If all parties consent, are honest with one another and take precautions - I see nothing wrong with it.

However, it's not something that I personally want to participate in, nor do I want a partner that does either.

**Sidenote: Animals don't practice religion, rap or have "ghettos" - there are species who only mate with one partner for life and there are those that move from mate to mate. Same idea, just way less complicated.

 

id be glad if every one likes to fight for it

 

digs at me because i disagree with you?

why not actually sticking to a debate subject.

what hip hop culture preaches, has nothing to do with sex and censorship though. It doesn't matter that it enforces majority rule, its irrelevant to the topic.

I'm not lumping religeon and the government, but what i'm saying is that religeous morals take a higher ground in this country then the "ghetto gospel".What i simply tried to say, is i don't see how hip hop prevents free love, i see more sex, and open sexuality in rap videos, then i do in christian rock videos.

Hip hop, reggae, and reggaetone dancing is much more sexual then church hymns....i don't see any way that hip hop is deinfluencing sex.

 

But people have always wanted to claim other people as there property. Slavery has been rampant in society dating back to the ancient greek and roman times, the egyptians used slavery to build the pyramids. people have always wanted to have control, i mean that is why communism fails. Thats why people want to be the boss, people want to be higher up then other people, its human nature to want to be the top dog. The primal lust for power is prevalent through animals, and human society. Things never were truely communal, that is the foundation of communism, and communism has never worked out. If you haven't read the book "animal farm" by george orwell, i offer it as a great read, it explains the downfall of the communal system in early society.

throughout the 18 and early 1900s women were seen as objects, thats the thing. they were seen as a mans property, a mans wife, was his property. she was not allowed to own property, and even vote until 1920. A man was allowed to do whatever he wanted to his wife, because people thought that a wife was there property, it wasn't because they were bad people, it was just a belief at the time. I think nowadays, women are actually a lot more independent and able to have free will in society, A woman ran for president, women are putting out best selling records without having to exploit there bodies, i don't think anybody truly claims a woman as there property (I mean there are limits, the girl I'm dating is not my property, but i am the only one she's going to be having free love with)

I still do see a lot of the church influence on society though, i mean it doesn't seem as prevalent, because its what we have all known, and grown up under, but the laws of our country, and the way it is run, is so much different then ancient roman societies. Our country is still to this day affected by religeon, and not all in a bad way, but it is still there in.

 

okay, yes, rap preaches about casual sex, for MEN. so basically, the same bullshit that ancient cultures preached about, as well as religion, where men can fuck whoever they want, but their women are their property. that's my point. with that inequality, we can never have free love.

so basically you're just trying to pick a fight huh?

go find me a post of my claiming to be better than anybody else, unprovoked, that isn't about my skill in basketball.

yea, you're wrong..again.

I am sticking to the debate topic, not making little digs at you, so quit being paranoid.

let me explain this to you since you don't seem to get it...GANGSTER RAP PREACHES SEXUAL FREEDOM FOR STRAIGHT MEN, and not for everybody else. It preaches women as objects, it preaches gay people as fags, it is fucking ignorant. The videos being "sexual" doesn't mean shit.

You, are the one not sticking to the topic, you're just trying to blame the Church for everything, when infact I would bet money that the "ghetto gospel" bullshit that you preach, has more influence in most areas than religion does, and if it doesn't in certain areas, believe me, it will.

I'll get to this in a minute, it's a bit early to read a reply as long as a book for me right now

and by the way, you are a great example of somebody who preaches double-standards. "my girl is not my property, but I'm the only one she's going to be having free love with", is exactly what I'm talking about. If you didn't view her as your property, you wouldn't say that, and you wouldn't say "my girl". you clearly do see women as objects, whether you try to come off as otherwise or not.

