Discussion in 'The Sanctum Santorum' started by Randissimo, Feb 15, 2013.
Is this the first time that rule's ever been applied in this direction?
I think the whole concept that the body has anything sinful about it is the root of much stupidity. Sin is something of thought and action not something of biology. First shedding the whole bit about being ashamed of a pimple, a blemish, a fart, so on so forth then we can move into how not to break your penis when entering a woman.
It happens, and should be discussed so randy newly married men don't shove squares into small circles and come out broken.
"squares into small circles" -- I like it.
Randissimo, while I agree with you, I think you're making a mistake in characterizing the information you would want to give in sex education class as purely informative and not pushing a specific point of view. Although biological information and an honest look at society and the kinds of relationships (or kinks for that matter) that are out there can be very much on the informative end of the spectrum (though there is always, given overwhelming complexity, the matter of choosing which examples to highlight), I certainly don't think that is enough for good sex education - I want sex education to be fair, work against misogyny and sexual double standards, treat homo-, hetero-, bi-, *-, and asexuality equally, be based on a performative theory of sex (as opposed to a transactional - sex should be something consensual and fun that two people do together, not something where men seek sex and women either give it up or don't), and in general stress the lack of an inherent moral value in sexual behaviour and instead being based on seeking enthusiastic consent and avoiding harm (in other words, the same standards of morality that are valid in other behaviours). Beyond that, as you write, figure out what works for them.
What I wrote is obviously the right place to start working on a sex education curriculum (I wrote it, after all), but I don't think we can pretend that it's not picking sides and that it won't lead to political conflict (and not only against religious factions). That sex is not something that should have anything to do with shame, that there are a wide range of options and everyone must find their own way is, like it or not, something that a lot of people disagree with. Going with the argument "this is objectively and obviously the unbiased and impartial way, now shut up" is not the way to go forward, but rather convincing people that it is the better way given all the alternatives. This also has the benefit(?) of putting sex education in its social context - it is, at best, some hours a year for a few years, versus every other kind of messaging in society. Obviously it has to go hand in hand with a society that is supportive of the above values, which organising and public debate around sex education can help bring about.
FYI you have a weird penis.
Suddenly flashing back onto when I read the Kama Sutra for a lark, and actually came away with more useful information about sex than I'd expected. Which is all the more impressive given that I was reading an old translation that was very...euphemistic.
It's shaped like a vagina.
I regret nothing.
What I learned from this thread:
HHR is a large enough LIKE attractor to be a planet.
Homophobia and its institutional component "Let's Pretend Gay People Don't Exist, Class" are the one-two punch of societal factors that drive gay people into depression and suicide. Fuck that and fuck anyone who ascribes to that mode of thinking.
Well to be fair if one sticks penis anywhere in the wrong way it is likely to be broken, I am just trying to get to the bare bones medically necessary line for what has to be taught because we don't need more physically broken people out there.
The human body (male and female) rips, tears, breaks and generally does horrible things when you use it even the right way, try doing something the wrong way and the world of pain is something else. This is without even the social/cultural ramifications of your chosen method of getting your jolly on.
I also agree somewhere back in the thread, that the exhaustive method works best. Make sex boring and trite then folk only do it when it might be interesting again. Like trying vegetables after college. Gasp.. a salad tastes good? Don't tell my 11year old self that.
You haven't really lived until you've made your partner cry by tying your balls to your shaft with onion rings.
I think Dennis Rodman said he broke his twice (oouuuchhh!)
Once was when Carmen Electra was.....oh nevermind.
Let's just say, gals, when you're on top be careful with your aim.
I was reading this thread, and thinking about a potential stealth shooter set in Alabama where you fight to have reincarnation/soul ascension taught as a counterweight to intelligent design, before it's too late and there's a nuclear war. It would be based on Indigo Girls' Galileo.
So thanks for that!
We really need sex ed.
Also some biology classes probably would help.
YOU GET NO LIKES.
Proved you wrong.
As far as reasons to rape a horse go, it is somewhat more compelling than the typical ones.
Particularly if he planned to train his misbegotten child as a silent, deadly assassin of the night, one which would serve him in his quest for ever greater power. Anyone who dared oppose him would be spirited away in the night, never to be seen again - and with only hoofprints left behind.
Minor practical issues aside, it sounds like a plan!
"I ain’t going to lie, I blew a nut in the horse" is probably the greatest sentence ever to appear in a legal document.
Agreed. I don't think you can have an effective sex ed class that is 'value neutral'. If you teach some of the things that need to be taught, conservatives will take offense.
