[Saeko]

Saeko, are you hyper-sexualized?

I haven't even reached the extra-sexualized stage yet, much less the super or hyper ones.

[XogGyux]

Nonsense. Religious people do not stop people from availing themselves of the benefits of science.

Yes they do. How many scientist compared to the general population describe themselves as "religious". How many religious fanatics argue in favor of school teaching absurd ideas such as creationism? How many people were burned as "heretics" during the inquisition because they were pursuing knowledge. How many people have been incarcerated, tortured and killed because of their pursuit of science by religious fanatics. Galileo? Giordano Bruno? Alan Turing? Even today. What about the religious fanatics and anti-abortion that destroy property, harrass (and sometime kill) doctors/nurses and patients alike for working (or seeking) in abortion clinics. How about the suffering of mothers that have come to the hard decision of terminating a pregnancy (for whatever reason) and have to endure the endless humiliation, harassment and even physical/mental abuse of these religious fanatics? Tell me anything, tell me how unicorns will come to save us and take us to paradise in a rainbow, but don't even tell me that religious people are not in the way of science and progress. It is not a coincidence that as the human race has acquired more and more knowledge there is more and more atheist and less religious people.

You are applying scientific solutions to problems in a manner that is the equivalent to closing the barn door after the horse is already gone. I could make a good case for maintaining that that it is not turning to religion that causes us to have an enormous out of wedlock birth rate; but rather it is turning away from it.

You talk as if out-of-wedlock birth rate and sexually diseases were a modern problem. REALITY check: Those have existed for as long as society has existed. I promess you (and if you want we can test my assertion) that an oral contraceptive, a condom and an implant are all far more efficient at preventing pregnancy than a bibble a cross and a prayer. We can do the test anytime you want.

In my day men who become fathers were expected to marry the woman and take care of the child forever. Not so today in a great many cases.

You mean those days when women were (almost) considered property? When women were not expected to work for themselves, make decision about their lives (and sexuality) and those days that we did not know what we know today about human reproduction, diseases, etc? If your argument against progress is "this is the way it has been all my life" you are disqualified to have an opinion on the topic.

Then you were dead wrong on a couple of points. We have NOT conquered venereal diseases as you have alluded.

I don't recall saying that we have conquered anything (although I insist science is FAR closer to doing so than any religion would EVER be, and without the interference of religious fanatics we would be a couple steps closer from doing so). I said that with what we know about reproduction, birth control and sexually transmitted diseases, religious views about sexuality are simply obsolete. Many scholars believe those views came along (at least in part) as a way to prevent unwanted pregnancies, diseases etc. With our understanding of those, religious views about sexuality are irrelevant and far less efficacious. You don't have to go too far, just google "efficacy of abstinence-only" and you will be flooded with all the data you need!

Following the religious teachings of no sex outside of monogamous relationships would end them in no time.

Off course, it has worked so well until now right? Don't worry. I have it in good authority that the CDC is planning a double blinded study comparing the efficiency of penicillin and IV bibble in treating syphilis and if that study has positive results there is another one in the pipeline for HIV comparing bible IV vs HART therapy. In the meantime whenever you going to have sex, please be sure to have a bible in your pocket or a cross dangling in your penis (a jesus tattoo 1 feet from the vagina might have the same effect).

What makes their morality absurd?

So many things.
How about the fact that any religious morality means those morals were defined hundreds and sometimes thousands of years ago and in most cases by a far more primitive (and intolerant) society than we have now.
How about the fact that there are hundreds of religions out there (and therefore hundreds of different "morality guides") and hence adhering to a single one of those pretty much means that you go against the others (in essence religious tyranny)
How can you reconcile the fact that the same books that give rise to "religious morality" also taught how to keep slaves, kill your enemies, punish in very salvage ways your wife (or wives) for not doing what you want or for breaking some kind of silly rule.
How can you argue that you "grew" out of those primitive "morals" but that those "morals" about sexuality you posses are correct and/or better than mines or somebody else?

[Drlee]

@XogGyux

Your comments about religion are preposterous. Gratuitous to say the least. Do you think you are making sense?

I believe everyone should be free and able to do whatever they want in so long they don't harm other people that are unwilling.

I mostly agree. And I am a religious person.

You can have as many sermons and pray to as many gods as you want.

Yes I can. What does that have to do with YOUR desire to have sex with "an inflatable whale"?

