Are Christianity values to blame for close minded discussion in west?

[MiniSara]

I had a thread about how you can tell Samus is sexualized from the size of her butt. All of a sudden the thread was closed, no reason given and no message sent to me about it. Of course, it's most probably due to the sexual nature it was closed.

However, I bet the mods on this board would have no trouble with a similar thread, but with a violence or weapon based theme instead. Violence and weapons are deeply rooted within American culture, and have been exported to Europe via popular culture such as Hollywood movies and music. You can easily joke about "I'm going to kill you if you do that!", but try making the exact same joke about **** and it's suddenly not funny. Why is this?

I think it's because of Christianity values that US and large parts of Europe are OK with discussions about weapons and violence, but not about sex. In Japan on the other hand, they don't have Christianity, and they don't have these moral values about sexuality either. In the US, it's considered "dangerous" to talk about the naked body to kids. Why? Everyone is naked underneath the clothes.

All of this is based on morals, and I think the sexual morals in the west comes from Christianity values. That's why you have crowds cheering at E3 when extreme violence is displayed, but if a **** was displayed he crowd would be offended - even though brutal murder is much worse than ****. Do you agree?

And look at this. The word **** is censored, yet it's perfectly fine to display words such as "murder" and "violence". Do you understand that this can be viewed as strong hypocracy?

 

[Cyn]

Moving this to debate hall. It likely got locked because it was in the wrong forum along with the focus on sexual themes.

 

[young grasshopper]

That Western culture is close-minded is commonly agreed upon, but as to the reasons why it is that way, it's hard to tell for sure. I would have to guess that our culture's search for equality is one the major causes. Everyone and every group is fighting so hard for recognition, that doing anything that seems to even slightly oppose or single out a group of people causes an instant backlash.

As for Christian values, I must agree that they do seem to play a role in how our culture is more opposed to sexual themes than we are to violence. I myself am a Christian, and I can say that--while we hold human life in very high value--we also believe that there are times and circumstances where violence is unavoidable or even required; as for sexual expression, though, we believe that sex is a gift from God that is meant to be enjoyed in and only in the context of marriage between one man and one woman.

(Now, before I get called a close-minded bigot, let me take a quick break from my point to explain that, as a Christian, while I have strong convictions about how marriage and sex should be handled, I also believe that it would be wrong to force my conclusions on someone who does not start with the same premise as me. Jesus told those who believed in Him to go and sin no more, but He was patient with those who did not believe in Him. The only people He openly ridiculed and judged were the hypocrites who thought they were better than everyone else.)​

I must agree with you where you say "...even though brutal murder is much worse than ****...." Murder is a terrible thing, and should not be something that people take joy in; however, I don't think that the people's reaction is rooted in how bad the thing happening in the story is, but rather about how it affects the people seeing it. The sight of violence simply does not have the same stimulating effect that the sight of sexual content does. If the average person saw a fight on the street, they could easily avoid involvement. But if, say, a married man saw a woman in scant clothing on the street, that sight could become tempting to him, and it could have lasting effects on how he relates to his wife afterwards.

 

[Sucumbio]

Europe has mostly been far more liberated in terms of sexual attitudes than America but both areas of the world underwent strong ideological dampers in this regard. You can trace these attitudes historically with ease. In Europe it's mainly the dark ages and Holy Roman Empire, up through the Victorian period and continuing well into the 20th century. America being much younger, the Puritans are more to blame for such attitudes. And yes, in both instances Christianity is indeed at its center.

In fact the invention of the 2 piece bathing suit is probably one of the true markers of the so called Sexual Revolution.

Here in America you can also note the invention of the VHS tape, which led to the serious proliferation and birth of the Porn Industry.

(Google is your friend but not mine, I can't seem to add links to this post lol)

As for gamer ideology, violence in gaming vs sexualized contents is something that can be traced to WWII. In America war iconography was and is a central source of both glorification and poetic ridicule from two sides of the same artistic coin.

So while it may seem contradictory to embrace one and shun the other, really and truly they both have roots in the same historical movements. We often learn that even Americans are still more or less sheltered from graphic imagery as children because the values parents hold is stricter than abroad. Where they can see media (the internet) has opened up their minds way more than before as things like the rating system (R movies for example are age restricted) are made mostly ineffective.

