LadyFantasy68 49F
208 posts
9/5/2005 3:18 am

Last Read:
3/5/2006 9:27 pm


I posted a reply to another person’s blog recently and their return comment was to basically state that the fact that I and others had taken their facetious comments seriously was fairly indicative of the decay of morality in our society. The blog entry in question had nothing to do with sex but it got me to thinking about our society and what values we have and are passing on to the next generation.

Just when did it become ok to expose the person you are with (spouse or partner) to the risk of some horrible disease simply because you are horny? When did it become ok to justify going outside of an established relationship? I am not talking about those on this site who openly swing or go outside of their relationships because that is their choice and they are not exposing their partner to anything the partner is not aware of. I am talking about those who do it with deceit, sneaking around behind a partner’s back.

When did it become ok to step outside of a partnership like marriage and bring someone else into the equation to fix problems within the relationship? Is it really ok to expose your partner that you claim to love so dearly to the threat of disease and the hurt that seems to come with the inevitable revealing of such a secret?

When did it become ok to pollute and destroy the world we live in? 100 years ago this was not even really much of an issue, everything in most normal household was reused and recycled. Now our society is disposable. A relatively small section of the world’s population uses over 90% of the world’s resources and causes more than 90% of the world’s pollution problem.

When did it become ok to throw everything away instead of fixing or recycling it? Western society has so much waste. Food, clothing, furniture, building materials etc are routinely dumped and used as land fill when there are so many needy, starving and very deserving people who could easily utilise those resources and save our dumps being filled too fast at the same time. I have seen and heard of BRAND NEW items being dumped. What a terrible waste of materials, time, money and resources.

When did it become ok to hate someone based merely on a differing religious belief, colour of skin or differing level of intellect? A measure of a person is not ANY of those things but who they are on the inside and how they treat others around them. To hate, hurt or kill someone, damage their property or do anything else to them based on the above criteria is fear and hatred based only and not at all acceptable. We are ALL fellow members of the human race.

When did it become ok to televise violence towards others such as mass murdering and beheadings and put them on television at an hour when children are generally around? When did it become ok to use the internet for the same purpose?

When did it become ok to put ever increasingly graphic sex and violence into normal television content? You cannot turn on television now without seeing such graphic content on programs such as CSI etc. I am not advocating strict censorship but the fact is that such content would not have been allowed on the television or in movies without a higher rating a mere 10 ‒ 20 years ago.

Are we so jaded and desensitized as a society and as people that we need that sort of content to make the program exciting? Has no one noticed that the more violent, sexual or graphic TV and movies become in general, that the more our society becomes that way also? I know some on here will say that films etc merely reflect the way society is, but too many studies have shown over and over that the more someone is exposed to violence that the more they are desensitized and likely to commit violent acts. I think the same is true for the rest also.

When did it become ok for our kids to play video games where they have to mow people down with guns or cars or cut human like figures in half with swords? I personally would rather give a kid a plastic sword and let them chop at the weeds in the back yard or have pretend sword fights with a friend and get some exercise than to sit them down in front of one of those games. If they get hit with the sword at least they associate such actions with pain and not pleasure or no emotion at all.

When did it become ok to commit acts of atrocity and violence to try and push your personal, political or religious view? Two of the most effective men in history who impacted the world in huge and life changing ways did it ALL without violence. I am talking about Jesus and Martin Luther King. While many on here will not necessarily agree with what either or both had to say, it cannot be denied that their impact has lived on far beyond their physical deaths.

So fellow bloggers, just what sort of heritage are we leaving our children?

ByteChaser2 52M

9/8/2005 10:19 am

Hmm... ok. This is a very well composed post with a great many (black or white) questions. Can I assume they aren't rhetorical and elicit some answers?

While I understand your concerns for the moral standards of society at large, I fear your seeing them as purely black and white... A series of "Yes/No" and "True/False" questions. Life isn't one way or the other... it's an endless spectrum of grays - one "If/Then/Else" decision after another.

So, in my opinion, it's not ok to expose ANYONE, much less a partner, to disease. However, the deeper moral question there (and the next paragraph) I believe... When did it become ok to cheat on a partner (at the risk of passing on disease). More accurate?

I venture there are as many "justifications" as there are "cheating" partners. I have my own justifications and I suspect they don't mesh well with your sense of morality in relationships. That's ok, so long as we can each concede that neither of us is necessarily right or wrong. That we each understand that the decision to do this wasn't hinged purely on the question: Do I accept the Christian value of monogamy or reject it?

