|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
 Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 5:29 pm Post subject: |
 |
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Remember the people that founded America? |
Reductionist, simplistic, static.
I hope you embrace Orientalist perspectives as well. Because that is what you sound like in this post.
In any case, twenty-first-century American culture is not at all the same as seventeenth-century Chesapeake-Bay culture. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| R. S. Refugee wrote: |
I've heard that some women like to go for very long rides.
(not to put too fine a point on it  )
|
I spent a few weeks horse trekking several years ago. I quite understand why the prudish Victorians had their women ride side saddle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:06 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| On the other hand wrote: |
Big Bird wrote:
| Quote: |
| I actually started this thread out of surprise that selling vibrators was illegal in some US states. That to me is just weird. |
Well, yes. That does seem rather weird. Then again, Americans living under the protection of the 1st Amendment might find this to be a little weird also...
| Quote: |
But the refusal to allow the blasphemy law to be used to prosecute Rushdie did not mean it had fallen into total disuse. In 1996 the European court of human rights upheld the use of this ancient blasphemy law to justify a ban on an erotic video, Visions of Ecstasy, about a 16th century nun.
|
It should also be pointed out that British blasphemy laws, in addition to being authoritarian, are also discriminatory, in that they specifically protect only Christian sensibilities. And they remain on the books to this day.
http://tinyurl.com/2wzqlp |
The British authorities keep thousands of little known archaic laws on the books. These laws are often contradictory, and allow a little flexibility when the government wants to get up to a little sneaky skull duggery. I'd like the whole system overhauled. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Your views are not reliable on this issue, then. For one: you are not writing with calm hands; your emotional investment ..... affect you. |
Hehehe...does that preclude you from discussing America then? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Alyallen
Joined: 29 Mar 2004
Location: The 4th Greatest Place on Earth = Jeonju!!!
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 7:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Alyallen wrote: |
| The_Conservative wrote: |
| Alyallen wrote: |
[
When it comes to sex in America, the saying "Do as I say, not as I do" comes to mind. Those who scream loudest are heard so what people hear on TV and read in the news are a loud minority screaming to be heard over the sounds of progress and modernity. And then it turns out the screamers are no better or more righteous... |
Hear on TV? Ever watch TV after say 11 o'clock?
Read in the news? Back in the West I saw news stories about murder, rape, war, just about anything you can think of.
One could make the case that a freer sexuality is not really progress and modernity...NAMBLA comes to mind. |
Let's see....murder, rape, war, just about anything you can think of.
Well...this is the world we all live in so I'd expect to see things like this on tv. Not to say it's good but that's real life....maybe we should just underreport everything so life seems more grand....  |
You completely missed my point. You were attempting to claim that what we see on TV is a loud minority screaming to be heard over progress and modernity. Sure doesn't seem like it with what we can see on TV nowdays. And that's before we get into cable/satellite... |
| Quote: |
Why Is Crime Reporting Up But Crime Rates Are Down?
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4731833
The culture of crime reporting is an interesting phenomenon: according to Lawrence Friedman's "Crime and Punishment in America," crime reporting has risen by 700 percent in the United States since 1970, even as the nation's crime rate has declined by 4 percent during that same period. The country is actually safer than it used to be, but you might not be able to tell that from following the news in local papers or on local radio or television.
The increased attention has occurred partly because it is one of the cheapest beats in a news organization (you simply need someone who can establish and maintain good relations with the police), and because crime always attracts an audience. |
There is also this....
http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/06/12/crime.rate/
| Quote: |
Violent crime takes first big jump since '91
Murder numbers climb in smaller cities
From Terry Frieden
Monday, June 12, 2006; Posted: 10:24 p.m. EDT (02:24 GMT)
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- Murders in the United States jumped 4.8 percent last year, and overall violent crime was up 2.5 percent for the year, marking the largest annual increase in crime in the United States since 1991, according to figures released Monday by the FBI.
Robberies nationally increased 4.5 percent, and aggravated assaults increased 1.9 percent, while the number of rapes last year fell 1.9 percent, the report said. |
So essentially from 1991 until 2005 or 2006, the rate of violent crime had dropped. In the mean time, there was a lot of sensational stories plastered all over the news: OJ, Clinton, Jon Benet Ramsey, Rodney King etc. etc. All great stories, but not ones that represented the reality of life for most people during that time period...
