posted
I listened today to Bush speaking out about gay marriage ( another thread ) and it got me thinking...what is taboo in 2004?
What was taboo in 1980 say , is seen today as the norm, so I wondered what is taboo now that in 2020 will be the norm?
-------------------- Helen says she will be happy to answer any questions you might have as long as you don't ask, "Why did you bother to come here?" Posts: 285
| IP: Logged
posted
why would this thread and the serial thread warrant me being chopped up? How bizarre...
had someone else posted this...you all would be replying with your usual intelligent replies...pah you see it's me and you have to post some vile stupid answer...
why? what on earth is your problem with me?
-------------------- Helen says she will be happy to answer any questions you might have as long as you don't ask, "Why did you bother to come here?" Posts: 285
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Helen Back: why would this thread and the serial thread warrant me being chopped up? How bizarre...
had someone else posted this...you all would be replying with your usual intelligent replies...pah you see it's me and you have to post some vile stupid answer...
why? what on earth is your problem with me?
nothing much... your writing style's a bit annoying... perhaps people think your sig is a bit "sad"...
In answer to your question, the first obvious taboo I can think of is paedophilia. However, despite signs of it becoming less taboo - Peedo jokes are now common, even on TV - I hope to god it won't ever be accepted. Thinking about it though, what we would now call the actions of paedophile would probably have been commonplace hundreds of years ago.
quote:Originally posted by Helen Back: why would this thread and the serial thread warrant me being chopped up? How bizarre...
It was a play on the two subjects, you ninny!
quote:had someone else posted this...you all would be replying with your usual intelligent replies...pah you see it's me and you have to post some vile stupid answer...
Not at all. If it had been Bennyboy I would have responded with a volley of sneery abuse. Or something. Come on, say something instead of just moaning.
If anything, I guess it was the "I was just thinking" thing... In this place, you don't post a thread after a few seconds thought. It must be well considered and thought out, see?
quote:why? what on earth is your problem with me?
Don't be confused. All newbies are given a bit of a roughing up here, it's par for the course. The poor ones disappear back into their little holes, the better ones stick around. Of course there are always exceptions to this last rule, Thorn Davis being just one. I can't for a second understand the iconic status that man has achieved.
-------------------- "You ate the baby Jesus and his mother Mary!" "I thought they were animal cookies..." Posts: 4128
| IP: Logged
posted
I'd tend to agree with Misc, Helen, the theme of the thread is a sound one, and potentially the start of a very interesting debate, but the way you write your first post makes it sound like something you wrote on a whim, not something you've put much thought into. There's a tradition on TMO called Poster First, whereby if you start a thread like this where you pose a question, you're also the first one to answer the question, just shows you've put some thought into the post and gets the ball rolling, so to speak.
Usually the only time people get away with posting threads based upon a 'throw-away' comment or idea, is if they're a medium to long-term poster who has already established their credibility. Though even that doesn't guarantee immunity from p*ss-ripping - just take a look at Mart's alphabet thread.
posted
Helen, I agree with what Physic said, really. I also think you seem awfully defensive and agressive sometimes... you say you want to stay and join in, then in your next text breath you are snappy and critical of how "we" post.
You can't be snappy and critical until you reach 100 posts!
Posts: 1268
| IP: Logged
posted
Maybe someone can help me with my questions.
Where can I find out about the historical origins of marriage? Is marriage a religious ceremony? Does marriage have an important role to play in the society of the third millenium? Why is marriage better than civil unions? Aren't gays much too cool for marriage?
On the subject of breaking taboos. Transexuals are next. Paedos can join the queue.
Posts: 1083
| IP: Logged
posted
I can’t think of things that were particularly taboo in the 80s either. I do think that generally sexual experimentation between females is more accepted (and exalted!) now then in the 80s, but that might just be because I am older now, and don’t tend to think in the same black and white way I did as a pre-teen, i.e., “Ew, gross, two girls kissing!”
Posts: 94
| IP: Logged
quote:Albert: Same sex couples living together should have the same legal rights in terms of tax, inheritance, etc. as married couples, but it is simply inaccurate to pretend that it is marriage. Marriage is about providing a stable platform for a couple to have and rear children. This requires one male and one female. Albert, UK
posted
In 2020 it will no longer be taboo to openly listen to Marilyn Manson. Because he will be dead and his music will be vintage. In the same way that it is now ok to listen to Blondie or Siouxsie and the Banshees. Secret fans will fall out of the closet and wear pin-buttons and shoulderbags and tasselled t-shirts printed with Marilyn's omega-shaped face. We will play archive footage of his botched suicide, which will have involved him suicide-bombing a zoo, and failing, and being eaten, crotch first, by a tigress. It will be brilliant. We will be liberated.
