Do you assume that people with a sense of propriety are prudes?

Question

Or do you recognize the possibility that someone who might actually be quite a "freak" could still consider that sort of thing to only be appropriate in certain contexts?

I don't just mean the hypocritical televangelists and politicians who make the news from time to time. I'm not even talking about attacking people's sexual preferences or desires. I just mean having a sense of boundaries and of moral consistency concerning what is appropriate when?

twilight, I am moving ONLY for a CONSISTENT approach to the discussion of male and female sexuality. You are obviously not a stupid man, so I can only assume that you are being deliberately obtuse.

The person who posted the question prompting this exchange in fact recognize the hypocritical aspect to it. the fact that YOU can't is a sign of moral idiocy.

Wendy, I love ribaldry, like any bawdy reporbate!

Tera, we all have posted things we'd later have second thoughts about. I applaud how you handled it: more graciously than myself, I might add!

Teeleecee, I have expressed disapproval for all the things you mention, so I'd appreciate your not casting aspersions on my sincerity here. Thanks.

On second thought, no. You're blocked. I am not going to associate with someone who brings up things I have actually condemned and tries to use them against me and then presumes to tell me that my feelings are "feigned". I'm done with you.

Answer 1

I get this all the time...I can act very...formal, I guess, when I'm at work, or meeting people for the first time, and people always say "I thought you were such a prude (or "priss") when we first met...now I know you're crazy!" (The good kind of crazy, not the psycho kind).
So yes, I'm EXACTLY as you describe, I'm one way at work, but then I go out with my co-workers, and loosen up a little, and they're amazed. Or I become closer to someone, so I loose some of my formality. It's always fun to see the look on people's faces when I crack a bawdy joke for the first time. (Seriously...who says "bawdy" anymore? I might as well say "ribald!" Lol.)

EDIT-(mock prudish gasp) You devilish rake, you!

Answer 2

I assume very little. My father used to say that when we assume we make an *** out of u and me. This may sound trite but consider what you are asking. A sense of propriety is vague and varies from person to person, and yet has some very stable definitions in society. Propriety morphs from age to age and swings on a pendulum. My definition of a "prude" is a person who points fingers at and berates persons who boundaries or morals do not match their own. So, say I am a conservative Christian and do not believe homosexuality is a healthy life style for whatever reason, should I hate the "sinner" or love the individual for who they are and accept the fact that I can not make their choices for them? All I ask of any person, regardless of their choices is that as I respect them for their personhood, I too would like to be respected for my own. Moral consistency then is setting your own boundaries of what you will accept in your presence or in the presence of those for whom you have responsibility. If your associates respect you they will not violate your boundaries, if you respect yourself you will not allow them to violate your boundaries and remain in their presence.

Answer 3

No. This forum is not the best of places to display such sense of boundaries and moral consistency without being somehow criticized. There are simply too different opinions and sometimes a clash cannot be avoided. But it seems that both of you will continue with your antagonic stance until the small hours.

Answer 4

It is perfectly normal and healthy to have boundaries. But what one person is comfortable with, someone else may not be. It's all relative.

It is true...there's a time and a place for everything. Having manners and good taste (tact) isn't being a prude. It's having respect for others. Not an awful thing.

Answer 5

I'm studying the art (yes, "art" because it really is one) of counseling in my college classes. We've been taught to be careful not to impose our value systems (morals) on others who are our clients/patients. It is not our "job" to be higher moral authorities, since people's morals and values may vary from culture to culture and individual to individual. I believe that it's important to know where certain boundaries lie, but when it comes to personal ethical issues, those are for the individual to decide. For example, in my opinion, it is not appropriate to violate the law, particularly, (also in my opinion), where it concerns children/minors. These are impressionable people. I deleted my question because I didn't feel it was appropriate for "all audiences." The internet (and forums such as this one) attract people of all ages. The conversation I started here was not one that I would have felt was appropriate to bring it up with my own 14 year old daughter, so in hindsight, it was then not appropriate (in my opinion) to bring it up in a place where other people's kids might be viewing the content of my question.

"Moral consistency"- well, if I'm morally inconsistent that is MY problem, not anyone else's. People may react to that as they may, and every time I post anything I open myself up for criticism, and no doubt, as always, there will be those who object to what I've said. To be expected. I reserve my right to be "morally inconsistent", as I am a human being who is growing, learning and evolving every single day that I'm alive. Part of that process is finding out what I believe in, and testing the waters, and not being afraid to go into territory that is unknown to me. I won't apologize for that. Any moral inconsistency on my part is an issue that is my own to resolve within myself.

But I do apologize for posting material that is, in my opinion, inappropriate for kids.

Answer 6

Well, I never thought I'd see the day. Is this the same forum that tolerates women being told they are useless, fat, lazy, lesbians who have too much hair, attitude, time on their hands, along with too many rights? Is this the same forum that regularly has posters with avatars of serial killers, of parts of anatomy? The very same forum in which rape is glorified, abuse is a source of great humour, people of all races and ethnicities are insulted, badgered, harrassed? Oh...yea, the same forum via which someone received a picture of a dead animal with a threat written over it, and where a woman was told she and her infant child should be raped? Yea? I'm in the right place? If THIS--the discussion of sexuality--is the major source of outrage of anyone on here, people have some serious issues regarding priorities. Twilight, you are right on, Tera, you have nothing to apologize for, and as for this feigned outrage, give me a break. And they say feminists have no sense of humour. It is for to laugh.

Answer 7

I think people who seek to impose their own view of what is "appropriate in certain contexts" are being censorious in the literal sense of the word.

I also think when the standards they seek to impose are at loggerheads with those of the forum they are posting in that it raises questions about why they are doing that.

When the content being reacted to is of a sexual nature, and someone is seeking to censor it based on their beliefs, despite it being generally accepted as legal and appropriate then yes, I would assume they are a prude.

*Edit - i actually looked the word up in the dictionary, and on deeper reflection, no not a prude, just censorious. Prude means "noun a person who is easily shocked by matters relating to sex or nudity." although i would say that those who censor on the basis of sexuality are often prudes, one does not necessarily lead to the other*

Answer 8

I find that really interesting. I actually have been called a prude several times, and I've been shocked every time. Once I fond myself at a bar with friends, wearing a long grey skirt and a sweater. "Oh, the prudish look?" a guy said. I was just thinking, "How would he know what goes on in my bedroom?"

Answer 9

Not necessarily. People should know when certain kinds of dress or behaviour are appropriate and when they aren't. For all I know, the old lady who wears a conservative flowered blouse and skirt to our history of science lectures is a real freak in the sack.

Answer 10

No, I do not.

So long as they are not trying to control what others do on their own time.

I wouldn't want someone coming over to my house and smoking crack or having sex in my living room in front of my son.

If they want to do those things in their own space, on their own time, then more power to them.

And I don't think you in particular are a prude, either.