 

[Diddy Kong]

Christianity is too broad of a subject to just blame it all on. There's protestants, catholics, seventh day adventists... and probably a lot of sections into these sections. I doubt it alone is the reason to blame anything of. Non-western Christianity takes on a whole different attitude about life, religion and God; just look at the Orthodox Churches of Russia, Ethiopia and Armenia for example.

What summarises "Western culture" is honestly just exploitation. The West has been in power for so long, that it has a dominating attitude towards anything and everyone else. Especially those who are under it's direct dominion, the prime example being Islam and the Middle East.

I also think it's a very US-centered thing you based your question on honestly. Because I'm also from 'the West' as I live in The Netherlands, and we are not nearly as conservative about nakedness as the USA. We are however, extremely conservative when it comes to guns and weapons. A regular citizen of any western European country cannot own a gun, unless with a license, which aren't all too easy to come by. So there's a cultural difference already. I'm stiff baffled by how things are handled in the US like that, glorify guns but demonise sex. It makes the very tense attitude that surrounds all of America. Sexually repressed and trigger happy... Not exactly the ingredients of a booming party. Hey! While we're at it, why not place liquor stores next to gun stores!?

What I feel of "Western culture" is really simple; the strong dominate and rule, the rest should be happy to just get the crumbles they can scramble. It's not a surprise we are this way, Europe and America has been build off of nothing but loothing, genocide, theft, and a whole lot of war. The Church and The State where all one, and this is what makes "Western Christianty" more or less a joke. The Bible, no, even JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF said: wanna be perfect? Go sell your stuff, give all to the poor. What is the attitude of most Western Christians? Extremely conservative, holding on to their money like nothing is more precious. And that idiot of a pope sitting on a golden throne in the Vatican? Same thing... Western Christians don't love God, they love POWER. And money is power of the current age.

Closemindedness comes to a feeling of overall superiority. It's the very same attitude that's causing America to crumble down at this very moment.

 

[BagrB0y]

Actually..... This is a rather interesting topic.

I can't say personally though, I would need more personal experience / knowledge of Japanese culture, politics, religion, etc.

 

[DunnoBro]

Yes, but not quite.

Christianity in the US played a very vital role in distancing ourselves from Britain and Europe. With the pope across the ocean, we'd likely have lost a lot of control over the citizens back then. Plus, if we were still mainly catholic, and providing NO competition for the Catholic church to actually modernize, the US and Catholic-dominated areas would likely be far, FAR more conservative.

Christianity FRACTURED the grip the Catholic church had on the world. And while it may seem odd to some, was absolutely vital to the freedoms we have now.

 

[bboss]

Violence and weapons are deeply rooted within American culture

America was forged through violence. The only way that America ever became a country was through violence. And the Second Amendment states that the citizens should always be stronger than the government, because of possible government tyranny. That's why it's so ingrained in American culture.

I think it's because of Christianity values that US and large parts of Europe are OK with discussions about weapons and violence, but not about sex.

I think you're confusing acts with discussions. Christians are ok to talk about all three things, but they don't perform acts of fornication nearly as much as other groups of people.

In Japan on the other hand, they don't have Christianity,

They do have Christianity in Japan, although it is a minority.

The Bible, no, even JESUS CHRIST HIMSELF said: wanna be perfect? Go sell your stuff, give all to the poor.

Actually, Jesus never said that. What I believe you're thinking of is the story of the Rich Ruler, or maybe in Luke 12:33 where Jesus tells His followers to sell their possessions and give to the needy, but he never said it would make them perfect. You can't become "perfect" by selling your stuff and giving to the needy, I know somebody that actually did that. He literally did. And he didn't become perfect.
And also, Jesus never said "give all to the poor". in Luke 12:33 he just says "sell your possessions and give to the needy."

Honestly I'm pretty thankful that the Western World is Christian and founded on Christian values, I'm thankful for things like fair trial and liberty and democracy and stuff like that. Stemming from a bunch of Christian doods who signed something called the Declaration of Independence.

