"Straight Edge" - Opinions? - Page 3

I'm not saying that about breakdancing, but more in the sense of how does breakdancing connect with hip hop, or graphitti etc.

A band called Minor Threat became massively famous in the underground being one of the first groups to play a new form of punk rock - hardcore. Their first 7" which became very famous had a song "straight edge" in it. The songs were new, raw, angry and powerful. Minor Threat is a DC band and the dudes the singer hung out with all decided to adhere to this lifestyle that was a counter to the typical punks that plagued the scene and the music, it was just a name for a lifestyle, in fact it was more of an idea for a lifestyle, a metaphor of sorts, taken from the 'straight edge' of a measurement ruler. They became popular pretty much off their music and then scenes like Boston got into straight edge via this new music, you have to remember this was back in 1980, not many people were playing this type of music and it was new and exciting. And it just spiralled from there.

Straight Edge has changed over the years and no one really follows the abstinence of sex.

Yeah, because it's really punk to create an image and ideas and sound and lifestyle that people are meant to follow like bloody conformists. This is why 99.9% of them are part-timers and the genre died a very, very long time ago, because it isn't even supposed to be a musical genre. It's like straight-edgers took nihilism and the simple efficiency of "anti-_" and applied rules to it like the assholes who started wearing leather jackets and tried to copy Sid Vicious...when the whole point was to do something individualistic...not model yourself after somebody who's individualistic, but that's how the record companies make money and new bands get signed...ah, why do I bother...

Wow, you are stupid, and it's funny because your view is warped by where you come from and if it means there are Christian Straight Edge kids then that says it all. But you are wrong. It's not a musical genre, it's just something that is part of a musical genre.

And the genre died along time ago? Straight Edge came out in 1980, the best Straight Edge related record came out in 2001. The idea within the music is still alive now aswell. And most of it is individualistic, most people just are straight edge and not conforming anymore. You are an ass.

Actually, that conformity is more present in how the music evolved, which is, in some ways, entirely distinct from the straight-edge subculture. Sonically, it's pretty hard to tell a straight-edge hardcore band from a non-straight-edge hardcore band. You're basically talking about the Maximum Rock'n'Roll-as-cultural-handbook version of punk rock, which extends far beyond straight edge.

But there are aspects of straight edge that most politically progressive people should find admirable, though. Disregarding the adolescent tribalism that's often connected with it (maybe falsely), it helped extend the socially responsible, independent side of punk (which has always been just as, if not more, prevalent than the Nietzche-for-dummies nihilism in punk) into the present. It wasn't alone in this regard, by any means, but it's on a continuum that helped spawn less ideologically-dogmatic publications like Punk Planet, and informed artists that stray pretty far from punk template, musically, like Fugazi (very directly for obvious reasons) and even Ted Leo.

Look, every reaction to the mainstream will eventually find adherents, and that reaction will become a movement, itself. It's unavoidable. Yeah, it's stupid to get so hung up on the dogma, but this is/was mostly a teenage phenomenon. Teenagers tend to see things in black and white. If you're 30 and still haven't examined why you are or aren't doing something, then you've got problems.

You make good points that I agree with, DaveB, but you must admit you had to really dig around for little, progressive bits in a puritan subculture. Like church groups, they rely on peers to keep themselves on the up-and-up, because otherwise they'll fall off the wagon like botch here. Oh well, botch, you can keep your ideas about sex and all that, it's none of my business, it's just that some of your wording was quite inclusive and raised my ire.

Not really. The progressive bits are right on the surface if you consider that straight-edgers are generally aligned with the parts of punk that are vigorously feminist, anti-racist, anti-corporatist, and politically informed.

I suspect their reasons for abstinence generally aren't the same as those of conservative Christians. This is probably most clear in the approach to sexual abstinence - conservative Christian men are motivated by the idea that they'll be corrupted by tangling with women; many straight-edge guys probably regard it more in the Kantian categorical imperative sense - "I don't want to use another person for my own selfish ends."

WELL...yes, now that I've done my research, you are also correct...but they are very slight on the progressive scale.

I have to say that this thread has been fascinating so far! And those kids in the picture above with the X's on their hands and matching haircuts look like douchebags.

If you think the majority of Straight Edgers are giving it anywhere near that much thought...well, I'm not going to parse words- they aren't. Most of them are borderline retarded.

That's true of everyone in every subculture ever. Besides, others in this thread are being equally unsubtle in their discourse about straight-edge culture - people are generally unthinking and reductive.

