Subject:
|
Re: Porn for sex education
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 13 Jul 2001 10:30:56 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1098 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Daniel Jassim writes:
> > I think pornography is a good tool for parents to demonstrate sex when
> > they're too shy to do so in person.
>
> Huh? What parents wouldn't be shy demonstrating sex to their kids in person?
Some. I'm not really sure what you're asking. Did you want names and
addresses?
> I'm pretty sure there are laws against performing sexual acts in front of
> your children anyway.
I suspect that even if there are not specific and precise laws about it there
are generally vague laws that could (and would) be used to prosecute the
parents under some circumstances if/when pushed by busy-bodies.
> Or maybe you meant demonstrating it as in talking and
> showing pictures or something? Sorry if I'm slow on the take.
No, I meant by having sex with out constant worry of closed doors and who might
see. Some parents treat sex as a natural part of life -- just one among many
behaviors that everyone does. As such, they engage in sexual activity without
hiding it from their kids. As it has been done in less puritanical cultures
since the beginning of time with no ill effects.
> Ideally, sex is natural and part of the bond between man and woman (if
By this, you mean it satisfies some personal aesthetic for you, that way. But
really, sex is about social interface and feeling good. One way that sex feels
really really good is by having it with your life mate. Another is by just
'doing' two other partners at once. The full range of consensual sexuality can
be healthy for the participants. It feels good, it binds people socially, and
it explores your physio-psychology. I'd say our culture (in general) doesn't
know squat about what sex is "ideally."
> someone wants to jump in here and talk about homosexuality, go for it--I'm
Sure, sex can just as easily be between members of the same sex. And it
doesn't neccessarily mean you're homosexual. It means you were having sex with
another guy, for presumably the same set of reasons that you'd have sex with a
woman.
> no going there). Anyway, ideally "porn" can show the healthy, loving side of
> sexuality but today it's mostly just raw, exploitive sex that goes for the
> hardcore shock.
What is it to exploit?
> The trend is multiple partners, lesbianism and extreme sex.
What is extreme? What is the hardcore shock? You mean specialty topics like
fisting and animals? That's not porn, that's a freak show. And it's
interesting for the same reasons that freak shows have always been
interesting...and simultaneously a little distasteful.
But what do you have against multiple partners or lesbianism? You're right the
trend is toward those actions...both in the adult cinema and in the real world,
best as I can tell.
> So, good luck trying to find "educational" porn for your kids.
I'd say that at least a good 20% of it would be useful as both edutainment.
> I maintain that porn is for adults.
I watched more as a kid. (But I was running a covert porn delivery business in
high school, so I might not be representative.)
> To expose kids to porn at a young age,
> before they are able to really understand it, may affect their sexual
> identity in negative ways, even with "adult supervision."
This kind of statement really gets me revved up. There's not much to
understand. How demeaning of you to assume that children are so functionally
stupid. Kids are putting all the pieces together every day, solving problems,
figuring out how the world works. They're better than we are at this kind of
thinking. And they learn and unlearn and relearn and revise their learning all
the time as new evidence challenges their world view.
There just isn't that much to understand...
It feels good when you rub this part. This is a good place to do so. If
your partner does this to your part, it feels great! If you do this to your
partner, it's fantastic for them! When you do any of this with your partners,
there is a social tightening in your mind that you almost can't help. It's a
good thing and not to be fought. Sex is nature's mechanism for binding people
into survival units: families and tribes. It not only feels great to be
actually rubbing your part with a partner, but it feels great to be a part of a
circle of friends who love one another. Here is how these sexually transmitted
infections work. When you're rubbing parts with people that you don't know are
disease free, use barriers to reduce the risk to almost nothing. Better yet,
form a circle of friends who are exclusive to the rest of the circle and only
have sex within that group. Do so early before anyone is exposed to STIs. If
a member does participate outside your group, don't punish them at all, just
use safety barriers until their tests come back negative. Reproduction works
this way. Those barriers are also pretty good ways of preventing pregnancy for
as long as you want to. Other ways are chemical and are pretty darned good
too. And in very rare case of an unwanted pregnancy, the cost of an abortion
can be spread among the entire group so that it is easily bearable. As could
parenting duties if the group opted to hang together that way and do so.