 

[WinAce]

Short answer: kinda

Sorta longer answer: My issue isnt Christianity, more that the religious right attribute a lot of their beliefs to Christianity. They're idolizing America and calling it Christianity. Guns, the anthem, Raegan, and all that. That said, MANY values of christianity, like homophobia and all that, are not okay and very backwards

America was forged through violence. The only way that America ever became a country was through violence. And the Second Amendment states that the citizens should always be stronger than the government, because of possible government tyranny. That's why it's so ingrained in American culture.

That doesn't make it alright. I don't support banning guns outright, nor are they in most European countries, but there are things that really, really should be banned. The constitution only says we have the right to "bear arms", not what you said it does

I think you're confusing acts with discussions. Christians are ok to talk about all three things, but they don't perform acts of fornication nearly as much as other groups of people.

The issue is more that they attempt to force those values on non-christians, and actively censor it from media. That's not ok. Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental thigns that make up a free country. (Sometimes there are strings attached, like inciting violence against a certain group, but yeah)

Honestly I'm pretty thankful that the Western World is Christian and founded on Christian values, I'm thankful for things like fair trial and liberty and democracy and stuff like that.

That's a not a Chrstian invention, have been around LONG before America was founded, and secular countries do it better than us

Stemming from a bunch of Christian doods who signed something called the Declaration of Independence.

Wrong. Most of them were Deist, and a few, like Benjamin Franklin, were freemason, something Christians generally dislike. The idea they were Christians is mostly from the religious right attempting to create a personality cult around the founders, a sorta role model. Something NOT common in a democracy.

 

[bboss]

That doesn't make it alright. I don't support banning guns outright, nor are they in most European countries, but there are things that really, really should be banned. The constitution only says we have the right to "bear arms", not what you said it does

I never said violence was okay.

And also, you might want to re-read the second amendment. The second amendment was made for citizens to have the right ot bear arms against possible government tyranny. That's the entire point.

The issue is more that they attempt to force those values on non-christians, and actively censor it from media. That's not ok. Freedom of expression is one of the most fundamental thigns that make up a free country. (Sometimes there are strings attached, like inciting violence against a certain group, but yeah)

Even if this was true, you don't have to do what other people tell you.

That's a not a Chrstian invention, have been around LONG before America was founded, and secular countries do it better than us

I never said it was a Christian invention.

Wrong. Most of them were Deist, and a few, like Benjamin Franklin, were freemason, something Christians generally dislike. The idea they were Christians is mostly from the religious right attempting to create a personality cult around the founders, a sorta role model. Something NOT common in a democracy.

There are such things as Deist Christians if you weren't aware... most Deist Christians also believe in evolution.

 

[WinAce]

I never said violence was okay.

And also, you might want to re-read the second amendment. The second amendment was made for citizens to have the right ot bear arms against possible government tyranny. That's the entire point.

How do you propose we fix the higher rate of shootings in America relative to other Western countries, while still keeping things like bump actions legal? Hell I'd get crucified if I dare said that the Second Amendment is probably not even necessary anymore, leading to a slippery slope saying that if we get rid of the second amendment, or "change the constitution", all of the constitution would be worthless, even though it's a second amendment. (this would also be evidence that answer to the thread title is a resounding "yes")

Even if this was true, you don't have to do what other people tell you.

You're insinuating it isn't? The 2004 Superbowl is probably the most glaring example off the top of my head.

I never said it was a Christian invention.

The way you worded it insinuated that Christianity and Democracy are not mutually exclusive. The entirety of Europe, (Except for some countries like Belarus) say otherwise.

There are such things as Deist Christians if you weren't aware... most Deist Christians also believe in evolution.

What's evolution got to do with this? And most Christians in general believe deism is incompatible with their beliefs anyways. The main point is, the idea that the founding fathers were christian is a myth propagated by the Religious right, and so is the idea that the US is a "Christian Nation".

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

I never said violence was okay.

And also, you might want to re-read the second amendment. The second amendment was made for citizens to have the right ot bear arms against possible government tyranny. That's the entire point.

When I see the 2nd Amendment, I see the words:

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

I don't see how this is about bearing arms against government tyranny. Who would do the regulating, other than the free State that the militia is protecting? It seems to me that it's talking about external threats rather than internal. I am Australian though, so maybe I'm missing something.