But I suspect - actually, I'm pretty much positive - that the straight-edgers who originated the idea weren't basing it on conservative Christian ideals. The rationales are entirely different.

Probably, but I've repeatedly asked for that rationale to be enunciated in this thread, and haven't got much back except that it was a reaction to this aspect of punk or that subculture. I still don't know why SE people find it important to live clean, except to be different than their immediate surroundings.

You could direct the same question at any subculture, though - why did kids get into punk bands in the first place? Why not just listen to Zeppelin and play sports or something?

Of course, it's about being different than one's immediate surroundings, at least to some extent.

Why did it manifest in being clean? Well, it should be pretty clear - not only is it appealingly reactionary to the status quo of punk at the time (which wasn't that much different, lifestyle-wise, from the youth movements and music against which punk was ostensibly rebelling), but you'd have the perceived benefit of greater health (through abstaining from drugs and alcohol, and possibly through vegetarianism) and ethical living (vegetarianism again, if that counts; plus the avoidance of casual sex, which I've already covered). And if it so happens that you're a dumb and insecure straight-edger who can't rationalize your behavior in this way, you can at least lord it over others that they don't have your "self-control." Never underestimate the appeal of smug superiority to adolescents. But let's not reduce the entire subculture to the motivations of its LCD proponents.

As with most movements, the motivation is probably at least half-bullshit for a lot of the people involved, but it doesn't take a degree in sociology to grasp the basics here.

Unsubtle? Yes. I've been around the scene, I've studied it. I wrote down quips about it. Get off your pedestal. At least botch's response was understandable. I think I had better points, and I was being a prick about it. He returned with a suitable levelling of my character.

The SE defenders here haven't expressed any overtly religious sentiments, so I'm still wondering how sobriety (or abstinence for those to whom it applies) becomes equated with ethical living. That's a point of view I associate with religious groups, be they Christian or otherwise. I'd be interested to hear a secular rationale for it as an ideal, beyond the health benefits, which are obvious but don't necessitate such a hardline approach.

I haven't gotten drunk in a good long while, and I'm still a pretty horrible person, so that 'ethical living' stuff is just crap.

I don't think they are "equated," necessarily - they're just two concepts associated with straight-edge behavior.

Of course, if you don't see how consuming an excess of alcohol or drugs might impair your ability to adhere to an ethical system, religious or otherwise*, I don't know what to tell you. Granted, it doesn't necessarily follow that you need to abstain entirely to prevent your behavior from lapsing into what you consider unethical, but some people have more stringent ethical systems than others, a lower threshold for what they consider acceptable behavior... or it may simply be that they're lightweights and know that they have trouble controlling themselves when drunk.

If I found that I ended up driving every time I got drunk, I'd probably either abstain from driving or from drinking. Some might go with one, some might go with the other. Regardless, you can't deny that ethics, not just personal safety, are in play here. You'd be abstaining for the sake of other drivers on the road, right?

* I'm assuming you don't view the ethics of vegetarianism or the categorical imperative in strictly religious terms, right? I think it's pretty clear that these are ethics that can and do exist independently of religion.

Irrelevant. I'm pretty sure the idea is living up to ethical standards, not establishing them. If you don't have them in the first place, there's nothing to live up to. If you're just kind of a douchebag, drugs and alcohol probably won't impair your ability to live up to the low ethical standard you've set for yourself.

Probably.

What makes you think I was talking about you? I always value your subtlety and insight.

Of course being shitfaced might lead to you doing things you'll regret. That's an argument for moderation, not total abstention. And it only applies to the extent that you're a belligerent or reckless drunk. These are perfectly reasonable motivations for an individual to choose to stay sober, but they don't seem broad enough to support an entire movement, or at least one that anyone over 19 would advocate.

Absolutely, but we're talking about them, not the SEers. You've suggested a couple of possibilities for why they would take these positions, but I'm asking them, which is it? And yes, I do think that if you're following such specific and rigid rules, there has to be a distinct and more or less singular belief set underlying them.

The thing about straight-edgers shedding puritanism as they get older is that...by the time you leave your teens (or within your early twenties), you should know what kind of a drunk you are. At extremes of the spectrum are the Hunter S. Thompson drunks (nobody can tell how much they drink, though the habit is certain; they are just as enjoyable or as themselves when sober, if they are ever sober) and the Jack Kerouac drunks (completely fucked by alcohol, slobbering in public when not idle at home).