But this obsession with morality, in particular religious morality is absurd.

Why? Why is my adhering to my religion's preference for monogamy absurd? It is just a choice. A better one than your choice to have sex with an inflatable whale IMO but I do not have a dog in that fight.

However, It does not bother me anymore than religious sermons do (in fact those bother me more as they are irrational and in-natural).

More nonsense. Wanting to be happy is the most natural thing in the world. Since before recorded time people have looked to metaphysical and religious beliefs to make them happy. These beliefs, for the religious person, are, of course, more than simply a searching for happiness. Much more. But there is nothing "unnatural" about them.

I think you are completely wrong laying some "obsession with morality" at the feet of religion. Clearly the US is an overwhelmingly religious country. Equally clearly it is the largest producer of pornography in the world. It is a nation that codifies same-sex marriage. It is a sex-soaked society.....From Hollywood's massive porn industry to Tami Faye Baker's big hair. From the cheerleaders who adorn every football game to the buxom beauty who kisses the winner at the end of every Nascar race. Christians are not opposed to sex. All of the evidence points to the fact that we embrace it wholeheartedly. If this were not so, your 'monolithic' religious conspiracy could easily force its preferences on you and others. We do little of that in the big picture. If all of the religious banded together to ban porn we could do it. We could undo same-sex marriage. We could impose upon you the necessity to grow a beard or make your dog wear a diaper. That is what our democracy is all about.

Nope. Go ahead and start (yet another) thread about how bad religion is. But in this case you are not carrying your point. Indeed you are looking a bit schizoid in your arguments.

I see you have posted more. I will just touch on a few:

Yes they do. How many scientist compared to the general population describe themselves as "religious".

Irrelevant to this discussion. What is your point with regard to sexuality"

How many religious fanatics argue in favor of school teaching absurd ideas such as creationism?

Few. But what does this have to do with this subject of sexuality? You are off topic.

How many people were burned as "heretics" during the inquisition because they were pursuing knowledge.

Who cares? We are not living in the 16th century anymore. Irrelevant. You are off topic again.

How many people have been incarcerated, tortured and killed because of their pursuit of science by religious fanatics.

Irrelevant to this thread. You are off topic. Please stay on topic.

Even today. What about the religious fanatics and anti-abortion that destroy property, harrass (and sometime kill) doctors/nurses and patients alike for working (or seeking) in abortion clinics.

Nonsense. It happens so rarely as to be nothing much. But in the overtly religious society of ours it is the Christians and Jews who chase these animals down and incarcerate them.

Tell me anything, tell me how unicorns will come to save us and take us to paradise in a rainbow, but don't even tell me that religious people are not in the way of science and progress.

They are not. AGAIN SON. PAY ATTENTION. The US is an overtly religious country. There is no denying that. There is also no denying that it is the home of much if not most of the worlds scientific discovery. Clearly from the 20th century onward the US has been at the very tip of the scientific spear. It has a great many of the world's great research centers and universities. Many of them founded or owned by religious organizations. You want to spout history?
Tell me what Newton thought about his science? Let me help.

Newton: "Gravity explains the motions of the planets, but it cannot explain who set the planets in motion. God governs all things and knows all that is or can be done."

You see. When one indulges in painting today with ancient history one can pretty much always be certain of being irrelevant. Right? Now am I off topic?

You mean those days when women were (almost) considered property? When women were not expected to work for themselves, make decision about their lives (and sexuality) and those days that we did not know what we know today about human reproduction, diseases, etc? If your argument against progress is "this is the way it has been all my life" you are disqualified to have an opinion on the topic.

I am pretty certain that I have been around quite a bit longer than you have. None of this was true in my time. I can assure you that we knew quite well where babies came from. And diseases. Again you have to go very far back to get to the place upon which you seem to want to dwell. We are the authors of the sexual revolution.

If your argument against progress is "this is the way it has been all my life" you are disqualified to have an opinion on the topic

What argument against progress? Are you rambling or just not paying attention? I am arguing FOR progress. And in a Christian framework. We launched the astronauts with a prayer. "God speed John Glen". Wonderful research in childhood cancers at St. Jude's Research Hospital.

It is not a coincidence that as the human race has acquired more and more knowledge there is more and more atheist and less religious people.

Not a coincidence? What does that mean. Are you going to go OFF TOPIC FUCKING AGAIN and try to steer this discussion around into a venue for your religious bigotry?