"Destroying the world we live in" is by no means a recent development. In fact, there are studies that indicate that the 14th through 19th centuries produced a significantly more toxic environment than we enjoy in more recent years. I would submit that we have the "scare tactics" used by todays press, in furtherance of readership and ratings, and significant advancements in monitoring technology to blame for the current world view - that we're polluting our planet towards an ecological disaster. The environment isn't out of danger, but it's not on the fast track to destruction either.

Right with you on the recycling. Sadly though, it's simply too cost prohibitive in the western world to maintain an effective program for long. Until there's a shift in our world dichotomy, that's the way it'll be. It's just cheaper to make a new one than it is to collect, sort, recycle and reuse.

Sex on TV? Have you seen your basic daytime show in Europe? Or South America? Ok, so we can do without the extremes but a little nakedness or violence isn't going to warp our children's minds - unless we as parents don't produce the proper, healthy background and guidance those things require. I'm not afraid to lead my children, to be a PARENT.

Want a lesson in what children are into these days? Go have lunch at the high school some time... It's enough to make a seasoned sailor blush... Kids need to know about sex and violence but they need to have parental guidance with it. It's not what's on TV that's cheating our children of their youth, it's poor and permissive parenting.

Same with the video games. When did it become ok for a parent to turn away from the proper supervision of their children's games? Who let those games into the home to begin with? Yup... Their parents.

Leaders and non-violence? Hmm... ok.

Lets talk about the inquisition(s). Sanctioned and conducted by the very same ecclesiastical leaders (popes, bishops and other religious leaders) who have presented you (and the entire Christian world) with the supposed works of great and influential men, including Jesus, in a significantly censured and edited version of what we know today as the bible. The very same book that the Reverend Dr. King carried with him and used as his ultimate guide. The inquisitions literally reshaped the world as early as the 4th century, through violence in the guise of piety and righteousness.

I know, this was way long winded... Sorry about that. I just hope it's broadened your views a bit. All I'm trying to say is that the views we take should never be all black or white, on or off, yes or no... That our own morals and standards are more than the sum our own opinions, that it's a product of thousands of years of history and the experiences of millions, if not billions of men and women through time immemorial.

People like you and I...

LadyFantasy68 49F
126 posts
9/8/2005 5:46 pm

ByteChaser - While you may think I see the world in black and white that is not the case. The world is composed of far more than that and not only are there many shades of grey inbetween but there are literally thousands of colours to go along with it.

As I stated about the cheating issue, I am NOT passing judgement on those who swing, as even though I do not want to be part of that lifestyle, it is their choice and they are not knowingly hurting someone by it. What I take issue with are those who do NOT inform their partners and give the partner a choice about their own health and values.

Yes I have differing values than yours on the issue (obviously) and while I can understand that there are many reasons for infidelity, it does not mean that I have to agree that the action of infidelity is right.

While they may have had a toxic environment between the 14th and 19th centuries, the toxins certainly did not include the cocktail of man made chemicals or plastics that are certainly a large part of the problem in our environment.

I agree that a little nakedness will not harm a child. It is all in the context and the age of the child. I also agree that it is about parenting and yes I am well aware of what high school kids are like as I have one of my own in high school right now. She has on occassion used words that until then I had never heard of. As for the violent games, videos etc, I do NOT allow them in my home and will not allow them to be brought into my home by friends of my children either. I am not afraid to guide my children either.

As for leaders and violence, I pointed out 2 leaders who led WITHOUT violence and that was my whole point. Too many leaders look at violence as a first resort and not a last. I personally do not agree with the acts that the inquisitors committed and to me they fall under committing acts of atrocity to push your personal, political and religious views in the same manner as the tragedies of Sept 11 and the Bali bombings were acts of atrocity. None of those acts are or were ok.

My point was that Martin Luther King led people, united and WITHOUT violence. He changed the world for millions of people, not only in his own country but all over the world and did it without using violence. He may have shared his religious beliefs, he may have shared his personal and political views, but he did so without violence and achieved far more than any violent act ever has.

Although we do not agree on many of these issues I thank you for taking the time to respond.

ByteChaser2 52M

9/9/2005 7:21 am

Man, I'm glad you took that much better than I'd expected. I didn't mean to sound so harsh and contrary... It's just that on first (and even 2nd and 3rd) reads, what I was hearing sounded just so 2 dimensional... and it concerned me that you'd wrote it from a purely emotional position. That your statements and questions were so polarized, if that makes sense.

And we actually agree on much more than my last post appears... That was just me hoping to depict a more expansive view (by what I'd thought I understood at first) of society and it's varrious vagaries and fickleness.

