Sounds like an expectation of special treatment that many Americans don’t even afford to people from other countries lol.

We really need to distinguish between porn that displays harmful attitudes towards women and everything else. There are libraries of porn available online that normalize coercive acts or people in positions of power taking advantage of others. Not ALL porn is like that but the questions are: what are adolescents watching and how would we expect that to impact their perception of a healthy sexual relationship?

I believe sex to be a spiritual experience (not tied to any one religion) that can absolutely involve kink and domination/submission play but ultimately should come from and maintain a state of balance with mutual satisfaction as the ultimate goal. There is absolutely porn that portrays this but I’d say a lot (perhaps the majority) does not.

That being said, as a millenial I did grow up with access to porn on Kazaa and what not. Saw some uncomfortable shit and my value system / attitudes towards sex remained relatively ok despite it. Ultimately, I had to read Indigineous thought and the philosophical aspects of the Kama Sutra (which emphasizes a woman’s autonomy and pleasure and is open to same sex relationships) to arrive at my current, very open, attitudes toward sex.

I can see now how these Wendat voices may have contributed to enlightenment thinking. Its just too bad that didn’t come with a respect towards the people who shared that wisdom.

Most Christians believe they live under the New Covenant and not Old Testament law.

You are right that it is widely accepted as the word of God though.

If only. In the year 2025, it apparently captures hearts and minds. I know because Boomers send this heavily edited shit constantly.

Its a fascinating postulation that Indigineous thought leaders may have influenced enlightenment thinkers. Its unfortunate (understatement) that the European colonial machine ultimately chose to create a racist counter narrative to justify generations of genocide despite this.

During the colonial era the West was often very quick to take credit for knowledge imparted on other regions while quietly neglecting to cite sources when they learned from others.

Its too bad that they who adopted such wisdom could not see the humanity in those it came from.

Is there evidence of this? Most historical writings on colonial attitudes towards Indigineous people is that they were seen as primitive and backward for not having similar infrastructure, focussing on sustainability rather than productivity and not being Christian.

It would be fascinating to hear of there were more balanced voices back then but the general attitude of European settlers at the time was we are here to take land and control trade because our God ordained it.

Its current “fucked up” state is also its natural state, relatively uninfluenced by humans for the entirety of existence.

I don’t doubt our ability to act brashly and fuck something up to the point of impacting life back here on Earth or screw things up for others out there in the cosmos.

Great, we’re already fucking up this planet let’s go fuck up the rest of the solar system too.

Capitalism absolutely but philosophical objectivism and materialism are also issues. You have to have some sort of spiritual belief in the sanctity of life for a society to be sustainable. Spiritual not necessarily in a religious sense. Moreso an understanding that we are all interconnected (the antithesis of Western individualism).

Let’s just say the enlightment period had some good ideas and brought about positive change, especially in the short term, but the wisdom of that philosophical thought is not all encompassing, even though people (especially Westerners) often treat it like it is.

I beleive all life is sacred and that there is always opportunity for reform.

But at the end of the day we are defined by our ideas and the actions that back them.

If our ideas and actions undermine the greater good then its hard to argue that much is lost when the person that brings that ideology to life is themselves lost.

There are no bacteria in your eye. These perceptual disturbances are due to increased retinal sensitivity to vitreous substance. It’s why they move when around like they’re in liquid when you turn your head fast.

Yes, thats part of the why but it’s still odd culturally from the perspective of the rest of the world especially since what you’re describing occurred 100+ years ago and the terminology has likely only persisted because of the US’ gun obsession.

Its a good yoke but coming at a South Asian person for the anglicized spelling of a South Asian word is the sugar syrup on the Gulab Jamun.

So… Nukes.