I imagine the straight-edgers learn that they fit somewhere between people like the two mentioned; when at a more inexperienced age it may be easier to call these pleasures devilish in a universal sense - they only notice the obnoxious drunken frat boys with also obnoxious drunken women, and themselves don't drink. I remember thinking the frat boy types were idiots as well - and they thought I wasn't much of a drinker because I have composure. Now, well, I'm not in school in anymore and can try be around those whose company I find enjoyable.

It is the responsibility of those of us who can hold our liquor to not egg on the ones who can't, although their troubles may be comic - this is the social conflict of the drinker.

The straight-edge dogma is based on an inexperienced interpretation of social contracts - and is thereby outgrown.

At this point, some of you are willfully ignorant. People are acting like the burden of proof is on straight edgers to convince them to be sober. Someone needs to give me some good reasons to drink and smoke etc.

"I'd be interested to hear a secular rationale for it as an ideal, beyond the health benefits, which are obvious but don't necessitate such a hardline approach."
Alcohol and drugs change your mood and personality. They allow you to lose control of yourself. I don't ever want to lose that control or have blinders on. I consider myself a very rational person and for me, sobriety is part of that rationality. Its a waste of time and money. Nothing is more boring to me than hearing stories of how wasted someone got, or what drinks they had blah blah blah.

"I've been around the scene, I've studied it."
You haven't studied shit. You are however, a pretentious prick. Your first posts were how you love to smoke while reading literature. Did you think that would impress grown men? Your studies probably amount to you waving a cigarette in front of some SE kids at a show to antagonize them.

Well, you are apparently not smoking and not drinking not for social reasons...right? In that case you are not straight-edge, though you do what they do. But I don't know, you'll have to clarify whether you're a sheep or not. Notice that the guys and gals with X's on their hands always appear in groups. To the best of my knowledge, they know other "straight-edgers" as a social construct, that not being the same as an individual just not interested in drinking or smoking (the latter will inevitably be friends with people who have these habits, and shouldn't feel threatened by them....)

I'm not smoking or drinking for tons of reasons previously stated but for some reason they aren't registering with you. You are taking this too personal. SE is an affront to your very existence apparently. You're trying your hardest to categorize and understand me but you can't. I've been forthcoming and honest but its blowing your mind that a SE guy could sit and have this conversation with you so now I'm a sheep. If you wanted to pick at me till I stopped being nice than you won congradulations!

People generally only wear an X on their hand at a show. I've never seen anyone walking down the street with a fucking X on their hand. I've known tons of straight edge kids and have been to loads of shows. You rational is that since I don't live up to you erroneous notion of straight edge, then I must not be. Don't doubt that I am.

I find that buying a product that is marketed towards a lifestyle so that you can hang out with other people and kill braincells is more sheepish that not doing so.

What an absurd statement! So many different people drink or don't drink. That was my point! 'Lifestyle' is one of the most abused words around! Communists and Capitalists both can drink or not drink, as an example. But you'd rather resort to crass generalizations based on your straight-edge sheepishness. You are moralizing and sounding ridiculous. And categorizing yourself. I'm not advocating that everybody be chain-smoking drunks, I'm advocating choice to experiment.

First you said I wasn't even straight edge, now I'm a straight edge sheep. Also I can't defend what every single person who ever claimed to be straight edge did in the past. Do I have to stop liking punk too because some douche has a mohawk and thinks Green Day is a great band?

Straight edge to me was always modern day chivalry. My friends and I were always considered the good guys because of our honesty, loyalty, and integrity. We didn't start fights, we stopped them. We were idealistic when everything was cynical and dreary. It was goddamn romantic, I tell you; a veritable dead poet's society born out of the ashes of punk rock.

Well, it is in your last post you identified yourself as one. I gave you the benefit of the doubt throughout the thread and believed you just didn't like smoking or drinking, but then you hit back there with wide-swath judgment.

You're right, you can't, but you apparently were comfortable with placing yourself in that position.

Yeah I rained real fire down on you. I bit my tongue for three pages while you generalized and mocked something that was important to me just so that you could say "gotcha" after you antagonized me to the point of fighting back. Here's my judgement; you're a piece of shit.

Funny how I was railing against people for rushing to judgments and generalizations! Life is more ambiguous than that.

I'd just like to say that after reading this thread I'm glad I managed to make it 24 years without ever hearing of this, er, "movement", but now that I know of it I'm irked that I didn't go longer in my state of blissful ignorance.