|Syntactic Confectionery Delight|
Re^2: Consideration for obscenityby ptum (Priest)
|on Feb 06, 2007 at 16:09 UTC||Need Help??|
Can you imagine a world that was not driven by "sex hormone response and misplaced Judeo-Christian guilt?"
Yes, I can. Thanks for asking. :)
My point is why do people consider some words offensive?
You seem to be confused about the difference between a statement (as in stating a point) and a question. I don't see your point anywhere here.
This society has been using the sex drive of humans, in a devious and underhanded way: first you claim it's dirty and shouldn't be talked about, then on the other hand, base almost all social interaction on it. It ends up where everyone is living a dual life: one is the hypocritical self we present to the world, and the other is the fun-loving sexual beast present in us all.
Hmmmm. Maybe your point is this: "Anyone who tries to place limits on the public discussion of sex is a hypocrite." I don't think that's tenable, and I'm not sure which 'society' you are talking about. I'm not living a dual life. I don't base 'almost all my social interation' on my sex drive, nor do the people with whom I interact. Maybe you've read too many psychology texts, and you think everyone goes around consumed by their sexuality?
There is nothing hypocritical about decent people trying to make the world a little more decent. Just because I am angered by someone who cuts me off in traffic doesn't mean I'm a hypocrite if I oppose murder.
I don't think it is all about sexuality ... I would have considered that original node if the obscenity had been about bodily excrement. I think that these kind of vulgarities damage the way that the PerlMonks community is viewed by others, in the same way that graffiti on the front of your house would diminish its curb-appeal.