But from 2005 or 2006, there have been increases in violence. That I will concede, however I think that it is still not representative of life in America. Especially if you do watch cable news, in which case...
| Quote: |
Repetition on Cable News
Percent of all stories from 7A.M.-11P.M.
Exact Repeat 12%
Repeat: No New Substance 35
Repeat: New Angle 11
Repeat: New Substance 10
New Story 33
Totals may not equal 100 due to rounding. |
http://www.stateofthenewsmedia.org/2005/narrative_cabletv_contentanalysis.asp?cat=2&media=5
you hear the same storeis over and over with little to no new substance....
But I digress and might be simply shooting myself in the foot, but I can concede when I am incorrect or misinformed about something.....
Oh and by the way, the people I talked about who were screaming were the self righteous politicians(left, right, moderate, or other) who have managed to get a lot of attention. That's what people abroad see and hear when they turn on the tv, so they think that those people are a reflection of American views of sexuality when they may not be.
http://sports.yahoo.com/nba/news;_ylt=Ai8pNrJ8ZX85dNMKPoPr6X28vLYF?slug=ap-logcabin-amaechi&prov=ap&type=lgns
| Quote: |
When John Amaechi told the world he was gay, he steeled himself for a torrent of negativity that never really materialized, the former pro basketball player told the GOP's largest gay organization Saturday.
"I underestimated America. I braced myself for the wrath of a nation under God," Amaechi said at the Log Cabin Republicans' annual convention. "I imagined that it would be a firestorm, that it would be some insane number of letters demanding my deportation or my death.
"And in fact, 95 percent of the correspondence I've had have been overwhelmingly supportive and positive," Amaechi said. "But I will say that the 5 percent that I've had have been unbelievably, viscerally, frighteningly negative." |
Perhaps the OP has also underestimated America? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
pkang0202
Joined: 09 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:00 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| Remember the people that founded America? |
Reductionist, simplistic, static.
I hope you embrace Orientalist perspectives as well. Because that is what you sound like in this post.
In any case, twenty-first-century American culture is not at all the same as seventeenth-century Chesapeake-Bay culture. |
The repression of sexuality in the US can be traced back to the early European settlers. That conservative mentality has been passed from then to now.
It took the social revolution of the 1960's to break down those barriers.
America was founded by European settlers. Most of whom were very religious. Would you care to expand on reductionist, simplistic, static?
I didn't realize you wanted an entire dissertation on the topic. Maybe its simplistic because I was making a post on an Internet Message board and not writing my senior thesis.
Why don't YOU please, enlighten me on YOUR thoughts on the matter. Its very very easy to say "Your comment is simplistic, reductionist, and static" and not offer any insight yourself. Ass. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 8:26 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
| ...the social revolution of the 1960s. |
At least you recognize that.
Any other differences between the 1600s and the 2000s -- that is, any other changes over the last four-hundred years?
Do you reduce all the British to their Victorian heritage...? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Kuros
Joined: 27 Apr 2004
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:31 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| pkang0202 wrote: |
Remember the people that founded America? Puritans, Pilgrims, and other religious folk.
Just like Asia is shaped by Confuscianism, America has deep rooted "puritan" beliefs. Especially with regards to sexuality. |
Is that why Massachusetts allows gay marriages, Rhode Island recognizes those married in Massachusetts, Vermont has civil unions while New Hampshire is debating them, and Maine has a gay rights law?
Yes, those Connecticut Puritans are insufferable!  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 9:48 pm Post subject: Re: Why is America so sexually repressed? |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
On the telly yesterday came the news that some well known American politicians may have been visiting a brothel. Not again. Who cares? And then a little later, I read an article that stated: it is illegal to sell vibrators in some states of America. God forbid that woman should be having any fun! How the Taliban would approve.
So why are Americans so sexually repressed? |
Why is this even warrant a discussion? "Who cares?" EXACTLY!
Why is this so difficult for non-americans to understand? Who are these "Americans" you talking about anyway? How can you even attempt to talk about "Americans" like this?
