Why is/was sexuality and nudity considered taboo in most westernized societies and with the liberization of sexuality...

Wrong, I want to see dicks

>Why is/was sexuality and nudity considered taboo in most westernized societies

Philosophy was seen as a guide to life by the Greeks and Romans. You have your shitty natural self and there is a "better you". Morals were created so that your shitty self could become the better you, which would also be a "happy you".

So, take sex. Unlike what American movies and TV series try to argue, sexual pleasure can't make you happy. No physical pleasure can. It is fleeting. You can have sex as much as you want and still be miserable. And worse than that? If you believe that sex is super important, you are setting yourself for failure. If you don't have sex, you will feel like a failure. If you do have sex, they grow bigger. They dominate you. And this makes you worse. You become a less reliable person (that's why you don't marry a slut) and unhappier (you are looking at a good life in the wrong place, your desires will not be satisfied, etc).

And so, that's why it happened. Then, knowledge of ancient morality declined and people started to adopt an outlook of life that was much more primitive ("let's indulge in physical pleasure without thinking") while feeling a sense of superiority over the "prudes" from the past that didn't know how to live life.

And so we have a broken society with broken families.

Go to Asia, Africa, or MENA and be half as degenerate as what the west allows in fucking public parades and you'll get openly lynched.

How many lg's do you see on a daily basis?

Asking for a friend btw.

>degenerate

I disagree.
I believe one can enjoy the physical pleasures as well as the more abstract but fulfilling pleasures of the mind equally and, in doing so will actually make you even more happy than with one without the other.
If one is mentally fulfilled without indulging in the physical fulfillment you are losing out and limiting ones own happiness and enjoyment of the world around you and if you only indulge in the physical you lose context for why you should enjoy it.
The mind and body are woven together and to make one happy without the other is to do a disservice to both

Thats because of Victorian era western influence and in the case of MENA countries beliefs equally as backwards as christian dogma

Physical pleasures can't make you happy.
Craving physical pleasures can make you unhappy.

salon.com/2015/04/16/i_feel_like_i_die_more_every_day_the_bed_death_of_sexless_marriage_is_real_and_its_heartbreaking/

>says that more sex and physical pleasure is bad
>posts an article that shows relationships without sex fall apart
This is what Im talking about. Physical pleasure may not be the source of all happiness but saying that they don't cause happiness or that we are happier without it is downright wrong unless you can be eternally happy on smugness and a superiority complex alone.

sorry buddha, you can't get rid of physical desires

What caused their unhappiness is their desire for sex, which is much higher than it should be.
And pleasure can't make you happy. Look at rockstars, for example. Or party girls, if you don't know any rockstar.

There are plenty of people who worked on that. And they ended up happier than hedonist people do.

>If you believe that sex is super important, you are setting yourself for failure. If you don't have sex, you will feel like a failure. If you do have sex, they grow bigger.
you can have that reaction to literally anything, it depends on your mindset

>And they ended up happier than hedonist people do.
proof? I'm not even asking you to measure it, I just want some honest comparison between the most hedonistic people and the least hedonistic people

>What caused their unhappiness is their desire for sex, which is much higher than it should be.
Nah, thats pretty standard in marriages that barren sex lives tend to lead to unhappiness and thats not because they crave too much but because they have needs that arent being met.
Sex and desire are natural parts of the mind that one needs to cater too in order to be happy and while yea there are some success stories of people who try to conquer it "succeeding" there are uncounted failures as well as hedonist who lived happy full lives.
You set up good examples for the ideas you personally like while setting up bad examples for those who go against it, and so has society.

Yes, but sex is a little bit stronger.
That's why you end up not controlling it...

Dunno if that is what you want, but

Buddhist monks, Stoic philosophers are non-hedonistic.
The extreme of hedonism would be a Charlie Sheen or a Lindsay Lohan.

Not that guy but comparing proven disasters to ideal images of celibacy is a childish comparison.

That's mostly false.
You are taking desire as a given. Something that can't be changed. And when those desires are not met, people would feel unhappy.
That's what we are all raised to believe. That's what I believed myself. People even say that controlling your desires is repression and this is bad.

But this is not true. Your judgement and your habits can change your desires. If you live in a culture like yours that sees sex as the greatest good, if you have sex plenty of times, in many different ways, with plenty of people, your sexual desire will increase. But if you have the right judgment, the right habits, your sexual desire will not overrule you.

He asked for examples of super non-hedonistic people and super hedonistic people.

We're not heading to a sexually liberated utopia, we're heading toward a cripplingly dysfunctional nightmare. For every gain that's made towards freedom for sexual minorities, the repression gets cranked up two steps against the West's most oppressed sexual minority: children. It's gotten to the point where 4 year olds are being forced to register for life as sex offenders, and their parents ask what's wrong with their children rather than asking what's wrong with the law. As adult sexuality becomes ever more open and child sexuality becomes ever more taboo, we're steering toward a future where mass incarceration is the norm across all barriers of race and gender.

>It's gotten to the point where 4 year olds are being forced to register for life as sex offenders
name one case

I may have been wrong, the youngest registered sex offender I see a reference to is 9. Here's an article on the effects of registering children as sex offenders:
hrw.org/report/2013/05/01/raised-registry/irreparable-harm-placing-children-sex-offender-registries-us

Here's an example of parents flipping their shit over their 4- and 5-year old children expressing their sexuality:
youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=xXGAJEzMcBM

I've also found references to a pair of six year olds being convicted of felony sodomy in Kentucky, but no working link to a source. This is what happens when you have a minimum age of consent but no minimum age of criminal responsibility.