Off course, it has worked so well until now right? Don't worry. I have it in good authority that the CDC is planning a double blinded study comparing the efficiency of penicillin and IV bibble in treating syphilis and if that study has positive results there is another one in the pipeline for HIV comparing bible IV vs HART therapy. In the meantime whenever you going to have sex, please be sure to have a bible in your pocket or a cross dangling in your penis (a jesus tattoo 1 feet from the vagina might have the same effect).

What kind of nonsense is this? You are acting like a child. If you wish to debate on this forum you will be well advised to remember that we are mostly fairly well educated people here. We do not have time for idiotic hyperbole or lame attempts at humor.

But you know what IS funny? I frequently speak to the CDC. I have many friends and colleagues there. Many of them religious people.

ON EDIT:

Let me point out a couple of things with which you are obviously unaware.

1. Being religious does not make one anti-scientific. A great many scientists are religious. Read of the work of Gionti at the Vatican Observatory.

2. Being atheist does not necessarily make one anti-religious. I have a great many atheist friends for whom my religion is not an issue. Nor is theirs mine. We atheists and religious have one thing in common. Our beliefs on God or their lack thereof are taken as a matter of faith.

3. Most mature and educated atheists know quite well how important religion is to religious people and believe they know why. The very smart ones embrace religious choice as a basic human right.

4. Most religious people embrace science. I know that I do. So do the overwhelming majority of my friends. Many of them scientists. Sometimes we are cautious about its application. For example, many Christians are not happy about war or nuclear weapons.

5. There are many immature Christians. There are many immature atheists. There are many dogmatic religious people. There are many dogmatic atheists.

6. Your absolutism is not typical of atheists. It is typical of new or young ones.

[Hong Wu]

In Hindu thought there's four life pursuits, transcendence, following the law, economic success, pleasure. Those are usually ranked in the order I wrote them, an ideal life doesn't completely disregard any of them but many people put them in opposite order today.

America might be successful, metaphysically, because it does the best job of combining these things. In America, your economic success is considered commensurate with following the law in most cases, and thanks to some distorted Protestantism it's also considered tantamount to transcendence. America has also traditionally relegated sex (as pleasure, or all pleasure) to the bottom although it has usually accomplished this by taking a hostile stance towards pleasure. From a Buddhist perspective, complete avoidance of something otherwise normal and healthy might indicate you fear its power over you, which could indicate that you haven't transcended that thing.

What most people can agree on is that while outright hostility might be overkill, to put simple pleasures first is a mistake. From a materialistic perspective, sex used to be connected to reproduction. Today sex isn't necessarily connotative with reproduction (and therefore, family and society as a whole) but some people have not adapted to birth control and easy abortion, so they are dominated by their sexual instinct. This can cost them money, sometimes health and almost always their peace of mind. A lot of old baby boomers who don't want to live with their children because it would reduce how much senior citizen sex they are getting has also caused a lot of economic and social problems in the west.

[XogGyux]

Your comments about religion are preposterous. Gratuitous to say the least. Do you think you are making sense?

Please elaborate.

Yes I can. What does that have to do with YOUR desire to have sex with "an inflatable whale"?

Geez what is your obsession with having sex with an inflatable whale? You mention it so many times in your post!

Why? Why is my adhering to my religion's preference for monogamy absurd?

It is not. Adhering it is not absurd. Obsession is. The endless self righteous comments, the endless shaming of those who do not believe the same as you etc.

A better one than your choice to have sex with an inflatable whale IMO but I do not have a dog in that fight.

Who are you to judge whose morality is better? And why are you so obsessed with the whale, did I hit a nerve there?

More nonsense. Wanting to be happy is the most natural thing in the world.

Yes, but when your idea of being happy is to FORCE other people to agree with you then you make other people unhappy and that is wrong. Natural way of the word is no excuse. Natural way of the word is that if you live in a volcano and the volcano erupts, anything living around the volcano dies, period. We humans do it, or at least for the most part understand it a little bit different, and try to help those in need AGAINST the natural way of the world.

I think you are completely wrong laying some "obsession with morality" at the feet of religion.

No, the feet of religion is just anger for power. Religion is a way to control people, the fake morality is just a side effect of the means to do so.

