Effects of Media Violence on Aggression

Surprise, I agree with Rallymama. Courtesy is the oil that makes the wheels of society turn quietly and gently. Without consideration for others we are less than the animals. That does not mean I advocate a blanket ban on violence in various media but it does need to be controlled and should be rated. Parents need to be aware of what their children are watching and playing and take responsibility for guiding their children. Constant exposure to violence is bound to lead to an acceptance of it as 'normal'.

 

Beware this may be a bit

It depends. These standards have relaxed and tightened over the centuries. What can by some be considered perfectly natural -- sex for pleasure -- has become a battlegorund because the Church, and other established institutions, wish to control when people can have sex and for what reasons. For sure, with whom we have sex is a different issue, because there is still always the matter of reproduction to consider at some point - historically - and the creation of another human being is a large part of the mix, as are the responsibilities that come with it. That means you better be damn sure of your partner. So, there's a lot to be said for single-partner relationships - in most cases. With that aside, there is nothing more basic for the authoritarians to control than sex.

The real thing is, the sexual revolution changed sexual pleasure because of the technology of birth control. With the chances of reproduction minimized, it meant that the concern could now be focused more on the pleasurable aspects of sex, leaving the morality of the conduct itself upon the individual. Authoritarians despise this sort of activity because it tends to marginalize their power, and sex is a huge source of power. One can consider just how motivational sex can be for most individuals. I would recommend Foucualt's notions, in his essays, "The Care of the Self," on how the control of sex is a source of political, religious and societal power wielded by the established institutions. Sorry to digress. Carry on.

 

d@mn chandos, there is something we agree on!!!! i couldn't agree more. who, when, how & how many you want to have sex with (as long as of legal age) isn't anybody elses business. well, unless you invite them to watch

 

Yes and don't forget the attitude of "me first", no sacrifice, no external rules, no authorities. Any form of compromise looks like a hard-negociated cease-fire verified by a team of international lawyers an economic think tank in order to make sure the signatory doesn't lose a fraction of what he could grab by sheer power within any remotely reasonable predictability. At the same time, those same people submit without question to rules laid down by the employers and most certainly, what they wouldn't do for a political or a religious leader, they will do for a boss. People will feel no compunction getting promoted over dead bodies, but they will experience strong sensations of wrongdoing even thinking of asking the boss whose name will be signed on a project they submit through him to his superiors or clients.

This is all tragicomical to me. I would laugh if it weren't making me squirm. Because people behave like sheep, some control needs to be exerted when it comes to the most vulnerable - the children and especially the teenagers who are at such an impressionable age.

Or that.

That needs some grounds, so let's interrupt here and listen where you draw that statement from, if you please.

Or in short removing the problem - "leave it up to the individual," is a short step from, "make it all good."

 

I have no intentions of high-jacking this thread. I referred interested parties to Foucualt. His ideas are similar to mine on the topic of controling sex as a source of institutional power. But there will always be those who are dependent upon those institutions to be told what to do and when to do it - they are the real "sheep," IMO. We can debate this further on another thread if you wish. Your ideas are most always interesting on the topic. But I am certain that thus far you have misunderstood mine. I am not suggesting that Foucualt is 100 percent correct; I do have some differences with him. And Foucualt did, ironically, die from Aids.