Why has the US failed to overcome its puritan attitudes about sex?

[hadit]

I don't accept the premise as true. If we define puritan as excessively strict in moral or religious matters, then the popular culture in the United States is anything but puritan. As a matter of fact, in the United States, when it comes to sex, almost anything goes.

The earlier post about the prevalence of pornography in this country is also well-taken. A puritanical society wouldn't stand for it.

There is a tendency among some to define even voicing opposition of ANY kind on sexual activity of ANY kind as excessively strict and thus puritanical. I think they would wet themselves if they had to live under true Puritan law.

[jwreck]

As a matter of fact, in the United States, when it comes to sex, almost anything goes.

Bullshit.

The earlier post about the prevalence of pornography in this country is also well-taken. A puritanical society wouldn't stand for it.

Then what would you call it?

[jwreck]

There is a tendency among some to define even voicing opposition of ANY kind on sexual activity of ANY kind as excessively strict and thus puritanical. I think they would wet themselves if they had to live under true Puritan law.

What would you define as "pure puritan law"? Sodomy being illegal? Showing nipples being illegal? Fellatio being illegal?

[hadit]

What would you define as "pure puritan law"? Sodomy being illegal? Showing nipples being illegal? Fellatio being illegal?

Yes, yes, and yes. Adultry earning you public shame, any sex outside of marriage completely forbidden, control over sexual positions, how much undress is tolerated, etc. IOW, trying to claim that modern American society is in ANY way Puritanical is ridiculous.

[jwreck]

Yes, yes, and yes. Adultry earning you public shame, any sex outside of marriage completely forbidden, control over sexual positions, how much undress is tolerated, etc. IOW, trying to claim that modern American society is in ANY way Puritanical is ridiculous.

Except that those laws continue to be on the books all across the US.

[hadit]

Except that those laws continue to be on the books all across the US.

And are not enforced. This is about how society acts, not whether laws that are no longer observed were removed from the books or not.

[9ball8]

That is a good point, as well as the one noting what "puritan" really meant back in the bad old days. For individuals who are honest about their relationships (they keep promises they make), and restrict their behavior to consensual sex between adults, that is a decent basis. Current law (not law dug up from a puritan past) applies as well.

Very important to avoid political retaliation against sexual behavior, when reasonable & legal conditions are met. Political abuse of the puritan laws were likely a major reason people moved away from enforcement over the last several decades.

[jwreck]

And are not enforced. This is about how society acts, not whether laws that are no longer observed were removed from the books or not.

Really? So women go topless where you live?

[hadit]

Really? So women go topless where you live?

Name your favorite developed country that you think is not Puritanical that doesn't restrict when and where women can go topless. That's not really a good measure, don't you think?

[josephdphillips]

Bullshit.

When was the last time anyone in the United States was prosecuted for a consensual sex act?

I repeat: when it comes to sex, anything goes.

As to your second question, I don't see any evidence of attitudes about sex in the United States that remotely resemble the attitude of the original Puritans.

I remember quite well the sexual liberation movement in the 1970s. We are living in a more conservative time now, of course, but things have not changed all that much since then.

Americans are far more obsessed about sex and pleasure than about self-denial and chastity. Between the prevalence of porn here and the teen pregnancy rate, it is hard to argue otherwise.

[josephdphillips]

I agree. Toplessness is a rather trivial issue. Western women don't like going braless, let alone topless. It's more an issue of personal comfort than modesty or sexuality.

[Vader]

The U.S. was never a puritan country, and as for booze consumption, it's annual per capita consumption for a couple hundred years was three times the rate of Europe's. The Federal government made almost 40% of its revenues off of booze right up until the early 20th century; the wave of Prohibition sentiment and its effects on Federal tax revenue were the primary impetus for the Federal income tax legislation.

As for 'sex', prostitution was just as endemic as drunkenness, and so was the crime rate. Nothing to discuss here; most of that 'Puritan' backlash is of recent origin, this century, and certainly justified, as was Prohibition.

Excuse me? Do the Salem Witch Trials ring any bells for you?

[jwreck]

Name your favorite developed country that you think is not Puritanical that doesn't restrict when and where women can go topless. That's not really a good measure, don't you think?

Pretty much all of Europe.

When was the last time anyone in the United States was prosecuted for a consensual sex act?

Anyone arrested for prostitution for one.

I repeat: when it comes to sex, anything goes.

Incorrect.

