Political Compass #61: Society's openness about sex is going to far.

Great Debates
1

Many political debates here have included references to The Political Compass, which uses a set of 61 questions to assess one’s political orientation in terms of economic left/right and social libertarianism/authoritarianism (rather like the “Libertarian diamond” popular in the US).

And so, every so often I will begin a thread in which the premise for debate is one of the 61 questions. I will give which answer I chose and provide my justification and reasoning. Others are, of course, invited to do the same including those who wish to “question the question”, as it were.

It would also be useful when posting in these threads to give your own “compass reading” in your first post, by convention giving the Economic value first. My own is
SentientMeat: Economic: -5.12, Social: -7.28, and so by the above convention my co-ordinates are (-5.12, -7.28). Please also indicate which option you ticked. I might suggest what I think is the “weighting” given to the various answers in terms of calculating the final orientation, but seeing for yourself what kind of answers are given by those with a certain score might be more useful than second-guessing the test’s scoring system.

Now, I appreciate that there is often dissent regarding whether the assessment the test provides is valid, notably by US conservative posters, either because it is “left-biased” (??) or because some propositions are clearly slanted, ambiguous or self-contradictory. The site itself provides answers to these and other Frequently Asked Questions, and there is also a separate thread: Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading? [size=2]Read these first and then, if you have an objection to the test in general, please post it there. If your objection is solely to the proposition in hand, post here. If your objection is to other propositions, please wait until I open a thread on them. (And for heaven’s sake, please don’t quote this entire Opening Post when replying like this sufferer of bandwidth diarrhea.)

The above will be pasted in every new thread in order to introduce it properly, and I’ll try to let each one exhaust itself of useful input before starting the next. Without wanting to “hog the idea”, I would be grateful if others could refrain from starting similar threads. Finally, I advise you to read the full proposition below, not just the thread title (which is necessarily abbreviated), and request that you debate my entire OP rather than simply respond, “IMHO”-like, to the proposition itself.

To date, the threads are:

Does The Political Compass give an accurate reading?
Political Compass #1: Globalisation, Humanity and OmniCorp.
#2: My country, right or wrong
#3: Pride in one’s country is foolish.
#4: Superior racial qualities.
#5: My enemy’s enemy is my friend.
#6: Justifying illegal military action.
#7: “Info-tainment” is a worrying trend.
#8: Class division vs. international division. (+ SentientMeat’s economic worldview)
#9: Inflation vs. unemployment.
#10: Corporate respect of the environment.
#11: From each according to his ability, to each according to need.
#12: Sad reflections in branded drinking water.
#13: Land should not be bought and sold.
#14: Many personal fortunes contribute nothing to society.
#15: Protectionism is sometimes necessary in trade.
#16: Shareholder profit is a company’s only responsibility.
#17: The rich are too highly taxed.
#18: Better healthcare for those who can pay for it.
#19: Penalising businesses which mislead the public.
#20: The freer the market, the freer the people.
#21: Abortion should be illegal.
#22: All authority must be questioned.
#23: An eye for an eye.
#24: Taxpayers should not prop up theatres or museums.
#25: Schools shouldn’t make attendance compulsory.
#26: Different kinds of people should keep to their own.
#27: Good parents sometimes have to spank their children.
#28: It’s natural for children to keep secrets.
#29: Marijuana should be legalised.
#30: School’s prime function is equipping kids to find jobs.
#31: Seriously disabled people should not reproduce.
#32: Learning discipline is the most important thing.
#33: ‘Savage peoples’ vs. ‘different culture’
#34: Society should not support those who refuse to work.
#35: Keep cheerfully busy when troubled.
#36: First generation immigrants can never be fully integrated.
#37: What’s good for corporations is always good for everyone.
#38: No broadcasting institution should receive public funding.
#39: Our civil rights are being excessively curbed re. terrorism.
#40: One party states avoid delays to progress.
#41: Only wrongdoers need worry about official surveillance.
#42: The death penalty should be an option for serious crimes.
#43: Society must have people above to be obeyed.
#44: Abstract art that doesn’t represent anything isn’t art at all.
#45: Punishment is more important than rehabilitation.
#46: It is a waste of time to try to rehabilitate some criminals.
#47: Businessmen are more important than writers and artists.
#48: A mother’s first duty is to be a homemaker.
#49: Companies exploit the Third World’s plant genetic resources.
#50: Mature people make peace with the establishment.
#51: Astrology accurately explains many things.
#52: You cannot be moral without being religious.
#53: Charity is better than social secuity.
#54: Some people are naturally unlucky
#55: Schools and religious values.
#56: Sex outside marriage is usually immoral.
#57: Gay couples should not be excluded from adoption.
#58: Pornography should be legal.
#59: Adult bedroom activity is no business of the state.
#60: No one can feel naturally homosexual.
[/size]
**Proposition#61: It’s fine for society to be open about sex, but these days it’s going too far.