 

No i was just talking about the digs saying that i'm in support of the "majority rule" that you speak of.
The church preaches gay people as sinners, and mortal sinners and that, and damns them to hell. The bible might not directly say it, but if you ask a priest if a gay man is going to heaven, he will say no, because it is against god, so i don't see how your blaming Hip Hop culture for keeping back gay pride. Do you see any strong women figures in the bible? because all i see is males, besides mary.
Ghetto gospel was a tupac song btw, i don't preach anything,
I'm not trying to blame the church, i'm simply stating the facts of how church influences society, more so then hip hop culture does. There are a number of hip hop artists that do NOT preach women as objects, listen to some of tupac's songs "dear mama", "keep your head up", look at all the female hip hop artists who preach about being strong sisters, and such, hell even look at that song "I-n-d-e-p-e-n-d-e-n-t" that flooded the radio for a while, i see none of that as demoralizing to women.

 

If the OP is really interested in this subject, I suggest he find a copy, probably in the library, of "Eros and Civilization" by Herbert Marcuse. If your library doesn't have it, they should be able to get it for you. He looks at human sexuality from before the Judeo Christian influence and how it developed to modern times. BTW Orthodox Jewish law makes sexual contact with your spouse impossible except when she is fertile, a lot stricter than Catholicism. There are political reasons for the restriction of sexual behavior that go way back and are very interesting. When men took over the world and squashed the female influence is when we got most of the restrictions.
If you can't find the book, PM me, and if I can find my copy I will send it to you. It is not an easy read, but if you have some patience you can learn a lot from it, even if you don't agree with all of it.

 

hmm... free love. sleeping around is just a bad idea. most men can do it, but women are programmed differently.


the only time i would ever be able to sleep around would be if my heart belonged to no one. and by "belonging" i mean, if i was never in love. i can't REALLY love a man, and sleep with another. i go for love, over sex.

as a teen, there was no serious relationships, and sleeping around was not hard. teens normally do that. no, i'm not stereotyping, if you're a teen who settles down, that's really, really good. but most don't.

as you get older, our minds are programmed to look for mates to spend an eternity with. if i was in my 30's, and sleeping with random guys, no strings attatched, with two kids of my own, i'd feel pretty bad about myself (talking about my life personally).

so personally, i can't do it. i love the affection, love, sex, companionship that i get from one person, and that's what i need for my life. we're not each others property, because we're choosing to be together. the only person that i ever felt like i was his "property", i left. there's a big difference between being "property" and someone's wife/girl. any female that has been in a controlling relationship can tell you the difference.

 

My mother and I used to talk quite a bit about the whole 60's free-love phenomenon. She was quite the hippie chick...

Anyway, according to her, it wasn't so much about casual sex as it was about a rebellion against the whole idea of ownership or control by another person. She felt that her body was her own, and if she chose to give freely of it, that was (a) her absolute right, and (b) a perfect expression of her outlook on life: that her body and everything else she had were to be shared freely.

A nice ideal, perhaps, but not so easy to make it work. I wouldn't hang my hat so much on HIV or other STD's...those can be prevented. But a stronger argument might be that it goes against human nature. We DO like to possess things...I like to possess my husband, and he likes to possess his wife.

 

There is no such thing as free love cause you end up paying for it one way or another.

 

If I was going to pick a solid fight with you I would. What I am referring to is your constant posturing that in some way you are better than whom ever is posting "against" you. Evidently a debate or discussion that goes against what you believe makes you to uncomfortable to be able to hear what the other person is saying. As for a skill in basketball I hardly see that as being relevant to what we are talking about, I don't see a skill within a sport on the same level as intellectualism, maturity and social maturity. They just do not compare to one another, for me skill in sport should be the last thing people strive for in order to be proud of something, people ought to strive to better themselves intellectually and socially. But that is MHO, so just incase you feel attacked, its not an attack it is an opinion. There is a difference.
As for your posturing, if you like I will more than gladly go through threads and find you examples if you truly need them but, I think we both know instances when you did exactly what I said.

 

It's very true that the whole idea of free love was less about casual sex and more to with attitudes towards others, along the lines you have explained Kimi.

