- Joined
- Feb 4, 2013
- Messages
- 28,659
- Reaction score
- 18,803
- Location
- Charleston, South Carolina
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
I would have to say that the roots, such as they are, is the Enlightenment's belief that guided by reason greed and passion could be released from their confines. It was believed that the new better human could manage such things , they were no longer to be feared as destructive.
I'd certainly say the Enlightenment is at the "foundations" of the issue. However, that's true of basically all Western political thought these days.
The particular branching off of Leftist ideology under consideration here is a lot more recent. It's only really taken place in the last few decades with any noticable force.
LOL The root of hedonism goes back to the ancient world. The abomination is actually Judeo-Christianity when they infected the Western world with the notion that sex outside of procreation is evil. :2razz:
Hell! I just saw the movie "Sausage Party," and it was basically a giant, thinly veiled, parable trying to push that very idea - i.e. "the Gods" (humans) are evil, and the belief systems and inhibitions foods have built around them are all a lie, so the food ultimately rebels and kills "the Gods" (again, humans) in order to free themselves from all of that, and they celebrate by having a giant pan-sexual food orgy, which makes everything right with the world.
LOL The root of hedonism goes back to the ancient world. The abomination is actually Judeo-Christianity when they infected the Western world with the notion that sex outside of procreation is evil. :2razz:
Oh OK, I think I know more now about what you are after....understanding that the Roaring 20's were very hedonistic and sexy there was a long pause till the Beats came along, I think this is where you want to look. The beats of course rolled right into the Sexual Revolution which was greatly helped along by the pill (GO SCIENCE!) and then we were really off to the races. If we accept that then we find ourselves wondering where the beats came from, and I would say they were birthed from prosperity and boredom.
So that explains the genesis, but I am still having tfrouble figuring out exactly what you are really after, I dont think this is it. Your opening post was unusually mushy for you.
We're talking about a cartoon. A cartoon about animated wieners. A cartoon about animated wieners having sex. You're putting way too much thought into this, Aristotle.
A cartoon which simply happens to echo a sentiment which I have seen so many times in Left-leaning media (and heard from so many Left-leaning persons on this board) that it could fairly easily be described as being one of the key tenets of the ideology.
The movie "Pleasantville," for example, (which is basically a giant allegory for the rise of the 'New Left' and its cultural influence during the 1950s and 1960s in and of itself), follows basically the same premise.
The idea that, somehow, "the world would be a better place if all these prudes just started ****ing each other/doing drugs/let go of their inhibitions, or etca" is, as I mentioned, rather self-evidently endemic to the mindset of the modern Left.
I was simply asking why.
As I said, that's a Hell of a lot of innate, almost metaphysical, importance to place on the simple act of flesh slapping together and the tingly sensations it creates.
Dude, it's a cartoon about sentient wieners. There is literally nothing about this movie that is akin to a political ideology. It may come as a surprise, but people from both left and right views can get together and life at a few dick and ball jokes for an hour and thirty minutes without turning it into a political grudge match.
The director of "Pleasantville" Gary Ross said outright that his movie was an artistic statement on social change in the 50's. The director of "Sausage Party" wanted to make a movie about talking hot dog links. I don't quite see the correlation here.
Sure, maybe that would be the case in the movie "Pleasantville" but in "Sausage Party" Nick Kroll literally plays a literal douche. These were a bunch of rich, famous people doing rich famous people things like making a ****ing movie about sentient wieners.
That's a bunch of hogwash. You're doing the typical Gathomas thing which is "look at ____ and see why this is indicative of leftism." But this time, you're trying to ring out some sort of political statement from a movie where Seth Rogan makes penis jokes for two hours.
Or you know, some people just find that kind of stuff funny. :roll:
To make things clear right off the bat here, we're not discussing whether this view is necessarily right or wrong. I'm simply asking if anyone has any knowledge as to this - in my opinion, rather peculiar - belief system's "family tree," so to speak.