On the topic at large though, in Australia, we do have a fairly Americanised culture, even though we don't have the right to bear arms. So in a lot of ways, violence is still considered less taboo than sex. I think it's partially a by-product of the American influence; most of the films we watch are American; most of the brands we buy etc.

But I would personally place the blame on conservative values as a whole. Not every Christian is conservative and some people aren't Christian but are against ideas like sex education at schools, because it would be "corrupting" our children.

 

[Sucumbio]

At least someone finally quoted the actual amendment

This part though: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the qualifier. And it's a 2-fold statement, and probably the biggest source of confusion, misunderstanding, and rhetoric.

Here's a quick history:

The militia of the United States, as defined by the US Congress, has changed over time, complicating its meaning.

During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were eligible for the militia. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense. The year before the US Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the founders' vision of the militia. The new Constitution empowered Congress to regulate this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each State government.

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia. (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

The interesting thing about this, is that there's actually very little that needs "interpretation." Title 10 of the United States Code essentially says that all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 are by default members of the National Guard, and can be called upon to act in defense of the nation against foreign invasion, domestic uprising, etc. This is further broken down by State, and each state has its own specifics regarding who does the "activation" of said citizens, where they would meet, under what circumstances they'd activate, etc. etc. Most people live their entire lives not realizing that for a fairly large portion of their life here in the US, they could at any time find themselves lined up on a front line with a rifle in their hands. And for good reason, we have a LOT of other safeguards in place that would prevent that ultimate eventuality.

BUT, the 2nd Amendment was put in place to ENSURE, that -no matter what else may happen- the US could ALWAYS count on being able to defend itself from foreign/domestic acts of aggression/terror BY ITS OWN CITIZENS. So as a worst case scenario, if we had no military left, no police left, no National Guard left, at the very least, we could as US Citizens, reach into our closets and pull out our rifles, and make that one last stand before total defeat.

It's not an unusual thing, actually. Most countries would like to say that their citizens would band together and fight to the last man. Japan was certainly ready to do so, at the end of WWII, though the Atom Bombs kinda made them change their mind, heh. But yeah, there's the meat of it.

Now, this thing about tyranny. Yes, you could conceivably have a situation where a rogue faction, say, a State government, suddenly decides they want to leave the Union, and as part of that, starts to round up citizens into detention camps to ensure compliance with their New Order (far fetched, granted, but it's just an example). The 2nd Amendment is in play here, because citizens have been kept armed to ensure their Militias are capable of fending off these rogue elements. SO rather than just get rounded up into buses and shipped off into oblivion, you'd have fire fights between proper US Citizens and rogue agents. And it'd be legal.

However, there shouldn't be too fine a point put on this. This is literally ONE possible scenario that involves an internal dissidence. The 2nd Amendment is far more broad in its scope, as it's saying that IN GENERAL, US Citizens, who are by default under US Title and Code members of the Militia, should not be barred from being armed, because to do so, would threaten what is necessary to keep The State (America) "free."

It should also be noted that most arguments against the 2nd Amendment that begin with "we don't have Militias anymore, so it's outdated" are forgetting that, well, in fact, yes, we do have militias, and every male citizen in the US between the ages of 17 to 45 are already members of it, by simple virtue of being here.

 

[Bob Jane T-Mart]

At least someone finally quoted the actual amendment

This part though: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State..." is the qualifier. And it's a 2-fold statement, and probably the biggest source of confusion, misunderstanding, and rhetoric.

Here's a quick history:

The militia of the United States, as defined by the US Congress, has changed over time, complicating its meaning.

During colonial America, all able-bodied men of certain ages were eligible for the militia. Individual towns formed local independent militias for their own defense. The year before the US Constitution was ratified, The Federalist Papers detailed the founders' vision of the militia. The new Constitution empowered Congress to regulate this national military force, leaving significant control in the hands of each State government.

Today, as defined by the Militia Act of 1903, the term "militia" is primarily used to describe two groups within the United States:

• Organized militia – consisting of State militia forces; notably, the National Guard and Naval Militia. (Note: the National Guard is not to be confused with the National Guard of the United States.)
• Unorganized militia – composing the Reserve Militia: every able-bodied man of at least 17 and under 45 years of age, not a member of the National Guard or Naval Militia.