Clearly the US is an overwhelmingly religious country. Equally clearly it is the largest producer of pornography in the world. It is a nation that codifies same-sex marriage. It is a sex-soaked society.....From Hollywood's massive porn industry to Tami Faye Baker's big hair. From the cheerleaders who adorn every football game to the buxom beauty who kisses the winner at the end of every Nascar race. Christians are not opposed to sex. All of the evidence points to the fact that we embrace it wholeheartedly.

All that progress has been DESPITE religious fanatic (mostly christians IMO) rather than BECAUSE of them. Correlation does not imply causation.

Nope. Go ahead and start (yet another) thread about how bad religion is.

I don't think I have started a thread in this forum in months perhaps years so I don't know what the hell you talking about. Another thing you religious fanatic have a lot of, paranoia and prosecution delusions.

Irrelevant to this discussion. What is your point with regard to sexuality"

In what way is that irrelevant? Your statement was "Nonsense. Religious people do not stop people from availing themselves of the benefits of science." to which I explained to you why and how your statement is false. So it is not any more irrelevant than yours. Another thing you guys are very good at, policing the rest of the world while ignoring every time you do the same.
My point in regards to sexuality is exactly my point regarding wearing a hat. You are free to wear any hat, any color, any number of hats you want to wear or no hats at all. So long it does not harm me or anyone around me you free to put anything in your head. Extrapolate from there about my thoughts about sexuality as you wish.

Nonsense. It happens so rarely as to be nothing much.

So you are saying any woman who wants/needs an abortion at hers and her's doctor's discretion she should be free to do so and furthermore that is exactly your views of how it is today?

But in the overtly religious society of ours it is the Christians and Jews who chase these animals down and incarcerate them.

I have no clue what you are talking there. Stay on topic?

They are not. AGAIN SON. PAY ATTENTION. The US is an overtly religious country. There is no denying that. There is also no denying that it is the home of much if not most of the worlds scientific discovery. Clearly from the 20th century onward the US has been at the very tip of the scientific spear. It has a great many of the world's great research centers and universities. Many of them founded or owned by religious organizations. You want to spout history?
Tell me what Newton thought about his science? Let me help.

I don't know if your ignorance is lack of education or if you are just being deceitful on purpose. Most of scientific discovery, poetry, music has been done by men. Is your augment then that women are inferior intellectually and artistically to men? This is the second time I say this in this very thread: CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION. The vast majority of the people of the past were religious so off course the vast majority of the discoveries in the past were done by religious people, that does not mean in any way that it is religion driving those discoveries. Your religion myth actually begins by stating that eating the apple of knowledge was humanity's biggest sin if that is not the perfect metaphor i don't know what it is. Like I said. Scientific advances have gone DESPITE, rather than BECAUSE, religion.

Tell me what Newton thought about his science? Let me help.

Read what deGrasse Tyson has to say to that subject. I have little to add to his thoughts.
http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/univer ... -ignorance
To his views, it was Newton's religion what prevented him from even greater discoveries. He stopped researching because "god is doing it" rather than stop and think what NATURAL law was doing this and because he thought it was god he simply gave up pursuing something that a century later an (arguably) lesser mind easily discovered because he was able to ignore god. Remember you brought this up, so stop saying it is offtopic, if you don't like it don't start it. Religion is a doorstop for science and a doorstop for morality. If you think everything and all that you need comes from a 4 thousand book, you have no reason to try to research and learn anymore, you can simply read the book and thats all you need to do.

Who cares? We are not living in the 16th century anymore. Irrelevant. You are off topic again.

That's right, lets not learn from our past mistakes. Who cares if we end up burning (perhaps not a big problem of that today), harassing, killing people again right?

What argument against progress? Are you rambling or just not paying attention? I am arguing FOR progress. And in a Christian framework. We launched the astronauts with a prayer. "God speed John Glen". Wonderful research in childhood cancers at St. Jude's Research Hospital.