SentientMeat** (-5.12, -7.28) ticks Strongly Disagree.
Going too far … how, exactly? If anything, society still seems to be a little prudish in airing the messy and undignified details or the possible negative physical or emotional consequences. And if someone is relaying what you consider to be Too Much Information well, how about ignoring them?

This proposition, to me, seeks to identify those authoritarians or conservatives who consider honest dialogue about sex to be somewhat crass, tacky or unnecessarily intrusive to their sensibilities, as though it were a hobby everyone shared but *“hey, I don’t harp on about gardening every minute do I?”. The difference, I suggest, is that a lack of honesty and forthright discussion of the details, however embarrassing, has far more negative consequences than an ignorance of how to care for bougainvillea. Humans are sexual beings, and it is rather immature and psychologically unhealthy to pretend otherwise: an inability to discuss sex in an open and adult manner seriously threatens the foundation of any relationship. (Of course, I find Cosmopolitan magazine and Sex in the City a bit one-dimensional, but I’m glad they’re there, and I certainly don’t think they’re “society going too far”.)

I suspect that the main example that such Agreers might point to “these days” is the sexualisation of children. While tabloid headlines of “Pre-Teen magazine offers oral sex advice to 11 year olds” and the like are often cough overblown, clearly there is some threshold at which children don’t need to know everything: even a -7.28 social libertarian like me would not advocate showing explicit sexual images to 5 year-olds since they might well be disturbed rather than educated. But this educative threshold curve, I suggest, must still pre-empt what that aged child will do or find out anyway. I found out that penises entered vaginas at about aged 6 when I looked in a family medical handbook, and its functional line-drawings merely precipitated an “ah ha! Now I get it” rather than an “Arrrggh! Scour my young brain of this horror!”. At around age 8, discovering that my parents had sex regularly rather than just for babies was similarly untraumatic (although, of course, a bit ewwww). And from then on, all the gory details would pop up in the playground anyway but usually with unhelpful and often frightening myths and lies sprinkled liberally throughout. Hearing the “straight dope” from a trusted adult authority would have been far preferable, no matter what tabloid headlines it produced. I firmly believe that detailed sexual education from a young age (8 or 9, say) increases sexual responsibility rather than diminishing it.

However, this is but one possible aspect of #61, and I try to steer clear of anticipating people’s justifications. So, anyone who ticked Agree (or Strongly Agree), I’d be interested in your reasons, whatever they are.

P.S. The next, final, thread will be called “Ultimate Political Compass”: please debate only #61 here and save your observations or opinions on the whole series for then.

2

(Forget the exact score, but I was economically liberal and strongly socially liberal)

Disagree.

One key aspect of a healthy sexual ethos about sexuality is that we talk about it. This is everything from “use a condom” to “this is the clitoris” to “being a virgin is okay” to “no means no” to “occasional breast/testcular self-examinations are important”. Saying “don’t” simply doesn’t work. Even if we’re trying to impart the importance of abstinence (whether we should is a debate for another time) that still requires a frank and open discussion about sex.

Now, I left off the “strongly” because I do think that some media has become hyper-sexualized. I think that this is a side-effect of our prudishness, however. If we let sitcoms and pop stars teach our kids about sex (instead of doing it ourselves), is it any surprise that they’ll turn out dressing like little skanks?

3

Sage Rat (1, -1) Disagree

Keeping secret knowledge of something that can be life-threatening, change your life via pregnancy, emotionally scar someone etc. and is still at heart just a natural act is silly. The expectation that kids are stupid and can’t and shouldn’t be trusted to make decisions is harmful as is all over-protective behavior and doesn’t prepare them for making the hard decisions of life in adulthood. And for adults, as said, it’s a natural act and a non-trivial part of ones relationship with his SO. If he can get more and better advice easily without having to feel ashamed (for wanting to improve his relationship), then why would that be bad?
Of course at this date if some guy comes out with, "I like to be buggered by my wife! :smiley: " we’ll still look at him cross-eyes and generally think less of him. But rationally, I don’t see that it should make any difference regardless that we are still in a phase where it feels like "Dude! TMFI??? :eek: " Just a matter of time and this issue will go away and no one will care one way or the other.