I think that's pretty much everything...right? What's so tricky? Whatever
effect is has on their 'sexual identity' seems like a positive. Actually, I
acknowledge that there are other topics that need discussion. But they're not
core concepts.
> But it may also
> help, so long as the topic IS approached from a sense of love and bonding
> between two people.
Or more than two. But I agree that sex is mostly about bonding.
> I think it would be a failing to advocate promiscuity or
> sex for the sake of self gratification.
Why?
> Masterbation and fantasy is the better idea.
Masturbation is a fine and healthy activity, but it's not as fun as a mutual
experience. You lose the whole social side of sex. Masturbation is a quick
and easy release when time and circumstances don't permit better sex. But it
is in no way a substitute.
> To surrender our better judgement for a good f*ck can be very
> costly, not to mention downright sleazy in my opinion.
I'm not particularly interested in your provincial notions of sleaze. On the
other hand, your point about danger is quite serious. Even without AIDS. My
son exists because ~7.8 years ago, I was getting in the pants of a friend and
it had been soooo long since my last lay that I wasn't thinking straight and
didn't even think to use a condom. Oops. He was conceived on our first time
having sex. (He is the light of my life, and the best thing to have ever
happened to me, but still an accident of epic stupidity.) I suspect, that had
I been in a more regularly sexual situation that kind of stupidity wouldn't
have happened. It never has when I've been in a more steady relationship. I
was wound up be sexual tension and did something stupid.
This is the state the our kids are put into if they buy our puritanical mumbo
jumbo. Luckily most of them don't seem to any more. They have sex behind our
backs. But that's bad too, because they have learned that their parents (who
should be their loving guides in all things) aren't to be trusted (or worse
yet, that their own minds and bodies aren't).
> > It's good for people to do what makes them feel good.
>
> Yes and no. The way I see it, I want a better life for myself, my wife and
> my kids. It would be a failing on my part as a parent if my son or daughter
> didn't learn about love, loyalty, self respect and cherishing their mate.
I certainly believe it is your duty to explain all those things. But I also
hope that you explain broader ideas of sex and love. Your self respect is not
linked to your participation in sex. In fact, the less taboo restrictions you
place on yourself (or have placed on you by nutty parents), the more self
realization you can experience. And what's wrong with cherishing all your
mates?
> I
> can't imagine being the parent of some of these porn queens in gangbang
> flicks with 500 men. Don't care what anyone says, that's just disgusting.
I will be proud of my children whenever they are doing what they want to and
living the way they want to, so long as they are not hurting others.
> So, yeah, do what feels good with YOUR PARTNER (a mutual thing by the way)
> but have some decency and self respect.
Self respect (or whatever you really mean...compliance to externally set
standards of conduct is how it sounds...which is pretty twisted, really) it
seems to me comes from inside. Why would a woman enjoying a gang bang lack
self respect? If she knows that there is nothing wrong with that activity,
then how would it decrease her self respect? Why wouldn't it be increased
based on her ability to do what she knows is right in the face of disapproval
from people like you?
> > One could assume from exposure to the
> > media that these topics actually occupy a larger part of everyone else's life
> > than they really do. That's why we talk about movies in my house. So we can
> > get a feel for what was realistic and what wasn't. So we can discuss what
> > lessons can be learned.
>
> Yes, the mind of a child is much different so it helps if an adult can put
> things in perspective.
That's not what I meant. The primary difference between a child's mind and an
adults is that it works better and isn't as full (maybe those are flip sides of
the same coin?). I like to see what my son (and wife, actually) thinks about
what we saw. And I like to provide him with annecdotes from my own experiences
to broaden his understanding. I like to challenge (have you noticed?)
the beliefs and assumptions that he makes about the world. We have
had discussions about what a poor person Ariel (The Little Mermaid)
actually is. It troubles me that Disney portreys people who are ugly
inside and pretty (I guess) outside as the protagonists. Actually, we do
shield him from violence and scary situations in movies to some extent, but we
seem to have his full support. He will ask me if I think a certain movie
(Aliens, most recently) is appropriate for him, and I'll give him my opinion
(No, most recently).
I guess I'm straying...
> The lines between fantasy and reality are not as
> clear as with an adult. Those monsters in the closet DO disappear when the
> lights come on.