In a perfect world, sure. The problem I have with this, though, is that reasoning with morons and religious people who cling to beliefs rather than listening to evidence doesn't work, or at least, doesn't work often enough to be worth the effort. So, I'm very much in favor of using sex ed classes to tell kids that some of their parents' views on sex are flat out wrong. Schools are for both education and enlightenment, and I think they're the best hope of countering some of the nonsense and hateful anti-sex, anti-gay drivel that conservative parents tend to instill.
I think that about covers the need for sex ed over abstinence only.
Colbert makes everything better.
Honestly, I hate the way sex education classes work. I mean, if a religious school wants to tell you that you should abstain, I think that's fine because it's a religious school and that's in the belief of whatever particular religion. But public schools and other kinds of private schools shouldn't be making kids feel guilty about having sex before marriage.
And no matter what kind of school it is, they need to teach kids about how it all works. And how to have sex safely. A lot of schools just say that safe sex is impossible. They exaggerate that condoms break all the time and that birth control is unreliable. They basically say that there are no 100% guarantees that you won't get a girl pregnant or contract an STD, so don't have sex.
Studies show that teenagers who have accurate information about their options when it comes to sex and safe sex are less likely to get pregnant or contract an STD than teens who received "abstinence only" education.
I know what your saying and I agree with it, yet the argument you are up against is "Teens don't have sex or they are bad people". Logic doesn't work against that. There seems to be a vast segment of the population that absolutely cannot fathom that their ittle baby is going to want to have sex one day. I don't know if that is part of the auto don't be attracted to your children thing or if it is entirely social/religious but it is there and stomps flat any attempt to be reasonable with teens + sex.
I really have no idea myself how to get it fixed. I have resorted to talking about sex , ramifications and relationships with my kiddo since he discovered that he has a penis. He is mortified that I know what masturbation is, disgusted that his father and I flirt all the time and retches/runs when anything remotely sexual comes on the computer/tv.
But we don't take that as a continuous moment, we still talk to him about anything going on. Cross our fingers he makes it through highschool.
And let's not forget about the double standard in this. Girls are supposed to be innocent and virgins forever, while "boys will be boys". All you dads out there: don't put your daughter on a pedestal. Make it okay for her to talk to you about sex, not just her mother. It's really awkward, but at a certain point dads just need to realize their daughters are human beings with sexual desires.
I'm thankful to my dad for a lot of things, but maybe most of all I'm thankful that he never pushed me into some "daddy's little girl" corset, and never pressured me to be perfect.
I guess then that makes me weird that my mother made some completely false accusations that I was sleeping around as a teenager, and my dad didn't really jump to many conclusions and actually bothered to ask if I was sexually active and told me that he would get me to an OB/GYN if I decided I needed birth control (which I did need eventually later on, for reasons unrelated to me actually having sex).
I didn't ever really get "the talk" from either of them, but dad was WAY less judgmental and also never implied that I was slutty for any of my behavior, perceived or otherwise. I felt much more free to joke about sex around him too; often when I'd go out with friends I'd tell him I was leaving to go have lesbian orgies, to which he would respond "well you can't get pregnant that way so have fun!" I think his number one concern was just that my life would be less than stellar if I had been a teen mom, but I made a conscious decision completely on my own to not have penis-in-vagina sex until after I had finished high school.
Yeah. I guess it'd be hard for parents to imagine their kids having sex and stuff. But if they think it's a terrible thing and don't know enough about it, it doesn't mean it won't happen; it just means that it'll probably be really awkward and they'll feel extremely guilty about it.
Well, I will never claim to understand how hard it is for women to deal with the double standard that society puts on them, and I apologize that my gender tries to downplay those issues. Honestly, I think that it is kind of an issue that men are "players" while women are "sluts" in the same situation. The world is an ignorant place.
Just so you don't feel alone, my mom called my window the red light window. Insinuated that I was receiving traffic at all hours. My dad asked me about it and found out that I hadn't lost my virginity when they thought I had, and that what they perceived to be random screwing around was me actually doing so. Dad insisted on getting me sent for birth control, but mom waffled and it never happened.
Probably one of the only reasons to be thankful for ovarian cysts is how difficult it is to get pregnant and thus I didn't royally screw up my life til I was in my mid twenties.
Yessssss that is the one thing I was grateful for once I started having coitus. Dad was still worried while I was going through college, and I'd often have to remind him, "Condoms and birth control and fucked up ovaries dad, I'm probably not going to get pregnant any time soon." It was pretty nice, I only had two scares during college and once since then. Always negative.