I DO however disagree with the idea that sex is just something that people do, that doesn’t have any emotional involvement–or shouldn’t–that some people try to spread. Even if it doesn’t need to be, and sex can just become nothing more than some friction and a rush of dopamine to the brain–what’s the fun in that? But given that kissing still has emotional impact, dancing with our SO has emotional impact, etc. I don’t see that we can say that sex is “just something that people do and can never be bad” for the grand majority of cases. If a person doesn’t want it, is not ready for it, whatever, it can hurt them.

So, indeed, more honesty about what all sex things everyone is doing, certainly. But with an emphasis on honesty rather than more.

4

Ah, but “I dressed like a little skank when I was kid, and I truned out fine!”

Every new generation dresses to annoy the old; part of the fun of being a kid. But, I imagine that looking skanky just makes you feel embarassed when, twenty years later, you look at your photo book. Outside of that, at the time you probably just felt like you were dressing normal. Nor would the boys think anything more or less of you since all of the girls they knew dressed like that.
So unless just one girl is dressed like a skank ho, it’s just the fashion and probably not much of something to worry over.

5

Agree (edging towards strongly agree).

I agree entirely with your points about sex education. I don’t think to many people in a place dedicated to fighting ignorance would think there are too many topics where we can go to far in our discussion and knowledge of the facts.

Why I disagree is that there is a world of difference between education and entertainment/indoctrination. Openness about the facts of sex is a highly desirable thing, and like you I think we should go a lot further. However society has also become open about the acts of sex and the presentation of sex as entertainment. To me this is the difference between having knowledge of sword wounds and watching a gladiatorial contest for fun. One is knowledge, one is entertainment and exploitation even though they both pertain to exactly the same act.

IMO society as it stands has become too open about the acts and exploitation of sex. Just as one example, it is hard ATM to find a top 40 video featuring a female artist that isn’t frankly sexual in the lyrics or featuring her in skimpy clothing in the video clip. Societal openness about sex has naturally produced a situation where it can be openly marketed. That may not seem like a bad thing, but IMO it sends an undesirable message, particularly to adolescents, that the prime factor in social acceptance and ‘coolness’ is not talent or even beauty, it is sexual availability. And if the female performers are heavily sexualized regardless of talent or looks it’s hard to see what other message could be received.

Basically I am of the opinion that, because sex is so easy to market and such a powerful tool, openness about sex has led to a situation where sex is packaged and sold with and for other products. And that packaging is not dealing with negative consequences, it invariably portrays sex as having no unpleasant consequences (of course, it’s advertising). And the packaging it isn’t putting sex into its proper perspective as a vital but small piece of human beings. Because it is so easy to market sex is being sold as the most important aspect of human existence.

Of course we can argue about whether that wasn’t always the case, but IMO it was not. “Sex sells” has certainly been a Wall Street axiom for a long time, and attractive performers have always done better, but IMO the difference was that in days of yore marketers sold romance, beauty and even a promise of making the target more sexually attractive as a surrogate for sex. Now many marketers are quite obviously selling sex: watch this video, see a half-naked person singing about her “lady lumps”. Watch this TV show, see the sex lives of various characters talked about I detail. Buy this cologne and strangers will rip your clothes off in public places To me that’s pornography, those things are selling sex direct, they are not selling romance or promises of sexual attraction or even eroticism (although those things are their too).

With sex being so easy to market and able to be openly marketed many marketers are exploiting it as an easy way out. Sex is being directly packaged and presented as not just desirable but risk free and of paramount importance. And I do not think that is a good thing, particularly when targeted at adolescents that are developing ideas about how the world works and what is important and what isn’t.

And that’s my reasoning. I agree that sex education is nowhere near open enough. At the same time I feel that the open Wall Street presentation of sex acts and sex exploitation as something entertaining is more often than not a bad thing, yet something that is inevitable consequence of societal openness about sex. Humans are sexual creatures, we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. Humans are violent and mortal creatures too, and we shouldn’t pretend otherwise. But I don’t think that we should be using death and violence as marketing tools, particularly targeting adolescents and children. Openness about the facts is one thing. Openness about glorifying, glamourising, prioritising or otherwise propagandising the acts is quite another.

6

True.

7

Strongly Agree,

what Blake said.

8

strongly disagree, and strongly disagree with what Blake said. Would-be censors always start with the sexual communication they like least, but eventually they get around to censoring everything. You can’t have open and free discussions about sex if you censor it, period. Don’t like it, go to Saudi Arabia.

