everybody else. They are yours and yours alone.

I've got my possessive streak. You've got your fantasies of promiscuity. We're all slightly fucked up. But all in our own unique way. And that's completely fine, nothing amoral about it, as long as we respect each other's differences (within the bounds of the law of course).

Nope, sorry, once again let me pull my bullish card on this.
But I admit that I must explain this thing a bit more.
Man's main urge is to make sure his DNA survives. At first it is survival instinct (if you die your genetic material stops here). Then survival instinct morphs into urge to reproduce (you will eventually die anyway, so only way to ensure survival of your genetic material is to have as much and as successful offsprings as possible) and it dominates survival instincts (people may do stupid and dangerous things to attract mate or several).
Of course there are layers upon layers upon layers of other stuff on these instincts. And these layers make their own modifications upon this main urge.
And few layers later we get: "I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally."
Why? By want to posses woman, you try to ensure that she won't cheat on you, and you won't end up raising kids of other males, but having as much your own kids as possible to raise properly. Because if you'll have too few kids, it will be wasted opportunity, if you'll have too much kids, you won't be able to ensure best upbringing for them, and there will be high chance they will end up subpar in comparison with other people. So if you would have chance to ensure that these multiple kids from multiple women would have top-notch upbringing, you may reconsider your answer (most probably you would still say "no", but at least you would admit this idea is tempting). Of course your brain masks this stuff by telling that it is actually because you are a nice guy who wants to appreciate your woman, you want to live in harmony and loving relationship, and blablabla. But truth is that all this romantic novel material is dictated by and serves to your survival instinct.
Everyone who claims that "oh, I'm not like that" is full of shit and denial
Your cultural upbringing and education can mask it, but this stuff is inside you and it dictates more of your behavior than you may think.
I don't know your education or interests, I don't know how much you know about ethology, so before arguing that I don't know anything, invest in some self-education on this topic, read some smart books or few articles about ethology and instincts.

 

[bulbasaur765]

I don't think sexual liberation has really affected my libido's behavior, but I think I feel more comfortable thinking/talking about sexual activity prior to about half a decade ago.

 

[maninahat]

Women's sexuality is still seen as something as an oddity, whereas male sexuality is just a given. For instance, take 50 Shades of Grey: It is essentially pornography, but being a mainstream book aimed at women, it is seen as a harmless novelty. That's why it gets classy looking covers and pole position on the fiction shelves, instead of being relegated to the top shelf of service station book store, along with all the other tacky porn.

I'm okay with it really - it's just a step towards accepting that women like sex, which is (sadly) still seen as remarkable.

 

[Easton Dark]

I'm okay with it really - it's just a step towards accepting that women like sex, which is (sadly) still seen as remarkable.

It was also seen as remarkable on the news a few years ago that "More women are working now and some men stay home and do the dishes and stuff".

We'll get there eventually.

 

[HalfTangible]

Sexual liberation seems to focus on female sexuality, though you know, males are more sexually liberated now too. Not just gay guys, guys in general are free to enjoy whatever sort of sexual adventures they want legally - with some exceptions. Sexuality has a deeper psychological meaning and it's transcended well beyond procreation and well, it has a whole different purpose now, as 99% recreational activity. And that's awesome.

So, my question for all genders, sexualities, and species is, do you feel sexually liberated? Is that important to you?

My humanities teacher once said that the male of the western world is the most screwed up psychology on the face of the planet. According to her this is because while restrictions on female sexuality are rather loose a man's is ridiculously tight. (meaning that a woman can walk down the street in guy's clothes without being called a lesbian as long as you can tell she's a girl, but a guy in a dress is likely to get the s*** beat out of him if anyone even BEGINS to think 'that's a guy!')

... Or something like that. I could be paraphrasing =/

It's not really important to me personally (I'm celibate) but sexual liberation strikes me as utter bullcrap. It's been stated that previous generations have been FAR more sexual and lecherous than ours - we're just more open about it.

(Seriously. It's kind of amazing how much back-alley sex went on in an era that believed sex was supposed to be about chastity, monogamy and purity)

 

[Hagi]

I would say no. And I would not like to do this.

I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally.

