In overturning a Court of Appeals decision, the state’s high court examined whether or not a woman simply exposing her breasts constitutes conduct of a sexual nature.
I think this is a disingenuous take. Different cultures all have their own taboos. Is it all social constructs? Yea, sure, but that doesn’t make them invalid within context. By nature they aren’t logical.
They’re cultural creations. They were created by human beings, and WE have the power to change them. If we want something to stop being a taboo, we can simply will it to be as such.
The taboos are pretty logical. They’ve swung back and forth over the years. For example, the Victorian era of prudishness appeared not long after the syphilis epidemic.
Why is it disingenous? It shows just what you said by the end - that it’s not logical. Doesn’t that make them kind of invalid? What kind of context would make them valid? Just history?
I think this is a disingenuous take. Different cultures all have their own taboos. Is it all social constructs? Yea, sure, but that doesn’t make them invalid within context. By nature they aren’t logical.
They’re cultural creations. They were created by human beings, and WE have the power to change them. If we want something to stop being a taboo, we can simply will it to be as such.
Quite a bit of hubris you have there…
Better than nihilistic fatalism that the world is doomed and there’s nothing we can do to improve it.
Um, sure. If those were the only two options.
History disagrees. It’s very hard to go against cultural norms, and in many cases can result in being ostracized, imprisoned, or put to death.
The taboos are pretty logical. They’ve swung back and forth over the years. For example, the Victorian era of prudishness appeared not long after the syphilis epidemic.
I see what you’ve done there.
Why is it disingenous? It shows just what you said by the end - that it’s not logical. Doesn’t that make them kind of invalid? What kind of context would make them valid? Just history?
They can be logical… Just not always.