A wonderfully thought provoking post! Thanks for getting my sludged up brain working

ByteChaser2 52M

9/9/2005 7:43 am

My mind is a bit cluttered just now... I forgot this one very important thing.

Again, in principal, I'm about as close to total agreement with you - conceptualy - as two quite different personalities can be but for one thing. The appearant absoluteness of the statements. That kind of thinking is so potentially deadly that it begs some form of response.

Hirohito spoke in absolutes and it ultimately predicated the complete destruction of 2 of his finest cities - and the populace with them.

Hitler spoke in absolutes and prompted an otherwise peace loving nation to commit what amounts to mass murder.

Torqumada spoke in absolutes and caused the open and sanctioned torture and murder of tens of thousands of honest, moral men, women, and children in the inquisitions.

bin Laden, Hussein, Ghengis Khan, the Ceasars... nearly every despot through history spoke in absolutes and the result was pretty much the same. Polarized public opinion followed closely with seemingly endless torture, destruction and death.

Dr. King, while ferocious in his quest for peace and equality through non-violence, spoke and acted in degrees. Even Malcolm X recognized the need for diverse thinking and action. All the GOOD leaders think in multiple dimensions.

Anyway, that was my concern with your initial posting.

warmandsexy52 64M
13164 posts
9/10/2005 5:26 am

I work closely with an inner city community. If you wanted me to sum up moral decline in a nutshell I would say that in my experience people have become much more selfish over the last 10-15 years. Not everyone, but there has been a significant shift. There was something in the UK news about a week ago about the increasing number of pregnant women who are drinking, smoking and abusing drugs while pregnant. Now to my mind, when our collective behaviour starts to mess up the unborn and disadvantage them from the moment of birth I think things have slid a long way.

Parents who spend no time with their children because they get in the way of the rest of their lives and then compensate by buying the most expensive trainers, the latest i-pod, or taking them away on exotic holidays (during term-time) result in children who have access to a wealth of material things, but little real love and the quality of interaction that builds rounded balanced people. So children, learning from such examples, encouraged by media hype, are being educated to continue the selfishness.

The absence of fathers in engaging with the responsibility of raising a family, so the behavioural leadership of the family's adult male becomes surrogated by the peer group gang, encouraged to follow behaviour patterns by the media, particularly the music industry, that are short-term, self-seeking and quick fix.

The value-systems of the advertising industry that create illusory expectations, striving for which contributes to a must-have mentality, personal debt, dissatisfaction and the unhappiness of forever having a half-empty cup.

Moral codes arose in early societies to protect people from physical, psychological and emotional harm. But such societies, such as tribal Papuans, the bedouin, the !Kung hunter gatherers, were relatively simple in their scale, their interaction with their environment and their rate of change. The morals worked and these societies survived for millenia. But then you get the hegemony of the modern technological society that changes so rapidly that we cannot adapt to it. Giving a child a mobile phone might provide a lifeline to home when travelling in the city, but such consequences as malicious texting and 'happy slapping' (beating someone up, filming it on the mobile and sending it to friends - yesterday a child died as a result) were totally unforeseen. Some bizarre behaviour patterns of some AdultFriendFinder members was almost certainly not conceived by those who set it up. So we fail to adapt because of the speed of change and our failure to understand it.

You see, I don't think humans are that smart. We just like to think we are. Jesus, Martin Luther King and Gandhi were all murdered. Positive and optimistic I am (despite this post), but there's still a lot of shit out there, as we all saw in the sociological meltdown in the poorest, most deprived parts of New Orleans (and how did they become so).

Humanity still has quite a way to go and an understanding of how she needs to evolve eludes us in the changes. Having said that, in our heart of hearts we do know right from wrong. It's when we lose that when I'll start worrying.

Tala4u2 54M  
2957 posts
9/17/2005 9:40 pm

I love a good philosophical discussion and this post is one. Now I will put in my opinion. Self Centered Way of My life; I see the world in black and white the things I will do and what i won't do. All my decisions on these comes from informing myself about as much as possible and never quoting others or living as some one else decrees is the 'best' way. I am responsible for all my decisions and actions. And by that I also recieve either successes or failures on my own account. I am not in public office or a leader so I am not disgruntled by their actions no matter what my opinion on them is. I am not accepting of wrongs that I percieve put upon me by others and will spend the time of years in some cases to correct them with using my intelligence and ability to communicate and take action. I do not revert to hitting those in the wrong against me with a club. I am in the same case though perfectly capable of doing that if the situation arose and I could not avoid it.