That it was my instincts tell me.

I do not desire to fuck and impregnate an endless string of faceless and nameless women as apparently your instincts tell you.

You should not project your desires and instincts on everybody else. They are yours and yours alone.

I've got my possessive streak. You've got your fantasies of promiscuity. We're all slightly fucked up. But all in our own unique way. And that's completely fine, nothing amoral about it, as long as we respect each other's differences (within the bounds of the law of course).

Nope, sorry, once again let me pull my bullish card on this.
But I admit that I must explain this thing a bit more.
Man's main urge is to make sure his DNA survives. At first it is survival instinct (if you die your genetic material stops here). Then survival instinct morphs into urge to reproduce (you will eventually die anyway, so only way to ensure survival of your genetic material is to have as much and as successful offsprings as possible) and it dominates survival instincts (people may do stupid and dangerous things to attract mate or several).
Of course there are layers upon layers upon layers of other stuff on these instincts. And these layers make their own modifications upon this main urge.
And few layers later we get: "I desire intimacy and belonging. I desire a woman whom I could call mine and whom would call me hers. I desire to know this woman and to know she desires and knows me likewise, exclusively. I desire to possess, totally. I desire to be possessed, totally."
Why? By want to posses woman, you try to ensure that she won't cheat on you, and you won't end up raising kids of other males, but having as much your own kids as possible to raise properly. Because if you'll have too few kids, it will be wasted opportunity, if you'll have too much kids, you won't be able to ensure best upbringing for them, and there will be high chance they will end up subpar in comparison with other people. So if you would have chance to ensure that these multiple kids from multiple women would have top-notch upbringing, you may reconsider your answer (most probably you would still say "no", but at least you would admit this idea is tempting). Of course your brain masks this stuff by telling that it is actually because you are a nice guy who wants to appreciate your woman, you want to live in harmony and loving relationship, and blablabla. But truth is that all this romantic novel material is dictated by and serves to your survival instinct.
Everyone who claims that "oh, I'm not like that" is full of shit and denial
Your cultural upbringing and education can mask it, but this stuff is inside you and it dictates more of your behavior than you may think.
I don't know your education or interests, I don't know how much you know about ethology, so before arguing that I don't know anything, invest in some self-education on this topic, read some smart books or few articles about ethology and instincts.

The idea isn't tempting at all. It's hilarious if anything.

Your entire view of sexuality is hilarious. Your entire view of human psychology is hilarious.

It reeks of pop-psychology and simple easy answers for incredibly complex behaviours. Regarding evolution as some sort of conscious god that shapes species and behaviour so that everything is engineered purely for survival. That our behaviour is somehow consciously designed for procreation and survival. And that by simply thinking logically about how we ourselves would create our own species optimized for survival we can deduce our the reasons behind our own behaviours.

Utterly disregarding that this world is filled with thousands of species that survive and reproduce in the most convoluted and fragile ways imaginable. Evolution and survival instinct simply don't work how you think they do. They weren't engineered. They were accidents that survived. They're filled with inconsistencies, inefficiencies and convoluted methods. Just none of them bad enough to cause extinction. Yet.

Survival instinct isn't a conscious thing that's actively steering our behaviour to what will produce exactly the right number of offspring, expertly calculating and directing to ensure our genes will live on. It doesn't care whether or not those genes carry on, it's incapable of caring.

Individuals and species aren't actively trying to continue their genetic lines, 99,99% of life nor the process of evolution even know what genetic lines are. They're simply doing random shit and the random shit that doesn't die out continues doing that random shit. The only thing that ensures is that from all that random shit there are some parts that in some way lead to just enough procreation to ensure that that specific random shit sticks around and that all the other random shit that's involved isn't quite shitty enough to cause extinction.

 

[blackrave]

The idea isn't tempting at all. It's hilarious if anything.

Your entire view of sexuality is hilarious. Your entire view of human psychology is hilarious.

It reeks of pop-psychology and simple easy answers for incredibly complex behaviors. Regarding evolution as some sort of conscious god that shapes species and behavior so that everything is engineered purely for survival. That our behavior is somehow consciously designed for procreation and survival. And that by simply thinking logically about how we ourselves would create our own species optimized for survival we can deduce our the reasons behind our own behaviors.