Posts: 1083
| IP: Logged
posted
Eh? That is my point. Is that your point too? Your eyes confuse me.
I did not mean Marilyn Manson is taboo! I meant: in a world of musical credibility, it would be ILLEGAL to admit to liking Marilyn Manson, because he is so lame, but in the future we will have the excuse of RETRO. Ahh, future.
quote:Originally posted by Fionnula the Cooler: Blondie or Siouxsie and the Banshees.
[Redneck]B...B.. But Paw, They aint'n't dead yet[/Redneck]
-------------------- If sir requires spall, may I suggest the .90 calibre depleted uranium ? Posts: 794
| IP: Logged
turbo
Gold..... What is it good for? You can't eat it, you can't smoke it, yet everybody wants it.
posted
I don't know about taboo stuff, but I do sometimes think 'My kids will laugh at me for this in the future'. Stuff like the euro - everyone is struggling to get to grips with this new money, but the next generation won't know any better. Also, there is stuff we think is really coll at the moment or new gadgets that we dream about owning which will probably be ten a penny in a few years' time. Our kids will probably laugh at our collections of video tapes and, in the same way that we laugh at the enormous mobile phones you see in 80's films, they will probably think our mobiles are hilarious.
-------------------- Forgive your enemies, but never forget their names. Posts: 1189
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Fionnula the Cooler: Eh? That is my point. Is that your point too? Your eyes confuse me.
I did not mean Marilyn Manson is taboo! I meant: in a world of musical credibility, it would be ILLEGAL to admit to liking Marilyn Manson, because he is so lame, but in the future we will have the excuse of RETRO. Ahh, future.
Oh, now I see. Your point leads me to a more plausible and interesting observation that American kids will start wearing Che-style OSAMA BIN LADEN logos in 2020. His genuine abhorrence in the eyes of most contemporary Americans will fade and become a mere badge of half-understood teen "radical-shock" for kids who were born post Sept 11 2001.
quote:Originally posted by turbo: Our kids will probably laugh at our collections of video tapes
Ack, I can imagine myself being laughed at by my kids for being a DVD purist or some such shit. Like they'll be going, "Jesus dad, why do you bother opening the case, putting the disc in and all that, when you can just call up any film in super high definition at a moment's noticed from a centralised server? Jesus." And I'll be all like "I actually prefer the packaging and the artwork - it feels like you're buying into a different world. And I think that just 500-odd picture lines adds a warmth that's missing from the cold crispness of high-def. Although, I concede that on the 250in screen it does look a bit odd with half an inch between each picture line."
Taboo. I don't know. Shitting on the table at dinner is sort of taboo, but I can't imagine that'll be the norm in 2020. I thought we were getting less tolerant as a society, anyway? A programme like Love Thy Neighbour would probably be taboo now - or just really offensive, maybe. It's hard for me to guage what may have been taboo in 1980, as I was just 2 years old and therefore most things seemed taboo.
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
posted
I think Helen Black should stay, ok she didn't have the greatest start but she took everything you guys could throw at her, threw a few insults back and has tried to start some topics, she will gradually learn about poster first etc. But then I might be biased Posts: 786
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Of course there are always exceptions to this last rule, Thorn Davis being just one. I can't for a second understand the iconic status that man has achieved.
I've had a back handed compliment before - but never a back handed insult. Iconic? Thanks!
Posts: 13758
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Helen Back: What was taboo in 1980 say , is seen today as the norm
Bit of a flaw in the first post here... I can't think of one example of something that was taboo in the 80s and is now the norm.
Gay marriage isn't the norm in 2004. Oral sex wasn't taboo in 1980. And so on.
I'd go with the comments that many new taboos have appeared since the 1980s, rather than disappeared, but this may be because many taboos run in cycles anyway - especially sexual tolerance.
One taboo which clearly changed was Sunday shopping which really was a no-no and was only legalised in 1993, after years of strange loophole exploiting and religious protests etc. The loss of that campaign may well have caused enormous damage to the Church in this country.
