Does modern-day prudery derive more from feminism or social/religious conservatism?

[coolfrenchguy]

strangely i don't believe in a global third world war with nuclear missils, is more a dick contest with nutjobs like trump, kim ,or iranian clone, because she's allready start at the end of the second,but just because "the well-thinking" dominant elite think she's safe in fact she's not, look how she start to be worry about the yellow vests movement(is more fluo but) a populist informal,apolitical movement that they want framed for more control them, in fact the yellow vests is a kind of "BLACK BLOCK" who's not hiding behind so called political ideology.and if it's spreaded in europe and beyond it's could be a real counter-power to "the well-thinking" dominant elite

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[Tooting Carmen]

Take this Indian music video for instance - in both the West and India alike, rest assured how both the feminists and religious people will complain about the women in bikinis, but not the musclebound men in shorts:

[War Chef]

Take this Indian music video for instance - in both the West and India alike, rest assured how both the feminists and religious people will complain about the women in bikinis, but not the musclebound men in shorts:

It's all about power.
Being cat-called and oogled at by many guys their whole lives, women love to flip the script. Gives them a sense of power and control that THEY'RE the ones who are doing it now.
It's all about power.

Modern society is so power thirsty, it's laughable.

[Tooting Carmen]

bump

[Andullero]

Are the growing calls to censor depictions of women's bodies (but not, I hasten to add, those of men), to ban or at least severely restrict pornography and prostitution, to abolish glamour girls in sports competitions and to some extent to even police male-female relationships mostly due to a supposedly 'progressive' feminism, or more from a resurgent social/religious conservatism?

Feminazism. Religious conservatism's power in the West was permanently broken by the failures of W's administration.

[Tooting Carmen]

Feminazism. Religious conservatism's power in the West was permanently broken by the failures of W's administration.

What's your own stance on these issues?

[Andullero]

What's your own stance on these issues?

I support the no tolerance stance on pornography but have more ambiguous views about prostitution, because there will always be losers in the mating game, and those need to have a consolation of some sort instead of allowing them to fall through the cracks (and get recruited by terrorist/insurgent groups taking advantage of their pent up anger and aggression). Definitely hostile to abolishing glamour girls on sports and the whole policing of male-female relations.

[Smitty]

1, 3, and 4 are definitely feminist-driven. 2, I have not noticed. Social and religious conservatism are not resurging in any impactful way, one that would have effects in the public sphere or government policy, which are wholly controlled by the Left. The Christian Right opposes nudity (always has), but no one listens to them other than their own.

[JamesBond007]

Are the growing calls to censor depictions of women's bodies (but not, I hasten to add, those of men), to ban or at least severely restrict pornography and prostitution, to abolish glamour girls in sports competitions and to some extent to even police male-female relationships mostly due to a supposedly 'progressive' feminism, or more from a resurgent social/religious conservatism?

It derives from Victorion-esque middle class values.

Anti-prudery comes from pseudo-scientific Freudianism and Marxism.

The first and foremost rule for the wise conduct of life seems to me to be contained in a view to which Aristotle parenthetically refers in the Nichomachean Ethics:2 [Greek: o phronimoz to alupon dioke e ou to aedu] or, as it may be rendered, not pleasure, but freedom from pain, is what the wise man will aim at.


The truth of this remark turns upon the negative character of happiness,—the fact that pleasure is only the negation of pain, and that pain is the positive element in life...

--Arthur Schopenhauer

Socialists do not like Schopenhauer. (No wonder he is not taught in government-financed schools.) The Marxist historian Franz Mehring describes Schopenhauer as “the philosopher of the terrified philistines… in his sneaking, selfish, and slandering way the spiritual image of the bourgeoisie which, frightened by the clash of arms, trembling like the aspen, retired to live on its revenues and foreswore the ideals of its epoch like the plague.” (Schopenhauer lived independently on an inheritance bequeathed by his father, a merchant.)

Efforts by Hegelians and Marxists to create a socialist utopia without incentives to work and produce, any private property, or possibility for profit are, by the nature of human action, doomed to failure. Schopenhauer sums up the matter from a praxeological standpoint this way: “Egoism [self-interest]… will never be argued out of a person, as little as a cat can be talked out of her inclination for mice.”

Modern day socialism is Hegelian :

Schopenhauer agreed with Kant that the ultimate reality of the world is impenetrable to analytic thought and descriptive language. And Schopenhauer’s successors, Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889—1951) and Henri Bergson (1859—1941) present more, convincing evidence that this is indeed the case. Philosophers like Hegel who construct systems that encompass the Noumenon do so with what are essentially meaningless abstract concepts, like “Absolute Spirit,” “The Good,” and “Perfection of Being.” Schopenhauer writes: “The greatest effrontery [to Kant] in serving up sheer nonsense, in scrabbling together senseless and maddening webs of words, such as had previously been heard only in madhouses, finally appeared in Hegel.” (Hegel’s retort might be, “So what if I generate a lot of verbiage without really saying anything. Only power matters.”)

https://www.gutenberg.org/files/1071...-h/10715-h.htm

https://www.lewrockwell.com/2003/05/...-vs-the-state/