Times are getting better morally?

  • Thread starter Thread starter JABA
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I work as registered nurse in psychiatry. I must say I work with some very sexually immoral people, most who are already in their late 50’s or 60’s.

I was told stories of how it use to be like to work as nurse in psychiatry when these people were younger, like over 15-30 years ago. I was really shocked :eek:

Back then, it was a normal thing to have sex on the ward with your other colleagues, or after work. These people who were doing it, were also not single but also happily married people. Nobody cared if you are married or not, to ask you out. Like some staff, would only know each other for like 2 days and ended having an affair. Some would also have an affair as revenge to a husband or wife who was already cheating.

The scary thing also is that almost none of these nurses who are now in their 50’s and 60’s find anything wrong with what they did, nor have any guilt or remorse. They say that it was a normal thing back then.

But now, I cannot imagine anything like what use to occur to happen now. We had cases where some married men were wanting to have affairs with some single women, but it was put a stop too as these women knew these men were married and knew it was wrong.

At this time now, we also have the highest number of nurses working from an Indian and Asian backgrounds. I find that these nurses have higher moral standards and are more conservative compared to most other nursing staff.

Are times changing for the better? It looks like it.👍
The population of Asian immigrants may be part of it, but I think it is true that in some ways standards of sexual morality are higher than they were 20-30 years ago. There seems a lot more stigma for adultery than there was then. At least that’s true in pop-culture portrayals. For all the railing about Hollywood, adulterous affairs are almost always portrayed as wrong in Hollywood movies. That wasn’t true a few decades ago. Casual promiscuity is not glorified as liberation but is seen as a form of promiscuity and a failure to “commit.”

Here’s my characterization of what’s happened–I’m sure there will be plenty of disagreements:

Immediately after the sexual revolution, Hollywood and many secular, "liberated’ people glorified promiscuity and casual sex. This combined with the older double standard and the acceptance of workplace romance (and of inequality in romantic relationships) to create a toxic mix. However, much of the culture still saw things in more traditional terms.

Now, the values of the sexual revolution have spread much more widely (this is what people mean when they talk about moral degeneration). *But *in so doing they have become highly diluted, and they have also now been shaped by political correctness and the “soft” feminism that is orthodoxy in our culture at present. Hence, a new set of moral norms has formed or is forming. In these new norms, sexual relationships are supposed to take place between equal partners who respect each other, care for each other in non-sexual ways, and are “committed”–that is, they are going to be monogamous for as long as the relationship lasts and are not going to break up casually or cruelly.“Cheating” is considered wrong because it’s dishonest and hurtful, whether the person you “cheat on” is your spouse or only a “significant other.” Casual sex is considered a sign of emotional immaturity which needs to be transcended in order to have a “meaningful relationship.”

I am not defending these norms. I am not sure that they are that much worse than the norms that prevailed in the 50s, which seem to have winked at male adultery and allowed men to exploit women with little stigma or guilt. But I may have too jaundiced a view, overly influenced by Hollywood and by my very conservative family, who have considered the modern world a sink of iniquity for about 100 years and don’t idealize the 50s as much as some folks do (though they still despise the 60s even more!). I certainly take the point that in a small town in the 1950s things were very different, and maybe even in the 60s or 70s (I’m less sure about the 80s, because I actually remember East Tennessee in the 80s–but I’m willing to admit that things are even worse there now).

Edwin
 
Seen any recent Jennifer Aniston movies? Fornication is no big deal on TV either. Grey’s Anatomy. Young female doctor picks up a guy at the bar, and after they’re done, encourages him to not mention his name. This is better?

Peace,
Ed
 
I’d be hard pressed to agree, one simply has to take a walk down the main street of one’s town to realize. Both men and women in grossly immodest clothing (women in short skirts and exposed arms and exposed knees, men with exposed arms, etc.), overt sexual advertisements, abortions and homosexual marriages, etc. etc. Sad state of affairs, but it’s all be predicted, we’ve seen this for almost fifty years now.
I’m curious why you think knees and arms are not okay to show in public. Can you elaborate?

On the subject of the current state of morality…people commit what the Catholic church deems a sin more because they have the freedom to do so. No one has to worry about being burned at the stake, stoned, completely chastised by the community, etc. so yeah people are more likely to engage in non-church approved activities.

Everyone here seems to agree that the revolutions of the 60’s and 70’s were bad. What about the civil rights movement? What about the feminist movement? (I don’t want to hear about abortions or the STATE OF THE NUCLEAR FAMILY) feminism campaigned for women to have equal rights as men, if it weren’t for feminists (first and second wave) women wouldn’t have the right to vote. Women would still be treated as child-women whose only permitted passion is as Betty Friedan said “occupation: housewife.” Because of feminism, women can be independent and don’t have to depend on an abusive husband for food, shelter, clothes, etc.