As for paedophilia - in many ways this simply wasn't an issue. I mean, child abuse obviously was, but pictures of underage girls in the nudd etc where not unusual at all. One thinks of the Bow Wow Wow album cover, the Dejeuner Sur L'Herbe thing with the 15-year-old Annabella Lwin. That cover doesn't seem to be available any more and one website says: "as Annabella hadn't quite reached her 16th birthday, it is possibly a criminal offence to have that sleeve in your possession, and you MUST NOT scan it if you intend taking your PC to PC World for repair (at anytime in your life)." Hmmm. I have a copy of the picture. In fact several copies, as it regularly used to appear in magazine articles about album covers etc etc. Also the Blind Faith album cover (probably not worksafe even if it's on Amazon?!), which is still generally available but a lot more discomforting than the Bow Wow Wow one, which is funny and clever and pretty much harmless let's face it. Yeah, that sort of thing has been heavily clamped down on.
Smoking in public, on buses, in offices, on the Tube was also completely normal into the early 1990s at least.
So, Sunday trading is the only one I can think of that's gone the other way and lost its taboo status. I think "tolerance" and recognition of gay marriage and gays in the armed forces etc will improve. I put "tolerance" in quotes because it's only the legal status that's not recognised isn't it? I mean I don't know anyone that would be upset if a gay couple moved in next door or whatever. I think the tolerance is already there and has been for years and the law needs to catch up, big time.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I mean I don't know anyone that would be upset if a gay couple moved in next door.
Especially if they needed a fresh opinion on soft furnishings
-------------------- If sir requires spall, may I suggest the .90 calibre depleted uranium ? Posts: 794
| IP: Logged
Astromariner
Going the right way for a smacked bottom
posted
quote:Originally posted by dang65: I put "tolerance" in quotes because it's only the legal status that's not recognised isn't it? I mean I don't know anyone that would be upset if a gay couple moved in next door or whatever. I think the tolerance is already there and has been for years and the law needs to catch up, big time.
I think it's a bit dodgy to argue that, just because you don't personally know anyone who'd be offended by gaydom, that tolerance generally has greatly improved. I'm definately what samuelnorton, with a disdainful curl of his lip, would call a "liberal", and I tend to associate with other people of similarly leftie leanings: not by design, but because I seem to have more in common with people who aren't filled with fear and hate, innit. But: those people are still in plentiful supply. Even socially acceptable right-wingers like Mr Astro's dad have progressed only so far as "I don't mind gays, but I don't like them shoving it down my throat (sic), and I don't think they should be allowed to teach children".
In Glasgow there has also been an alarming spate of violent assaults upon people who are, or who are assumed to be gay. In terms of racial tolerance, Scotland as a whole has a pretty dismal record: something like 67% of people here believe it's OK to hold certain assumptions about people because of their race.
Posts: 2814
| IP: Logged
Lucid
It's six o'clock somewhere, I'm having crisps !
posted
Tony Blair mentioning the word 'socialism' perhaps?
-------------------- It don't mean a thing if it ain't got that swing... Posts: 773
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: In Glasgow there has also been an alarming spate of violent assaults upon people who are, or who are assumed to be gay. In terms of racial tolerance, Scotland as a whole has a pretty dismal record: something like 67% of people here believe it's OK to hold certain assumptions about people because of their race.
I was about to post something similar about Scottish people, oh dear! When I go home I always notice that there is a different attitude, or different level of acceptability than I am used to in London. Probably at least partly because there are no non-white or openly gay people living in my village. I don't think that on the whole people would be violent or overtly nasty if there were, but there is a certain... naivety almost. People make jokes in the pub about Jamaicans and mincing gays, but they can't seem to get much beyond these stereotypes. It's not a taboo, just a different level of understanding.
Posts: 1268
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: I think it's a bit dodgy to argue that, just because you don't personally know anyone who'd be offended by gaydom, that tolerance generally has greatly improved.
Yes, I'm sure it is quite dodgy as an arguement, but times have changed because in the past it was common for liberal types to be offended by gays, just as they might now be offended by drug users hanging around car parks for example - i.e. not necessarily hating the person, but not wanting them in close proximity. I knew plenty of people who weren't racist, weren't misogynistic and weren't intolerant of other religions, but were 'uncomfortable' with homos. I think that that has changed.
I can't speak for those bigotted, racist and xenophobic members of our society, but their views aren't considered to be of great value by the rest of decent society who actually pay for and run the country anyway, are they?
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
But the country is run by bigots, racists and xenophobes, isn't it?