Utterly disregarding that this world is filled with thousands of species that survive and reproduce in the most convoluted and fragile ways imaginable. Evolution and survival instinct simply don't work how you think they do. They weren't engineered. They were accidents that survived. They're filled with inconsistencies, inefficiencies and convoluted methods. Just none of them bad enough to cause extinction. Yet.

Survival instinct isn't a conscious thing that's actively steering our behavior to what will produce exactly the right number of offspring, expertly calculating and directing to ensure our genes will live on. It doesn't care whether or not those genes carry on, it's incapable of caring.

Individuals and species aren't actively trying to continue their genetic lines, 99,99% of life nor the process of evolution even know what genetic lines are. They're simply doing random shit and the random shit that doesn't die out continues doing that random shit. The only thing that ensures is that from all that random shit there are some parts that in some way lead to just enough procreation to ensure that that specific random shit sticks around and that all the other random shit that's involved isn't quite shitty enough to cause extinction.

Before we delve into further discussion I need to be sure that I speak in terms you understand I need to know what your education is. IT, economics, math, linguistics, etc.? Bachelor, master, etc.?
1. It looks simple because I simplified it. Seriously, you expected that I will write here course paper on animalistic behavior in human society? No, I won't, so get some books on ethology and read them yourself.
2. I was talking mainly about human beings, of course there are "less successful" examples of evolutions. Snails for example
3. Stop assuming things I never said! Of course instinct isn't "conscious" and it doesn't "care". It is like assuming that script can process information when written on the paper. It can't, but if you put it into right hardware it starts working. Same here. It is actually your brain that cares and at some extent it is you.
4. Of course, it isn't directly "steering our behavior", it influences our higher thought pattern and those are directly "steering our behavior", but that means that instincts are involved indirectly. And everything can be traced back to survival or reproduction. It is simple- just start critically asking yourself "why?", and don't stop at broad answers, like "I want to help planet", dig deeper.
5. Well, there isn't such thing as "random", it is simply effect that is achieved when shitload of complex systems overlaps.
6. Besides I'm supposed to be cynic here. Can argument between two cynics can even happen? :/

 

[Something Amyss]

P.S.Do you have vagina? And if vaginas didn't became loose over time, there wouldn't be vaginal muscle training exercises. Unfortunately most females are starting to think about this problem only when it is a bit too late. As usual maintenance is much more easier than repair.

You know, you can have your own morals, but facts are not subjective. If you think kegel exercises are related to tightness from sexual frequency, you need to go back for some basic sex ed classes along with Todd "Legitimate Rape" Akin and Rush "I don't know how birth control works" Limbaugh.

 

[Vault101]

I was about to write something horribly rational, ....

oh please do....I am very interested to see your version of "rationality"

[quote/]P.S.And yes, I consider myself last bastion of morality, thank you for noticing, good sir.[/quote]
seriously, so here is a few disclaimers: No, I don't consider myself as some sort of righteous pillar of rationality and moral.[/quote]
I onced argued with somone like you and they were pretty much that deluded so apologies


[quote/] No, I never had sexual experience (believe it or not, but monogamy isn't some crazy idea, it actually makes sense).[/quote]
and I take issue with this, I'm not saying you can't have an opinion on sex because you havnt done it...but "self rightious virgin" symdrom is...well its kind of laughable when you think about it

[quote/]and did you ever thought that maybe giving in your every wish and desire might be as "unhealthy" as suppressing most of them?.[/quote]
..and this statement right here as...[i/]how much[/u] to do with my argument?...(let me think" *fuck all* I think is the correct figure (if you'll excuse my languge)

having a happy healthy sexlife is a farcry from "giving in your every wish" if I did that I'd be heading to work drunk everyday and wearing nothing but track pants and gaming shirts...but I know better (excpet for the trackpants and gaming shits thing)


[quote/]
Yes I pretty much believe that only thing that stands between our instincts and civilized behavior is education and culture. Also common sense.[/quote]
based on...what..exactly?