9

Agree. (Almost, but not quite strongly.)

Twelve year olds wearing makup. Children widely holding the belief that oral sex isn’t sex and really isn’t a big deal. Very young children everywhere you look dressed in extremely provocative manner. Television filled with sex. (I mean television, not pay for cable like HBO.)

It’s gone too far.

cite

This is what’s happenning in the expensive prep schools. It isn’t even news when it happens at regular schools. It’s just business as usual.

10

I strongly disagree.

When I grew up, every strapping young lad stayed up late on Saturday nights to watch soft-core porn on broadcast TV, so compared to that, living in the U.S. is prudish.

But TV shows, music videos and advertisements do not a society make. What people discuss in person, in schools and with their kids matters far more, and it’s been my experience that the average American does not go “too far” in being open about sex.

11

Agree. It’s not so much that they talk about sex that bugs me. It’s that it;s the most cheap and tawdry forms avaiulable that are gloricized the most.
You do get the occaissional show or whatever talking about real love or the bond between husband and wife, but normally a cheap, one-night stand is billed as the end-all, be-all of existence. In movies, the most common form of “love” is shacking up for a week with some woman who happens by and helps you defeat an alien menace. That always gets them in bed. :rolleyes:

12

I think there’s two subjects here. Sex education, from 5th grade “your period and you” lectures to Dr. Ruth, and sex in entertainment, from ribald jokes and midriff baring on prime-time TV to hardcore pornography.

It is the combination of a lack of sex education (and serious discusssion on sex) and a sexualized media that’s the rotten combination here.

Kids know about blowjobs from the media, but if they had a proper sexual education they’d know that oral sex counts, in terms of disease and sexual-emotional ethics, about as much as vaginal sex. Now, sex is glorified among teens partially because its forbidden and mysterious. If they got the facts out, perhaps then destructive behavior might eb curbed.

13

Well, I agree with your point here. Kids should be fully educated about sex. However, I just don’t trust the government to be able to do this. Kids in many schools can barely graduate with literacy. I don’t have faith in the governments ability to make the trains run on time, why would I trust them to teach my kids* about sex?

Plus, the biggest problem with sex in the classroom is that every parent might want to tell their children less or more about the subject. For one family, the religious aspect of sexuality is the most important thing. For another this wouldn’t be a factor at all. It’s impossible for the school to make everybody happy, so they should just stay out of it as much as possible.

*My hypothetical kids. I don’t have any yet.

14

The discussion so far on sex education has been an uncontroversial no-brainer: more is better.

But what about sex as entertainment? I hope we all agree it is entertainment. Sure it has a biological/serious/medical core. Eating too has a biological/serious/medical core too, but when we sit down to Thanksgiving turkey our thoughts are on the taste, the company, the factors that make the meal enjoyable. When we have sex, way more often than not it’s with the fun factor foremost. Sex is entertainment.

What about the children? Yeah, what about the children? They’re sexual beings too (it shocked the hell out of me to see an erection while changing the diapers of my now 13-year old son). They should (as appropriate) join in on the fun too.

Consider the following: Drinking is an adult activity. There are biological and responsibility-based reasons for disallowing children to drink. However, I have no qualms telling my 8-year old daughter a joke that portrays the comic antics of a drunk. Now replace “drinking” with “sex” and ask yourself why you’d be reluctant to tell your daughter a dirty joke. (I confess, I am subject to my Victorian-era inspired prudishness and could never bring myself to do such a thing).

It is indefensible to shit on someone’s table in a restaurant. A child should be scolded for eating at his desk during a lesson in class. Shitting and eating are healthy exercises. Sex is too. Sex as entertainment is too. The problem isn’t society has gone too far - it hasn’t gone far enough in determining how to cast off our antiquated prudishness and redefine sex back into the healthy public attention it deserves.

15

Could you briefly describe what a healthy public attention to sex would look like?

Could you explain why you feel that a desire to keep sexual activities private is “antiquated prudishness”?

Would you be in favor of a toilet in the middle of your living room?

16

Well, that’s part of the problem right there. Sex ed should not be confined to the classroom. While I think that schools should teach about basic physiology, safe sex, and the most basic ethics (“no means no”), the finer points of sexual ethics and advice should be left to the family.

Is sex proper before marriage?
If so, how does one know when one (and/or one’s relationship) is ready?
If not, then what activities are permissable?
How should I treat my partner?

There’s no one right or wrong answer to these (and other) questions, but I think parents should talk about them with their kids. And that means having an open dialogue on sex. Even if your message is “don’t do it”, you still have to talk about it!