As to your second question, I don't see any evidence of attitudes about sex in the United States that remotely resemble the attitude of the original Puritans.

I remember quite well the sexual liberation movement in the 1970s. We are living in a more conservative time now, of course, but things have not changed all that much since then.

Americans are far more obsessed about sex and pleasure than about self-denial and chastity. Between the prevalence of porn here and the teen pregnancy rate, it is hard to argue otherwise.

If you want to see anything goes, go to Thailand. Americans are prudes, but they try to pretend not to be (just as you are arguing right now). Which is why we have strip clubs where women wear pasties to cover their nipples. Its udderly (nyuck nyuck) ridiculous.

[hadit]

Pretty much all of Europe.

Really? No restrictions at all? A woman wouldn't cause a stir if she stripped off in Parliament or at a national cathedral, or in a police station?

[jwreck]

Really? No restrictions at all? A woman wouldn't cause a stir if she stripped off in Parliament or at a national cathedral, or in a police station?

Now you're being ridiculous. Beisdes, my issue is more with the bi-polar nature of American attitudes about sex, which I believe is a result of trying to escape our puritan background, rather than semantics.

[Davidxvx]

Sex is awesome.

I think that the issue is that the US - and, to a lesser extent, most Anglo countries - has not adopted an intelligent, open sexual culture. It's not about Puritanism; it's about a sort of neo-Victorian hypocricy. Pre-marital sex is intolerable, unless it's on television. Parents know their children will be fucking like rabbits, but still want abstinence based sex education. I would suggest that the unwillingness to be open about sexuality in the US - and most British colonies - led to the spectacular disfunction of modern western sexuality.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Excuse me? Do the Salem Witch Trials ring any bells for you?

Excuse you for what? Your total ignorance of history? The Salem witch trials happened in the late 1690's took place in a small part of an English colony; there was no 'U.S.' then, and even then the judicial decisions appalled many contemporaries at the time, including other Puritan leaders, and especially many in Massachusetts itself, which is why those decisions were reversed soon after and damages awarded, and the cases led to bills that later became standard parts of modern law later on in the U.S., when it became a country; rules of evidence, attainder, and the like, so you still have nothing.

Can you prove you wouldn't have been susceptible to hysteria if you had lived there in 1692? You're very susceptible to it now, so I would say you would have been glad to hold the ropes some were hanged with, like most good little Democrats. Puritans didn't occupy the entire American continent. They didn't even make up the entire population of Massachusetts , genius.

[Farnsworth,Luther P.]

Sex is awesome.

I think that the issue is that the US - and, to a lesser extent, most Anglo countries - has not adopted an intelligent, open sexual culture. It's not about Puritanism; it's about a sort of neo-Victorian hypocricy. Pre-marital sex is intolerable, unless it's on television. Parents know their children will be fucking like rabbits, but still want abstinence based sex education. I would suggest that the unwillingness to be open about sexuality in the US - and most British colonies - led to the spectacular disfunction of modern western sexuality.

So why hasn't all that 'openness' and 'intelligence' about sex resulted in declines of teenage pregnancy, two parent families, and reduced the epidemic of venereal diseases? Just the opposite trend has happened since the 1960's. Are you claiming there is no sex education being taught in schools?

Here's a clue: Worshipping mindless self-indulgence doesn't make anybody 'enlightened' or 'intelligent'. It makes them narcissistic, neurotic morons with zero impulse control.

[hadit]

Here's a clue: Worshipping mindless self-indulgence doesn't make anybody 'enlightened' or 'intelligent'. It makes them narcissistic, neurotic morons with zero impulse control.

Well stated.

[86Dùde]

Excuse you for what? Your total ignorance of history? The Salem witch trials happened in the late 1690's took place in a small part of an English colony; there was no 'U.S.' then, and even then the judicial decisions appalled many contemporaries at the time, including other Puritan leaders, and especially many in Massachusetts itself, which is why those decisions were reversed soon after and damages awarded, and the cases led to bills that later became standard parts of modern law later on in the U.S., when it became a country; rules of evidence, attainder, and the like, so you still have nothing.

Can you prove you wouldn't have been susceptible to hysteria if you had lived there in 1692? You're very susceptible to it now, so I would say you would have been glad to hold the ropes some were hanged with, like most good little Democrats. Puritans didn't occupy the entire American continent. They didn't even make up the entire population of Massachusetts , genius.

FARNSWORTH SMASH!