Typical. Lets forget 12-19th century hundreds of years of inquisition history because it does not matter, it is past. In the other hand please don't forget we religious people are SO SO SO GOOD because we donated that $1 when we went to the grocery store to the hospital that cures kids with cancer. The hospital, btw, is not christian, nor is it affiliated with Christians or any other religion and it was founded by a CATHOLIC. https://www.stjude.org/about-st-jude/fa ... rchannel=1
But since you brought this "OFFTOPIC" topic what is your view of the constant hindrance of stem cell research which arguably is costing and will cost many lives, the same lives that somehow you just inappropriately claimed as a miracle of Christianity good will? [Yes you can have my $1, praise me because i am so good and I am going to heaven (you might go to hell because you don't believe in my god) but sorry i cannot allow the scientist that dont even believe in any religion to research stem cell because somehow I believe that upsets my magical, all mighty god in the sky and i have to prevent even those who do not believe from helping you! so tough luck, next time don't get cancer. But here is my $1, please tell your dead friends in hell (or if you lucky enough heaven) that I was very good for giving you this $1!]
Not that it would have made a difference. There are good and bad things that any and all religions have made, there is no question about that. And like i said previously correlation does NOT imply causation (i'm very determined that you will learn this eventually) What is in question are the morals that they teach which are dismal.

But you know what IS funny? I frequently speak to the CDC. I have many friends and colleagues there. Many of them religious people.

I am not surprised, many people can accomplish great deeds despite their disabilities.

[anarchist23]

Sex sells. If it didn't they would use it.

In this case I must agree. Lot of the stuff that they advertise with Hyper-Sexuality is either overpriced or crap.

[Political Interest]

I have pointed this out previously. I don't want to stereotype, you will find that Americans in the main seem to be hyper-sexual. It seems that a sex scene is a prerequisite of most episodes of American television series, even if it doesn't add an iota to the plot.
I know that Americans troops, airmen who were stationed over in the U.K. earned the reputation of.." Over here, over sexed and over paid".

America is indeed a hyper-sexual culture. It is no surprise that sex parades, libertine lifestyles and other excesses are all pioneered in the USA and England. Sex scenes are all over films and television and add absolutely nothing of substance. Most of the time they are boring and used to fill space in films. It is quite possible to portray romantic love without ever showing a couple having sex.

The ridiculous part about America's attitude to sex is that they can produce extremely sexual "college movies" filled with constant references to sex and drugs but they will faint if they happen to see a bare breast in a painting or in movies. In Soviet cinema there were no sex scenes but we were all still told that the Russians were bad guys who wanted to destroy the family. As if Hollywood is not a force to destroy our families and traditional values...

Your observation about American soldiers is very interesting. Soldiers who commit massacres and war crimes are often hyper-sexualised and sadistic. Driven insane by fear they turn to the most base of human feelings, sex drive and sadism. The Japanese war crimes during WWII often involved a combination of sexual depravity and sadism.

Your view is distorted by religious goggles that has indoctrinated you to believe sex is disgusting and you should be ashamed if you like it or think about it, talk about it or even if you are 10 miles from anyone having sex, even if its an animal.

Not really, religion did not play much of a role in my attitude towards it. As I grew up from being a boy into a man I gradually felt I was losing myself as I became aware of such feelings. It was an innate sense that I did not want to be ruled by this and that it could destroy my true self.

Sex has existed for billions of years and if anyone is wrong it is you trying to go around it.

Within marriage there is nothing wrong with it, providing it is within the limits. How else can we have children?

"Hyper-sexuality" as you described has existed through human history, and for good reason, there has been over 1 billion years of evolution perfecting sex. Rome had orgies, middle east has had harems (and still do) for thousands of years and even Greek gods would impersonate humans to have sex.
This "hypersexuallity" you are talking about its only offensive (and dangerous) for people that are obsessed with religious morality. As the word becomes more and more secular your views will be seen as more and more bizarre unless you adapt them.

Rome fell because of its decadence. The Romans could not resist the far more conservative, masculine and less sexually crazed Germanic invaders.

Sex parties effeminised the Romans and made them too decadent to resist.

Interestingly enough the same thing is happening to Europe today. Europeans and Japanese are becoming hyper-sexualised and are now so decadent that they will eventually disappear.

Religion taboos might have had a basis when we did not know anything about the word (don't have sex and you might avoid certain sexually transmitted diseases, you might avoid unwanted impregnation that might be a burden to your family, etc) But in today's modern word with ample knowledge about diseases, birth control and society advances (e.g. a woman is not a property or a burden for the family) those views are obsolete (also offensive).
Another example of religious crusade stopping progress.

Not all sexual morality comes from religion. Are you seriously suggesting that pre-Christian peoples did not have conservative sexual ethics and that it was all a giant sex parade?