The idea that sex, given freely, and paired with a generalized lack of "inhibition" on the part of the greater population concerning personal conduct, often going so far as to glorify and promote hedonistic extremes with regards to things like recreational drug usage, partying, lax social attitudes, and etca, etca, will somehow create a "better," or even possibly "utopian," society is pretty damn close to being universal in the thought and value systems of the modern ideological Left. Hell! I just saw the movie "Sausage Party," and it was basically a giant, thinly veiled, parable trying to push that very idea - i.e. "the Gods" (humans) are evil, and the belief systems and inhibitions foods have built around them are all a lie, so the food ultimately rebels and kills "the Gods" (again, humans) in order to free themselves from all of that, and they celebrate by having a giant pan-sexual food orgy, which makes everything right with the world.
Sure, it's comedy. At the same time, however, you can't tell me that the message being pushed there isn't very much indicative of how the person behind the writer's pen actually views the world at large, even outside of their work.
I'm sorry... But the simple fact of the matter is that the whole thing seems like a Hell of a lot of innate ideological and psychological importance to place on the simple act of a couple of (mostly) hairless primates rubbing their meaty bits together for a couple of minutes in the interests of pair bonding and procreation. The narrative surrounding this is almost like a dogmatic "gospel," of sorts, accepted on the basis of faith more than anything else among the ranks of those who believe it.
How did that come to be? Where does this mindset originate? What pre-existing assumptions must be in place to give the world view in question the logical grounding its adherents clearly believe it to possess?
I would be inclined to chalk the phenomena up purely to Marxist thought and impulses, given its general focus on "tearing down" conventional institutions, and replacing them with (what, 'true believers,' at least, believe to be) some sort of "Revolutionary" new framework. In that regard, it falls within the confines of broadly defined "Cultural Marxism" rather well.
However, at the same time, Marx really didn't have much to say about sex. Most self-avowed "Marxist" societies, in point of fact, have actually tended to be pretty damn prudish and restrained. To the contrary, this apparent fixation on the "pleasures of the flesh" appears to be something rather unique to the Left of the "Capitalist Peeg" West, and the United States in particular.
Is it Freud who is at the heart of the matter then? Are these simply the cultural after-echos of his own (long since discredited) views regarding neurosis as being in almost all cases tied to so-called "sexual repression?"
Is it Freud by way of Marx, basically? With the perceived "neuroses" of society as a whole being blamed on the supposed "mass sexual repression" imposed by more traditional social institutions, and society as a whole therefore requiring "revolutionary" intervention to be rid of them as such? Has that view simply been mixed with good old fashioned Capitalist Yankee materialism and decadence, resulting in the "anything goes - if it feels good, do it," cultural consensus seen among the ranks of the "Pop Left" today?
Or... Does it go even deeper than that?
Walt Whitman and a number of other 19th Century bohemian radicals actually had some rather hippie-ish views regarding "free love" and other such things as well. Did that influence die with them, or did some sliver of it remain (most likely combined with the other three factors mentioned above) to shape the sea-change in the social values the American ideological Left experienced from the 1960s onwards?
There are really quite a few directions a person could take this analysis, when one stops to think about it.
To make things clear right off the bat here, we're not discussing whether this view is necessarily right or wrong. I'm simply asking if anyone has any knowledge as to this - in my opinion, rather peculiar - belief system's "family tree," so to speak.
The idea that sex, given freely, and paired with a generalized lack of "inhibition" on the part of the greater population concerning personal conduct, often going so far as to glorify and promote hedonistic extremes with regards to things like recreational drug usage, partying, lax social attitudes, and etca, etca, will somehow create a "better," or even possibly "utopian," society is pretty damn close to being universal in the thought and value systems of the modern ideological Left. Hell! I just saw the movie "Sausage Party," and it was basically a giant, thinly veiled, parable trying to push that very idea - i.e. "the Gods" (humans) are evil, and the belief systems and inhibitions foods have built around them are all a lie, so the food ultimately rebels and kills "the Gods" (again, humans) in order to free themselves from all of that, and they celebrate by having a giant pan-sexual food orgy, which makes everything right with the world.
Sure, it's comedy. At the same time, however, you can't tell me that the message being pushed there isn't very much indicative of how the person behind the writer's pen actually views the world at large, even outside of their work.