But how do you know you are correct?
Can you really place yourself above others who are arguably happier than you who are both mentally happy and physically happy?
remember Im not saying understanding the big picture and detaching oneself from addiction will make you unhappy, Im saying that ridding oneself from sexuality is a poor move and results in oneself losing a factor of the human experience.
Sex is human nature, undeniably and to go against human nature is to damage ones own human experience.

Nice painting.

While I question your reason for concern I am certain sex educaton for children will improve and they will gain a better understanding of their body as it gets better, at least in regions outside the abstinance only united states.

It's not better anywhere else in the anglophone world. England is currently conducting a government-sponsored pedophile witch hunt, investigating people for crimes committed 30+ years ago and parading every accusation (including obviously manufactured ones) as proven fact. Canada banned written descriptions of child sex decades ago, and has prosecuted and convicted people under that law. No one cares about Australia, but let's not pretend they're any less prone to hysteria.

Even places that are typically more liberal towards child sexuality like Japan and the Scandinavian countries are beginning to crack under American culture. There's talk of banning drawn depictions of child sex (targeting lolicon and shotacon) in Japan to "clean up" their international image prior to hosting the Olympics in 2020.

"But user!" you say, "none of that is about children! Why are you trying to advance your deviant agenda in an unrelated thread?" The answer is simple: they're the same thing. Children's rights are what pedophiles want; no one is claiming some sort of "right to rape." Most of the high-profile "child abuse" cases you hear about (Jimmy Savile, Gary Glitter, Michael Jackson, etc) involve consensual interactions that were later tainted by social stigma and/or bandwagoned by people looking for settlement money. A society that recognizes children's right to sexuality must also recognize their right to express that sexuality with whomever they choose.

>tl;dr: fear of pedophiles causes the West to ramp up laws repressing the expression of childhood sexuality, and there's no one to campaign for children's rights because the only interested parties are deviants whose opinions can be discarded, or children themselves, who have practically never revolted or organized mass protests in all of human history. If someone has an example other than the New York paper boy strike, I'd love to hear about it.

Abrahamic trio.

Because that guy in the sky made us like that.

Retarded Abrahamic religions and their patriarchic {{{morals}}}.
Good thing we are done with this shit.

While your words make sense and there are cause for concern I fear you have alternative motivrs.

>Children's rights are what pedophiles want
Hang yourself degenerate

It's actually a reversing trend. Which is actually wholly unsurprising given that most human societies periodically swing back and forth on sexuality every couple generations.

Motives are irrelevant, outcomes are what matter. It wasn't men that campaigned for women's suffrage, or heterosexuals that campaigned for gay marriage. I don't see many people arguing that women or LGBTs shouldn't have a voice because they stand to gain from it. The fact of the matter is that all problems are invisible to people that they don't affect.

The thing is, this is an issue that affects everyone, because it affects children. It's just been hidden from you by moralizing child-haters who pay lip service to the idea that children are the future while imprisoning those children for decades for the ""crime"" of taking pictures of themselves.

>Whining about degeneracy without anything approaching a rational argument
You seem to have wandered outside of your hugbox. Let me help you: .

This. A good example is Polynesia and Precolumbian Americas vs Postcolonial Americas.

Also consider that the places not as westernized like the tribal places in Africa may be topless, some even naked and it's not considered degenerate. Even in Asia nudity still occurs and some societies have different customs there you'd consider degenerate. Most of the world is not as sexually repressed as you think, at least it wasn't before the West came in to fuck their shit up.

>What is the HBTQ-movement?
>What is Tinder/Grinder etc. being socially acceptable?
>What is the blasé relationship people have towards sodomy.

>Tinder/Grinder etc. being socially acceptable
Uh, it's considered barely a step above prostitution where I live actually.

Yea no self respecting person admits to using that even here in San Francisco where I live. If they do they say it jokingly, or people use the apps ironically to see who the weirdos they match up with.

The nudism meme will never stick because the clothing market is way too profitable.

There is no physical happiness. There is only happiness.
What you are basically asking is "isn't it better to have happiness and then having pleasure"? The problem being that to achieve happiness you really need to control your desire for pleasure.

The second part about sexuality being super important is mostly a myth from the Sexual Revolution. And frankly, the minds of the Sexual Revolution are at very most mediocre. No pleasure is so important to be considered such an important part of being human. If you said this to a Marcus Aurelius, he would look at you as if you are a crazy.

I'm not saying that you should be celibate. Sex is important for procreation. But that contrary to what TV series, movies and magazines tell, having a lot of sex, having sex for the sake of pleasure, thinking sex is super important for life, is a bad idea if you want to be happier.

Totally agree with that

I think sexual norms and nudity can't really be categorized in black and white terms. First off define the west as it is neither monolithic now nor ever. Second off take a look at the frescos in Pompeii and tell me those people were moral puritans.

As with nudity, I guarantee being naked in front of people in the past for any given situation was far less likely to produce awkwardness or feelings of discomfort than it is today.
I'm not saying sexual norms were looser in every case or stricter in every case. They were just Alien to our own concepts. Certainly not puritan or 1950s in every instance.

>It's actually a reversing trend.
???

You are making artifical barriers between pleasure and happiness when they are interconnected and feed into one another.

Depends on what you want clarified. When I said westernized I mean how western morals and laws were spread across ed most of earth, while the west itself is europe and the Americas