This entire post including mine is one of people communicating stating their own ideals, passing on information for the benefit of other readers and sharing. That is what makes us the unique sentient beings we are.

Tala, Wizard of The Kingdom of BooBoBia, DEITY,

LadyFantasy68 49F
126 posts
9/17/2005 11:24 pm

Bytechaser - Once again you do not seem to have really grasped what I have said. All of the leaders and despots you mentioned used violence to try and persuade people to think their way.

Hirohito's use of violence was what caused the retaliatory bombings of two of his finest cities.

Hitler used violence and torture to get his political and personal views across causing the deaths of millions of innocent people.

Torqumada also used violence.

bin Laden, Hussein, Ghengis Khan, the Ceasars... every one of them commited violence to try and get others to see that their personal, religious or political views were more important or "right" than someone elses views.

My whole point was that I do not believe it is right to use violence to push your views on someone. While I am capable of using violence to defend myself I will not and do not condone violence towards others as right.

Yes all GOOD leaders think in multiple dimensions and yes the two I mentioned initially were murdered, but they were both undeniably leaders of their times, did not use violence to get their views across and their words and actions still affect millions of people around the world even today.

I do not think we will ever see eye to eye on any of the mentioned issues, but thanks for your time spent replying.

LadyFantasy68 49F
126 posts
9/17/2005 11:44 pm

W&S - Thanks for the reply.

You are right that the world is rapidly changing. Moral codes were set up because they protected people from harm. My whole point is and was that when did it start to become OK to just ignore the needs of others and the moral codes we have and put ourselves first. Yes it is good to have a concept of yourself and your needs but if eveyone behaved so selfishly the world would be even more chaotic than it is now.

Every day you see more and more people behaving selfishly. The way people drive is just an example. Is it really neccessary to cut a person off, scream abuse at them or do finger signals at them that you hear about and see daily just to get somewhere a few seconds earlier. Whatever happened to courtesy to other drivers?

Do people really NEED so much money at the expense of spending time with their partners and children? I do not think so. Yes it is nice to have a nice house and new car but there are literally millions in this world who do not have even a roof over their head or enough to eat. You do not need to go to a third world country to see it either. You only need to look around you and you will see them.

The "ME" and "instant gratification" ideals have never been more prevalent than in this generation and it is not improving. Quit frankly is is somewhat disheartening at times to see how selfish people can be.

I agree that people in their hearts will often know they are wrong. My question really was based loosely on that concept. When did it become OK to cross that line and act on out desires rather than do what is right. It is self gratification at its worst and really shows lack of self control and maturity as I see it. I know I will get slammed once again for that comment by some but so be it.

LadyFantasy68 49F
126 posts
9/17/2005 11:54 pm

johannes680 - I do not mind that you aired your views on here. I happen to agree with you on your comments to bytechaser.

Life is not ALL black and white though. While there are some very clear areas of right and wrong, with some issues there are no easy answers and that is where shades of grey come in.

On the infidelity issue I agree, either you love them or you do not. Either you are faithful or you dissolve the union BEFORE you find someone better suited to you. Making excuses so you can behave in a self centred way and be with someone and have someone else on the side is not an option as far as I can see.

Thanks for your comments.

LadyFantasy68 49F
126 posts
9/18/2005 12:00 am

Tala - Nice to hear from you again. Wondered where you had gotten to of late. Well put. You encapsulated this whole post very neatly in your last paragraph.

Tala4u2 54M  
2957 posts
9/18/2005 7:40 pm

Lady Fantasy, been in Adelaide performing it is kinda hard to browse through when i am working and on the road. But it is great to drop in and get a refreshing bit of mental stimulation here when I get back home. It's great.

Tala, Wizard of The Kingdom of BooBoBia, DEITY,

dano6332 56M

9/23/2005 7:44 pm

Great questions and frankly I agree with you on pretty much all of it. I was a strict dad in regards to video games and until 17 they cannot play or own a M (mature) game. R rated movies you have to be 16 in my house (I have made exceptions for some historical type movies that exposed what I thought were the falsehoods of WAR such as saving Pvt Ryan. Gruesome and graphic but I wanted my sons to understand war is not a great solution and I do not want them dying for glory in some stupid politicians stunt). Yes DDT is banned here in the States so Eagles are back as well as wolves, bears and cougars. Yes I know we are the ones who consume the world and in return we offer coca-cola and mcdonalds. I personally recycle and try to limit excessive consumption. I have watched TV in Europe and was amazed. Hell I thought they went over the line when NYPD started.
Great blog and thanks for the thought you put into it.

Become a member to create a blog