I'm sorry... But the simple fact of the matter is that the whole thing seems like a Hell of a lot of innate ideological and psychological importance to place on the simple act of a couple of (mostly) hairless primates rubbing their meaty bits together for a couple of minutes in the interests of pair bonding and procreation. The narrative surrounding this is almost like a dogmatic "gospel," of sorts, accepted on the basis of faith more than anything else among the ranks of those who believe it.
How did that come to be? Where does this mindset originate? What pre-existing assumptions must be in place to give the world view in question the logical grounding its adherents clearly believe it to possess?
I would be inclined to chalk the phenomena up purely to Marxist thought and impulses, given its general focus on "tearing down" conventional institutions, and replacing them with (what, 'true believers,' at least, believe to be) some sort of "Revolutionary" new framework. In that regard, it falls within the confines of broadly defined "Cultural Marxism" rather well.
However, at the same time, Marx really didn't have much to say about sex. Most self-avowed "Marxist" societies, in point of fact, have actually tended to be pretty damn prudish and restrained. To the contrary, this apparent fixation on the "pleasures of the flesh" appears to be something rather unique to the Left of the "Capitalist Peeg" West, and the United States in particular.
Is it Freud who is at the heart of the matter then? Are these simply the cultural after-echos of his own (long since discredited) views regarding neurosis as being in almost all cases tied to so-called "sexual repression?"
Is it Freud by way of Marx, basically? With the perceived "neuroses" of society as a whole being blamed on the supposed "mass sexual repression" imposed by more traditional social institutions, and society as a whole therefore requiring "revolutionary" intervention to be rid of them as such? Has that view simply been mixed with good old fashioned Capitalist Yankee materialism and decadence, resulting in the "anything goes - if it feels good, do it," cultural consensus seen among the ranks of the "Pop Left" today?
Or... Does it go even deeper than that?
Walt Whitman and a number of other 19th Century bohemian radicals actually had some rather hippie-ish views regarding "free love" and other such things as well. Did that influence die with them, or did some sliver of it remain (most likely combined with the other three factors mentioned above) to shape the sea-change in the social values the American ideological Left experienced from the 1960s onwards?
There are really quite a few directions a person could take this analysis, when one stops to think about it.
Well, none of this is really true, is the problem.
This most recent generation coming of age -- a few years younger than us -- actually has a considerably older age of first sexual debut, and fewer partners. And they are also ragingly liberal.
Fact is, the current liberal platform in America has essentially nothing to do with sex at all.
Also, American liberalism very much believes that problems are solvable within the current system
And finally, the uptick in sexuality after, say, the 60's, was predictable. America has always been very affected by its Puritanical, sex-obsessed roots (I think it's ironic to accuse liberalism of being "obsessed with sex" when the fact is that the conservative element of culture has been ranting and raving about it from day 1). It's like how someone might eat the entire cake if you starved them for a week, rather than a piece. And it's pretty much only the Boomers who behave like that, even to this day, which is understandable given that they really did grow up with a lot of repression, which is reflected in the astronomical rates of sexual dysfunction especially in women from the time. The rest of us grew up in less sexually schizophrenic times. America's average number of partners hasn't changed appreciably in decades.
And how many conservatives have been vocal about how righteous they are, yet get caught in a bathroom doing unspeakable things?
So, being free and open and enjoying life while we are here is bad.
And how many conservatives have been vocal about how righteous they are, yet get caught in a bathroom doing unspeakable things?
Being guilty for things that you shouldn't be is no way to go through life.
To make things clear right off the bat here, we're not discussing whether this view is necessarily right or wrong. I'm simply asking if anyone has any knowledge as to this - in my opinion, rather peculiar - belief system's "family tree," so to speak.
The idea that sex, given freely, and paired with a generalized lack of "inhibition" on the part of the greater population concerning personal conduct, often going so far as to glorify and promote hedonistic extremes with regards to things like recreational drug usage, partying, lax social attitudes, and etca, etca, will somehow create a "better," or even possibly "utopian," society is pretty damn close to being universal in the thought and value systems of the modern ideological Left. Hell! I just saw the movie "Sausage Party," and it was basically a giant, thinly veiled, parable trying to push that very idea - i.e. "the Gods" (humans) are evil, and the belief systems and inhibitions foods have built around them are all a lie, so the food ultimately rebels and kills "the Gods" (again, humans) in order to free themselves from all of that, and they celebrate by having a giant pan-sexual food orgy, which makes everything right with the world.