And the world of the scientist does change with a paradigm shift (see Thomas
Kuhn and Hoynigun-Huhne(sp?) if you care). As adults, we have clearer
boundaries between fantasy and reality because we are set in our ways. Some of
those boundaries are not in the 'right' places. Things are more relative than
we usually accept. Obviously, there aren't monsters under the bed...usually.
But that's not to say that there couldn't be. Dogs get rabies. Human
intruders exist. And when the light is on you can see better and know that
monsters aren't there _now_. I never told my son that monsters don't exist.
We merely talked about what a monster was like and if he described something
that wasn't, then I told him that's what I thought.
> I will say that I feel our country has a problem with sexuality, and our
> media doesn't help the matter. I think females are affected negatively
> because of the media images that suggest they should look, weigh and dress a
> certain way. Men are also affected but I think women have it harder.
Men and women both seem to have unrealistic expectations about looks. The
reality of the situation is that looks just don't matter. Most guys I've known
would 'do' a troll even if they wouldn't marry her. But why not? If she's
pleasant sexually and personally, what has her appearance got to do with
anything? So that's what I'll tell my kids.
I agree that media image is affecting people, but I don't know why. I guess
it's brainwashing. We should fight it. I do (and I like pudgy chicks with
hips and boobs). We don't have TV (signals, we do have the device) at home, so
my children will have relatively little such exposure. But I don't know that
women have it harder. They are certainly the bearers of the brunt of the extra
work that has to be done to match this assinine ideal, but I see lots of guys
in the gym too. And there's a whole class of unmarried 30-somethings because
they're stupidly perfectionist. I married a friend...that's what I'd suggest
to anyone.
> And I
> also think we are sexually programming girls with the wrong images or ideas
> about sexuality.
> At middle school dances I work at the boys and girls may not "dirty dance."
That's pretty silly.
> So a lot of the girls end up bumping and grinding with each other (and I
Oh, neat. That's a great way of getting back at the adults who are being
overly invasive and controlling of even the most personal aspects of the kids'
lives. Good thinking on their part.
> mean some serious stuff that would shock most adults) and this is pretty
I'd hope that most adults aren't that...(what's the right word?)...ignorant.
> much allowed (I was the only staff who was stepping in).
That's too funny. They must think you folks (except you, maybe) are really
stupid for being so bizarre about the rules.
> So what is the message being sent?
That adults are conrolling jerks and too stupid to even do it consistently.
> I'm not down on lesbians or anything,
It kind of sounds like you are. You almost define sex as being an activity for
one man and one woman. You listed lesbianism as a bad thing in adult movies.
And here you object to young women dancing lewdly together. If you're not down
on lesbians (or is it homosexuality over all?) then what's the deal?
> but really what is going on here?
They're humping on the dance floor because it feels good and they know it
tweaks you. More power to them. You know what? When they get alone after
school, they do it for real too. (With no clothes on!)
> Is the right thing to do?
Futilely trying to control the kids with your sense of aesthetic isn't.
> Same thing goes for messages about oral sex. A lot of the girls
> have the notion that it's really not sex.
It isn't genital intercourse. And they know it. If it occupies a different
social rung than genital sex, then it just does. And there's no harm in that.
And it's probably a result of your (you-society at large, not you-Dan)
represive attitudes anyway...not our illustrious ex-president.
Chris
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Laws about sex.... (was something else)
|
| (...) Right! We have some impressively vague and unenforced laws. For example, apparently Bill Clinton and Gary Condit(1) may both be "sex offenders" under DC law, since adultery is illegal in DC. Matters not whether all parties involved consent or (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Porn for sex education
|
| (...) I can't agree more on this. Many people think it a cliche, but it's the truth - "My wife is my best friend" I wouldn't have it any other way. (...) No, no harm in it, as long as you realize they are in Denial if they think they aren't having (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: Porn for sex education
|
| (...) Har har har! No, dude, I mean don't you think most parents feel it's wrong to have sex in front of kids? (...) Put it this way, would you like to watch your parents have sex? I think parents showing affection is great! Kissing, hugging and (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Porn for sex education
|
| (...) Huh? What parents wouldn't be shy demonstrating sex to their kids in person? I'm pretty sure there are laws against performing sexual acts in front of your children anyway. Or maybe you meant demonstrating it as in talking and showing pictures (...) (23 years ago, 13-Jul-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
189 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