[Prosthetic Conscience]

In my opinion romantic love is also very different from raw sexual impulse. Romantic love is emotional and is based on a sentimental attachment to a person. It exists beyond sexuality. This is why it is so beautiful when you fall in love with someone because it is almost mystical and an affirmation of one's person. When you look into the eyes of the one you love under the blue sky and in open green fields with the cool air blowing, it is something far more than raw sexuality.
...
However true love produces beautiful things.

What have the blue sky, open green fields and cool air got to do with love? They are totally disconnected from the person you're in love with. You just have a different set of associations for love than people who think about the person they're in love with, rather than the surroundings. Don't look down on sexual attraction until you've tried it.

Your picture shows a couple with 6 children. They weren't produced by 'true love', they were produced by sex without contraception. And if everyone has 6 children, the planet is fucked.

Never heard a joke about drinking water

from The Hitch-Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy:

“You’d better be prepared for the jump into hyperspace. It’s unpleasantly like being drunk.”
“What’s so unpleasant about being drunk?”
“You ask a glass of water.”

[redcarpet]

The reputation of the Spanish Inquisition is largely exaggerated. Especially when it comes to punishments like burning at the stake.

Overwhelmingly nether death nor jail sentences were used. On the rare occasions life imprisonment or death sentances were applied that was by order of the secular government. The head in heretic-burning was England by order of its monarch.

The image passed down through the years just seems to be Protestant propaganda to taint Spain in particular as it was a rising colonial power then and was #1 world power for some time.

[Political Interest]

What have the blue sky, open green fields and cool air got to do with love? They are totally disconnected from the person you're in love with. You just have a different set of associations for love than people who think about the person they're in love with, rather than the surroundings. Don't look down on sexual attraction until you've tried it.

You do not seem to distinguish between romantic feelings, which do of course have a sexual dimension and sexual attraction for its own sake.

Your picture shows a couple with 6 children. They weren't produced by 'true love', they were produced by sex without contraception. And if everyone has 6 children, the planet is fucked.

Are you suggesting that they did not have romantic feelings before they married? Or is their relationship purely sexual with no emotional component at all? I doubt it.

And what is wrong with having six children? Europe's birth rates are declining. We could do with larger and stronger families instead of relying on the hair brained scheme of raising the population through immigration.

[Prosthetic Conscience]

And what is wrong with having six children? Europe's birth rates are declining. We could do with larger and stronger families instead of relying on the hair brained scheme of raising the population through immigration.

Ah, now we have a serious subject to talk about. Everything is wrong with 6 children - the world is overpopulated, and Europe's, and everywhere's, birth rates need to decline, so that we do not trash the world with pollution, destruction of wild habitat, and waste. Billions will die in hunger and conflict if we don't.

If you want larger families, you are objectively morally wrong. This is a simple matter of numbers, and the environment. Stop worrying about sex, and start thinking about the future of the planet.

[Pants-of-dog]

I would not say we live in a hyper sexual society.

We live in a society that is becoming more open with sexuality, and this has been going on for at least 50 years. This increasing openness is due mostly to the sexual revolution, feminism, LGBT struggles, and the smaller role of the church.

People are not having more sex, nor are they having kinkier sex. They are simply not hiding it anymore, as they used to before 1960 or so.

It is quite easy to avoid seeing or hearing about it. Not having a TV helps. Between that and avoiding gay pride parades, you can avoid 90% of it. You may still hear a Nicki Minaj song on the radio while walkimg around.

[XogGyux]

Rome fell because of its decadence. The Romans could not resist the far more conservative, masculine and less sexually crazed Germanic invaders.

Sex parties effeminised the Romans and made them too decadent to resist.

Interestingly enough the same thing is happening to Europe today. Europeans and Japanese are becoming hyper-sexualised and are now so decadent that they will eventually disappear.

Do you just say the first thing that come into your mind? I understand making such bluntly fake statements 20 years ago when it might been harder to even verify someone's statement without a quick read to a book or even a visit to the closest library but this is the 21st century people can use something called "The google" in "the internet" to check falsehoods like the ones are spewing from you. Although there is no "single" cause, no list can possibly include every single reason (or appropriately rank their relative effect) these are a few of the most commonly cited and accepted reasons why the roman empire fell:
Constant invasion of barbarics
Getting too big, too fast (expansionist)
Corrupt government in combination with increasing opposition of emperor and senate (there is actually a parallel with modern countries here)
Poor economy which relied too much in slave labor
Military spending combined with fewer and fewer people wanting to go to the military.
Christianity. Before Christianity, Rome was a relatively inclusive culture with acceptance of many diverse religions. But like always evil Christians showed up to kill something nice.
Plagues
Migration
Many other reasons.
Not only your "view" of what happened is wrong, it is also oversimplistic.