[quote/]Now be fair. If you had chance to impregnate multiple women without responsibilities or consequences, like some sort of Genghis Khan. Every week a new beautiful woman to impregnate and you can do it freely, nobody will judge you. And you wouldn't do this? You would just say "no"?
[/quote]
unrealistic hypothetical is unrealistic....its like saying "if you could have a trillian dollars would you take it?" of coarse I would....but does that mean I go around robbing banks or embezzling to attain my dream trillion dolloars?....NO

[quote/]Nope, sorry, once again let me pull my bullish card on this.
But I admit that I must explain this thing a bit more.
Man's main urge is to make sure his DNA survives[/quote]

sure sex drives everyhting we do....SO?

we have been civilised in some form or another for a very VERY long time..and havnt been at caveman level for even longer...who cares if we really really like sex? who CARES how much fucking caveman did back in h day....are you a caveman?

heres somthing interesting I found....The Romans back in the day didn't identify as "gay or straight" but as "dominant and submissive"....my point there is how society veiws sexuality is not always the same

 

[Overusedname]

I find kissing gross for the exact same reasons I find nose-picking gross.
.

have you ever done it before?...its actually not that bad..even though I found the Idea pretty gross originally

now oral sex on the other hand *shudder* that disgusts me now as much as it did back then (he urinates out of that thing dammit!) I was actually a bit disturbed when I first heard the concept

I have. It was... wet. And sloppy. And I'm not a germophobe by any standard, but I felt pretty squicked out afterwards. Didn't taste good, either.

I'm more of a "hands on" person anyways. Hugs are waaaay better than kisses.

As for oral sex... I'm a bit neutral on it right now. It's not really attractive when you actually think about it, but then, neither is normal sex.

I'm accused of being a cuddlebug as well, and I hate oral sex. I'm not even sure if penetration is high on my list when there's just so much we can do with our hands. I haven't turned in the V-Card but I have a decent idea of the things I won't enjoy any time soon.

But I still like kissing. In my brief ventures, I've actually been a very emotional guy in private with a girl I trust. l like holding more than anything else.

I suppose in the 50's my sexual attitudes would have been considered the ideal, besides my disdain for missionary. But I still think consenting adults should be able to do whatever floats their boats, man on man, women on women, straight, Trans, whatever.

That doesn't necessarily mean I want to hear about any of my friends' sex lives. Bleck.

 

[Darken12]

We aren't sexually liberated enough. Especially women. They need a whole lot more sexual liberation to catch up with men (see: the whole 'slut vs. stud' thing).

 

[Blood Brain Barrier]

Sexual liberation seems to focus on female sexuality, though you know, males are more sexually liberated now too. Not just gay guys, guys in general are free to enjoy whatever sort of sexual adventures they want legally - with some exceptions. Sexuality has a deeper psychological meaning and it's transcended well beyond procreation and well, it has a whole different purpose now, as 99% recreational activity. And that's awesome.

So, my question for all genders, sexualities, and species is, do you feel sexually liberated? Is that important to you?

My humanities teacher once said that the male of the western world is the most screwed up psychology on the face of the planet. According to her this is because while restrictions on female sexuality are rather loose a man's is ridiculously tight. (meaning that a woman can walk down the street in guy's clothes without being called a lesbian as long as you can tell she's a girl, but a guy in a dress is likely to get the s*** beat out of him if anyone even BEGINS to think 'that's a guy!')

... Or something like that. I could be paraphrasing =/

It's not really important to me personally (I'm celibate) but sexual liberation strikes me as utter bullcrap. It's been stated that previous generations have been FAR more sexual and lecherous than ours - we're just more open about it.

(Seriously. It's kind of amazing how much back-alley sex went on in an era that believed sex was supposed to be about chastity, monogamy and purity)

It still does. We live one life in the bedroom and another in the public realm. I don't see us being particularly open, even in the west. If you were new to the west and lived a normal life you wouldn't even guess that anything sexual ever occurred in anyone you interact with. The biggest different I see between the Victorian age and now is in literature and TV. Writers like DH Lawrence brought more sexuality into writing and now TV has a lot of it. But it hasn't yet permeated into being a totally acceptable subject of conversation unless with a close friend.