I think parents are failing to talk to their kids about sex, and at the same time hamstringing the schools from doing that job for them. This leaves MTV and schoolyard rumor to fill in the blanks, and that’s very bad.

17

Menocchio, I agree that the finer points should be taught by parents at home. I guess we just disagree to the extent that it’s occuring. I think most typical American famlies are doing a good job of it.

A notable exception is the black community. With something like 70% of children born out of wedlock, clearly there is a problem. If your post was just talking about black Americans than I’d be in full agreement with your analysis.

18

I hope you don’t mind, I’ll address your three points slightly out of order:

I didn’t mean to suggest public sexual intercourse, rather a more open acknowledgement of sex as entertainment in the public dialog - the removing of all traces of shame and taint of who we are as sexual beings, and how we view and display our bodies. Granted, I wasn’t clear on that - but let me consider the question as asked: Is a natural extension of what I’m trying to say that public sexual acts should be tolerated, and to what degree?

To be honest, my reaction is public sexual acts are at least in poor taste - in the same category as shitting on the table (i.e. nothing wrong with either, but there’s a time and place). But is that a reflection of my own ingrained prudishness? I will think about this. In the meantime, does anyone know of other cultures (present or past) with a lack of stigma for public sex acts - at least in certain situations?

Aside from the question of watching a couple go at it right beside my family picnic, there yet remains an antiquated prudishness…

I wish I knew the answer. As I mentioned, I too am ingrained. At best I can list some of the symptoms and speculate from there:

  • Consider almost every sexually based joke you’ve heard. Why was it funny? Chances are just cuz it was about sex. Because sex is oh so hush, merely mentioning the word can cause giggles in some circumstances (or gasps in others). Feet are inherently funny, but I can’t just end a punchline with the word “foot” and expect laughter. End a joke with “cock” in the punchline and (to some) that’s funny. I sneezed: yawn. I jizzed: tee hee. Why is this so? In a healthier society one could mention each body part or function without snigglery.

  • Why does sex sell? While not being the whole reason, of course, I’ll bet a large factor is our cultural sexual repression. If so many women felt free enough to go topless, my guess is eventually we all would wonder why anyone ever made such a big deal about it. If our attitudes towards sex were freer, it may remove some of the power of sex in advertising because there would be less novelty and no shock value.

  • Why is prostituion/solicitation a crime? Some quick answers merely push the “why” down a level. One quick answers may be, “Look at the troubled life a prostitute lives. We should help them by getting them off the streets.” But why is the stereotypical hooker’s life such that we tend to look down at them? Why can’t a talented sex worker receive the accolades for his/her skills that a fine actor or a fine chef does? In a “healthy” society one could imagine sex heros - people of such amazing talent and reputation that they’re celebrities and can talk about their work maturely without connotations of slutiness implied or perceived. Another quick answer: “I’m married and I don’t want to have to walk down the street being asked if I want a ‘date.’” Why is this more evil than any other bad but perfectly legal marketing schemes (telemarketing comes to mind)? Just cuz it’s sex, it’s bad - and that is immature.

I could go on, but I’ll stop here - you did ask me to be brief :slight_smile:

No I would not, but mainly for reasons of smell and hygiene rather than embarassment or shame (okay, embarassment and shame too, but why?). Further, as mentioned above, I’m not suggesting the end of privacy is the answer. There are many things that I do in private and will not do in public - very few of these things have a stigma attached to them as anything sexual does. Any of them I feel free to talk about “in mixed company.”

Now: I’m not saying the predominating attitude today in any way resembles Victorian. There are vestiges of that era, however, and I am encouraged that these vestiges are diminishing. We still have a ways to go, but we are growing up.

19

Disagree.

Sure, there is more balantantly sexual material out there and kids are exposed to it at a younger age, but that just means parents have to deal with the reality and work it into how they educuate their kids. It’s only a very recent, modern phenomenon that we live such isolated lives and that kids don’t see “barnyard activity” or even just mom and dad going at it all the time. If anything, our curent situation is more like that in which our species has lived most it’s time on earth-- nothing is secret.

Additionally, we don’t call this the information age for nuthin’. The genie is out of the bottle, and it can’t be put back in. The key, as I said above, is to adjust the way you teach your kids accordingly.

20

My score was Economic Left/Right 1.50
Social .97 What on earth does that mean? Last time I took a political compass, it put me at Left, close to the Libertarian line.

As for sex, its good to be open when information needs to be out there; however, using sex in advertising is too much for nothing.