Not all sexual morality comes from religion.

Please give examples of sexual morality without any relation to religion.

Are you seriously suggesting that pre-Christian peoples did not have conservative sexual ethics and that it was all a giant sex parade?

You seem to imply christian is the first/only religion. There were plenty religions prior to christianism and religions in one form or another seem to exist in all cultures from which we know sufficient information. The natural way of pre-civilization/culture human sexual behavior would not be much different from those of other primates. Never heard a chimpanzee complaining about not wearing clothes or about other chimps having sex in public (thats actually the only way they do it btw) etc.

Not really, religion did not play much of a role in my attitude towards it. As I grew up from being a boy into a man I gradually felt I was losing myself as I became aware of such feelings. It was an innate sense that I did not want to be ruled by this and that it could destroy my true self.

You might think that religion has nothing to do with your views but you are wrong. They have a lot to do because religion has influenced our culture (and has been part of it). My views are mostly secular and even those have been influenced by culture which in turn have been influenced by religion. For instance: I do personally have a preference for what it is considered "traditional" monogamous 1:1 female:male ratio of sexual pairing and I also prefer "less flashy" (for lack of a better term) display of sexuality. But I recognize that my preference has been shaped by my culture and its not objectively better (could actually be worse under certain conditions) in the modern word knowing what we know today. Furthermore, since I believe people should be able to do/think whatever the heck they want in so much they don't harm me (or others unwilling), I advocate for as much degree of freedom as it is possible without breaching that condition (the harm one).

Within marriage there is nothing wrong with it, providing it is within the limits. How else can we have children?

First: Are you implying that the only way to have children is because of marriage? Are you suggesting that if 2 people don't marry they are sterile? Furthermore are you suggesting that animals also marry or is this condition only apply to humans?
Also: The very previous paragraph you wrote you denied that your views regarding sexuality were influenced by religion yet now you proposing marriage as an acceptable frame for some sexual expression. Marriage is a mostly religious construct (with some additional socio-economic implications that treated women no better than cattle) and this is very good evidence that your views are indeed distorted by religion (and like I said previously you are not alone, most of humanity's view is also distorted because our cultures have been influenced heavily by religion.) It will take time and practice (if you are willing) to identify which views and how they have been distorted.

America is indeed a hyper-sexual culture. It is no surprise that sex parades, libertine lifestyles and other excesses are all pioneered in the USA and England. Sex scenes are all over films and television and add absolutely nothing of substance. Most of the time they are boring and used to fill space in films. It is quite possible to portray romantic love without ever showing a couple having sex.

To claim hyper-sexual you have to establish a frame of reference. Lets take for instance our current "american culture" and compare it with a few:
Islamic faith have had harems for millennia (and so did other religions in their early days including the old testament and some argue even the new testament) and i think it is hard to argue that those examples are "less sexual" than day-to-day american customs.
Roman orgies are famous (or infamous depending on your point of view) and I think you will also have a hardtime explaining how our day to day customs are much different.
Animals in the wild have no worries about where and with which other (or others) they practice sex. I have never seen 2 dogs trying to find a quiet room where they can have sex quietly. Whenever they feel like it they do it period. Again, it is hard to argue how we are less inhibited than nature.
You have a PERCEPTION of hyper-sexuallity because perhaps because your religion teachings (and in part our culture, which as I said before have been influenced by many religions) dictate a particular "correct" way of expressing sexuality and as we have evolved as a culture many of us have realized many of those taboos are simply wrong, useless, counterproductive, backwards, etc and there has been a sublimation or REPRESSED behavior that is bothering people like you because you want to keep them repressed.

The ridiculous part about America's attitude to sex is that they can produce extremely sexual "college movies" filled with constant references to sex and drugs but they will faint if they happen to see a bare breast in a painting or in movies.