 

[darlarosa]

How are we defining liberated?

I feel as though I can express my sexual desires or my very limited experiences with some people, but I'm always careful to leave out certain...things because I don't want to be judged. I think liberation is a cultural relative or at least a social one. I feel embaressed or like an outcast when I think about my interests at times. It took me a very long time to become comfortable with my sexual fantasies too. I would say liberation is difficult to measure. I feel proud and unashamed one moment and than embaressed the next

 

[Something Amyss]

We aren't sexually liberated enough. Especially women. They need a whole lot more sexual liberation to catch up with men (see: the whole 'slut vs. stud' thing).

A lot of people are ignoring that, it seems.

 

[Something Amyss]

How are we defining liberated?

I feel as though I can express my sexual desires or my very limited experiences with some people, but I'm always careful to leave out certain...things because I don't want to be judged. I think liberation is a cultural relative or at least a social one. I feel embaressed or like an outcast when I think about my interests at times. It took me a very long time to become comfortable with my sexual fantasies too. I would say liberation is difficult to measure. I feel proud and unashamed one moment and than embaressed the next

And sadly enough, some people feel that way for as little as choosing a non-missionary position.

Me? I'm a freak and I know it (clap clap).

 

[HalfTangible]

Sexual liberation seems to focus on female sexuality, though you know, males are more sexually liberated now too. Not just gay guys, guys in general are free to enjoy whatever sort of sexual adventures they want legally - with some exceptions. Sexuality has a deeper psychological meaning and it's transcended well beyond procreation and well, it has a whole different purpose now, as 99% recreational activity. And that's awesome.

So, my question for all genders, sexualities, and species is, do you feel sexually liberated? Is that important to you?

My humanities teacher once said that the male of the western world is the most screwed up psychology on the face of the planet. According to her this is because while restrictions on female sexuality are rather loose a man's is ridiculously tight. (meaning that a woman can walk down the street in guy's clothes without being called a lesbian as long as you can tell she's a girl, but a guy in a dress is likely to get the s*** beat out of him if anyone even BEGINS to think 'that's a guy!')

... Or something like that. I could be paraphrasing =/

It's not really important to me personally (I'm celibate) but sexual liberation strikes me as utter bullcrap. It's been stated that previous generations have been FAR more sexual and lecherous than ours - we're just more open about it.

(Seriously. It's kind of amazing how much back-alley sex went on in an era that believed sex was supposed to be about chastity, monogamy and purity)

It still does. We live one life in the bedroom and another in the public realm. I don't see us being particularly open, even in the west. If you were new to the west and lived a normal life you wouldn't even guess that anything sexual ever occurred in anyone you interact with. The biggest different I see between the Victorian age and now is in literature and TV. Writers like DH Lawrence brought more sexuality into writing and now TV has a lot of it. But it hasn't yet permeated into being a totally acceptable subject of conversation unless with a close friend.

I'm referring to societies, not individuals. When we hear about the medevial age, we think castles, beautiful princesses with massive and impractical hats. The thought of erotica of porn doesn't even enter our heads. When I say digital age, you think computers, ones and zeroes, electronics you enjoy, the internet... and with the internet comes the thought of porn.

 

[LittleThestral]

It still does. We live one life in the bedroom and another in the public realm. I don't see us being particularly open, even in the west. If you were new to the west and lived a normal life you wouldn't even guess that anything sexual ever occurred in anyone you interact with. The biggest different I see between the Victorian age and now is in literature and TV. Writers like DH Lawrence brought more sexuality into writing and now TV has a lot of it. But it hasn't yet permeated into being a totally acceptable subject of conversation unless with a close friend.

I'm referring to societies, not individuals. When we hear about the medevial age, we think castles, beautiful princesses with massive and impractical hats. The thought of erotica of porn doesn't even enter our heads. When I say digital age, you think computers, ones and zeroes, electronics you enjoy, the internet... and with the internet comes the thought of porn.

Surely I'm not the only one who thinks of Lancelot and Lady Guinevere doing the dirty under Arthur's nose? Or the lords of estates having sex with whomever the hell they please? Or knights, ahem, saving ladies and *winkwink nudgenudge*?