The interesting thing about this, is that there's actually very little that needs "interpretation." Title 10 of the United States Code essentially says that all able bodied men between the ages of 17 and 45 are by default members of the National Guard, and can be called upon to act in defense of the nation against foreign invasion, domestic uprising, etc. This is further broken down by State, and each state has its own specifics regarding who does the "activation" of said citizens, where they would meet, under what circumstances they'd activate, etc. etc. Most people live their entire lives not realizing that for a fairly large portion of their life here in the US, they could at any time find themselves lined up on a front line with a rifle in their hands. And for good reason, we have a LOT of other safeguards in place that would prevent that ultimate eventuality.

BUT, the 2nd Amendment was put in place to ENSURE, that -no matter what else may happen- the US could ALWAYS count on being able to defend itself from foreign/domestic acts of aggression/terror BY ITS OWN CITIZENS. So as a worst case scenario, if we had no military left, no police left, no National Guard left, at the very least, we could as US Citizens, reach into our closets and pull out our rifles, and make that one last stand before total defeat.

It's not an unusual thing, actually. Most countries would like to say that their citizens would band together and fight to the last man. Japan was certainly ready to do so, at the end of WWII, though the Atom Bombs kinda made them change their mind, heh. But yeah, there's the meat of it.

See that's the interpretation as I understood it from a first glance. I thought it would be a very lax version of an equivalent situation to Switzerland or Singapore where every man has to do basic military training and serve for some period of time in the armed forces.

Now, this thing about tyranny. Yes, you could conceivably have a situation where a rogue faction, say, a State government, suddenly decides they want to leave the Union, and as part of that, starts to round up citizens into detention camps to ensure compliance with their New Order (far fetched, granted, but it's just an example). The 2nd Amendment is in play here, because citizens have been kept armed to ensure their Militias are capable of fending off these rogue elements. SO rather than just get rounded up into buses and shipped off into oblivion, you'd have fire fights between proper US Citizens and rogue agents. And it'd be legal.

See that makes sense, but I think the issue for me is that people are claiming that it gives ordinary citizens the right to "rebel" against the governmental tyranny. This would presumably stem from the Federal Government because they're always the ones who are going to "take your guns away". I never understood this, because it's essentially saying that domestic terrorism is something that's constitutionally allowed and the South seceding should be constitutionally okay as well. This, of course, makes no sense to me as someone from a country that's never had a civil war.

Maybe we should make a thread about the Second Amendment in the wake of all the recent news regarding mass shootings and the like, or maybe it's too soon. I don't know.

 

[Sucumbio]

See that makes sense, but I think the issue for me is that people are claiming that it gives ordinary citizens the right to "rebel" against the governmental tyranny. This would presumably stem from the Federal Government because they're always the ones who are going to "take your guns away". I never understood this, because it's essentially saying that domestic terrorism is something that's constitutionally allowed and the South seceding should be constitutionally okay as well. This, of course, makes no sense to me as someone from a country that's never had a civil war.

Hmmm...

okay, so the difficulty is once again the verbiage in the amendment itself. It could have been written better, really. But anyway... In order for a citizen (and this really does only apply technically, to actual citizens) to keep and bear arms, they must by law have a valid permit. Owning this permit initiates a contract of sorts between the citizen and the government. This kinda gets away from the amendment itself, but it's important in understanding how this all fits together. Basically, citizens can apply to own guns, and upon approval, buy them and keep them in their homes. That's the ... citizen side of the agreement. The Government side of the agreement, is that if it is deemed necessary by the local Sheriff's office, or Police Chief, or Town Selectmen (depends on what state you live in) those who own weapons can be called upon to act in an organized defense against a specified foe. Note: It is not actually mandatory, as in, you won't go to jail for not showing up. But then again, if you're a gun owner, chances are part of you is willing to use the gun in defense of your freedom anyway, so it kinda goes without saying.

So you brought up 2 examples which we can examine under the scope of the 2nd amendment.