Though now that we're trying to start doing some family planning, that's become somewhat of a hurdle that we're not sure we are capable of surmounting. Or at least, I'm sure not feeling all that confident. I think my dad is still in "protect daughter from the evils of pregnancy" mode because he always gets super awkward whenever I bring up the possibility of having children. Meanwhile, my mother-in-law asks pretty often when I'm going to give her grandbabies. She doesn't know that I might not be able to have any kids, and I'm not prepared to crush her hopes about it until we're down to the wire and it's really lookin' like it won't happen. That's still a few years off though.
I actually somewhat think that schools should go further and encourage students to have sex before marriage, using contraception. I think it's harmful to one's mental development to wait until the mid-20's or later to have sex, because that's not natural, and one certainly should have sex before marriage, given the number of divorces arising from incompatible sex drives and tastes.
Anecdata, but my mother-in-law has been divorced three times, and none of them were related to sex. Same with my mom's two divorces.
I think encouraging sex is the wrong way to go about it, especially when our culture is already confused about whether girls are sluts for having any sex or bitches for refusing to put out. I think instead we need to encourage good decision-making. Let people choose on their own what they want to do, rather than push a specific course of action.
...I don't think that's a good plan. Even in the Ideal World where there are no harmful social attitudes about sex in any way, maintaining a romantic relationship during the wild hormonal turbulence of adolescence can be an awful lot of work, and I would rather we not go start pressuring people who are not up for that to Go Have Sex Now, Or You're Doing It Wrong.
And I really don't think replacing "You're broken forever if you have sex at the wrong time" with "You're broken forever if you have sex at the wrong time, except now we mean too late instead of too early" is really that much of an improvement. Part of the point of giving people thorough information about sex is that people are different, and have different needs (and desires), and develop at different rates. Trying to force any One Size Fits All plan on teenagers is a recipe for disaster, though who's being destroyed by it can certainly change. Enough info and advice that people can make informed decisions is a better way to go.
I think you might be reading @Mormech's post not quite rightly. I didn't read it as encouraging high school kids to start having sex right away so much as advising them that getting married without having had sex first is not the best plan, which doesn't seem like a bad idea to me. Regardless, it's obviously the definition of the phrase "non-starter."
Hm. I can see "Don't marry someone you haven't had sex with" being a reasonable sort of message (situations in which marriage is not expected to be accompanied by sex aside, as those are rare but not non-existent). Unlikely to be one spoken in the current political climate, but reasonable. I did rather take exception to "I think it's harmful to one's mental development to wait until the mid-20's or later to have sex, because that's not natural," which has so many things wrong with it as a statement that I am probably going to get a little impolite if I try to address it directly.
That's ridiculous. I'm all in favor of giving kids the facts without exaggeration or judgment, but there's absolutely no reason to be encouraging children to have sex or to suggest that sex before marriage is inherently desirable.
I would posit that divorces are more likely to be caused by couples who are sexually compatible because they tried it before marriage but then realize that they can't/won't/aren't willing to learn to actually live together, as well as situations in which one of the partners later becomes less interested or desirable for whatever reason and the other strays because we put far too much emphasis on sex when that isn't what marriage is about at all.
Edit: Others have already properly pointed out how wrongheaded your "not natural" statement is.
Oh, and I guess I should say that while I do like the "don't wait until marriage to have sex" part, I don't like the "waiting until your mid-twenties to have sex isn't natural" part. Not because it's wrong on its face, but because whether or not a behavior is natural to humans is not a good benchmark for assessing whether or not that behavior is desirable in present-day society.
English, do you speak it?
Yes, it is my opinion that we (and by "we' I mean Americans, because I don't know about other cultures), place way way too much emphasis on sex and sexual compatibility as part of marriage. And too many marriages suffer because of it. Sex should be about 50th on the list of things to consider. I'd have to go way to far into TMI territory to explain how I know this, but I know this.
Edit; And yes, I'm pretty sure that a lot of people, especially young people, get married because the screwing part is great. The cooking and cleaning and diapering and bill-paying, they discover, not so much.
I feel very lucky that, despite growing up in the deep South, my high school sex education class was pretty matter-of-fact and informative. There were the typical pictures of 'these are all the horrible diseases you can get', but the emphasis was on scaring people into using birth control and condoms, not into not having sex at all. And we covered various methods, hormonal and not, in decent enough detail. It didn't even whisper about non-heterosexualities, but there wasn't much of an agenda that my teenaged self perceived beyond, "Please, god, don't have babies and drop out."
Separate names with a comma.