Good things were brought about during the social changes of the 60’s and 70’s, and bad ones too. To demonize an entire generation of people is ridiculous. I’m sure the innocent women being burned at the stake in Salem thought their era was completely crazy and immoral.

In the past (in America, at least) half of the population (women) were oppressed. People OWNED SLAVES. They took people from their home (Africa) and beat them and raped them and abused them and used them until they finally died. They ENSLAVED people. Do you not think that was a morally degenerate society?

At least today most of the what the Catholic church deems a sin is one that people inflict upon themselves. (There are exceptions of course, like abortion) But if two consenting adults are fornicating, that’s on them, they made their decision. Whereas in the past if you were unlucky enough to be born a woman it meant not having as many rights as men, it meant you couldn’t even vote. And if you were born black? You had a lifetime of slavery and abuse to look forward to.
 
Seen any recent Jennifer Aniston movies? Fornication is no big deal on TV either. Grey’s Anatomy. Young female doctor picks up a guy at the bar, and after they’re done, encourages him to not mention his name. This is better?
Well, maybe I self-select by not watching Grey’s Anatomy!

Take a show that I have watched and that you told me you couldn’t watch (an attitude I respect, by the way): the remake of Battlestar Galactica. Starbuck’s promiscuity is clearly indicative of psychological damage. There seem to be a slew of romantic comedies where promiscuity is seen as the mark of an immature male who can’t grow up and learn to “commit.”

Note that I speak of promiscuity. I agree that fornication per se is no longer considered wrong outside conservative religious circles.

I’m not saying that the new moral code is a good one. It has some good points (like the emphasis on relationships of mutual love and respect), but also some serious flaws.

My point is rather that all sets of social mores about sex (and other moral matters) are going to be flawed by sin and need to be challenged by the Gospel. And the Church (yes, even the Catholic Church, though you do a lot better than most) always does an imperfect job of presenting this challenge. In the past Christians compromised too much with patriarchy and the double standard. Today we are too prone to fall for an egalitarian sexuality that recognizes no sexual sin except overt abuse and exploitation and treats sex as merely a means to establish a warm relationship between two people.

Edwin
 
Well, maybe I self-select by not watching Grey’s Anatomy!

Take a show that I have watched and that you told me you couldn’t watch (an attitude I respect, by the way): the remake of Battlestar Galactica. Starbuck’s promiscuity is clearly indicative of psychological damage. There seem to be a slew of romantic comedies where promiscuity is seen as the mark of an immature male who can’t grow up and learn to “commit.”

Note that I speak of promiscuity. I agree that fornication per se is no longer considered wrong outside conservative religious circles.

I’m not saying that the new moral code is a good one. It has some good points (like the emphasis on relationships of mutual love and respect), but also some serious flaws.

My point is rather that all sets of social mores about sex (and other moral matters) are going to be flawed by sin and need to be challenged by the Gospel. And the Church (yes, even the Catholic Church, though you do a lot better than most) always does an imperfect job of presenting this challenge. In the past Christians compromised too much with patriarchy and the double standard. Today we are too prone to fall for an egalitarian sexuality that recognizes no sexual sin except overt abuse and exploitation and treats sex as merely a means to establish a warm relationship between two people.

Edwin
The Catholic Church did a perfect job of presenting the issue, but was always shouted down by hecklers. Here’s what I heard in the 1960s: “You know what the problem is with you Catholics? You think sex is dirty.”

The Church never taught that. On TV today, an attractive woman tells the man that their encounter from the night before was “just sex.” I don’t see anything about relationships, just relieving oneself like going to the bathroom.

Take the typical Jennifer Aniston movie. She’s living with a guy who has his life and she has her’s. He’s vaguely useful for day to day things but both are mostly in it for the sex. At least the difference between being a man and a woman still exists. He seems to grow tired of her, so what does she do? She ups the sex factor in the relationship. And what a relationship. Either one can leave whenever. Warm? Caring?

In the past, Christians had strict rules: no sex during dating, you got to know her parents and she got to know your’s. Her parents and your parents had a say in your relationship. You did not suddenly become this independent unit when you turned 21.

There was and is no patriarchy. There is only the Church established by Christ as He constituted it.

Peace,
Ed
 
Everyone knows that Planned Parenthood
exists as the largest abortion provider in the USA.

… and yet, not too long ago …
Code:
A little peek at pre-legal-abortion times (for those who were not yet born then):

**"An abortion kills the life of a baby after it has begun. It is dangerous to your life and health. It may make you sterile so that when you want a child you cannot have it." **

from "Plan Your Children", **Planned Parenthood pamphlet, 1962 **

[pregnantpause.org/abort/workers_say.htm](http://www.pregnantpause.org/abort/workers_say.htm)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top