Will humanity devolve to wearing nothing at all again and will the rise of homosexuality cause human

[MeMeMeMe]

Adolescent sexual maturation ages being reduced by easy access to celebrity sexcapades and the abundance of pornography via electronic media will not be mentioned in history books.

My reasoning was that children get hold of "media" at younger ages these days (Tablets, phones, etc are all being provided to younger and younger children as affordability increases). Therefore are being exposed to "celebrity sex" and "porn" at younger ages. Therefore becoming sexualised younger?

Just look at the 2002 introduction of the 12A BBFC rating. "Ah yes, we'll let your 8 year old kid watch all this drug abuse and suggested rape as long as he's with a **** parent."

I see that isn't the case then.

A major flaw in your argument is that it's only since Victorian times that children were considered 'innocent'. In the middle ages, they might share the beds of their parents, while those parents were having sex, and think nothing of it. Children were exposed to sex at much younger ages than they are now.

 

[semi-pro waster]

Sexual promiscuity is at an all time high. With the rise in popular media (cheaper TVs, cheaper internet, cheaper computers, phones, tablets, etc.) the world is being fed tonnes of sex propaganda.

We humble Overclocker-ers might not notice this, but the current generation of young girls are growing up idolising Beyonce, Rihanna et al. (and Justin Beiber, who I'll get to later).

Sex propaganda as you call it might be at an all time high but that's probably got a lot to do with the rise in availability of existing and new media sources - pretty much anyone can publish a "news" story. For better or worse mediums such as Twitter are being picked up by more traditional media as sources for their material and as a way to interact with their audience.

History would suggest that sexual promiscuity probably hasn't changed too much, it might be that we're hearing more about it currently but even that tends to be cyclical when you consider that a number of civilisations have been at least as concerned with sex as we are currently. Some eras have been more prudish than ours and others less - it doesn't make either choice right in an absolute sense, it just demonstrates changing sexual and social mores in society.

Boys and girls are becoming sexually active at unprecedented ages. Lets face it, you rarely, if ever, see "celebrity idols" fully or decently clothed these days.

For example (among many), on several occasions I have witnessed girls who I thought had completely forgotten to wear a skirt over their tights (these weren't jeggings).

Boys & girls arguably aren't becoming sexually active at unprecedented ages, it might well be concerning to some but history again suggests that marriage (and sex) was often amongst people much younger than present age of consent. Our attitude and choice of 16 (in the UK) for an age of consent is a comparatively recent thing, that's a luxury we have with increasing life expectancy rates and you could argue also due to a greater knowledge about the physiological and mental changes that take place in growing up but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct for all - 16 is just a line in the sand, it's a reasonable one for most but little more than that.

Now this is where Justin Bieber comes in. These young girls are growing up believing Justin Bieber is a man. When they become sexually active, the age of which is also getting younger and younger, they will naturally limit themselves to skinny-jeans wearing borderline homosexuals. Gone will be the days when women were attracted to manly-men.

Are you worried that you're a manly-man and you'll lose out? I should point out here that clothing choice doesn't necessarily dictate sexuality either, some of the fashions for men throughout history would make skinny jeans look positively butch.

This brings me onto the topic of homosexuality. (I stress that I'm not judging homosexuality in any way, merely discussing the evolutionary impact of increasing homosexuality.)
The media is full of homosexuality. Gok Wan, Alan Carr, David Walliams et al, are filling the media with gayness. These days, heterosexuality is being phased out as a necessity of life and homosexuality is being influx as a choice of life. Gone are the days when adolescents having their first sexual attractions initially tried to like girls, and only turned gay if it didn't work. Now it's a choice and they're both normal, a kid growing up will think "ah I remember that guy saying liking boys is normal" and will initially start having homosex with his buddies rather than even trying to get a girlfriend for heterosex.

If you can point me to something that shows homosexuality is a choice I'd be much obliged. I don't think it's just a case of "you know what, I fancy a bit of man love tonight" for most but maybe it's something that you can do.

As far as I can tell sexuality is basically a spectrum, you'll find some people who are almost exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, some who are almost exclusively attracted to the same sex and then there will be the rest who fit somewhere along the continuum with varying degrees of attraction to others. However that doesn't suggest that all people can just choose to be gay or straight, that's where a nature vs nurture argument comes in.

I'm not saying decent women and straight men will be wiped out in a months time; I'm simply predicting that they will become scarce, like ancient tribes are today, in 100 to 5,000 years time.

A slightly worrying link you've tried to draw here - decent/straight. There's not necessarily any correlation between the two except that you are judging and imputing your value system onto whole groups of people just because you don't happen to agree with their lifestyle or how they dress.

