Young Swedish women show 'sexual fluidity'

This may represent - among other indicators - an continued trend towards personal hedonism.

Do you really think it's a trend? Haven't people pretty much always tried to feel good and be happy?

Is it a trend toward hedonsim, or merely a trend away from arbitrary rules that forbade indulging one's natural inclinations?

This may represent - among other indicators - an continued trend towards personal hedonism.

My trouble with that analysis is thus: Placement of pleasure as a value comparable to, say, piety and compassion, and/or non-belief in a metaphysically derived system of moral accountability, is not equivalent to the adoption of the pleasure principle as the primary directive.

Could you rephrase that for me, please? I'm having trouble determining what conclusion you're drawing because of the grammar of that sentence. You appear to have said that a pleasure value is not equivalent to adopting a pleasure value. Is that what you meant, and you're saying that it's ok to value pleasure, so long as it's only on the same level as your values of compassion and piety? I'm not being snarky--I promise. I'm just not sure if that's what you meant to say.

I'm having trouble determining what conclusion you're drawing because of the grammar of that sentence. You appear to have said that a pleasure value is not equivalent to adopting a pleasure value.

No. What I said is that holding pleasure as a value--i.e., valuing pleasure--is not the same as holding to a (or THE) pleasure principle (a common term used synonymously with hedonism). Note also the qualification " . . . as the primary directive," which would have lead to my statement being both grammatically and contextually correct even if we couldn't reliably distinguish between pleasure valuation and pleasure principle.

Christianity (for [pointed] example) does not hold pleasure to be a value, at least not explicitly; there are certain sacramental institutions wherein it's allowed (marriage, for instance), and a vague appeal (possibly) to the human desire for pleasure when (vaguely) describing the rewards of piety. Removal of the belief in metaphysical derivation (or movement to a metaphysical belief system either lacking deity or in which deity posits pleasure as valuable) can remove the impediment to viewing pleasure as being legitimately desirable (and pursuable) without necessarily leading to hedonism (i.e., the valuation of pleasure above all else, or the adoption of pleasure as not just a value, but as a guiding principle).

Is that what you meant, and you're saying that it's ok to value pleasure, so long as it's only on the same level as your values of compassion and piety?

I'm not inclined to say what is or isn't "okay." What I'm saying is that pleasure can be held as a value without its being held as the sole or primary value. You can value pleasure without valuing pleasure to the diminishment or exclusion of all else.

I'm not being snarky--I promise.

Knowing your views on other matters and your posting temperament, I'm inclined to believe you. The grammar still looks good on review; I think it was simply the number of words (or perhaps unfamiliarity with the term "pleasure principle" in that context) that lead to confusion. I hope I was able to clarify.

The grammar still looks good on review; I think it was simply the number of words (or perhaps unfamiliarity with the term "pleasure principle" in that context) that lead to confusion.

It was just that I didn't think you meant to say exactly what it is that you meant to say. I was reading praise of piety into your statement (praise which isn't there, but I was reading into it because you chose piety as a value). So I simply assumed that your statement wasn't what you'd intended to say.

Once you explained why you chose piety as an example, it was obvious that you meant exactly what you said.

So thanks for clearing up my confusion. :)

I continue to believe that - in some cases at least - there is a real trend towards individuals pursuing their own personal pleasures at the possible cost to society of stability and national interests.

It's - in short - an attitude directed to "it's all about me, not about the country...." that I perceive as happening more and more often as time progresses....

Openly displayed and promoted sexuality in all it's forms seems to continue to proliferate in the media. As such, it - in my own opinion - appears to actually promote the practices of a few, when probably the many do not have an interest in participating. I don't think this is necessarily good for the same reasons I don't think all of the crime/violence always in the media is good either.

Really, no matter what human behavior is being discussed, somewhere in the world it will be found at any given time.

To the extent that anyone's personal oppression is lifted, I'm in general for that to happen (too bad pedophiles, dictators, etc., I don't care how much you are personally oppressed....).

These are statements of observed facts, and are not offered as judgments on the individuals choices in sexual proclivity.

"Hedonism" tends to be a loaded word, generally used in a pejoratice and critical way. The fact is that pursuing and enjoying pleasure is not, in itself, wrong. The term tends to get dragged out when ever some people engage in a pleasurable activity that someone else disapproves of.

I continue to believe that - in some cases at least - there is a real trend towards individuals pursuing their own personal pleasures at the possible cost to society of stability and national interests.

Eh. If a nation and society are restricting my ability to pursue my own pleasures, so long as I do so in a manner that is not harming other people, then maybe that society and nation deserve to bear the cost.

First you would have to explain how such action causes a purported "cost" to society.

Moral decay stemming from at least an over-exposed sexual message being constantly put out by the media comes to mind....

And, it's something everyone has to live with, not just those who prefer the practices......