1.) Tyranny in the form of government entities seizing and or outlawing guns/gun ownership. Without the 2nd amendment, there's literally nothing to stop the Legislature from passing a law that says that guns are illegal and any current gun owners must relinquish their firearms or face arrest. In fact this is what the National Rifle Association demonstrates against when it lobbies Congress whenever a gun control Act is put forth. You'd basically have to first do away with the 2nd amendment (which technically requires another amendment to be passed which nullifies the original one, but that's another topic). Then you could start passing laws that specifically target individual rights.

So in short, no, the 2nd amendment doesn't -give- rights to people to "rebel" against the government. What is does is -protect- the "ordinary citizen" from losing the right to own firearms, barring anything else illegal (felons cannot own guns in the US, for example.) Now that doesn't mean that people don't misinterpret, and believe that the 2nd amendment somehow means they can USE their guns against any perceived threat that comes their way. Hardly. That's why the mention of Militias. It's all about that one primary need... but people think because they own a gun they are safe to use it for self defense no matter what. Under US Code, and State Code, it's actually not that simple.

2.) The South leaving the Union was absolutely illegal. There's been several court cases over the years (Texas vs White is prominent) which also deal with this, but essentially no one city, state, county, etc. can leave the Union legally as it violates the Constitution (though not a specific article, some point to the preamble as legitimizing this position). Again, the 2nd amendment would not be successfully employed here, because citizens of the Confederate States of America were not barred from owning guns legally, even after war was declared. The war itself was against the Confederate Army, which took it upon itself to uphold a rogue government through brute force. If anything, the 2nd amendment could have been used to justify citizens IN the south taking up arms against their Confederate overlords, lol. But, unfortunately, the sentiments throughout much of the "South" was that the Union (The North) was in the wrong. So, many joined the fight against the Union. But that's not to say everyone did.

Maybe we should make a thread about the Second Amendment in the wake of all the recent news regarding mass shootings and the like, or maybe it's too soon. I don't know.

Uh, no, I don't think it's too soon. We should prolly stop derailing this thread tho

 

[Deleted member]

I don't think Christianity on its own did, rather I think its more so of a tool for enforce values. The various bibles most people follow today definitely don't match the original greek text. For instance, you know those verses that people use to justify homophobia? Well, those had nothing to with homosexuality in the original text.

Culture is very complex, it has various factors that continuously shape what a culture is. Even if not literally retranslated, culture has an impact on how we interpret language. That's how translations change in the first place.

 

[dahuterschuter]

Actually the unique adoption of Protestantism and Judeo-Christian values combined with the later Enlightenment values which basically shaped the entire Western world today is what has made the West the most open minded civilization to ever exist on the planet. We live in a place where sex is plastered onto every billboard, pop song, magazine, advertisement, and people are celebrated for being open about their sexual identity, sometimes even parades.

Compare this to other cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and you'll find the Anglosphere and European offshoot countries are the most open societies in terms of sex and pretty much everything else.

 

[Deleted member]

Actually the unique adoption of Protestantism and Judeo-Christian values combined with the later Enlightenment values which basically shaped the entire Western world today is what has made the West the most open minded civilization to ever exist on the planet. We live in a place where sex is plastered onto every billboard, pop song, magazine, advertisement, and people are celebrated for being open about their sexual identity, sometimes even parades.

Compare this to other cultures in Asia, the Middle East, Africa, and you'll find the Anglosphere and European offshoot countries are the most open societies in terms of sex and pretty much everything else.

Funny how you list those ideologies, and yet all of the examples you listed as why we are so open minded is in spite of those values, not because of them.

The same exact places you mentioned are in progression of trying to make the same achievements in culture too. Some of them beat us to it whether it be in recent history or ancient history. For instance, many of our modern values can be traced back to the middle east, which well, yeah, now it's pretty backwards. But the golden ages of Islam made advancements in science and philosophy. It even preserved things such as Aristotle. And the Middle East is where Judeo-Christianity itself spawned.

Regardless, I don't think it's so easy to simplify which cultures are morally right and wrong. For example, some countries may be behind us socially so to speak, but it's weird for a country for a united states to act superior when it was backwards not too long ago. It's not like there isn't people trying to make strides in certain countries much like the strides that had to be made in western countries.

And being open to sex is definitely something that isn't unique to modern western countries.