Posts: 7807
| IP: Logged
Astromariner
Going the right way for a smacked bottom
posted
To an extent I agree with you Dang (man). I just think you'd be unpleasantly surprised to find how great a cross section of society still holds views that you or I might consider to be intolerant. Perhaps I did my own argument a disservice by citing individual incidences of violent assault: clearly, not every bigot prowls the street with a flick-knife. But because they're not visible, doesn't mean they're not there: paying their taxes and considering themselves to have a stake in the running of the country like everyone else. This is why I think that the law as it stands isn't all that inaccurate a reflection of many people's world view.
quote:Originally posted by mart: But the country is run by bigots, racists and xenophobes, isn't it?
Well, yes, but they can't admit the fact publicly and usually go out of their way to appear the opposite. The law, in many cases, seems to be kind of in between the two extremes - which is as it should be I suppose. I mean, there was that Radio 4 poll recently for a new law to be introduced in the Commons and the listeners actually voted by a fair majority for a bill allowing home owners to defend their property by any means they wished to use. The MP who had agreed to propose the winning suggestion then changed his mind and flatly refused to do it! So "majority views" don't really come into it, as it's all moderated by some mysterious force which doesn't allow extremism in this country.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: This is why I think that the law as it stands isn't all that inaccurate a reflection of many people's world view.
I won't say this is deluded. More naïve.
This sort of opinion can only be based on one's own orbit, and who one chooses to have in their immediate circle. I could say that the law isn't an accurate reflection of many people's world view for an opposite set of reasons. Most of the people I know are in favour of a number of things I know you wouldn't like, and they certainly aren't "bigots", but people with what I would call traditional Christian values. It's as simple as that.
Yes, Astro - I would call you a "liberal". Possibly, with a lip-curling sneer. However, your description of your dad is exactly how some people whould see me. I may have a dig at hermeurs, but know that they aren't all going to simply disappear. The only path is to accept that they are what they are, and hope that they keep it to themselves and do what they do in the privacy of their own homes and out of the orbit of those who don't want to see or hear about that sort of shit. If they want to get up God-knows-what under their own roof, fine.
But when they come out on the street and hand out leaflets to kids, or what you see two male coppers at it in an episode of The Bill - for no other reason than some politically correct imbecile wants to spice up what should be a police show with an unnecessary "gay storyline" - I just think "No. Not here".
quote:Originally posted by Astromariner: But because they're not visible, doesn't mean they're not there: paying their taxes and considering themselves to have a stake in the running of the country like everyone else.
I am really not trying to score points here, but regarding the above comment:
Do you mean that bigots don't have a stake in the running of the country, or shouldn't have?
Or is this statement a purely neutral one in that they believe this, like everyone else?
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: Most of the people I know are in favour of a number of things I know you wouldn't like
At least have the decency to a: not speak for others, b: say specifically what you mean.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: and they certainly aren't "bigots", but people with what I would call traditional Christian values. It's as simple as that.
Yes, well there are lots of things that we could call traditional Christian values, that have no place a modern civilised society.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: I may have a dig at hermeurs, but know that they aren't all going to simply disappear.
No I'm sure you can think of other ways of disposing of them.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: The only path is to accept that they are what they are, and hope that they keep it to themselves and do what they do in the privacy of their own homes and out of the orbit of those who don't want to see or hear about that sort of shit. If they want to get up God-knows-what under their own roof, fine.
Or you could see homosexuality as a natural part of human sexuality and accept that it exists happily rather than regarding it or it's practice as dirty or abhorrent.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: But when they come out on the street and hand out leaflets to kids,
The Queers do this alot round your way do they? Because I've never seen this happen once.
quote:Originally posted by Samuelnorton: or what you see two male coppers at it in an episode of The Bill - for no other reason than some politically correct imbecile wants to spice up what should be a police show with an unnecessary "gay storyline" - I just think "No. Not here".
God forbid writers should choose to represent 10% of the population in a storyline.
[ 25.02.2004, 04:47: Message edited by: Boy Racer ]
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Mad]](mad.gif)
![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
that American kids will start wearing Che-style OSAMA BIN LADEN logos in 2020. His genuine abhorrence in the eyes of most contemporary Americans will fade and become a mere badge of half-understood teen "radical-shock" for kids who were born post Sept 11 2001.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
Hmmm. I have a copy of the picture. In fact several copies, as it regularly used to appear in magazine articles about album covers etc etc. Also the 
Printer-friendly view of this topic