 

[Kenai]

Gone are the days when adolescents having their first sexual attractions initially tried to like girls, and only turned gay if it didn't work. Now it's a choice and they're both normal, a kid growing up will think "ah I remember that guy saying liking boys is normal" and will initially start having homosex with his buddies rather than even trying to get a girlfriend for heterosex.

This is definitely how it works.

 

[RDM]

Adolescent sexual maturation ages being reduced by easy access to celebrity sexcapades and the abundance of pornography via electronic media will not be mentioned in history books.

Sexual maturation ages are being reduced due to a good diet more than anything else.

 

[asim18]

Sex propaganda as you call it might be at an all time high but that's probably got a lot to do with the rise in availability of existing and new media sources - pretty much anyone can publish a "news" story. For better or worse mediums such as Twitter are being picked up by more traditional media as sources for their material and as a way to interact with their audience.

History would suggest that sexual promiscuity probably hasn't changed too much, it might be that we're hearing more about it currently but even that tends to be cyclical when you consider that a number of civilisations have been at least as concerned with sex as we are currently. Some eras have been more prudish than ours and others less - it doesn't make either choice right in an absolute sense, it just demonstrates changing sexual and social mores in society.



Boys & girls arguably aren't becoming sexually active at unprecedented ages, it might well be concerning to some but history again suggests that marriage (and sex) was often amongst people much younger than present age of consent. Our attitude and choice of 16 (in the UK) for an age of consent is a comparatively recent thing, that's a luxury we have with increasing life expectancy rates and you could argue also due to a greater knowledge about the physiological and mental changes that take place in growing up but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is correct for all - 16 is just a line in the sand, it's a reasonable one for most but little more than that.



Are you worried that you're a manly-man and you'll lose out? I should point out here that clothing choice doesn't necessarily dictate sexuality either, some of the fashions for men throughout history would make skinny jeans look positively butch.



If you can point me to something that shows homosexuality is a choice I'd be much obliged. I don't think it's just a case of "you know what, I fancy a bit of man love tonight" for most but maybe it's something that you can do.

As far as I can tell sexuality is basically a spectrum, you'll find some people who are almost exclusively attracted to the opposite sex, some who are almost exclusively attracted to the same sex and then there will be the rest who fit somewhere along the continuum with varying degrees of attraction to others. However that doesn't suggest that all people can just choose to be gay or straight, that's where a nature vs nurture argument comes in.



A slightly worrying link you've tried to draw here - decent/straight. There's not necessarily any correlation between the two except that you are judging and imputing your value system onto whole groups of people just because you don't happen to agree with their lifestyle or how they dress.

Thanks for such a thorough reply. It makes sense.

In regards to the last paragraph, I'm not drawing any link. You've put "decent/straight" like I'm saying straight=decent? If so, it's not what I meant.

The phrase "decent women" was merely describing girls who do not copy Rihanna's and Beyonce's style, and remain "decent". A good synonym of decent in this context would be "respectable".

I know R & B dress like whores because sex sells, but someone idolising them will not know that.

 

[Metallifux]

I freely admit to jumping to a conclusion here on reading your user name but is your rant religiously motivated?

 

[asim18]

I freely admit to jumping to a conclusion here on reading your user name but is your rant religiously motivated?

Absolutely not. I guess it's obvious I was born into religion, but I'm not religious at all.

Also, I'm not ranting; I'm not angry, or distressed at anything!

 

[Bar]

One of the major developments in the last 20 years that has possibly driven your thoughts and opinions is the availability of information. Today we are bombarded with information 24/7, there is no let up in it. Things become more "common" as they are mentioned/reported more frequently. You will also get trends appear in the news when a story gets a lot of public attention, reporters will actively hunt out other examples which would not normally have been reported, however as they are driving sales / network share the more stories you can find the better.

In relation to sexual activity of girls this again ebbs and flows as with all aspects of society and its evolution. It was quite common in the past for girls to be wed at 12 / 13, we view this as abhorrent today, however in medieval times it was quite normal. Again due to media we have it portrayed that girls are becoming more and more sexually active younger and younger.

In relation to homosexuality, again you can look to the past and find all sorts of examples of rampant homosexuality without causing the death of society. Alexander the great had a dedicated army / unit that was exclusively made up of homosexual couples - the thinking being that a soldier was far more likely to fight better when defending their lover (who was fighting beside them) than someone who was simply a mate.

One area that I believe is a new phenomenon (and this is purely an opinion as opposed to fact) is that behaviors which are on the extreme ends of the spectrum are no longer as isolated as they were in the past. People can connect on the internet and find "normality" where they may have been isolated in the past. This can bring huge benefits when used in a positive way, however it could potentially cause significant harm, where deviant behavior ends up being encouraged: online suicides, child abuse etc.