Sure, it's comedy. At the same time, however, you can't tell me that the message being pushed there isn't very much indicative of how the person behind the writer's pen actually views the world at large, even outside of their work.
I'm sorry... But the simple fact of the matter is that the whole thing seems like a Hell of a lot of innate ideological and psychological importance to place on the simple act of a couple of (mostly) hairless primates rubbing their meaty bits together for a couple of minutes in the interests of pair bonding and procreation. The narrative surrounding this is almost like a dogmatic "gospel," of sorts, accepted on the basis of faith more than anything else among the ranks of those who believe it.
How did that come to be? Where does this mindset originate? What pre-existing assumptions must be in place to give the world view in question the logical grounding its adherents clearly believe it to possess?
I would be inclined to chalk the phenomena up purely to Marxist thought and impulses, given its general focus on "tearing down" conventional institutions, and replacing them with (what, 'true believers,' at least, believe to be) some sort of "Revolutionary" new framework. In that regard, it falls within the confines of broadly defined "Cultural Marxism" rather well.
However, at the same time, Marx really didn't have much to say about sex. Most self-avowed "Marxist" societies, in point of fact, have actually tended to be pretty damn prudish and restrained. To the contrary, this apparent fixation on the "pleasures of the flesh" appears to be something rather unique to the Left of the "Capitalist Peeg" West, and the United States in particular.
Is it Freud who is at the heart of the matter then? Are these simply the cultural after-echos of his own (long since discredited) views regarding neurosis as being in almost all cases tied to so-called "sexual repression?"
Is it Freud by way of Marx, basically? With the perceived "neuroses" of society as a whole being blamed on the supposed "mass sexual repression" imposed by more traditional social institutions, and society as a whole therefore requiring "revolutionary" intervention to be rid of them as such? Has that view simply been mixed with good old fashioned Capitalist Yankee materialism and decadence, resulting in the "anything goes - if it feels good, do it," cultural consensus seen among the ranks of the "Pop Left" today?
Or... Does it go even deeper than that?
Walt Whitman and a number of other 19th Century bohemian radicals actually had some rather hippie-ish views regarding "free love" and other such things as well. Did that influence die with them, or did some sliver of it remain (most likely combined with the other three factors mentioned above) to shape the sea-change in the social values the American ideological Left experienced from the 1960s onwards?
There are really quite a few directions a person could take this analysis, when one stops to think about it.
Yeah, the right has never been obsessed with sex!!! :lol:
Especially not the right wing poster who has started scores of threads about sex :roll:
Nothing wrong with sex, unless you aren't getting any....
We're talking about a cartoon. A cartoon about animated wieners. A cartoon about animated wieners having sex. You're putting way too much thought into this, Aristotle.
To be fair, most of those threads deal with either analyzing, or criticizing, some hyper-sexed aspect of the culture of the modern Left, or the impact they have had on society at large. lol
You don't think even raunchy comedy can be used as a vehicle to push certain social messages? :roll:
Look, dude. The simple fact of the matter is that this whole "sex and hedonism are what's best in life" idea is a theme which tends to be pretty damn central to the ideology of the modern cultural Left.
It would appear that the film I mentioned was buying into that basic premise as well (and even tossing in an anti-religious theme for good measure)
- albeit in an extremely exaggerated form, for comedic purposes.
Again, all I'm asking is "why," exactly, the modern Left tends to think that way.
From a systemic perspective, quite a few possibilities present themselves.
It's one of dem' evil cartoons! They's turnin' the kideses into sex hungry fiends!
Nonsense.
You've also started threads about you wanting sex with particular girls and not getting it, if and how you could transform a girl that you didn't really like much (but liked her sister because she was hawt) into one you did like, about how your friend interfered when you were chatting up a drunk cougar, etc
It's time to face up to the fact that you're as obsessed with getting sex as any liberal. Maybe even more obsessed
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?