Moral decay stemming from at least an over-exposed sexual message being constantly put out by the media comes to mind....

I agree with you, there. Not that there's too much sexuality, but that there's too much about it that's negative. Sexuality seems like a perfectly good topic for the media to focus on. But the manner in which it's often done to sell something, or when it's connected to violence, probably has a negative impact.

It was just that I didn't think you meant to say exactly what it is that you meant to say. I was reading praise of piety into your statement (praise which isn't there, but I was reading into it because you chose piety as a value). So I simply assumed that your statement wasn't what you'd intended to say.

As a Buddhist, I'd say that I might personally value some form of piety, but that wasn't what I was getting at; I was merely listing things that one might value.

Is someone forcing you to "decay" your morals. No. Are other people being exposed to ideas that are not approved and sanctioned by your morality, your church? Yes. Don't like it, I guess you need to work more on spreading your message. You're not going to find anyone granting you the right to silence others.

I continue to believe that - in some cases at least - there is a real trend towards individuals pursuing their own personal pleasures at the possible cost to society of stability and national interests.

Perhaps. But one can't mitigate all "possible" costs; nor do all fully realized costs justify avoidance of pursuit. Suicide bombers and the Spanish Inquisition were potential costs of anthropomorphic monotheism that were ultimately realized; millions of death every year were possible costs of inventing the automobile that also came to pass. Would you consider us to be better off had neither Christianity nor the automobile become part of the fabric of human life?

It's - in short - an attitude directed to "it's all about me, not about the country...." that I perceive as happening more and more often as time progresses....

That's interesting. I've not seen much of this attitude, at least not from real people on the ground (Girls Gone Wild and Paris Hilton strike me as outlying social phenomena).

Openly displayed and promoted sexuality in all it's forms seems to continue to proliferate in the media.

In some media. Attitudes toward sexuality in America are paradoxically both puritanical and hedonistic. I think an attitude that actually embraces pleasure as a value has a better chance of keeping it from becoming THE primary value.

Moral decay stemming from at least an over-exposed sexual message being constantly put out by the media comes to mind....

And, it's something everyone has to live with, not just those who prefer the practices......

How do we define or measure moral decay?

That may be irrelevant, actually. I agree that there are objectionable aspects to some of the sexual messages out there, but it's the nature--not the prevalence nor the explicitness--of those messages and images that encourages coarseness.

If we were - as a population - more able to actually choose what levels of sexuality we want to see, this issue would in many ways be a moot point.

But, as the television/visual media in particular seem to have explicit sexuality, murder/mayhem, etc., in every episode, and every hour, no matter what we do it still gets put in my face. And I don't know it's coming until it happens....

So, no, I do not wish to see other peoples choices - in particular their sexual proclivities in this discussion - limited. I just want the stuff very clearly delineated, so that everyone knows what they're getting, and no one has to "suffer through" being bombarded with sexuality every day as the price-for-participating.

I would like to see the guy who can have sex once an hour, 24 hours a day, and see how long it takes for him to die. And...who has a sex dungeon in thier home/office? Probably not very many people... And, who practices bondage on unwilling participants? Only the criminals...which we prosecute the hell out of, or at least try to.

All that constant exposure to sexuality also tends to focus people on sexuality - all the time as it's in our faces all of the time. Ever seen what happens when two partners are watching a porno? Well, often they end up having sex themselves. Well, there are impressionable - often very young - people out in public and watching "the world" all the time - so if they see this all of the time, naturally, it seems "more real, more possible" to them. And that is where the moral decay is the most troublesome. I'm not worried her so much about a couple of middle aged people seeing something stimulating and suddenly turning into sexually charged fools. But kids, well, that's another matter all together....

Is this putting what I'm trying to get over into sharper focus for you all?

If we were - as a population - more able to actually choose what levels of sexuality we want to see, this issue would in many ways be a moot point.

Your TV does not have an OFF button? The remote control doesn't work? You really should get that fixed.

This may represent - among other indicators - an continued trend towards personal hedonism.

Now that's rich.

I do not see my position as denying someone their right to fully appreciate their sexuality.

There is, I think, a limit to how much expressing that sexuality and/or pursuit of pleasure (self satisfaction) can and should be a public display.

There is a limit to how much of our lives should be public, but I do not know exactly where the gray zone extends to. But I do think it's worth discussing....from time to time.

It's OK Loretta...I know you're not after me personally.

And, I agree, on these "hot button" social issues, when people keep getting pressed for more and more responses to questions, at some point, it has to go up to gross population effects...and that's always the rub, isn't it, when the discussion is really centered on personal lifestyles and effects.......

Remember that our society has had centuries of censorship and repression of pretty much any sexual expression at all. Those limits have been lifted and some may go a little overboard; it's to be expected, and will swing back from the extremes.

But it's still better than what we had before.