 

[dowie]

I'm not saying decent women and straight men will be wiped out in a months time; I'm simply predicting that they will become scarce, like ancient tribes are today, in 100 to 5,000 years time.

You do realise that these 'ancient tribes' you're referring to tend to wear even less clothing than the women you're criticising. Think remote Brazilian tribes, Africans, aborigines in Australia.... tend to not have much on in general.

Re: homosexuals the fact they're out in the open doesn't necessarily have much impact other than perhaps a reduction in prejudice as people get more comfortable with them being around... they've always been around, homosexuality exists in the animal kingdom too, its just now people are more aware of them being around rather than them being int he closet so to speak.

A greater threat to our population in the past centuries has been the two world wars which caused the deaths of millions of men yet the human race is still around.

Your OP is fundamentally flawed... wearing little clothing is something some humans have done since humans have been human... and homosexuals have pretty much always existed too.

 

[asim18]

You do realise that these 'ancient tribes' you're referring to tend to wear even less clothing than the women you're criticising. Think remote Brazilian tribes, Africans, aborigines in Australia.... tend to not have much on in general.

Your OP is fundamentally flawed... wearing little clothing is something some humans have done since humans have been human... and homosexuals have pretty much always existed too.

That's precisely why I used the word "devolve". In other words, "going back" to wearing less.

 

[EyepodI]

Will humanity devolve to wearing nothing at all again

One can only hope so. Would make the journey to work on the train in the mornings much more interesting.

 

[The Running Man]

Asim your proposition is flawed. The romans and Egyptians were all far more promiscuous than that we are now. Think mass orgies and slave orgies and women's being sold to new masters . (Kind of like arranged marriages I guess if you are part if a culture that hasn't evolved over the last 1000 years).

Also be headings used to be more common place. These were done as a public spectacle. Now they can't even show them on Facebook.. some things have changed and we are a lot more prudish now. Despite us being told that we are more promiscuous.

How old was Muhammad's bride again and how many did he have?

 

[Stewy]

****ing Justin Beiber, first the Anne Frank debacle, now turning the world in to a bunch of homos.

 

[The Running Man]

Let's face it. If Mohammad was around now he'd be part of the jimmy saville enquirey.

 

[Castiel]

Let's face it. If Mohammad was around now he'd be part of the jimmy saville enquirey.

Be quiet. What a daft and pointless thing to say.

 

[The Running Man]

Critics allege that Aisha was just six years old when she was betrothed to Muhammad, himself in his 50s, and only nine when the marriage was consummated

Sounds very unsaville like

 

[sports_brah]

In before the OP is muslim and subsconsciously wants the subjugation of women and homosexuals.




Only kidding.


Seriously though, I wouldn't say homosexuality is on the rise, more that we are now FAR more exposed to it by a liberal, agenda led media. This can be a good or bad thing depending on how you look at it (eg bad because its promoting homosexuality, or good because its removing social stigmas).

As for the women issue, I agree. The problem is that we have no authority to say what people should do, except to vote by actions. Man does not and SHOULD not have any influence over a womans action, unlike most of history and some religions.

If you want women to stop acting like whores (and again, lets remember that this is again an image driven and reinforced by a very agenda led media world, the reality is far different) then don't take advantage of it. The problem is that most men do. Unless you act like the way you would like women to act, then its a hypocritical move. Have YOU engaged in premaritial sex? Do YOU encourage people to dress like tarts via compliments or not saying what you REALLY feel?



I will say that whilst the idea of young people being exposed to sex has gone on since time began, I would hazard a guess that it is significantly less harmful than today.

Being in the same bed as two parents getting it on, is FAR different from being bombarded on every front, with huge expectations all round.

 

[TJM]

That's precisely why I used the word "devolve". In other words, "going back" to wearing less.

'Devolving' implies that something useful or valuable has been lost; that humanity has slid backwards on some path towards a better future.

I'm all for people wearing less. 'Being modest' does nothing but fetishise the appearance of skin, which leads to society objectifying some and shaming others into hiding their bodies.

Our attitude towards the human body causes many people to suffer serious emotional and mental health problems. Do you think tribeswomen worry about whether they have a bikini body before going outside?

 

[Devrij]

Ya know, when I walk out the house up here in the north, people tend to wear clothes for the same reasons our ancestors did: it's bloody freezing.

Stupidest OP I have ever read.

 

[PMKeates]

While 'actual' homosexuality is probably not on the rise, practicising homosexuality is. In developed cultures with low birth rates, this will doom their civilisations.