However, I'm not convinced that human nature itself leads us towards the inclination to possess and control. Those tendencies, to my way of thinking, are more likely symptoms of insecurity brought on by fear of change because, basically, human beings, for the most part, are frightened of dying, which is pretty much the ultimate change,

Possession and control of another person or objects even, could be seen as an attempt to allay that basic insecurity.

It's possible that the whole idea of free love sought to allay such fears on a completely different level...... by challenging them and thus overcoming them.

 

I think the notion was partly that security would be conferred by membership in the community as a whole, not by the conventional model: a monogamous relationship with one other person. The same was true of other basic needs...which led to the various experiments with communal living. It's a natural extension...you not only share food and the other fruits of your communities labor, but you share sex as well. A nice, egalitarian notion that also satisfied people's natural desire to fuck their brains out.

 

see that's the point that I'm trying to make, about what really is to blame. true, the church has a hand in it, but it's because majority rule, was in favor of men, and preached women as their property, and had all of these restrictions based on the fact that they just didn't agree with certain things.

I'll have to check that book out, thanks for recommending it

 

so basically, you're trying to start shit, because you don't agree with me telling you to stop blaming the church for everything?

you have no leg to stand on in this discussion, cus all you're doing is trying to throw rocks inside a glass house

agree with this, as it was kind of what I was trying to get at, not just huge orgies and STDs and everything else.

 

You're full of shit, but then again I highly doubt that I have to say that for people to know it.

Hip hop and gangster rap are two different things. Hip Hop has a message, and isn't about the same bullshit. gangster rap, is about the same bullshit, the bullshit that you preach, because I've seen you preach it hear many many times.

Gangster rap, makes women out to be objects, you don't think so? Name female artists in rap who talk about sex openly who aren't looked down on. I'll wait. Oh, that's right, there aren't any. Because it is driven by insecure, immature, bullshitting "men" just like yourself. You see women as "yours" and not as their own people, whether you "treat them like gold" or not. That doesn't mean you're not a controlling person or a chauvenist.

and yes, you do preach bullshit, just like you're doing right now, because you are a bullshitter.

And as far as enforcing "majority rule" you do it on here daily, trying to constantly talk like you're better than anybody who is different than you, when in reality, it is the complete opposite. you seriously disgust me

and seriously, quit misspelling words purposely that I know you can spell, it's just ignant.

you're another person who sees Free Love as meaning sleeping around and casual sex, cus that's all you've known it to mean. And you're being pretty judgmental of others who are different than you, and making Free Love out to be a bad thing, just cus you don't agree with it.

 

I agree, entirely.....but completely 'free' communal living required an inner strength and sense of security that relatively few could handle...for wont of a better word....mentally or emotionally, hence the failure of the sixties revolution. I guess the drugs didn't help much either!!!

<TCL smiles>

It's a bit late this year to begin another summer of love....but, by 2010 (which does have a nice ring about it) maybe the whole world could actually become one big community with all insecurities a thing of the past.

The teachers of the future will be those who can teach others about themselves.

 

If you knew anything about Hip-Hop you would know that Gangsta rap IS a part of Hip-Hop

 

you can't deal with having an actual discussion without atacking my character, and putting forth your bullshit views about me. All you did in that post was atack me, when i've said nothing wrong, but my opinion, supported by facts, and you took not one look at my post, and brushed it off and atacked who i am.

 

The church tends to embrace the prejudices of the people.

x0Bella0x said:
"hmm... free love. sleeping around is just a bad idea. most men can do it, but women are programmed differently. "

I think that's the reason why free love doesn't work too well. Men can emotionally separate sex from love, women usually not, or not to the same degree. This setting is obviously good for raising kids and perpetuating humankind. It's bad for free love, though.

Btw this explains why there's the myth that gay men fuck around like rabbits and are incapable of true love. Like our straight fellows, we can have fulfilling sex without deep emotions. So we're closer to free love than straight people will ever be. That doesn't mean that we don't fall in love and can't live with that special guy for the rest of life. Unlike women, we can easier forgive a partner for having just sex with another man.