Movie makers make what will sell best, what will sell best is that what we as a culture want the most. So....
Also what's wrong with showing a bare breast? Let me ask you something, does it offend you seeing a male bare chest with its bare nipples and breasts? Why is the female anatomy causing a different reaction in you. Another way we have been brainwashed (culturally). It is ok for a guy to show his naked chest in many circumstances but if a female does it she is being anything ranging from exhibitionist to whore.

Are you suggesting that they did not have romantic feelings before they married? Or is their relationship purely sexual with no emotional component at all? I doubt it.

Romantic feeling is a human construct and not based not a natural effect. Romantic and marriage have been largely influenced by religion.

And what is wrong with having six children?

Nothing if you are a rabbit or a hamster.
Plus a bit of this:

Ah, now we have a serious subject to talk about. Everything is wrong with 6 children - the world is overpopulated, and Europe's, and everywhere's, birth rates need to decline, so that we do not trash the world with pollution, destruction of wild habitat, and waste. Billions will die in hunger and conflict if we don't.

If you want larger families, you are objectively morally wrong. This is a simple matter of numbers, and the environment. Stop worrying about sex, and start thinking about the future of the planet.

I would not say we live in a hyper sexual society.

Agree. I gave examples of different times/cultures where it is evident we have not changed as dramatically is the OP implies (in fact we are probably very inhibited compared to our natural instincts)

[Drlee]

You need to mature your game up a bit. I especially liked this bigoted nonsense.

But like always evil Christians showed up to kill something nice.

You are behaving childishly. Your arguments are facile. Try starting over.

[XogGyux]

You need to mature your game up a bit. I especially liked this bigoted nonsense.



You are behaving childishly. Your arguments are facile. Try starting over.

So you dispute the rise of Christianity as a factor in the fall of Rome? Typical. Try to claim credit for everything that goes well in the world and blame was goes wrong to others!
I reject the reality and substitute my own.

[Rancid]

........... I don't want to stereotype..........

Well, you just did....

[Bosnjak]

We are oversexed but underfucked in west.

Every spot full sexual emotions to cause, consume of luxury goods and homes causes sexual atractivity.


Especially women want a richer partner, or they see him as looser.

[anna]

Ah, now we have a serious subject to talk about. Everything is wrong with 6 children - the world is overpopulated, and Europe's, and everywhere's, birth rates need to decline, so that we do not trash the world with pollution, destruction of wild habitat, and waste. Billions will die in hunger and conflict if we don't.

If you want larger families, you are objectively morally wrong. This is a simple matter of numbers, and the environment. Stop worrying about sex, and start thinking about the future of the planet.

I'm one of six kids, and quite happy my parents didn't stop at two.

Larger families aren't objectively morally wrong, and if you want the next generation to pay the taxes to support your retirement, you're going to want to see better than replacement rate. The developed world is rapidly graying.

[anarchist23]

Your observation about American soldiers is very interesting. Soldiers who commit massacres and war crimes are often hyper-sexualised and sadistic. Driven insane by fear they turn to the most base of human feelings, sex drive and sadism. The Japanese war crimes during WWII often involved a combination of sexual depravity and sadism.

The ultimate turn-on is war.

I have observed that more a creature is stressed more it engages in sexual activity. There must be reasons for this behaviour.

[noir]

If you know this woman is 58 yrs old, do you find it sexy? For whom does she try so hard to be hyper sexualized? Madonna is first if its kind in pop history, never before a woman of her age dress like that. Does it make sense? When she was young, she was celebrated for the power and sexual control she held over the "petty minded", but today, on her age, who is jerking off over an old woman? Do we live in a new world?


“Bitch, this is what my ass looks like show me what your ass looks like when you’re 56″ – Madonna

On why she flaunts her assets at 56

“Bitch, this is what my ass looks like show me what your ass looks like when you’re 56,

“I take care of myself. I’m in good shape. I can show my ass when I’m 56, or 66 — or 76. Who’s to say when I can show my ass? It’s sexism. It’s ageism. And it’s a kind of discrimination.”

Speaking to Rolling Stone in February, she said:

"No one would dare to say a degrading remark about being black or dare to say a degrading remark on Instagram about someone being gay. But my age – anybody and everybody would say something degrading to me. And I always think to myself, why is that accepted? What's the difference between that and racism, or any discrimination? They're judging me by my age. I don't understand. I'm trying to get my head around it. Because women, generally, when they reach a certain age, have accepted that they're not allowed to behave a certain way. But I don't follow the rules. I never did, and I'm not going to start."