Even more simply; America is a huge country with alot of people. Some of them are "sexually repressed" and some of them aren't. Is this a difficult concept for you? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:03 pm Post subject: Re: Why is America so sexually repressed? |
|
|
| nateium wrote: |
Why is this even warrant a discussion? "Who cares?" EXACTLY!
|
Haha. Obviously you do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Big_Bird
Joined: 31 Jan 2003
Location: Sometimes here sometimes there...
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
Finally, you objected, Daskalos, when I mentioned the Commonwealth. But threads like these are easily understood as smug Commonwealth assertions of moral superiority vis-�-vis America (Commonwealth posters here have to get something out of life, I imagine). No more, no less.
|
I can assure you Mr G, that this thread was born out of nothing more than idle buggery, with not a whiff of smuggery... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nateium
Joined: 21 Aug 2006
Location: Seoul
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 10:54 pm Post subject: Re: Why is America so sexually repressed? |
|
|
| Big_Bird wrote: |
| nateium wrote: |
Why is this even warrant a discussion? "Who cares?" EXACTLY!
|
Haha. Obviously you do. |
I care about whankers perpetuating stupid generalizations about Americans, not the the sexual exploits of some politician... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ariellowen
Joined: 19 Apr 2006
|
| Posted: Mon May 07, 2007 11:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| ChimpumCallao wrote: |
| If you really want to talk about sexual repression, let's switch the topic over to the African tradition of boinking virgins to get rid of AIDS or the fact that my TWENTY TWO year old friend in Peru, much like all the other girls there, had never seen a condom. |
We ought not to hold brutes to the same level of civility as we do Amerikans. Although an interesting topic, the sexual habits of primitives is not a moral issue in the sense that the origional problem was framed, it is a matter of natural science. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
daskalos
Joined: 19 May 2006
Location: The Road to Ithaca
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 8:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Gopher wrote: |
| daskalos wrote: |
| Please do not make the mistake of conflating Alabama law with San Francisco mores or the gay pride parades you have seen... |
But you and Big_Bird already made a worse mistake -- and consciously, deliberately so. You ignored San-Francisco and indeed California mores while seizing upon and then citing one or another obscure and unenforced Alabama law as if it represented "America."
Your position is too resentful to see this error.
Let us return to this thread's original accusation and allegation...
| daskalos wrote: |
| BB's contention that the US was more sexually repressed than most Western European nations... |
How exactly might one measure this? What data are available and who shall evaluate it? Where has anyone on this thread attempted to discuss this? And what is the point, anyway...? To call Americans "stupid," or worse: "vaginal-centric?"
Finally, you objected, Daskalos, when I mentioned the Commonwealth. But threads like these are easily understood as smug Commonwealth assertions of moral superiority vis-�-vis America (Commonwealth posters here have to get something out of life, I imagine). No more, no less.
I take heart in observing that other posters have responded to this nonsense as I do. |
I retract my recusal, since you didn't join me in it.
"An obscure and unenforced Alabama law..." Before the Supreme Court struck down sodomy law, something very like half the US states still had such laws on the books, and they weren't unenforced, though I will grant that they were more enforced against gays than hets, in those states in which the laws that read the only legal sexual act was man to woman, pen!s to vagina, man on top, woman on bottom.
Stop making judgments about my level of resentment. You are obviously unqualfied to do so, and you are more obviously pleased by the fact that you can dismiss me because of your erroneous, faux-logical conclusions about my sexuality. The idea that my being gay is grounds to dismiss anything I have to say about sex in America is absurd, and a little too convenient for someone arguing from where you stand.
To be clear, I'm an expat. America's laws and mores, be they the mores of SF or Enterprise, Alabama, do not affect me.
I didn't call Americans vaginal-centric. I called you vaginal-centric. Or are you asserting that you ARE America.
Since you (to take the passivity out of your construction) easily construe "these threads" as "smug Commonwealth assertions of moral superiority," could you please be more specific about the targets of your childish defensiveness?
You mean, of course, the Commonwealth nations where most of the people living there are descendents of white Europeans. That's, what, Australia, New Zealand, Canada? Three, unless I've missed one or two, out of some 50 others who are, by and large, much more sexually repressed than any Western nation. Which is why it seemed important to me to stay with BB's OP. She was talking about Western Europe and the US. But then you needed to drag your defensive senstitivies into it and imply that the sexual mores of Canada were equatable with those of Uganda, India, Malaysia or Nigeria.
Your obvious bias and resentment that spills over into groups of people not included in the question suggest to me that you have nothing of value to add to this conversation.
Wow. You take heart when other people agree with you. Really? When people mirror your own thoughts back to you, you are able to feel better about your own opinions? That's amazing! Because what's real and true is, after all, a matter of how many people believe the same thing.
I don't believe (and stand ready to be corrected) that I have used the word "stupid" here in this thread, but isn't that a bit of a stupid thing to say? "I take heart blah blah blah..."
At any rate, here's a paste of an edited chunk of Bill Maher's latest New Rules, which in large part addresses this thread.
| Quote: |
Now, last week, France had an election, and people over there approach an election differently. They vote. Eighty-five percent of them turned out.
...
Now, maybe the high turnout has something to do with the fact that the French candidates are never asked where they stand on evolution, prayer in school, abortion, stem cell research or gay marriage. And if the candidate knows about a character in a book other than Jesus, it's not a drawback.
The electorate doesn't vote for the guy they want to have a croissant with; nor do they care about private lives. In the current race, S�gol�ne Royal has four kids, but she never got married. And she's a Socialist. In America, if a Democrat even thinks you're calling him "liberal," he grabs an orange vest and a rifle and heads into the woods to kill something!
Madame Royal's opponent is married, but they live apart and lead separate lives. And the people are okay with that for the same reason they're okay with nude beaches; because they're not a nation of six-year-olds who scream and giggle if they see pee-pee parts!
They have weird ideas about privacy. They think it should be private. In France, even the mistresses have mistresses. To not have a lady on the side says to the voters, "I'm no good at multi-tasking."
...
They invented sex during the day, lingerie and the tongue. Can't we admit we could learn something from them?
So, from now on, all you high-ranking Bush Administration officials, because the French are righter than you on most things, when France comes up in conversation, you are not allowed to roll your eyes. The only time you get to do that is when your hooker from Ms. Julia is blowing you. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Gopher
Joined: 04 Jun 2005
|
| Posted: Tue May 08, 2007 10:56 am Post subject: |
|
|
| daskalos wrote: |
| ...sodomy law, something very like half the US states still had such laws on the books, and they weren't unenforced, though I will grant that they were more enforced against gays than hets, in those states in which the laws that read the only legal sexual act was man to woman, pen!s to vagina, man on top, woman on bottom. |
Daskalos: do you have any examples, any examples at all, of American police or other law-enforcement authorities citing or arresting gays or heterosexuals for violating any of these laws...ever? How about the even-less-likely possibility that any jury or judge convicted and sentenced anyone for same...? Also, which states are you referencing exactly?
For me the test of a first-rate intelligence begins with the ability to be specific when making such charges and allegations while also recognizing larger patterns like this...
| Wikipedia Summary wrote: |
Same-sex marriage
Performed nationwide in
Netherlands (2001)
Belgium (2003)
Spain (2005)
Canada (2005)
South Africa (2006)
Where is the rest of Western Europe, Daskalos? Where are Britain, France, Germany, and Italy? Where are Finnland, Sweden, and Norway for that matter? Do they persecute and oppress their gays, too...?
Performed statewide in
Massachusetts, USA (2004)
International same-sex marriage recognized in
Israel (2006)
Aruba (2007)
Netherlands Antilles (2007)
Debate in other countries and regions
Argentina
Australia
Austria
China
Estonia
France
Ireland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
New Zealand
Portugal
Romania
Sweden
Taiwan
United Kingdom
United States: CA, CT, MD, NY, NJ, OR, RI, VT, WA |
See this map
Looks a lot to me like America, especially California and Mass., is on the cutting edge of gay marriage, on par with every other major industrialized nation-state but Japan -- who does not even appear on this list as so much as even interested in debating the issue, Daskalos.
Hardly grounds at all for calling America "so repressed," do you not agree?
In any case, you do not need worry about America's persecuting and oppressing you for your sexuality anymore. You need not return. As you can easily see, things are much better for homosexuals in South Korea and elsewhere in East Asia -- especially China, right? My understanding was that until only a few years ago the Chinese government classified "homosexuality" as a mental illness and in many cases imprisoned and/or executed homosexuals -- including British-administered Hong Kong until the early 1990s, if memory serves. But things are much better now, of course... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
